Farmland policy reversal fuels public distrust

The government has effectively retreated from its plan to force the disposal of farmland identified through a nationwide inspection.

On Thursday, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs announced plans to introduce special legislation based on “three major penalties and five major exceptions” and revise the Farmland Act by the first half of next year.

Serious violations, including speculative farmland purchases, would face strict penalties, while inherited farmland and customary leasing arrangements would be exempted from disposal requirements or legalized.

The reversal comes five months after the government launched its investigation in May, only to encounter widespread opposition from farmers. The government sought to uncover farmland speculation through a comprehensive inspection. But rural realities proved far more complicated.

With rural populations aging and declining, many landowners can no longer cultivate their property themselves. Urban residents who inherit farmland from their parents are often unable to farm it.

Forcing these owners to sell simply because they do not personally cultivate their land was unrealistic from the outset.

It is fortunate that the government has finally acknowledged these realities. Nevertheless, it must answer for the anxiety its policies caused throughout rural communities.

After President Lee Jae Myung abruptly called for eliminating farmland speculation, officials rushed to implement his directive. They threatened enforcement fines and pursued mandatory disposal orders. Even as concerns spread across farming communities, the government and ruling party dismissed fears of forced land sales as baseless rumors.

Agriculture Minister Song Mi-ryung also bears responsibility. Rather than carefully examining the consequences, she pushed ahead with the president's directive, only proposing special legislation after confusion had intensified.

The episode represents another case of policy turmoil arising from the Lee administration's unilateral decision-making.

The presidential office previously pushed to introduce single-stock leveraged exchange-traded funds without even keeping minutes of its meetings. Only after individual investors suffered substantial losses did officials move to address the problems.

The government’s position on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership has also shifted repeatedly, creating further uncertainty. Such inconsistency inevitably undermines public confidence in government policy.

A recurring pattern has emerged: the president issues unilateral instructions, bureaucrats implement them without sufficient scrutiny and the government revises its approach only after citizens suffer the consequences.

This cycle must end. Policies affecting livelihoods and property rights require thorough examination, realistic assessments and careful preparation before implementation. Ministers must exercise independent judgment rather than simply translate presidential remarks into administrative orders.

The government should consult those directly affected and anticipate unintended consequences before announcing sweeping measures. Only through such deliberation can policymakers prevent unnecessary public anxiety and restore confidence in government decisions.