Controversy over First Lady’s message will not end without explanations

A high-ranking member of the presidential office said on Sunday, “We did not intervene or interfere with the ruling party’s national convention, and won’t still do down the road as well,” adding, “Please make sure that candidates and campaigners do not try to get the presidential office involved.” The presidential office’s remarks came after the ruling party’s former interim leader Han Dong-hoon, a candidate for party leadership, criticized the presidential office for meddling with the national convention and other party affairs as he countered the allegations that he ignored First Lady Kim Keon-hee’s message six months ago to offer apologies to the public for the luxury bag scandal.

Despite the presidential office's initial intention to distance itself from the controversy surrounding the First Lady’s text message, it appears that the situation is spiraling out of control. The sudden emergence of the First Lady’s text message has exacerbated the already intense party competition, following a previous controversy over “political betrayal.” As the presidential office continues to distance itself from the issue and warns against further involvement, the controversy is only expected to escalate without any clear explanations.

In response to the allegations of his ignorance of the first lady’s message, the ex-PPP interim leader argues that the presidential office and pro-Yoon members attempt to influence the way the party works and turn the tables in the run-up to the national convention. Meanwhile, other party leadership contenders, such as Won Hee-ryong and Na Kyung-won, claim that he only harms the party by trying to involve the presidential office in the national convention. Additionally, as it was said that some pro-Yoon leaders of party members councils outside the legislature planned a press conference to demand that Han quit the race, there has been some concern that the “round-robin” situation could repeat itself just as during the national convention earlier last year when some candidates were brought down.

It is highly likely that the consequences of the ongoing controversy will last longer, even after the national convention ends unless the truth is revealed. Both parties even disagreed on what the first lady’s message was about. Whereas it is claimed that the first lady made it clear that she would be willing to apologize to the public, Han counters, “Contextually, her message only sounded like a series of excuses for why she should not apologize.” It is hard to conclude which side tells the truth unless either of the two discloses their conversation on the mobile. On the other hand, conspiracies are springing up about why the text message sent six months ago is now being questioned. It is such a deplorable drama that unfolds as competitors for party leadership fight ridiculously to define whether it is a “lèse-majesté” or a “harmful act.” It may only be natural for citizens to click their tongues at the sight of such a pathetic scene.