RoundtableCan Korea's next president heal a nation in crisis?
Three presidential contenders gather at Jogye Temple in central Seoul on Monday for an event to commemorate Buddha's Birthday. Lee Jae-myung, right, the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party of Korea, speaks to Kim Moon-soo, second from right, the presidential candidate of the People Power Party, while Han Duck-soo, second from left, an independent candidate, chats with PPP leader Kwon Young-se. Yonhap
With the June 3 presidential election fast approaching, less than a month remains until voters head to polling stations to cast their ballots for their preferred candidates in this snap election. Questions loom large over the nation’s future leadership: Who will be Korea’s next president? Which candidate is the best fit to lead? What policy priorities should be addressed first by the incoming administration?
To shed light on these pressing issues, The Korea Times, in collaboration with the Korean Institute for Presidential Studies (KIPS), hosted a roundtable discussion on May 2 featuring four leading experts. They are Hahm Sung-deuk, chairman of KIPS; Lee Keun, president of the Korean Economic Association; Jung Kwang-ho, president of the Korean Association for Public Administration; and Jeon Hak-seon, president of the Korean Public Law Association.
Under the theme “What to Expect in the June 3 Presidential Election,” the panelists shared their insights on the qualities Korea’s next president should possess and reflected on the political downfalls of two former presidents, Yoon Suk Yeol and Park Geun-hye, to draw lessons for the country’s next administration.
Lee emphasized the importance of political finesse. “The nation would benefit greatly from a leader who is a smooth operator,” he said. “Former President Yoon’s failure demonstrated the importance of understanding Korea’s political culture, which values negotiation and dialogue. As a former prosecutor, Yoon lacked experience in partisan politics and struggled to adapt to the presidential role.”
Jeon, also a professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, raised concerns about public trust in the judiciary. “A growing issue is the number of judges who run for elected office shortly after retiring,” he said. “This trend raises serious questions about the impartiality of their previous rulings. The next administration should implement a mandatory cooling-off period, barring judges from running in elections for at least a few years after stepping down.”
Moderated by Korea Times chief editorial writer Shim Jae-yun, the roundtable interview was organized to give voters insight into whom to vote for and the criteria to base their decision on. The interviews have been edited for clarity.
Panelists clap as they pose for a photo before the roundtable discussion held at the conference room of The Korea Times on May 2. From left are Korea Times chief editorial writer Shim Jae-yun, Professors Hahm Sung-deuk, Lee Keun, Jung Kwang-ho and Jeon Hak-seon. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul
Q: The past decade has been challenging for Korea, marked by the successive impeachments of two conservative presidents. These impeachments were costly, triggering political turmoil, economic disruption and social instability. What can be done to prevent such unfortunate events from recurring?
Hahm Sung-deuk: What the nation has experienced over the past 10 years is undeniably troubling. The impeachments of conservative Presidents Park Geun-hye and Yoon Suk Yeol have shown that, in practice, presidential terms in Korea are not guaranteed, even though the Constitution stipulates a five-year term. That said, there is a silver lining. This difficult chapter in our political history should serve as a powerful lesson for future presidential candidates: the job demands thorough preparation and a deep understanding of its challenges. In the long run, I believe these events could be seen as an awakening. Despite adversity, South Korean democracy has not regressed — it has proven resilient and forward-moving.
Jeon Hak-seon: I agree. The political upheaval that followed the impeachments of Presidents Park and Yoon revealed the strength and maturity of our democracy. Though opposing protests emerged — one supporting Yoon and another demanding his ouster — they remained peaceful and orderly. The absence of violence is a testament to the wisdom and patience of the Korean people. In fact, I believe politicians have much to learn from the public about political culture. They must aim for bipartisan governance that includes all voices. Majority rule is only legitimate when minority rights are protected. If a certain party continues to push its agenda unilaterally, we risk descending into a tyranny of the majority.
Lee Keun: I'd like to stress that the costs of impeaching two presidents have been excessively high, and we must avoid repeating this in the future. The leadership vacuum severely impacted the economy — there was a sharp depreciation of the Korean won against the U.S. dollar, a loss of confidence among foreign investors and a dramatic drop in foreign tourism. These are consequences we’re still grappling with. We must seriously consider structural safeguards to prevent political instability from damaging the economy. In a parliamentary system, a leader can dissolve the legislature, but the Korean president has no such authority. Perhaps it’s time to consider constitutional reforms that would provide mechanisms to stabilize governance during crises.
Jung Kwang-ho: Democracy comes at a cost, and that’s one of the lessons we’ve learned over the past decade. Still, one encouraging outcome is the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law throughout the political turbulence. Rather than weakening, our democratic institutions have emerged stronger. To avoid repeated presidential impeachments, civil society — particularly think tanks — can play a greater role. In addition, it is essential to foster mature political literacy among citizens so they are not swayed by falsehoods or misinformation. Civic education programs that help elevate the quality of political leadership should also be actively promoted — starting from youth — through political foundations and various civic initiatives. They can provide ongoing education and training to politicians during their careers or political downtime, helping them become better prepared for leadership and governance.
Hahm Sung-deuk, chairman of the Korean Institute of Presidential Studies / Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul
Q: The nation remains deeply divided, and political polarization is more pronounced than ever. What should be the top priority for the next president or administration?
Hahm: To answer this, I’d like to revisit the meaning of the Korean word for "president" — dae-tong-ryeong. The term consists of three parts: dae, meaning "big" or "great;" tong, meaning "unity;" and ryeong, meaning "leader." So, dae-tong-ryeong literally means “a great leader who unites the people.” That, in essence, is the president’s most critical mission: to bring about unity.
Indeed, the country is deeply divided, and political polarization has reached an unprecedented level. Conservatives and liberals are entrenched in opposition, with little common ground. Conservatives are disappointed following the impeachment of Yoon, and some of his supporters remain angry with the Constitutional Court for its decision to impeach him.
On the other hand, liberals are also upset, especially after the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that had cleared presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung of violating the Public Official Election Act. This reversal has cast a shadow over his political future and added fuel to liberal frustration.
In this climate, achieving unity seems almost impossible. However, I believe there is an opportunity — ironically created by the very economic crisis we face. The hardships brought on largely by U.S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariffs have left the Korean economy in a vulnerable position. This shared economic concern could serve as common ground.
Whoever is elected on June 3 must treat the economic situation as the top priority. The next leader must rally national support to address these challenges and appeal for calm and cooperation, urging citizens to set aside their differences, at least temporarily, for the sake of the country’s recovery and future.
While conservatives and liberals propose different solutions — redistribution versus growth and trickle-down economics — both views have merit. The real issue in Korea, however, is that partisan politics rarely translate into meaningful policy competition. Instead of debating real policy alternatives, parties are locked in ideological battles. This is regrettable and must change if we are to move forward as a united nation.
Jeon Hak-seon, president of the Korean Law Association / Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul
Q: There is a growing debate over Article 84 of the Constitution following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a lower court ruling that had cleared Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) presidential candidate, of violating the Public Official Election Act. Article 84 states that a sitting president is exempt from criminal prosecution during their term, except in cases involving insurrection. If elected, will Lee still have to stand trial?
Jeon: Legal experts are divided on this issue, but my view is that Lee should stand trial, even if he is elected president, until the case is resolved.
Article 84 was originally introduced to ensure political stability and continuity. It is intended to protect a sitting president from being distracted by legal proceedings over minor offenses, such as a traffic violation, while in office. That’s why the Constitution provides immunity from criminal prosecution, except in cases involving serious crimes like insurrection.
However, Lee’s situation is fundamentally different because the legal proceedings began before the election. The key debate now centers on how we interpret the term “criminal prosecution” and whether it includes trials. Two separate laws offer differing definitions.
Under Article 246 of the Criminal Procedure Act, "criminal prosecution" is broadly defined to encompass both the prosecution itself and the trial process. Those who argue that Lee should be exempt from appearing in court if elected rely on this article as their basis.
In contrast, Article 32 of the Constitutional Court Act treats prosecution and trial as distinct processes. Those who believe Lee must continue to appear in court, even as president, base their argument on this interpretation.
Personally, I support the latter view: that trials and prosecution are separate. Prosecution is carried out by prosecutors, while trials are overseen by judges. Since the two functions are handled by different institutions, they should not be considered one and the same.
This legal ambiguity stems from the fact that the Constitution does not clearly define “criminal prosecution,” nor does it specify whether the term includes both the indictment and the trial process. It’s likely that the drafters of the Constitution did not foresee a situation where someone under active criminal prosecution and standing trial for legal violations would run for, or potentially be elected to, the presidency. This represents a significant legal gap that now requires clarification.
Lee Keun, president of the Korean Economic Association / Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul
Q: Korea and the U.S. began tariff negotiations in April and agreed to work toward a trade package aimed at removing new U.S. tariffs set to take effect on July 8, following a temporary pause. Some lawmakers from the DPK have urged the government not to rush the agreement before the election and instead leave the decision to the next administration. In your view, what would be better for the Korean economy: signing the deal as soon as possible or deferring it to the next government?
Lee: From the perspective of Korean businesses, there is no doubt that the sooner the deal is signed, the better. Uncertainty is harmful to business operations, and Korean companies are eager to eliminate any factors that may increase unpredictability. In this regard, an early agreement would benefit our economy by stabilizing the trade environment.
However, because this is a bilateral deal with the United States, we must also consider what the U.S. wants. Korea should carefully assess U.S. requests and work toward a mutually beneficial agreement.
In addition, Korea could consider aligning with Japan, which is also in negotiations with the U.S. on similar trade issues. Coordinating with Japan might help both countries find the right timing and strategic leverage for reaching favorable terms.
There’s one more point I’d like to emphasize regarding the ongoing negotiations. Currently, South Korea is facing a 25 percent reciprocal tariff from the U.S. This figure was calculated using a formula that divides the U.S. trade deficit with Korea by total imports from Korea, and then divides that figure by two. However, this formula fails to account for Korean investments in the U.S.
I strongly recommend that Korean investments be included in the calculation. South Korea is currently the largest investor in the United States — its total investments surpass even those of all European countries combined. Considering this, recalculating the tariff rate to reflect Korea’s substantial contributions to the U.S. economy would be both fair and reasonable.
Jung Kwang-ho, president of the Korea Association for Public Administration / Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul
Q: We are living in an era where artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced science and technology are key drivers of national competitiveness. Yet science and technology appear to be underrepresented in the current government structure. What is your view on this, and how can Korea position itself as a global leader in AI and digital innovation?
Jung: Korea is falling behind in the global competition for talent. Countries around the world are fiercely competing to recruit top scientists and AI experts, and Korea is currently facing a serious brain drain. Many of our brightest minds are leaving for the U.S. or even China, where opportunities and compensation are often more attractive.
To reverse this trend and attract globally competitive talent, Korea needs a government-led, coordinated strategy backed by significant funding. We should be prepared to offer top AI researchers annual compensation of at least 1 billion won (approximately $725,000), along with a world-class research environment supported by an additional 10 billion won per person. The key question, of course, is: Where will this funding come from?
There is a potential solution. Korea already has a special fund aimed at boosting education and development in provincial areas. This fund is financed by domestic taxes, with 20.79 percent of total tax revenue earmarked for it. In 2022 alone, the fund collected 65 trillion won. Much of this money is currently spent on projects of relatively limited impact. If just a portion were redirected toward AI and science and technology initiatives, we could make significant progress.
Strategic investment is crucial. Policymakers must prioritize high-impact areas where Korea can become globally competitive. With the right focus, a major shift is possible.
In addition, a restructuring of government ministries is necessary. For example, the Ministry of Economy and Finance could be reformed to include a dedicated division focused on fostering innovation ecosystems within state-run enterprises and managing public investments in future industries.
Establishing a presidential committee specifically tasked with advancing AI and science and technology would also be a strong step toward ensuring national-level coordination and long-term vision in this critical field.