A country arguing about equal obligations
South Korea is confronting an increasingly difficult question: what does fairness mean in a society where national duty is shared by law, but not always experienced equally?
The Defence Ministry has signalled that the country may eventually reduce or abolish its supplementary military-service system for athletes and artists. Under the arrangement introduced in 1973, Olympic or Asian Games gold medallists complete three weeks of basic training instead of the ordinary 18–21 months of military service. Eligible individuals then fulfil alternative obligations connected to their professional fields.[1]
The system was created to reward achievements that enhance national prestige. That justification once appeared straightforward. Today, it is under pressure from demographic decline, public scrutiny and the changing meaning of national representation. When military-age populations shrink, every exemption becomes more politically visible. When ordinary citizens serve for nearly two years, a special route for celebrated figures can look less like cultural policy and more like inherited privilege.
The backlash intensified after the Asian Games, when athletes’ public comments about avoiding military duty provoked anger. The issue is not whether sporting achievement matters. It plainly does. The issue is whether achievement should purchase a substantially different civic obligation.
Any reform must be transparent, gradual and consistent. South Korea should not replace one arbitrary system with another, nor should it punish athletes and artists for succeeding within rules established by the state. But a democratic society is entitled to reconsider rules that no longer command public trust.
Politics must not become a permanent investigation
That same question of fairness now shadows the National Assembly. The opposition People Power Party has urged President Lee Jae Myung to veto legislation creating a special counsel to investigate alleged fabricated indictments and politically motivated prosecutions under former President Yoon Suk Yeol. The bill covers 12 investigative areas, including matters involving Lee himself, and has triggered concerns about whether it could affect his suspended criminal trials.[2]
The allegations are serious enough to warrant scrutiny. A state that abuses prosecution, fabricates evidence or weaponises criminal charges cannot expect citizens to accept its institutions as legitimate. Yet a special counsel whose remit reaches the sitting president inevitably raises questions about neutrality and conflict of interest. The law’s passage has already generated debate over its constitutionality and political purpose.[2]
South Korea has experienced too many cycles in which justice is presented as accountability when the target is an opponent and as persecution when the investigation turns inward. The country needs independent examination of alleged wrongdoing, not a mechanism that appears designed to settle scores.
President Lee and the governing majority should therefore welcome the highest standard of procedural safeguards. Investigators must be appointed through a credible process, their mandate must be precise, and the law must not be used to influence ongoing trials. Accountability loses its moral force when it looks selective.
Constitutional reform requires public trust
The constitutional-reform debate adds another layer of uncertainty. National Assembly Speaker Cho Jeong-sik has reaffirmed his intention to pursue revision while rejecting claims that the project is intended to allow President Lee to seek a second term.[3]
That denial should not end the discussion. Constitutional change is too consequential to be advanced through assurances alone. Any proposal must be published in full, debated openly and judged against the long-term interests of the republic rather than the immediate fortunes of its officeholders.
South Korea’s constitution should be capable of adapting to demographic change, political polarisation and new demands for institutional accountability. But reform cannot become a vehicle for extending power. The burden of proof lies with those seeking change: they must demonstrate that the proposed amendments strengthen democracy rather than merely rearrange its advantages.
The citizens left behind
Outside the presidential office, South Korean adoptees have demanded unrestricted access to adoption records and stronger efforts to locate biological relatives. Their protest followed criticism that authorities had made insufficient progress after President Lee’s apology.[4]
This is not a marginal administrative dispute. Adoption records can determine identity, medical history and the possibility of family reunion. For decades, many adoptees were treated as subjects of a national success story rather than as people with rights to their own histories.
An apology matters only when it is followed by access, disclosure and institutional change. The government should establish clear procedures for releasing records, protect privacy without using it as a blanket excuse for secrecy, and fund serious efforts to trace relatives. A modern democracy must recognise that vulnerable citizens are not evidence of past progress; they are citizens entitled to the truth.
Prosperity should deepen responsibility
South Korea has also reached a symbolic milestone: more than 20 million foreign tourists have visited the country so far this year, the first time that threshold has been surpassed.[5] The figure reflects the extraordinary global appeal of Korean culture, food, entertainment and urban life.
But tourism success should not obscure domestic tensions. International admiration cannot compensate for unequal burdens, politicised justice or inaccessible records. Nor should national prestige be measured only by medals, cultural exports or visitor numbers.
South Korea’s next achievement must be institutional: a country where public recognition does not excuse civic duty, investigations do not serve partisan revenge, constitutional reform does not conceal personal ambition, and historical wounds are met with openness.
That is the standard its global success now makes unavoidable.