[Editorial] Damage control

A presidential press conference is supposed to demonstrate command. President Lee Jae Myung’s 100-minute session on Friday instead exposed how difficult command has become.

With his approval rating at 37 percent and disapproval at 56 percent, the event addressed concerns over the Strait of Hormuz, housing, personnel choices and political controversy. Yet it offered more explanation than evidence of a change in direction.

Lee did provide one clarification. He said unequivocally that he would not seek another term through constitutional revision, removing a question from the broader debate over constitutional reform.

Under the current constitutional framework, such reelection would not apply to the incumbent anyway. With that settled, constitutional reform can proceed without speculation over his future.

The same clarity was missing over his own indictments. Lee asked lawmakers to remove provisions that could allow a special counsel to cancel existing indictments. Yet he still supported an investigation into allegations that the charges were fabricated.

That leaves an awkward possibility: If the special counsel concludes that the indictments were improperly brought, its findings could later become grounds for action against those cases.

The concern is whether an investigation involving the president’s own cases can produce an outcome that ultimately benefits him. A cleaner separation would require making that possibility off-limits.

The Strait of Hormuz presented a different challenge. Lee ruled out military involvement that could draw South Korea into war while saying Seoul was considering ways to strengthen the Cheonghae Unit’s activities to protect shipping, Koreans and oil routes.

On Saturday, the presidential office said this did not amount to rejecting Washington’s request for Middle East cooperation. Washington expects a contribution, but Seoul wants to avoid combat. The government needs to define the limits of its role before gradual adjustments become policy by default.

Personnel management offers a test. Lee said Friday that he would decide on Justice Minister nominee Kim Seung-won after considering public sentiment. Kim withdrew the next day amid allegations that he had lobbied regulators over a COVID-19 treatment in 2021, which he denied.

His departure followed Yong Hye-in’s withdrawal as the gender equality and family minister nominee. Two withdrawals within a week make Lee’s promise to review vetting consequential only if future appointments show improved standards.

Housing presents a similar problem of accountability. Lee attributed the supply shortage partly to sharp declines in permits and construction starts under the previous administration and Seoul’s previous leadership.

But people facing volatile prices, higher taxes and tighter lending rules are unlikely to draw comfort from an argument over who inherited the shortage.

The controversy over single-stock leveraged exchange-traded funds raises a related question. Lee said he did not know the detailed process behind their introduction. Yet the Cabinet approved the amendment on April 21, when then-Prime Minister Kim Min-seok presided, and it took effect a week later.

Government materials identified it as a presidential reporting task aimed at strengthening the ETF market. When a measure presented as a presidential task later becomes controversial, responsibility for the decision cannot simply disappear into the bureaucracy.

The latest Gallup Korea survey shows why these issues matter. Real estate was cited by 20 percent of negative respondents as the reason for their assessment of Lee, followed by personnel appointments at 16 percent and economic and livelihood issues at 9 percent.

Lee said the public is always right and attributed the administration’s difficulties to his own shortcomings. Yet trust is restored through how government makes decisions, assigns responsibility and responds when those decisions go wrong.

The real test will come without cameras. If the administration changes how it selects officials, owns decisions and handles contested policies, Friday’s press conference may gain meaning in retrospect. Otherwise, it will stand as an acknowledgment of public dissatisfaction without the institutional change it demands.