
South Korea divided, troubled as Lee Jae-myung takes over
South Korea divided, troubled as Lee Jae-myung takes over (Image: AP)
South Korea's new President Lee Jae-myung sought to project a message of unity as he took office on Wednesday in a country wracked by political division since a short-lived martial law declaration in December.
"No matter whom you supported in this election, I will serve as a president for all, to embrace and serve every citizen," Lee said during his swearing-in ceremony at the National Assembly.
He also pledged to reinvigorate the nation's economy and pursue policies that help ordinary people, both at home and abroad. His declaration comes as multiple national and international organizations, including the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), are downgrading growth forecasts for the South Korean economy.
The OECD this week predicted only a 1% GDP growth in 2025.
"It is time to restore security and peace, which have been reduced to tools of political strife, to rebuild livelihoods and the economy damaged by indifference, incompetence and irresponsibility, and to revive democracy that has been undermined by armoured vehicles and automatic rifles," Lee said.
The reference to vehicles and weapons is a barb against his predecessor Yoon Suk Yeol, who was removed from office and is still on trial for briefly declaring martial law six months ago.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy
IC Markets
Tìm hiểu thêm
Undo
While the move sparked outrage across the country, some members of the military, the Presidential Security Service (PSS) and sections of the public sided with Yoon before his eventual arrest.
Lee just short of 50% support
The short-lived attempt to prop up Yoon with military force revived unhappy memories in South Korea — a country which experienced periods of military rule until the 1980s.
It has massively harmed the image of Yoon's conservative People Power Party (PPP), and arguably allowed Lee and his Democratic Party to claim power with 49.42% of the total vote, while PPP rival Kim Moon-soo secured only 41.15%.
The third candidate in the single-round vote, Lee Jun-seok from the Reform party, finished the race at 8.34%.
"This result is seen as a judgment by the people against the PPP's imposition of martial law, and I believe this election marks a new stage in the maturity of Korean democracy," said Hyobin Lee, a professor at Sogang University in Seoul. "With the emergence of this new administration, many changes are expected."
New president brings hopes for better ties with China, North Korea
With the election over, Lee's administration now needs to face challenges on many fronts, not least in the form of US trade tariffs and tense relationships with immediate neighbours North Korea, China and Japan.
It is widely anticipated that Lee's administration will be more pro-China than previous administrations, Hyobin Lee told DW. Beijing is Seoul's most important trade partner, and South Korea is also deeply concerned about the reliability of the present US administration when it comes to both security and trade.
Closer ties with Beijing may also help mitigate the threat posed by North Korea, still a close ally of China. On the campaign trail, Lee indicated that he intends to rebuild bridges with Pyongyang, although that may be even more difficult now due to new security and trade ties between North Korea and Russia. North Korean dictator
Kim Jong Un
may even choose to deliberately and publicly snub any approach from Lee.
Will Lee rule without checks and balances?
And back on the home front, even among those South Koreans who took to the streets to protest Yoon's declaration of martial law, there is now concern that too much power is concentrated in the hands of the Democratic Party and its leader.
Lee and his allies control 190 of the 300 seats in the National Assembly, making his camp "able to drive national policy in any direction it chooses, without effective opposition," says Seoul-based professor Hyobin.
"The lack of checks and balances could potentially put our democracy at risk," she added.
South Korea at a crossroads
Leif-Eric Easley, a professor of international studies at Ewha Womans University in Seoul, shares those concerns.
He sees Lee's victory as a "watershed moment in South Korean politics," and warns that Lee's control of the executive branch and his large legislative majority give him vast amounts of power.
"South Korea could see institutional reforms and greater policy coherence in response to economic, foreign policy and democratic challenges," he suggested. "Or the country could face more political retribution, increasing polarization and counterproductive changes in governance."
Lee still in legal trouble, plans judicial reform
Park Jung-won, a professor of law at Dankook University, points out that President Lee did not win more than 50% of the votes, even given the handicaps that his opponents faced.
Lee has been embroiled in at least nine legal cases, most involving allegations of bribery, the illegal transfer of funds to North Korea and making false statements during election campaigns. In fact, he would not have been able to run for president if an appeal in one of the cases had gone ahead as planned.
But Lee successfully petitioned the courts to delay the case until after the election on the grounds that it would interfere with a fair vote. Park points out that the new government is now proposing legislative changes that would make it impossible for the case to go ahead in the future.
The DP also stated during the campaign that if elected it would seek to dissolve its main political adversary, the People Power Party, because it was headed by Yoon when he declared martial law.
Backlash against Lee likely
Actions that are perceived as hindering fair political processes will not go down well with the electorate, Park said.
"I anticipate there will be a honeymoon period for Lee and his new government, but the conservative media will not hesitate to criticize Lee if they feel he is going too far, and that could lead to a serious backlash from the public," he added.
Yet, Easley is hopeful that Lee will find the political equilibrium required to move on from the monthslong political crisis.
"Lee's electoral mandate is not for a progressive revolution but for pragmatic problem-solving," he said. "He has proved to be a political survivor, after legal scandals, questionable opposition tactics and even threats to his life."
Now, Easley said, the new president needs to "approach government not only with pragmatism for the national interest, but also with humility for social unity."

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
PM Modi meets UK foreign secretary: Calls for united global action against terrorism; hails India-UK FTA potential
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday called for decisive global efforts to combat terrorism and those who enable it, during a meeting with visiting UK foreign secretary David Lammy. The talks took place amid strong British condemnation of the recent Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir. According to a statement from the Prime Minister's Office, Lammy 'strongly condemned' the attack and expressed the UK's firm support for India's fight against cross-border terrorism. PM Modi , in turn, underlined the need for the international community to act firmly and collectively. 'The UK Foreign Secretary strongly condemned the Pahalgam terror attack and expressed support for India's fight against cross-border terrorism,' the statement read. 'PM Modi underscored the need for decisive international action against terrorism and those who support it.' The two leaders also welcomed the successful conclusion of the long-pending India-UK Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the double taxation avoidance convention. PM Modi appreciated the 'constructive engagement' from both sides in reaching the milestone. Lammy said the UK was keen to deepen cooperation across key sectors such as defence, security, trade, clean energy, technology and innovation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo PM Modi also noted the growing strength of the India-UK Comprehensive Strategic Partnership and praised the ongoing collaboration under the technology security initiative, calling it a step toward building 'trusted and secure innovation ecosystems'. Lammy's visit comes at a time of heightened diplomatic outreach between New Delhi and London. During his two-day stay, he also held wide-ranging talks with external affairs minister S Jaishankar. The EAM also highlighted India's zero-tolerance policy on terrorism and urged global partners to recognise the clear divide between perpetrators and victims. 'India expects its partners to understand that we will never countenance the perpetrators of evil being equated with those they target,' Jaishankar said. Lammy's visit is aimed at reviewing key areas of the strategic partnership and building momentum for deeper cooperation in the post-Brexit and post-FTA landscape. PM Modi also extended his warm greetings to UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer and renewed the invitation for him to visit India at the earliest mutual convenience.


Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
The tax cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would likely gouge a hole in the federal budget. The president has a patch handy, though: his sweeping import taxes - tariffs. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Kardioloog: Buikvet na je 50e? Stop dit in je schoenen Gezondheidstip By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 - including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit - would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. So it's basically a wash. Live Events That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. "It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue," said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments - and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. "It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. "I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. "It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. "It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. "Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program - the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called "Liberation Day'' April 2 - saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened "countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. "You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy," York said. "You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said - more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. "If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are "a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''


Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why were so many Thai farmers among hostages held by Hamas?
Israel says it has retrieved the body of a 35-year-old Thai hostage who was abducted into Gaza during the October 7, 2023, attack that sparked the war. Nattapong Pinta was among 31 Thais taken by the Hamas militant group. Thailand's foreign ministry in a statement Saturday confirmed that Pinta, the last Thai hostage in Gaza, was confirmed dead. It said the bodies of two others have yet to be retrieved. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Jordan: New Small Electric Car For Seniors. Prices Might Surprise You. Electric Cars | Search Ads Undo The ministry has said 46 Thais have been killed during the war. Thais were the largest group of foreigners held captive by Hamas. They were among tens of thousands of Thai workers in Israel. Here's a look at what they were doing. Why are there so many Thais in Israel? Live Events Israel once relied heavily on Palestinian workers, but it started bringing in large numbers of migrant workers after the 1987-93 Palestinian revolt, known as the first Intifada. Most came from Thailand, and Thais remain the largest group of foreign agricultural labourers in Israel today, earning considerably more than they can at home. Thailand and Israel implemented a bilateral agreement a decade ago to ease the way for workers in the agriculture sector. Israel has come under criticism for the conditions under which the Thai farm labourers work. A Human Rights Watch report in 2015 said they often were housed in makeshift and inadequate accommodation and "were paid salaries significantly below the legal minimum wage, forced to work long hours in excess of the legal maximum, subjected to unsafe working conditions and denied their right to change employers." A watchdog group found more recently that most were still paid below the legal minimum wage. How many Thai nationals work in Israel? There were about 30,000 Thai workers, primarily working on farms, in Israel prior to the attack by Hamas. In the wake of the attack, some 7,000 returned home, primarily on government evacuation flights, but higher wages than those available at home have continued to attract new arrivals. The Thai ambassador to Israel, Pannabha Chandraramya, recently said there are now more than 38,000 Thai workers in the country. What happened after some left? Faced with a labour shortage in the wake of the exodus, Israel's Agriculture Ministry announced incentives to try to attract foreign workers back to evacuated areas. Among other things, it offered to extend work visas and to pay bonuses of about USD 500 a month. Thailand's Labor Ministry granted 3,966 Thai workers permission to work in Israel in 2024, keeping Israel in the top four destinations for Thais working abroad last year. Thai migrant workers generally come from poorer regions of the country, especially the northeast, and even before the bonuses, the jobs in Israel paid many times what they could make at home.