PS As to the supposition that the dictator Park was responsible for the south's economic development? It is a dubious idea. Park was not the first dictator in the south, but Syngman Rhee didn't spark an economic boom. As an alternative hypothesis, let me suggest that the US military spending on the Vietnam War, much of which was necessarily spent in East Asia generally, was more likely to have played a key role. Japan's similar economic speed up in economic development without the supposed benefits of dictatorship in roughly the same period strongly suggests this was more important. Korean chaebol were modeled on Japanese zaibatsu and Korean economic policy as I understood it were similarly modeled on Japanese economic policy. None were the creations of dictators.
May I further suggest that the desire to retroactively rehabilitate Park has more to do with justifying a war in Korea than historical truth? (If you say I cna't, just unread this question!)
Park was the one who implemented and managed the policies and his people are the ones who give him credit for the success that was generated by it. Over 10% growth for more than a decade. He is considered a great leader.
My point of mentioning Park is that he also tortured/oppressed/murdered his own people but since he was considered to be a great leader, for the SK people: the good outweighed the bad. So it should be for Cain.