Opposition: "Still calling it the Itaewon 'accident'... an insult to the victims" vs Ruling Party: "Are we going to politicize even the terminology?"

8th National Assembly Steering Committee, Presidential Secretariat Audit
Ruling and Opposition Clash Over Terms 'Accident vs Disaster' and 'Deceased vs Victim'

[Asia Economy Reporters Oh Ju-yeon and Lee Ki-min] At the National Assembly's National Assembly Steering Committee's audit held on the 8th, five days later than originally scheduled due to the 'Itaewon crowd crush disaster,' the ruling and opposition parties engaged in fierce disputes from the start over the terminology used for the Itaewon disaster.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

During the first procedural speech of the day, Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Byung-joo took issue with the phrase "follow-up measures for the Itaewon accident" in the work report submitted by the Presidential Secretariat as a current issue report.

Rep. Kim pointed out, "'Disaster' is not used; instead, it is referred to as 'accident' measures," and criticized, "The Presidential Office still perceives the Itaewon disaster as an accident." He also pointed out that the report used the terms "casualties" and "deceased" instead of "victims."

He added, "The name of the memorial altar was changed to 'Itaewon Disaster Victims' Memorial Altar' on the last day of the mourning period following the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission, but the Presidential Office's complacent perception of this is a serious issue and constitutes an insult to the victims and the people."

In response, People Power Party lawmaker Cho Eun-hee immediately pushed back.

Rep. Cho strongly retorted, "I cannot understand the mentality of turning even terminology into a subject of political strife."

She argued, "If you look at the statement released by Representative Lee Jae-myung on October 30, he said 'we must do our best to manage the accident,' and Supreme Council member Go Min-jeong also said on her social media that 'managing the accident is a priority.' So if Representative Lee calls it an 'accident,' it is a sincere condolence, but if the government calls it an 'accident,' is it not a condolence?" She added, "I am concerned that terminology is being used as a tool for political conflict."

Fellow party member Kim Mi-ae also stated, "General incidents and accidents are referred to using standard legal terminology," adding, "Who would not be saddened by this (Itaewon disaster) incident? However, calling it a 'disaster' does not mean one is more saddened than calling it an 'incident,' so it is regrettable and unfortunate that this has become a subject of dispute."

[Image source=Yonhap News]

However, once again, Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Su-heung emphasized, "Expression is very important."

Rep. Kim said, "This is a matter of the government's attitude toward recognizing this disaster," and stressed again, "Because the public perceives this accident as a tremendous disaster, we need to establish countermeasures using the term 'disaster' rather than 'accident,' and even the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission suggested changing 'accident' to 'disaster.'"

As the dispute over terminology continued through the morning, National Assembly Steering Committee Chairman Joo Ho-young requested the Presidential Office, "There have been many opinions regarding whether it is a disaster or death; please clarify your position before the morning audit."

Chairman Joo said, "Is there any death that is not sorrowful?" and concluded the terminology debate by stating, "I think this is an opportunity to establish standards on the official terms the government will use in the future and the scope and expressions to be applied."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.