[One Sip of a Book] Former Daily Newspaper Editor-in-Chief's Farming Record 'Farmland Is Not Real Estate'

Some sentences encapsulate the entire content of the book itself, while others instantly reach the reader’s heart, creating a connection with the book. We excerpt and introduce such meaningful sentences from the book. - Editor’s note

The author, who once served as the editor-in-chief of a major comprehensive daily newspaper, one day put down the pen and began to set foot on farmland to engage in farming. He also experienced being the head of a public institution. Over more than ten years, the author put into the book the thoughts he had while directly working on the land and the concerns he felt while serving as the head of an institution. From rice price direct payments to farmland rental fees, basic income for farmers, public interest-type direct payment systems, farmer support budgets, and national food plans, the author raises issues based on what he directly saw and experienced on site as a journalist, a returning farmer, and a public institution head.

What caught the author’s attention while observing the Daejang-dong incident was the farmland disappearing every year under various development pretexts. The Daejang-dong residential site is only 278,440 pyeong. In 2020 alone, 52.8 million pyeong of farmland disappeared. Among them, 7.24776 million pyeong was converted into residential land. That is 26 times the size of Daejang-dong. Nationwide, developments labeled as private-led, public, or public-private joint developments have taken place, but who really enjoyed all those development profits?

In private-led development projects, the developer raises initial capital and, based on that, obtains development loans from financial institutions. The developer takes on the initial risk but is guaranteed enormous development profits. Therefore, when large-scale farmland must inevitably be converted into residential land, public development should be pursued. Among these, a certain portion of the land should be owned by the state, and only the housing should be sold at affordable prices. Alternatively, the state should find ways to use development profits to purchase farmland in other areas and use it as public rental farmland. The Farmland Act must be revised so that fake farmers cannot take root.

The profits generated from large-scale conversion of farmland, which is the lifeline of the people, must not be monopolized by a few developers, investors, or fake farmers.

- From 1-1. Large-scale Farmland Conversion Must Be Public Development

A 300 million KRW loan is far from sufficient. Increase it to 500 million KRW. Lower the loan interest rate from 2% per annum to 1%. Relax the repayment terms from 5 years grace period and 10 years installment repayment to 5 years grace period and 15 years installment repayment. The 2018 and 2019 recipients have 3 years grace and 7 years installment repayment, which is practically difficult to repay. At least relax it based on the criteria for recipients after 2020. When visiting NongHyup’s city/county branches or local agricultural cooperatives, they are not well informed about the youth successor farmer support system. Assign specialized personnel. Allow part of the loan to be used not only for farming operating funds but also for living expenses. The loan can be used for sales and processing purposes of products produced by the borrower, but also allow its use for the sixth industry, such as installing sales experience centers as part of business expansion. Without collateral, loans cannot be obtained. If selected as a youth successor farmer, provide loans without collateral up to the guarantee ratio of the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Fund.

- From 2-1. A 300 Million KRW Credit Loan Is a Dream Story

In the first year of the project in 2018, an opposition party lawmaker who was a former farmer and even served as Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs raised his voice saying that the funds given for farming expenses were mostly spent at marts, convenience stores, and restaurants. A certain newspaper criticized a youth successor farmer for excessive spending at coffee shops. Upon investigation, it turned out that a young farmer drank a 2,000 KRW Americano every day at a coffee shop in town after work. This young farmer relieved daily fatigue with a cup of coffee. Is this really something to be criticized so harshly? Are farmers allowed to drink Makgeolli but not Americano?

- From 2-2. Makgeolli Is Allowed, But Americano Is Not?

Farmland Is Not Real Estate | Written by Shin Myeong-sik | Saebit | 14,500 KRW

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