Experts and 200 members of the public gathered to debate whether to add a Korean-language (Hangul) sign to Gwanghwamun, the main gate of Gyeongbokgung Palace. Amid conflicting views over the symbolism and history of Hangul, most chose to "maintain the current Chinese-character sign as it stands."
The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and the Ministry of the Interior and Safety held "Everyone's Debate" on the 26th at Baekyang-nuri, Yonsei University, in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, discussing a plan to install an additional Korean-language sign alongside the existing Chinese-character sign at Gwanghwamun. Culture Minister Choi Hwi-young and Interior Minister Yoon Ho-jung attended in person and delivered greetings, followed by presentations from experts and a debate among 200 citizens selected through prior recruitment. A range of views were exchanged over the historical significance of the Gwanghwamun sign, the need for a dual Korean-language sign, and heritage preservation.
Following the debate, a vote was held at the end. First, on the statement "Gwanghwamun is the main gate of Gyeongbokgung Palace and a precious cultural heritage in itself," 195 answered "yes" and 10 answered "no." On the statement "It is desirable for cultural heritage to be maintained exactly as restored through historical verification," 170 answered "yes" and 35 answered "no." On "The current Chinese-character sign of Gwanghwamun should also be respected as a result of historical restoration," 185 answered "yes" and 20 answered "no." This means that maintaining the current Chinese-character sign at Gwanghwamun was overwhelmingly favored.
A different answer emerged from another of the ministry's questions. On the statement "If Hangul is displayed together while leaving the Chinese-character sign in place, both the value of cultural heritage and the symbolism of Hangul can be preserved," 104 answered "yes" and 101 answered "no." Those in favor of a dual Korean-language sign appeared to be nearly half. On the other hand, on the statement "Even without a dual Korean-language sign, it is sufficient to promote the value of Hangul through exhibitions, events, and digital content at Gwanghwamun," 155 answered "yes" and 49 answered "no."
This is interpreted as showing that the answers changed depending on how the questions were framed. However, in the debaters' reactions, there was strong concern that adding a Korean-language sign could create unnecessary trouble. One participant pointed out, "Some argue that we should add a 'Korean-language sign' to promote 'K-culture' to the world, but this contains a logical contradiction."
Some suggested allowing a dual Korean-language sign but using various methods. One opinion proposed that "a Chinese-character sign be placed on the south-facing front of Gwanghwamun, and a Korean-language sign be placed on the north side facing inside Gyeongbokgung Palace." Of course, this is logic that is difficult to apply realistically to a heritage "sign." There were also arguments that instead of adding a physical Korean-language sign, Hangul could be expressed digitally or with light, or displayed temporarily only during specific periods such as Hangul Day.
In the expert presentations that preceded the public debate, opinions clearly divided for and against depending on the presenters' backgrounds. Park Hyun-mo, director of the Sejong Leadership Institute who attended as a pro-side presenter, said, "Even internationally, maintaining the original form of cultural heritage is not an absolute principle, and there are many cases that reflect changes of the times and new values." He added, "A dual Korean-language sign is not damaging history but continuing it."
On the other hand, Kim Hyun-kyung, professor in the Department of National Heritage Management at Korea National University of Cultural Heritage, who was an opposing presenter, said, "The Korean-language sign addition now proposed is a layered intervention different from past changes, and it violates the principles of cultural heritage preservation." She proposed, "Instead of adding a sign, the value of Hangul can be promoted through various methods such as exhibitions, commentary, and education."
The government plans to actively refer to the various opinions presented at this debate during the future policy review process. The culture ministry plans to open an opinion board on its website to gather additional public opinion, and to continue with expert opinion surveys and a nationwide public survey.
Meanwhile, the Gwanghwamun Korean-language sign issue arose this year when Culture Minister Choi Hwi-young reported at a cabinet meeting presided over by President Lee Jae-myung on January 20 a plan to install an additional Korean-language sign while maintaining the existing Chinese-character sign. Earlier, an expert debate was held on March 31 at a conference room of the National Museum of Korean Contemporary History, where experts likewise clashed for and against, but among the general public, opposition prevailed.
The "Gwanghwamun Korean-language sign" issue was also raised as an opinion from the culture ministry in 2024, under the former Yoon Suk-yeol administration, when the proposal was to remove the existing Chinese-character sign entirely and install only a new Korean-language sign. At that time, however, there was much opposition, and the discussion was halted after a brief period.
