SEOUL, July 2 (UPI) -- On June 23, as part of President Lee Jae-myung's first cabinet appointments, he nominated Song Mi-ryeong to remain in her post as minister of agriculture -- a position she had held under former President Yoon Suk-yeol. The decision immediately ignited fierce controversy.
Across the political spectrum, regardless of party affiliation, sharp divisions emerged, with public opinion also split and escalating into a full-blown political standoff.
At the center of the dispute lies a fundamental question: In a newly inaugurated administration, is it appropriate to retain a minister from the previous government?
Opposition to Song's reappointment was swift and vocal, beginning with the Progressive Party, which had formed an electoral alliance with Lee in the recent presidential race. One sitting lawmaker declared, "This is mental collapse," and demanded the nomination be withdrawn.
Related
The intensity of dissent reflected deeper discontent. The Reformation Party and the Social Democratic Party, both aligned ideologically with Lee's Democratic Party, denounced Song as the "symbol of failed agricultural reform" and an "opportunist lacking accountability."
The outcry from these smaller progressive parties quickly echoed within the ruling Democratic Party's own leadership. During a meeting with Lee on June 23, senior Democratic lawmakers raised strong objections to the nomination.
Opposition particularly striking
Their opposition was particularly striking, given their expected role in supporting and defending the president's decisions. It is likely that Lee was taken aback by the intensity of pushback from within his own ranks.
The wave of dissent has continued to grow. Following the political backlash, major farmers' organizations -- including the Korean Peasants League (Jeonnong) -- voiced their opposition. Some of their leaders even staged protests outside the Presidential Office in Yongsan, demanding the withdrawal of the nomination.
Prominent civil society groups, such as the influential Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice), joined the chorus of disapproval, increasing pressure on the administration from multiple directions.
That was not the end of it. The People Power Party, which held power under the Yoon administration, but is now in opposition after the transfer of government, also voiced strong objections.
Particularly vocal was Representative Ahn Cheol-soo, a former presidential candidate and long-time critic within the PPP.
Urged to step down
Ahn called on Song to voluntarily step down, condemning her participation in the cabinet meeting convened prior to the declaration of martial law on Dec. 3, saying, "Song Mi-ryeong, who stood by during the martial law crisis, should have ended her public service in disgrace."
PPP floor leader Song Eon-seok also rebuked Song, calling her remarks -- stating she would seek to align the Grain Act with the new administration's philosophy -- "a deeply cowardly stance from the public's perspective." For the Lee administration, the attempt to retain just one minister from the previous government has resulted in a massive political backlash.
This situation may seem unfamiliar in contemporary Korean politics, but it is not without precedent.
During the transition from Kim Dae-jung to Roh Moo-hyun, Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun remained in office. Under the Park Geun-hye administration, Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin continued his role from the Lee Myung-bak government. In each case, the rationale was continuity in policy and professional expertise.
Nevertheless, the controversy surrounding Song is difficult to separate from her actions during the Yoon administration. She had opposed the Grain Management Act and the so-called "Three Agricultural Bills" spearheaded by the Democratic Party, urging Yoon to exercise his veto and labeling the bills as detrimental to the future of agriculture.
Strong farmer resistance
Her stance provoked strong resistance from farmers' organizations, some of which attempted to enter Seoul in protest with tractors.
Additionally, she participated in the Dec. 3 cabinet meeting convened by Yoon to declare martial law -- an act that drew severe condemnation, especially from the then-opposition, now the ruling party. Critics maintain she bears responsibility for failing to oppose imposition of martial law in her capacity as a cabinet minister.
Despite these controversies, the presidential office defended her nomination as a move grounded in "national unity and pragmatic governance."
Presidential Chief of Staff Kang Hoon-sik explained that Song's nomination reflected the Lee administration's core philosophy of pragmatism -- offering opportunities without ideological discrimination and evaluating individuals based on results.
At a dinner meeting with Democratic Party leaders, Lee himself dismissed the partisan framing of the issue, saying he believed inclusive appointments were necessary, regardless of political affiliation. In his private meeting with Song, the president asked her to join the cabinet and "manage conflict" -- a clear expression of his intent to govern through pragmatism.
Ball in her court
The ball is now in Song's court. For Lee's pragmatism to yield results not only in diplomacy, but also in domestic politics, Song must become a symbol of unity. Her remarks about revising the Grain Act in line with the new government's philosophy must be translated into concrete policies that can win over skeptics.
Having been reappointed based on her proven capabilities, Song must now work diligently to craft and implement policies that garner broad support. Striking a balance between opposition and approval will be her most vital role.
The president's request to "manage conflict" is not only a personal directive,-- it is a national imperative in a society deeply divided along ideological lines. To succeed, Song must embody the very pragmatism that Lee is championing.
Just 10 days after taking office, the president met with corporate leaders and heads of economic organizations. This was a remarkable gesture, considering his past as a vocal critic of conglomerates during his time in the opposition.
Yet, in a show of statesmanship, he expressed respect for their contributions and urged them to partner with the government in a new "economic diplomacy campaign."
Economic security
Citing the rapidly changing global trade landscape, he emphasized that "economic security" had become a top national priority -- and received a positive response from business leaders.
The same spirit of pragmatism was evident in his outreach to the opposition. Upon returning from the G7 summit June 22, Lee hosted a luncheon at the official residence in Hannam-dong with leaders from both ruling and opposition parties. There, he listened to concerns about cabinet appointments and committee assignments, while also briefing them on the outcomes of the summit.
What his predecessor failed to do for nearly two years, Lee accomplished in less than three weeks -- signaling to both domestic and international audiences his commitment to inclusive governance through pragmatic leadership. The previous Yoon administration, by contrast, had consistently treated the opposition as adversaries rather than partners.
Lee's brand of pragmatism -- what some now call "Lee Jae-myung-style pragmatism" -- is beginning to bear fruit. One prominent example is the long-deadlocked amendment to the Commercial Act. Should the opposition agree to its passage, it would mark the first true case of bipartisan cooperation under the new government.
