ED Lee's questionable view of affirmative action
President Lee Jae Myung speaks at a Cabinet meeting, Tuesday. Yonhap
Anti-diversity rhetoric threatens social cohesion
President Lee Jae Myung’s anti-diversity rhetoric is doing more harm than good.
His remarks about the role of migrant workers in the Korean economy at Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting sparked controversy. But he did not stop there. Instead, he poured fuel on the fire. In a series of social media posts beginning Wednesday, he called for a reassessment of policies for multicultural families.
His remarks have backfired. The president has become a source of concern among members of his own ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK). Few have voiced their concerns publicly, but many DPK lawmakers reportedly believe Lee has gone too far and that someone needs to sound the alarm.
Politicians are supposed to bring people together, not divide them. Lee, however, has done the opposite. His anti-diversity rhetoric has undermined his own political standing.
Even some of his traditional support groups — particularly progressives — have begun criticizing him.
Labor unions have characterized Lee’s remarks as hate speech. The Korean Federation of Trade Unions accused him of treating migrant workers like an ATM, arguing that his comments fuel hostility toward them.
The criticism followed media reports about Lee’s remarks at Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting. During the livestreamed meeting, Lee questioned the economic contributions of foreign workers, arguing that they send their earnings back to their home countries.
Lee subsequently expressed dissatisfaction with media coverage of his comments. Sharing an article from a left-leaning newspaper on social media, he complained that his remarks had been taken out of context. He openly demanded that the newspaper revise its headline to better reflect his intentions and apologize to him. The outlet changed the headline as he requested, but that apparently was not enough. Lee continued to demand a public apology on social media.
The president's response was excessive. The newspaper's correction was an acknowledgment that its original headline had been problematic. Most politicians would have accepted such a correction and moved on. Lee's continued demand for a public apology gives the impression that he was seeking to pressure and publicly embarrass the newspaper rather than settle the dispute.
His campaign against multicultural policies has continued.
On Wednesday, Lee wrote that preferential policies based on ethnicity should be reviewed. "While it is true that support for multicultural families is necessary, that cannot justify specific policies that are unreasonable or may result in reverse discrimination," he said.
On Friday, he called for a level playing field, arguing that some multicultural support measures were unfair. He challenged the assumption that all multicultural families belong to the working class, pointing out that some include children of highly skilled, white-collar foreign workers and their Korean spouses. Such families, he argued, should not automatically be classified as marginalized households.
He also called for equal treatment of disadvantaged multicultural families and low-income Korean households.
"If there are poor multicultural families, they should be entitled to policy support available to poor Korean households," he wrote, suggesting that government assistance should not be determined by ethnicity but by economic circumstances.
The minor opposition Justice Party criticized Lee, accusing him of engaging in what it called "hatred politics."
Diversity-related spending should not be confused with preferential treatment or a double standard. Tailored policies for multicultural families are necessary to help them integrate into Korean society. Depending on their circumstances, additional public spending on ethnically diverse families is inevitable.
According to the Ministry of Data and Statistics, Korea had 451,492 multicultural households in 2025. Their number has continued to increase year after year. More than 70 percent consist of Korean husbands and foreign wives. Vietnam accounts for the largest share of foreign spouses at 30 percent, followed by China at 12.2 percent and Thailand at 5.4 percent.
These demographic characteristics underscore the need for targeted policy support. Foreign spouses and their children often need assistance overcoming language barriers and adapting to Korean society. Other social and cultural services are also necessary to help migrant spouses and their children settle into their communities.
Such support is not a waste of taxpayer money. It is an investment in the nation's future.
Diversity has become an irreversible trend. In 2025, foreign-born residents accounted for 5.24 percent of Korea's population. Their numbers have risen steadily over the past several decades, outpacing earlier projections.
As the foreign-born population grows, greater public spending on social integration, education and cultural services will inevitably be required. This should not be viewed as an unfair privilege granted to certain groups. Rather, it is a necessary response to the country's changing demographics.
Lee should be promoting social cohesion, not fueling resentment toward minorities. His rhetoric risks undermining the very values of inclusion and solidarity that progressives have traditionally championed.