(EDITORIAL from Korea Times on Oct. 29)

Lee, farmers at odds over farmland survey, trade pact
: Admitting policy misstep is first step to regaining trust

President Lee Jae Myung tried in vain to appease disgruntled farmers who remain suspicious of the administration's motives behind the nationwide farmland survey. Korea's potential accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has further complicated reconciliation efforts. Joining the trade pact is important for Korea's outward-looking economy, but doing so could come at a cost to farmers.

Monday's town hall meeting was unproductive, if not an outright failure. Lee remained indecisive about the CPTPP, while his explanation of the farmland survey was evasive. He even attempted to deflect responsibility for the controversial policy, suggesting that a confrontation with farmers may be inevitable.

Farmers take the survey seriously, viewing it as a direct threat to their livelihoods. They fear they could be ordered to sell their land against their will.

The Lee administration's farmland survey has become one of its most controversial policies, deepening the decline in the president's approval ratings.

The survey itself is not controversial. A nationwide assessment of farmland is necessary to determine how the land is being used. Indeed, collecting such information is a basic responsibility of the government. Agricultural authorities should already have access to such fundamental data.

The controversy, however, centers on how the initiative was conceived and what purposes it is intended to serve.

It began with an unproven and somewhat radical assumption that all abandoned farmland is speculative property and that its owners should face heavy penalties, including orders to sell the land.

Lee was the first to raise the need for a nationwide farmland survey. During a livestream of a Cabinet meeting on Feb. 24, he instructed Agriculture Minister Song Mi-ryung to consider a comprehensive survey. The directive was part of the government's efforts to address population decline in rural areas.

Lee argued that rural communities had the potential to attract new residents, including urban dwellers willing to move to the countryside to take up farming. He also said high farmland prices made it difficult for aspiring farmers to purchase land. Blaming speculative investment for soaring prices and the abandonment of farmland, Lee criticized those who bought agricultural land but failed to cultivate it. He instructed the minister to identify abandoned farmland and impose heavy punitive taxes on its owners.

Lee's campaign against speculative investment, however, risks collateral damage to farmers, many of whom are elderly. As a result of aging and illness, some older farmers are no longer physically capable of performing the labor-intensive work, resulting in some of their land remaining fallow and turning the farmers into innocent victims.

Their plight raises a fundamental question: Can government officials distinguish between farmers with legitimate reasons for leaving their land uncultivated and speculators who purchase farmland for investment? If so, what criteria will they use?

Farmers have complained that it is like burning down a house to get rid of bedbugs, arguing that many innocent landowners will inevitably suffer. Their anger has contributed to Lee's persistently weak approval ratings.

Gallup's weekly surveys conducted between April and October illustrate the downward trend in Lee's support in Seoul and the Chungcheong region. In the second week of June, his approval ratings stood at 48 percent in Seoul and 66 percent in Chungcheong. By the first week of October, those figures had fallen to 31 percent and 28 percent, respectively — declines of 17 percentage points in Seoul and 38 percentage points in Chungcheong.

The decline in Seoul reflects growing discontent over the administration's housing policy, while the sharp drop in Chungcheong may reflect farmers' dissatisfaction with his farmland policy.

Facing worsening public opinion, Lee said the farmland survey had initially been proposed by Song in an apparent attempt to distance himself from mounting criticism. His effort to shift responsibility, however, provoked further backlash from critics. As head of state, Lee should take responsibility for a policy he publicly advocated.

Monday's town hall meeting failed to persuade farmers of the merits of Lee's agricultural policy or reassure them about its implications. It also exposed a problem of representation.

One man, who identified himself as someone who had helped Lee win the 2025 presidential election, claimed that few farmers had expressed fear or concern about the farmland policy.

"It is not true that many farmers are concerned about the farmland policy. I understand that people who put their speculative money into farmland tried to exaggerate the issue to foil the policy," he said.

Such remarks do little to bridge the gap between the administration and farmers who fear losing their livelihoods and their lands. Dismissing their concerns as an attempt by speculators to derail the policy risks overlooking the legitimate difficulties faced by elderly and financially vulnerable landowners.

This is no time for flattery or complacency. Lee must confront the realities of his proposal. Rather than continuing to defend a flawed policy, he should seek a practical way to end the controversy.

The first step should be to acknowledge the shortcomings of a policy he personally championed and apologize for its rushed and poorly considered implementation.
(END)