MaeBulShow host Choi Wook [Photo=MaeBulShow broadcast screen capture]

Following the controversy over Starbucks Korea's 'May 18 Tank Day', a remark about 'tanks' by the pro-government broadcaster 'MaeBulShow' is now causing controversy.

Choi Wook made a statement to Ilbe saying, "They should be crushed by tanks like Chun Doo-hwan," and Jeong Jun-hee, an adjunct professor at Hanyang University ERICA, referred to some individuals in their 20s and 30s as "legal clubs" and mentioned "suppressing with power."

The issue has arisen as to what standard President Lee Jae-myung, who held Starbucks accountable for its 'Tank Day' expression, will apply to the 'Chun Doo-hwan-style tank' remarks made by pro-government speakers.

It is difficult to argue that Choi Wook and Professor Jeong Jun-hee directly targeted President Lee Jae-myung. Their targets were not the President, but Ilbe and a segment of the online public opinion among those in their 20s and 30s who exhibit a strong anti-Democratic Party stance.

However, the political repercussions are spreading in a completely different direction. This is because the standard of expression that President Lee previously set in the controversy surrounding Starbucks' 'May 18 Tank Day' has now turned back towards remarks made within pro-government broadcasting.

The problematic remarks were not private jokes. They were made publicly during the live broadcast of the YouTube show 'MaeBulShow' on the afternoon of the 5th, immediately after the June 3rd local elections.

While analyzing the election results, Choi Wook targeted some netizens active online, stating, "These guys admire Chun Doo-hwan. They should be crushed by tanks in the same way online," adding, "as far as that crime is concerned," to limit the scope of his target.

Professor Jeong Jun-hee's remarks on the same broadcast also fueled the controversy.

Professor Jeong commented on some individuals in their 20s and 30s, saying, "They lack a systematic way of thinking," and that they are "not a group that firmly constructs what can be called philosophy or values."

He further stated, "It is absolutely necessary to use clubs in a legal manner," and "They should not be persuaded rationally, but suppressed by power. By law and system," according to reports.

While the two remarks differ in nuance, they point in the same direction.

Choi Wook spoke of 'tanks,' while Professor Jeong Jun-hee spoke of 'clubs' and 'suppression by power.' One invoked a historical symbol of state violence, while the other rephrased that violence in the language of law and systems.

Beyond the vehemence of the language, the issue is not trivial in that it views young people and online public opinion with different political views not as subjects for persuasion, but as targets for suppression.

The subjects for comparison are May 18th, young people in their 20s and 30s, and Ilbe.

Victims and bereaved families of the May 18th Gwangju Uprising are victims of state violence. Young people in their 20s and 30s are the current electorate. Ilbe is a specific online community and a political-cultural phenomenon. These three cannot be placed on the same level.

If there are illegal acts within Ilbe, they can be subject to investigation and punishment. However, speaking of an entire specific community as a target to be 'crushed by tanks' or designating some individuals in their 20s and 30s as impossible to persuade and stating they should be suppressed with 'clubs' and 'power' is an entirely different matter.

Furthermore, the word 'tank' is difficult to separate from the historical memory of May 18th.

President Lee Jae-myung publicly criticized Starbucks Korea's 'May 18 Tank Day' controversy last month, stating he was "furious at the inhumane and reckless behavior of a low-class merchant" and even mentioned "moral, administrative, legal, and political responsibility."

President Lee pointed out at the time that the 'Tank Day' event was an act of desecrating the struggles of the May 18th victims and the citizens of Gwangju.

By that standard, the current remarks are even more direct.

The Starbucks controversy involved the word 'tank' in a product promotion name. In contrast, the MaeBulShow remarks were made on a live broadcast, directed at a specific online group, and included the verb "should be crushed by tanks."

The President, who was enraged by what he considered a distortion of facts, cannot easily avoid the question of whether he will apply the same standard to the 'Chun Doo-hwan-style tank' remarks made on a pro-government broadcast.

Adjunct Professor Jeong Jun-hee, Hanyang University ERICA [Photo=MaeBulShow screen capture]

Public reactions on related article comment sections and online communities are also focused on this point.

Comments on the MaeBulShow video included criticisms such as, "If you hate Chun Doo-hwan, aren't you wanting to become Chun Doo-hwan more than anyone else?", "Is it acceptable to say 'crush them with tanks'?", and "Apologize to those who worked hard for the May 18th democratization movement and the June Resistance," according to reports.

Even in communities that are typically classified as pro-government, there were reactions like, "Does it make sense to say they should be crushed by tanks like Chun Doo-hwan?", and "Is it acceptable to use the history of democratic resistance in this way?"

Within Ilbe and among anti-Democratic Party online public opinion groups, the sentiment seems to be that these remarks are not being taken simply as 'criticism of Ilbe'.

The combination of Choi Wook's 'tank' remarks and Professor Jeong Jun-hee's 'club/suppression by power' remarks is being interpreted as an intention to suppress all young people in their 20s and 30s who exhibit anti-Democratic Party tendencies with state power.

Some comments on related articles indicate that Professor Jeong's remarks are considered more serious than Choi Wook's.

This is because, while Choi's remarks were closer to impromptu abusive language, Professor Jeong's remarks defined a generation and concluded with 'suppression'.

Looking at the issue from the reverse perspective clarifies the problem.

What would have been the reaction if a conservative broadcast or politician had said, "Let's crush MaeBulShow with tanks"?

It is highly likely that it would not have been accepted as a mere political metaphor. Criticisms of public threats against a pro-government broadcast, violent threats against press freedom, and the misuse of the symbol of May 18th state violence would have been immediately raised.

In that case, the "Chun Doo-hwan-style tank" remarks directed at Ilbe and anti-Democratic Party young people in their 20s and 30s should be evaluated by the same standard.

Of course, the legal and opinion levels must be distinguished.

It is prudent to avoid immediately concluding that these remarks constitute extortion or public extortion. Legally, extortion requires consideration of specificity of the target, concreteness of the threat, possibility of causing realistic fear, and the broadcast context.

However, the situation is different at the political and moral levels.

Mentioning 'tanks' and 'clubs' targeting a specific public opinion group on a live broadcast could be perceived as a public threat. It is difficult to avoid criticism that it is, at the very least, language at the level of public threat.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether Choi Wook and Professor Jeong Jun-hee attacked President Lee Jae-myung. Their intention was likely not to target Lee.

However, the outcome has put President Lee Jae-myung's standards to the test.

What reaction will the President, who held Starbucks accountable, show towards the 'Chun Doo-hwan-style tank' remarks made on a pro-government broadcast? If he remains silent, it is a matter of standards; if he reacts, he will have to confront pro-government speakers.

From the public's perspective, we can only watch President Lee's response.

He was enraged by the tanks of May 18th. Therefore, what standard will he apply to remarks that have again used the language of tanks and clubs towards young people and online public opinion groups with whom he disagrees?

This controversy has gone beyond a dispute over abusive language by Choi Wook and Professor Jeong Jun-hee, becoming an issue that questions whether the Lee Jae-myung administration's standards of expression can also be applied to its own camp.