One hundred fifty years is long enough to commemorate a person. But when that name still poses a question, the anniversary is also about the present. Marking the 150th anniversary of independence leader Kim Gu’s birth, the issue is not only what he achieved, but what he asked: What kind of country are we building now?
Among Kim’s best-known writings is “My Wish.” He said he wanted a beautiful country, not merely a strong one. He envisioned a nation respected for its culture, not one that rules by force. The line was not simple idealism, but a conclusion drawn from the colonial era: Material power alone does not earn respect, and people and culture ultimately shape a nation’s face.
A century and a half later, South Korea has reached a landscape Kim never saw: a top-10 global economy, strong industrial competitiveness and the spread of cultural content worldwide. By the numbers, the country is close to what many would call prosperous. The question remains: Has it moved closer to being “beautiful”?
The distinction is about direction. Prosperity rewards speed — faster growth and bigger expansion. Beauty demands balance, with human dignity, community values and cultural depth advancing alongside growth. The two can collide, and the article argues South Korean society now stands at that crossroads.
Against that backdrop, the government’s decision to form a public-private task force for the 150th anniversary and revive the theme of a “culture of peace” reflects an effort to reassess national priorities. Plans such as holding a culture week in Gwanghwamun and spreading messages on electronic billboards point in the same direction, shifting commemoration from static displays to public participation.
One example has drawn attention: “My Wish” appearing at a bank counter. Woori Bank, working with the Korean National Commission for UNESCO, linked donations to a savings product, allowing customers to save while contributing small amounts to cultural content. An idealistic line has been placed in one of the most practical settings.
The article cautions against overreading the symbolism. Banks still must generate profits, and customers still choose based on interest rates. Putting a historical message into a financial product does not change finance’s basic nature. The significance, it argues, lies in the question the attempt raises.
Kim’s philosophy and a bank’s function belong to different worlds — one speaks to culture and spirit, the other to capital and efficiency. The article says forcing them to match is unrealistic, but treating them as entirely separate also misses a point: Capital has direction. Depending on how it is used, it can be mere accumulation or a source of social value.
From that view, Kim’s message gains renewed relevance. He did not reject wealth, the article says; he questioned its purpose. He did not deny strength; he sought to redirect it. The question becomes not how much is earned, but where that wealth is headed.
That, the article argues, is what the 150th anniversary represents: commemoration for the present. Invoking Kim’s name prompts a review of today’s choices — what is being lost amid growth, what values are being missed amid competition, and how balance can be restored.
No institution — finance, business or government — is exempt from that question, the article says. Each handles capital and makes choices, and those choices accumulate into a society’s direction. In that sense, Kim’s 150th year is presented not as a ceremonial marker, but as a checkpoint.
The “My Wish” display at a bank counter is not an answer, the article concludes. It is one attempt. Its meaning lies in bringing a textbook line into everyday decisions.
The question, it says, is simple: What kind of country is being built? Beyond being strong by the numbers, is it becoming a country respected for its people? Kim’s question remains in the present tense, and the answer depends on what is chosen now.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.