The Controversial Subject: Presidential Office Omits It, Ruling Party Claims It Was “Japan,” and The Washington Post Insists It Was “I”

A tweet by Michelle Ye Hee Lee on April 25. Lee was the Washington Post reporter who recently interviewed President Yoon Suk-yeol. Captured from Tweeter.

On April 25, The Washington Post reporter who interviewed President Yoon Suk-yeol released the president’s words during the interview, “I can’t accept the notion that because of what happened 100 years ago, something is absolutely impossible [to do] and that they [Japanese] must kneel [for forgiveness] because of our history 100 years ago.” Earlier, the Office of the President released this comment after omitting the subject, while the People Power Party (PPP) argued that the subject of the verb “can’t accept” was not President Yoon, but Japan. If The Washington Post reporter’s explanation is true, then the ruling PPP has given a false explanation, triggering attacks that the PPP fueled the controversy by trying to defend the president “unconditionally.”

The latest “I-Japan” comment is expected to emerge as an issue as controversial as the president’s “Biden-foul language” remark during his trip to the U.S. last year.

The Washington Post reporter, Michelle Ye Hee Lee wrote on social media Tuesday, “I cross-checked with audio again, here it is word-for-word” and released President Yoon’s words from the recording, “Europe has experienced several wars, devastating wars, for the past 100 years and despite that, warring countries have found ways to cooperate for the future. I can’t accept the notion that because of what happened 100 years ago, something is absolutely impossible and that they [Japanese] must kneel because of our history 100 years ago. And this is an issue that requires a decision... In terms of persuasion, I believe I did my best.” However, when the Office of the President released the president’s remarks, they omitted the subject, blurring out who could not “accept the notion that because of what happened 100 years ago, something is absolutely impossible and that they must kneel.”

The People Power Party argued that the absence of the subject caused confusion and argued that the subject of the sentence was Japan. In a comment on Tuesday, Yoo Sang-bum, senior spokesperson for the party said, “We should interpret his words to mean that Japan could not accept the notion that something is absolutely impossible and that they must kneel. When we look at how he said, ‘this is an issue that requires a decision,’ this would be the reasonable interpretation.” Lawmaker Kim Jung-jae appeared on YTN radio and said, “I think the subject, Japan, was omitted in the interpretation.” Kim Byung-min, a member of the party’s Supreme Council, appeared on KBS radio and said, “There is a need to consider whether they (The Washington Post) conveyed the true intentions of the president’s remark in the article,” and blamed the press for the recent controversy.

When the heated debate over the “false explanation” intensified, the Office of the Secretary to the President for International Public Relations said on Tuesday, “He (President Yoon) meant that such an approach did not contribute to South Korea’s future relations with Japan,” and added, “Restoring relations between South Korea and Japan is something we must do and is something that cannot be delayed.” He did not mention anything about the subject of the sentence. Jang Dong-hyeok, spokesperson for the PPP on the floor, asked the public to accept the position announced by the Office of the President as the official position on Wednesday, after the controversy intensified.

Park Sung-joon, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of Korea said, “He (President Yoon) made all the citizens take a listening test when he was caught on hot mic, and this time, is he making us take a reading test?” and demanded an apology from the president. Complaints were voiced from inside the People Power Party as well. One first-time lawmaker said, “The fundamental problem is that the president does not speak diplomatic language in moderation,” and asked, “Is it right for the senior spokesperson for the party to speak (on behalf of the president) before the presidential office?” In an interview with MBC, Lee Jae-oh, a senior advisor said, “The party’s spokesperson gave a wrong explanation of the subjectless sentence claiming that it was Japan that ‘could not accept the notion.’ But that explanation is what made the president’s remark sound more awkward and further distorted the president’s intention.” He added, “Even a child knows that his (president) expression was inappropriate.”