logo
South Korea's new President Lee takes power after sweeping election win

South Korea's new President Lee takes power after sweeping election win

Business Times3 days ago

[SEOUL] South Korea's center-left Lee Jae Myung was declared president on Wednesday after winning a snap election, taking the helm of a nation deeply divided after his predecessor's disastrous attempt to declare martial law.
Lee won a thumping victory over conservative Kim Moon Soo, of disgraced ex-president Yoon Suk Yeol's former party, with his term beginning immediately after the National Election Commission certified the vote tally early on Wednesday.
In a regular presidential election, South Korea allows for a months-long transition period - but as Lee's victory came in a snap election after Yoon's impeachment, his term began right away.
'The National Election Commission hereby declares Lee Jae Myung of the Democratic Party as the elected president,' National Election Commission chairperson Roh Tae Ak said early on Wednesday.
Kim had conceded hours earlier, as final votes were still being counted. Official results showed he had no chance of winning.
Lee assumes office with a bulging in-tray, from sluggish growth and a global trade war to mounting concerns over military ties between nuclear-armed Pyongyang and Moscow.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
He also faces the challenge of leading a nation still reeling from the turmoil sparked by Yoon's martial law declaration in December and the rise of the far right in its aftermath - a development experts say has deeply shaken the country's collective sense of democracy.
In a speech to supporters early on Wednesday, Lee urged South Koreans to move 'forward with hope and make a fresh start from this moment on'.
'Though we may have clashed for a while, even those who did not support us are still fellow citizens of the Republic of Korea,' he said.
He also promised to 'pursue dialogue, communication, and cooperation' with North Korea, with whom the South remains technically at war, 'to find a path toward peaceful coexistence and shared prosperity'.
Lee is expected to start his first day with a traditional phone briefing from the military's top commander, formally confirming the transfer of operational control of the country.
He is then likely to visit the National Cemetery, a longstanding tradition observed by his predecessors, including Yoon.
A modest inauguration ceremony will likely follow at the National Assembly - the same site where Yoon deployed armed troops on the night he attempted to declare martial law.
Blue House calling?
It will be a muted affair with just a few hundred guests expected to attend, in contrast to the large outdoor events held after regularly scheduled elections, which often attract tens of thousands.
The new leader will then head to the presidential office to begin naming key cabinet members.
Disgraced ex-president Yoon moved the seat of power from the traditional Blue House to a hastily-converted government building in Yongsan, which Lee has previously said he would not use.
The focus will be on who is tapped to serve as presidential chief of staff, prime minister and director of the National Intelligence Service.
The day is expected to end with a flurry of congratulatory phone calls from world leaders, with US President Donald Trump likely to be the first on the line.
For many voters, like Noh Min Young, 20, who spent months in the street protesting Yoon's martial law declaration, the election was a relief and would allow the country to get back on track.
'I'm just glad now. There's no risk of the result being overturned, and the margin is enough not to lose momentum when it comes to clearing up the insurrection or implementing policies,' she told AFP.
But experts warned that Lee's success in this election - after he lost to Yoon in 2022 - was due as much to his rivals' failings as his own strengths, with Kim hampered by political infighting and a fractured right wing vote, split by a third party candidate.
Lee is also likely to herald a major shift in South Korea's foreign policy, Gi Wook Shin, a sociology professor at Stanford University, told AFP.
'Lee is expected to prioritise the alliance with the United States while simultaneously seeking engagement with both China and North Korea,' he said.
That marks a departure from the policies of predecessors including Yoon, 'who largely focused on North Korea and the United States, respectively.' AFP

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

UBS faces tough new Swiss banking sector rules
UBS faces tough new Swiss banking sector rules

Business Times

timean hour ago

  • Business Times

UBS faces tough new Swiss banking sector rules

[BERN] The Swiss government on Friday (Jun 6) proposed stricter rules for UBS following its takeover of Credit Suisse, which could make it hold US$26 billion more in core capital, confirming some of the bank's worst fears about incoming new regulations. The key proposal, which the bank would have six to eight years to prepare for after it became law, is that UBS must fully capitalise its foreign units, confirming what many analysts, lawmakers and executives had been expecting. The government said its capital requirement proposal would allow UBS to reduce its holding of Additional Tier 1 (AT1) bonds by US$8 billion. Today, UBS must only 60 per cent capitalise its foreign units and can cover some of the capital with AT1 debt. UBS executives say the additional capital burden will put the Zurich-based bank at a disadvantage to rivals and undermine the competitiveness of Switzerland as a financial centre. Shares in the bank rose after the government unveiled the proposals on Friday afternoon, climbing by more than 6 per cent. Such was the shock in Switzerland over the 2023 collapse of Credit Suisse that top politicians led by Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter vowed to introduce more robust rules that would protect taxpayers and prevent another meltdown in future. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Keller-Sutter now holds Switzerland's rotating one-year presidency and Friday's announcement will start a long period of political wrangling over the measures, which the governing federal council called 'targeted and proportionate.' 'They strengthen trust in the financial centre, which, in the view of the federal council, is central to its stability and competitiveness,' the council said in a statement. A parliamentary inquiry last year noted that since UBS bought Credit Suisse for US$3.65 billion in March 2023, it has had a balance sheet bigger than the Swiss economy, and urged the government to take the foreign units into account. The federal council said it would present drafts on the proposals for consultations with stakeholders in the second half of 2025. Finance Ministry officials say laws requiring parliamentary approval will not enter force before 2028. Separate measures known as ordinances that can be issued directly by the government could apply from the start of 2027. A six to eight-year transition period looked appropriate for UBS to meet new rules on capitalising foreign units from when they come into force, the government said. That could give the bank until the mid-2030s to comply. UBS's shares have lagged European peers in anticipation of the tougher rules and sources inside the bank have warned the new regulations could make it an appealing takeover target. Under the Swiss proposals, UBS' Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio could end up somewhat higher than those of global rivals, the government said. UBS's CET1 ratio of 14.3 per cent could rise up to 17 per cent, above rivals like JPMorgan at 15.8 per cent, Morgan Stanley at 15.7 per cent, and 15.3 per cent at Goldman Sachs, it said. Shares in UBS rose more than 60 per cent in the 12 months following its acquisition of Credit Suisse. But the stock has since sharply underperformed; UBS shares have lost about 5 per cent in the past year, while a top European banking index climbed 37 per cent. Analysts say the new regulations could trigger a rejig of UBS's business model, which now focuses on growth in the United States and Asia. To take the edge off the rules, the bank may be tempted to sell some assets, banking experts say. The Swiss government also set out piecemeal reforms to bolster the market regulator FINMA, which was heavily criticised for its response to the Credit Suisse collapse. These include measures aimed at holding bankers to account, giving the regulator the power to impose fines and making it easier to restrain pay and claw back bonuses. Still, the proposals come years after the European Union introduced similar measures in the wake of the 2007-2009 financial crisis. The government also proposed making it easier for banks to access liquidity from the Swiss National Bank. Barriers to transferring collateral to the SNB will also be removed. REUTERS

Trump is not interested in talking to Musk, White House official says
Trump is not interested in talking to Musk, White House official says

Business Times

time2 hours ago

  • Business Times

Trump is not interested in talking to Musk, White House official says

[WASHINGTON] US President Donald Trump is not interested in talking with his former ally Elon Musk, amid a bitter feud over the president's sweeping tax-cut bill, a White House official said on Friday (Jun 6), adding that no phone call between the two men is planned for the day. A separate White House official had said earlier that Trump and Musk were going to talk to each other on Friday. Trump, the world's most powerful leader, and Musk, the world's richest man, conducted an extraordinary day of hostilities on Thursday – largely over social media – marking a stark end to a close alliance. Shares in Musk's Tesla closed down 14 per cent on Thursday, losing about US$150 billion in market value in the largest single-day decline in value in the electric vehicle maker's history. In pre-market trading on Friday they pared some of those losses, rising as much as 5 per cent after the early news that the two men were scheduled to speak. Musk had bankrolled a large part of Trump's presidential campaign and was then brought as one of the president's most visible advisers, heading up a sweeping and controversial effort to downsize the federal workforce and slash spending. The verbal punches erupted on Thursday after Trump criticised Musk in the Oval Office and the pair then traded barbs on their social media platforms: Trump's Truth Social and Musk's X. The falling-out had begun brewing days ago when Musk, who left his role as head of the Department of government Efficiency a week ago, denounced Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill. The president initially stayed quiet while Musk campaigned to torpedo the bill, saying it would add too much to the nation's US$36.2 trillion in debt. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Trump broke his silence on Thursday, telling reporters he was 'very disappointed' in Musk. 'Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump said. As Trump spoke, Musk responded on X. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' wrote Musk, who spent nearly US$300 million backing Trump and other Republicans in last year's election. In another post, Musk asserted that Trump's signature import tariffs would push the US into a recession later this year. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, billions and billions of US dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump posted. Minutes after the closing bell, Musk replied, 'Yes,' to a post on X saying Trump should be impeached, something that would be highly unlikely given Trump's Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of Congress. Space business Musk's businesses also include rocket company and government contractor SpaceX and its satellite unit Starlink. Musk, whose space business plays a critical role in the US government's space programme, said on Thursday that as a result of Trump's threats he would begin decommissioning SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft. Dragon is the only US spacecraft capable of sending astronauts to the International Space Station. Late in the day, Musk backed off the threat. In another sign of a possible detente to come, Musk subsequently wrote: 'You're not wrong,' in response to billionaire investor bill Ackman saying Trump and Musk should make peace. Trump and Musk are both political fighters with a penchant for using social media to attack their perceived enemies, and many observers had predicted a falling-out. Musk hit at the heart of Trump's agenda earlier this week when he targeted what Trump has named his 'big, beautiful bill', calling it a 'disgusting abomination' that would deepen the federal deficit. His attacks amplified a rift within the Republican Party that could threaten the bill's prospects in the Senate. Nonpartisan analysts say Trump's bill could add US$2.4 trillion to US$5 trillion to the nation's US$36.2 trillion in debt. A prolonged feud between the pair could make it harder for Republicans to keep control of Congress in next year's midterm. REUTERS

This isn't how you ‘restore gold standard' science
This isn't how you ‘restore gold standard' science

Business Times

time6 hours ago

  • Business Times

This isn't how you ‘restore gold standard' science

IN another attempt to concentrate power, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to 'restore gold standard science' in federal research and policy. It sounds reasonable given the instances of bad or faked science being published, including high-profile papers on Alzheimer's drug development and one misleadingly claiming that hydroxychloroquine would cure Covid-19. In the last decade, scientists themselves have grown concerned about the large number of studies whose promising results couldn't be replicated. However, researchers dedicated to reforming their field say the president's plan isn't a solution. It's a way to give government officials the power to reject evidence they disagree with – without any accountability or transparency. There is already a long history of US policies that ignored scientific evidence, from allowing toxic lead in petrol to decades of failing to act on the known dangers of asbestos and cigarettes. Science alone can't decide policy, but the public and lawmakers need reliable scientific data to decide, for example, which pesticides or food additives to ban, or how to regulate genetically modified crops. Trump's order cites as a flaw in the system the prolonged school closures during the pandemic. Many US schools stayed closed long after those in most European countries had reopened. However, the US policy decision had little to do with science – shoddy or otherwise. It was more about a clash of values and political polarisation, along with a lack of balanced, evidence-based public discussion. He also criticises the National Marine Fisheries Service for basing restrictions on Maine's lobster fishing industry on a worst-case scenario aimed at protecting the endangered right whale. But the public might benefit from knowing such scenarios – unless their likelihood is being exaggerated. Ultimately, the decision comes down to values: Americans might want to act on even a small chance that an industry could drive a species to extinction. The language in the executive order is nearly identical to that used by scientists already working to improve research standards, including reproducibility, communication about errors and uncertainty, and scepticism about assumptions. In recent years, fields with replication problems have made progress towards those goals by requiring more transparency in reporting data and statistical methods. Peers uncovered fraud in the research of Harvard Professor Francesca Gino, who was fired from her tenured position last month. Journals and scientific societies are requiring more disclosure about potential conflicts of interest, and scientists are using a platform called PubPeer to criticise published work, which can lead to corrections and retractions. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up But the president's directive isn't really aimed at improving science. 'The executive order converts principles of good practice into weapons against scientific evidence,' said psychologist Brian Nosek, co-founder of the Centre for Open Science. Deciding what's credible should be a decentralised process, Nosek said, with many people and lines of evidence being presented and different parties challenging each other. He and other experts in science research reform say that even good studies aren't perfect. There's widespread concern the executive order could allow government officials to flag almost anything as not up to their definition of 'gold standard'. Sometimes the best we have are observational studies or models. Nutrition is notoriously hard to study with reproducible experiments, but we still have to decide what to put in school lunches. And there is no default precautionary position where you wait for perfect evidence; inaction can kill people, too. The executive order comes amid drastic federal funding cuts to the National Science Foundation and similar institutions. It's not surprising that many scientists see the order not as a way to improve scientific standards, but as the latest offensive in a war on science. The document begins by blasting the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for discouraging in-person learning during the pandemic even though 'the best available scientific evidence showed children were unlikely to transmit or suffer serious illness or death from the virus'. On the surface, this is backed up by reporting from The New York Times, citing data showing prolonged school closures didn't significantly decrease Covid-19 mortality, and also set many kids back in their education. In his book, An Abundance of Caution, journalist David Zweig makes a case that the relevant scientific data were available in the spring and summer of 2020, and by May many European schools were up and running with no uptick in casualties. In my own reporting back in summer of 2020, I found the problem was more bottom-up than top-down. The data couldn't reassure people that there was zero risk, and some worried that any danger of severe infection was unacceptable – for students or teachers. By summer 2020, the CDC had acknowledged the benefits of in-person education, but the American public was struggling to have a rational debate. It was more a matter of moral outrage over our different values than any disagreement over science. Many factors fed some regrettable policy choices, including social media algorithms that drowned out reasoned fact-based discussion with misinformation and mudslinging. What we didn't need then was more centralised control of science – and it's the last thing we need now. BLOOMBERG

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store