Why South Korea’s New 'Six Agricultural Laws' Are Stirring Debate: Song Mi-ryeong’s Policy Reversal and the Future of Korean Farming

Song Mi-ryeong’s Surprising Policy Reversal: From Opponent to Key Negotiator

Did you know that Song Mi-ryeong, South Korea’s Minister of Agriculture, was once a vocal critic of the very laws she’s now championing? Under the previous Yoon Suk Yeol administration, Song publicly denounced the Democratic Party’s agricultural bills, calling them 'laws that ruin farming' and even recommending a presidential veto on the Grain Management Act. Her reappointment by President Lee Jae-myung was seen as a pragmatic move, but it sparked outrage among progressive parties and farmers’ organizations, who called her continued presence a 'betrayal of farmers.' Now, Song has apologized for her earlier comments and pledged to work toward a more balanced, sustainable agricultural policy. This dramatic shift is at the heart of Korea’s ongoing debate over the future of its rural economy.

What Are the 'Six Agricultural Laws' and Why Now?

The so-called 'Six Agricultural Laws' combine four previously contentious bills with two new additions: the Grain Management Act, the Agricultural and Marine Products Distribution and Price Stability Act, the Agricultural and Fishery Disaster Countermeasures Act, the Agricultural and Fishery Accident Insurance Act, the Hanwoo (Korean beef) Act, and the Essential Agricultural Materials Act. The core focus is stabilizing rice prices and protecting farmers from natural disasters and market volatility. The government wants to pass the disaster-related bills by July, ahead of the summer typhoon season, and the remaining bills before the rice harvest in August or September. This legislative push is being framed as a response to recent floods and the political urgency of the upcoming presidential election, where rural votes are crucial.

Rice Overproduction and the 'Automatic Purchase' Controversy

One of the most heated debates centers on the Grain Management Act’s 'automatic purchase' clause. This would require the government to buy surplus rice if production exceeds certain thresholds or if prices drop sharply. Supporters argue this protects farmers’ incomes and ensures food security. Critics, including many economists, warn that it encourages overproduction and places an unsustainable burden on public finances—costing the government around 1 trillion won (about $735 million) annually. Song Mi-ryeong’s revised stance proposes a compromise: government purchases would be conditional on prior reductions in rice cultivation, incentivizing farmers to switch crops or reduce planting. This approach aims to prevent both overproduction and price crashes before they happen.

Inside the Political Drama: Why Song’s U-turn Matters

Song Mi-ryeong’s policy reversal is more than a technocratic adjustment; it’s a high-stakes political gamble. During the Yoon administration, Song’s opposition to the Grain Management Act aligned her with conservative, market-oriented interests. Now, under Lee Jae-myung, she’s embracing a more interventionist approach, in line with the Democratic Party’s rural base. Her willingness to compromise—by tying government support to proactive crop management—has been praised as pragmatic by some, but others accuse her of political opportunism. The outcome will shape not only the future of Korean agriculture but also the credibility of the Lee administration’s promise to balance populism with fiscal responsibility.

Community Reactions: Farmers, Experts, and Online Fandoms Speak Out

Korean online communities are buzzing with debate. On DC Inside and FM Korea, some users express skepticism, fearing that the new laws will only benefit large-scale producers or lead to higher taxes. On Instiz and Naver, others voice cautious optimism, hoping the reforms will finally address chronic instability in rural incomes. A recurring sentiment is that Song’s apology and her willingness to engage with critics could mark a turning point—if the government follows through on its promises. Meanwhile, blog posts on Naver and Tistory dissect the technicalities of the laws, with some praising the focus on disaster relief and others warning that real change will require more than legislative tweaks.

Cultural Context: Why Rice Policy Is So Emotional in Korea

For international readers, it’s important to understand that rice is more than just a crop in Korea—it’s a symbol of national identity and security. The memory of past famines and the trauma of the Korean War have made food self-sufficiency a deeply emotional issue. Government intervention in rice markets has long been seen as a social contract between the state and rural communities. This is why debates over the Grain Management Act and related laws are so intense, involving not just economic calculations but also questions of justice, tradition, and national pride.

What’s Next? The Road Ahead for Korean Agriculture

As of June 2025, the fate of the Six Agricultural Laws remains uncertain. The government plans to finalize the disaster-related bills by July and push the remaining reforms before the autumn harvest. Whether Song Mi-ryeong can deliver a workable compromise that satisfies both farmers and fiscal conservatives is an open question. If she fails, calls for her resignation may intensify, and the Lee administration could face a backlash from both rural voters and urban taxpayers. For now, all eyes are on the National Assembly—and on Song, whose political future is tied to the outcome of this high-profile legislative battle.