The trap of a 'Blue House government'

Cho Min-geun

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo. 

“Anyway, the source of every problem in this country is real estate.”

Tracing the turmoil over the government’s comprehensive farmland survey leads back to this remark by President Lee Jae Myung at a Cabinet meeting on Feb. 24. Lee was then waging a “war on real estate speculation,” with a stream of tough messages on social media rattling the market.

Lee said the government should move from housing to real estate more broadly and raised the issue of farmland speculation. He argued that farmland management was ineffective because orders requiring owners to dispose of improperly held land lacked teeth. Stressing the “land-to-the-tiller” principle that farmland should be owned by those who cultivate it, he instructed the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to conduct a comprehensive survey if necessary.

Events moved quickly. The government and ruling party amended the Farmland Act so that disposal orders for violations became mandatory rather than discretionary for local governments. They also empowered the agriculture minister to issue such orders directly when local authorities failed to act. The ministry launched its survey in May and later said its preliminary review found suspected violations involving 27 percent of the land examined.

That was when anxiety began spreading through rural communities. A leading category of suspected violations was “illegal leasing.” Under the current Farmland Act, leasing farmland is generally prohibited except in specified circumstances.

Reality, however, is different. With the rural population aging and inherited farmland increasing, tenant farmers cultivate 45 percent of Korea’s farmland. Much of this involves customary leasing arrangements. Most cases have little to do with the speculation Lee targeted, but strictly speaking, many remain illegal.

It was therefore unsurprising that tighter enforcement and the nationwide survey caused alarm. As confusion mounted ahead of the Chuseok holiday, the government and ruling party finally announced follow-up measures. Disposal orders would be deferred in cases without clear speculative intent, while the Farmland Act would be revised to better reflect conditions on the ground.

The Agriculture Ministry attributed the turmoil to inadequate public communication. But the problem cannot be dismissed so easily. If one in four people does not, or cannot, comply with a law, is the problem really the public, or the law itself? A rational government should have asked that question before implementing policy.

Instead, the government and ruling party strengthened sanctions before field survey results were even available. The ministry already knew that the Farmland Act, enacted 30 years ago, had become detached from rural realities.

That was why, in its policy briefing to the president late last year, the ministry raised the need to reform the farmland system. The emphasis then was not on cracking down on speculation, but on deregulation and better use of farmland, including facilitating leases. It reflected the idea that the land-to-the-tiller principle should be applied more flexibly so farmers can use the land they need.

But once this sensitive policy was fitted into the president’s broader “war on real estate,” its priorities and pace changed abruptly. The president’s instructions became highly detailed, while ministers and ministries concentrated on faithfully carrying them out rather than preparing for predictable confusion.

This is the downside of what might be called a “Blue House government.” Nor is the problem confined to the Agriculture Ministry or farmland policy. Similar confusion followed the Ministry of Economy and Finance’s tax reform announcement.

It is natural for a president to oversee major policies and set their direction. But ministers and ministries must not disappear from policymaking.

Their job is not simply to take dictation. Drawing on professional expertise and communication with people in the field, they must weigh the benefits and costs of policies and propose the best options from the public’s perspective.

Otherwise, why have so many ministers at all? And what is the point of broadcasting Cabinet meetings live if ministers merely carry out presidential instructions without challenging assumptions or identifying problems before policies reach the public?