Defense Minister Visits Frontline in Business Suit: "Following Regulations"?

On September 23, the day after taking office, Defense Minister Kang Shin-chul visited the Army's 25th Infantry Division in Paju, Gyeonggi Province, as his first on-site inspection. The 25th Division is where three soldiers, including a reconnaissance battalion commander, were recently injured in two separate suspected landmine explosions during an operation to clear patrol routes in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).

However, an unexpected controversy erupted following the visit. Minister Kang's attire came under scrutiny. Questions arose over whether it was appropriate for the head of the defense ministry to visit a frontline unit where soldiers were injured dressed in a gray business suit rather than a military uniform.

The issue was also raised during a plenary session of the National Assembly's National Defense Committee on September 29.


Defense Minister Kang Shin-chul defended his choice based on "regulations." His argument is that because the defense minister holds civilian status rather than being an active-duty service member, regulations prohibit him from wearing a military uniform.

In the process, however, another controversy arose. Under that logic, it was interpreted to mean that past defense ministers had all broken the law. In response, Kang stated that most of his predecessors had also visited in civilian clothes.


What, then, does the law actually say? And what did previous defense chiefs wear when visiting military units—specifically frontline bases?

The SBS Fact Check team "Fact Is" thoroughly examined everything from statutory regulations to past customs.


First, we checked the Constitution.

The Minister of National Defense is a member of the State Council. The Constitution stipulates that active-duty military personnel cannot be appointed as members of the State Council.

Therefore, it is true that the defense minister holds civilian status.


What, then, about civilians wearing military uniforms? As the controversy grew, the Ministry of National Defense explained to the press: "Because regulations state that non-military personnel must not wear uniforms or use or carry military equipment, under the law it is correct that the defense minister does not wear a uniform."

Upon verification, there was indeed a statute stipulating this. Under the Act on the Regulation of Military Uniforms and Military Accoutrements, commonly known as the Military Uniform Regulation Act, wearing a military uniform by anyone who is not military personnel is prohibited in principle.


Looking strictly at the letter of the law, the answer is relatively clear. The defense minister, as a civilian, refraining from wearing an official military uniform aligns with statutory principles.

Does that mean that previous defense ministers, who appeared to visit military units in military attire, all violated the law?

However, there is an important distinction here. That is whether the clothing commonly referred to as the "defense minister's uniform" actually constitutes a "military uniform" under the law.

First, let us look at past defense ministers visiting military units.


Photos show them wearing a suit underneath with an olive-drab jacket, a so-called "field jacket," worn over it. When the SBS "Fact Is" team reviewed photos of past defense ministers inspecting military units on the defense ministry's official blog, their attire was consistently similar.

However, some interpret that the field jackets worn by past defense ministers can hardly be viewed as identical to the "military uniform" defined by law. 
 
In fact, the concept of a military uniform under the Military Uniform Regulation Act includes rank insignia. However, the field jackets worn by past defense ministers bear no rank insignia. Instead, they only have a name tag with the title "Minister of National Defense" or the ministry emblem attached. While defense ministers are civilians and in principle do not wear official military uniforms, wearing an olive-drab field jacket instead of a uniform during unit inspections or field visits has served as a "custom."

Therefore, in a strict sense, saying that "past defense ministers visited units wearing military uniforms" may not be entirely accurate.


Even so, it is hard to view this garment merely as an ordinary coat. There are distinct reasons why defense ministers have worn field jackets.

Professor Choi explained, "Past defense ministers wore field jackets partly due to an intertwining of factors: the symbolism of serving as the top defense authority, fostering a sense of unity and solidarity with frontline troops, practicality during on-site inspections, and security purposes to minimize exposure to the enemy near barbed-wire fences." While not legally a military uniform, it effectively served a similar symbolic role in the field. This is why the media has conventionally described it as "the defense minister visiting units in uniform."

Of course, whether it was appropriate for Minister Kang to visit the site in a business suit without wearing a field jacket—the so-called "appropriateness of attire"—falls within the realm of subjective judgment and cannot be an object of fact-checking. Nor does it seem to be an issue to be settled purely by legal texts. Even as a civilian, the defense minister exercises command and operational authority under the president's orders, and political opinions diverge, with critics arguing that failing to dress in attire expressing solidarity with service members—especially at a site where troops were injured—was inappropriate. In other words, it is viewed less as a question of rules and more as a matter of consideration.


Taking all these points together, the SBS "Fact Is" team rates the claim that "under regulations, it is correct that the defense minister does not wear a military uniform" as "Mostly True." This is because the fundamental principle that a defense minister, being a civilian, cannot wear an official military uniform is accurate.

However, as noted earlier, this principle is not everything. When a defense minister visits the field, political and practical considerations—such as building unity with troops or projecting the symbolic authority of the nation's top defense leader—can also be vital factors.


In particular, the Ministry of National Defense also contributed to escalating unnecessary controversy by issuing repeated explanations without clearly defining what constitutes a "military uniform." At first, when asked by reporters why Minister Kang wore a suit, the ministry explained to the effect that "an on-site inspection was urgent immediately after his inauguration." Later, however, it took a rather definitive stance, stating that "as a civilian, it is correct that the defense minister does not wear a military uniform." Naturally, this prompted counterarguments: "Does that mean all previous defense ministers broke the law?" And when Minister Kang himself claimed that "past defense ministers also wore civilian clothes," it created even more confusion and unnecessary back-and-forth.

It serves as a symbolic example of how a controversy started on the wrong foot can muddle official explanations and ultimately spiral into an exhausting debate.
 
(Writer: Kim HYOJIN | Intern: Kim JUNGWON)