[Q&A] Song Miryeong: "Any anxiety over farmland inspections is my fault... Farmers are not subject to disposition"

Announces supplementary measures on farmland inspections at Government Complex Sejong
"Farmland inspections will not harm farmers who are actually engaged in farming"
"No disposition procedures will be initiated if there is no speculation"

Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Song Miryeong apologized on October 8 for the controversy surrounding the recent farmland inspections, saying, "If even one person in the field feels anxious, that is our fault." She stressed, "For ordinary cases that do not involve speculation, we will not initiate disposition procedures under the Farmland Act based on the results of this farmland inspection."

On October 8, Minister Song announced supplementary measures to follow up on the farmland inspections at the Government Complex Sejong, saying, "We did not provide a sufficient explanation of the inspections, and this has caused unnecessary anxiety in the field."

Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Minister Song Miryeong speaks about follow-up measures to the farmland survey and the direction of institutional reform at the Government Complex Sejong on the 8th. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

On September 21, the government and ruling party announced follow-up measures, including a "voluntary compliance period." However, as controversy over the farmland inspections continued, they have now unveiled additional measures clarifying that ordinary violations of the Farmland Act that do not involve speculation will not be subject to disposition based on the results of this inspection.

Minister Song identified three types of speculation that would be subject to disposition: ▲acquiring farmland in a land transaction permit zone after submitting a farming plan, then leaving it uncultivated or leasing it (excluding inheritance); ▲acquiring farmland shares through an auction or other means after submitting a false farming plan with the intention of reselling them, then leaving the land uncultivated or leasing it; and ▲setting up an agricultural corporation to acquire farmland, then subdividing and selling or leasing it to generate real estate income.

Below are key excerpts from a question-and-answer session between Minister Song and the press corps.

▲How do the follow-up measures announced on September 21 differ from the supplementary measures announced this time?

=Last time, we used the phrase "deferral of disposition." This could have led people to misunderstand that disposition would be deferred for a set period under a special act and then resumed. We are clarifying that point: there will be no disposition based on the results of this inspection. Since the Farmland Act has not yet been amended, we intend to stipulate in a special act that no disposition will be made during the interim period. Our Farmland Act is framed in a way that does not reflect reality, and this can itself lead to violations. I hope you will understand that we plan to amend the Farmland Act to address this issue. Let me emphasize once again: there will be no disposition for minor violations.

▲Some have criticized the farmland inspections as having been rushed.

=As I emphasized at yesterday's parliamentary audit, when we presented the public with our work plan for this year in December 2025, I said that "farmland reform" to improve the farmland system would be one of our important reform tasks this year. There have been calls to change outdated regulations that do not reflect realities surrounding farmland, arguing that the system has failed to keep pace with them. At the same time, there are opposing views that the farmland system should be further strengthened to secure food supplies. I previously said we would discuss this issue thoroughly and set a course for institutional reform.

This year, the President raised concerns about farmland issues. That prompted an unprecedented opportunity to conduct farmland inspections. We therefore moved forward with this work at a very fast pace. I do not think the speed itself is the problem. The task now is to ensure that the work is substantive.

▲One of the three types of speculation cited was acquiring farmland in a land transaction permit zone after submitting a farming plan, but then leaving it uncultivated without authorization or leasing it (excluding inheritance). How large is the scale of this practice?

=The first round of inspections covers 1.36 million hectares of farmland acquired since the Farmland Act took effect in 1996. Of that, 150,000 hectares are in land transaction permit zones. Not all of this farmland was acquired through speculation involving false claims. We will not know how much is subject to disposition—that is, how many cases involve speculation—until the inspections are complete.

Song Miryeong, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, explains follow-up measures after the farmland survey and the direction of institutional reform at the Government Complex Sejong on the 8th. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

▲Minor violations will not result in disposition orders. Can this encourage the regularization of customary leases and unauthorized facilities?

=We will not issue disposition orders. However, people will remain anxious if they continue to be in violation of the law. So, for those who wish to do so, we will provide a period during which they can bring their circumstances into compliance themselves. I believe farmers will welcome this measure.

▲Some people who were not speculating have already received disposition orders for violating the Farmland Act and restored their land to its original condition. If no disposition orders are issued going forward, that raises concerns about fairness.

=I understand the concern that this could be unfair to those who have diligently complied with the law and to those who have already been ordered to dispose of their farmland. We have not yet decided whether to apply special provisions under the special act to be enacted in the future to those who have received disposition orders. We would like to discuss this further during deliberations in the National Assembly.

▲The Farmland Bank does not have enough budget to purchase farmland.

=The Farmland Bank budget includes funding for farmland pensions and for tailored farmland support programs. We have already submitted a government budget proposal for next year that increases the budget by more than 25% compared with this year's. We have also submitted a proposal for the farmland pension budget at its highest level to date. Although it is difficult to make an exact forecast, we have calculated an estimated range, and we will work with the National Assembly to secure sufficient funding.

▲The standards for determining whether a case involves speculation may differ among the bodies that actually make those determinations.

=In the past, local governments reached different decisions when issuing disposition orders based on farmland-use inspections. We will use this opportunity to standardize information nationwide under a single set of criteria and handle cases in accordance with consistent guidelines.

▲Some argue that the constitutional principle of "land to the tiller" does not reflect reality. Are you considering discussing this issue as well?

=Taken literally, "land to the tiller" means that those who farm should own the farmland. The principle reflects the idea that farmland should not be an object of speculation, but should be used as farmland to ensure food security. That is the principle. Nevertheless, exceptions are allowed, and the Farmland Act sets out those exceptions. So I believe the principle can be fully implemented without going as far as discussing a constitutional amendment. However, the Farmland Act was enacted 30 years ago. Under the current framework, many practices, including leasing, are considered violations of the law. We intend to use these inspections to bring the system into line with current realities.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.