Subscribe
E-Paper
 |
This old Korean saying refers to married women's dilemma when they are stuck in a dispute with their in-laws. Many Koreans believe that in-laws, particularly female in-laws, are virtually impossible to forge an alliance with regardless of the issues that pit them against each other.
Those women have no faith in their sisters-in-law, even if they try to intervene in settling the dispute. Daughters-in-law are suspicious that their sisters-in-law join in the dramas to perpetuate them, rather than serving as peacemakers.
The central idea of the psychology of a daughter-in-law is that what irritates us is our counterpart's real intention behind his or her deed.
I think this in-law mentality can help convince those who remain clueless about Pyongyang's recent erratic reactions to leaflets "flown" by those they call "traitors" ― North Korean defectors.
North Koreans appear to view South Korea's government as a pretentious sister-in-law, while the defectors are an aggressive mother-in-law.
The North blew up a newly-opened liaison office with South Korea in North Korea's border town of Gaeseong on Tuesday, days after Kim Jong-un's sister threatened an armed attack at the inter-Korean border.
Its strongly worded criticism of President Moon Jae-in shows no signs of abating.
Oh Su-bong, head chef of Pyongyang's time-honored signature Okryu-gwan restaurant, blasted President Moon for allegedly failing to live up to his commitments made during the 2018 inter-Korean summits in Pyongyang.
The North Korean chef portrayed Moon as a brazen politician who had got a free lunch without returning the favor or keeping his promise. "When he was eating noodles at our famed Okru-gwan, he bragged about what he could do and promised to do something. But nothing has happened since," Oh said in a statement released June 13. "He drove a nail in our hearts. How can we possibly forgive him?"
North Korea is notorious for its undiplomatic rhetoric. But it was unusual for the North Korean chef, who is not in the chain of command in the North Korean government, to have joined the criticism intended to humiliate the South Korean leader.
The source of their irritation was the "provocative" leaflets sent by North Korean defectors.
Wondering how provocative they really are, I looked into what's written on the leaflet on a YouTube video. My first reaction to it was, "Wow, it was going to hurt them a lot."
With captured images of the North Korean ruling family members, the leaflet provides detailed information about Kim Jong-un's late mother and her unorthodox family pedigree (she has Korean-Japanese ancestry), Kim's extramarital affairs and his step brother Jong-nam who was "murdered by proxy" by two Southeast Asian women in an airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
For South Koreans, these are known facts. But few North Koreans would have known about them, if not for the leaflets. The information could be fatal to the Kim family.
In South Korea, disclosing such private information could constitute defamation, depending on who the victim is. If the victim is a public figure, I think the revelation could trigger a pros and cons debate about whether the benefits from freedom of expression can outweigh that of defamation. However, one thing for certain is that in South Korea disclosing such information, although scathing to the victim, won't cost the accuser his or her life.
The same information, however, can translate into a very different consequence in a reclusive country like North Korea where the general public is brainwashed to worship their leader. They were educated their leader is a God-like figure. It's a country in which the cult of personality can justify fear politics and a three-generation leadership succession with no end in sight.
Considering this unique phenomenon, North Korea's hysterical reactions to the leaflets is no surprise. Imagine how you would feel if secrets that you wanted to hide forever were suddenly disclosed and brought to light without your permission. The North Korean regime is embarrassed and could feel immense pressure from the possibility of bottom-up protests from the awakened public. Their frenzied reactions reflect that information warfare, what some call psychological warfare, still works.
