Second presidential debate heats up: Candidates clash on social issues

Welcome to Within The Frame, where we bring the most pressing issues across the globe into focus. I'm Kim Mok-yeon.

As the presidential race enters its final stretch, candidates are sharpening their focus on key social policies—issues that strike directly at the everyday lives of voters.

The second televised debate on Friday was the last opportunity for candidates to sway public opinion before the pre-election polling blackout.

The debate saw sharpened attacks and competing visions on how to address South Korea's most pressing social challenges—from deepening societal divides and pension sustainability to healthcare reform and administrative capital relocation.

To help us unpack the key moments and implications, we connect to Choi Hyunsun, Professor of Public Administration at Myongji University. Welcome.

Also joining us is Kim Jo-eun, Assistant Professor at the KDI School of Public Policy and Management. Great to see you.

1. (Choi) Let's begin with the tone of the debate itself. On Friday, four presidential candidates held their second TV debate.

Compared to the first debate, the negative attacks seemed to intensify. How did you perceive the shift in tone?

Since this was the final debate before the ban on polling results, do you think it could influence undecided voters?

2. (Kim) Now to the root causes of division. During the second debate focusing on social issues, progressive candidates cited polarization and low growth as the main causes of societal division, while conservative candidates pointed to corruption, dishonesty, and hate-based framing.

In your view, what is the primary cause of division in Korean society?

3. (Choi) Each candidate proposed a different solution for national unity. What were the key differences in their approaches? Do you believe any of the proposed plans could effectively reduce the current societal polarization?

4. (Kim) Moving to pension reform. Lee Jae-myung and Kwon Young-guk emphasized strengthening old-age security, while Kim Moon-soo and Lee Jun-seok focused on easing the burden on younger generations. How do you assess these approaches? What would a realistic pension reform look like?

5. (Choi) Healthcare was another major focus. All candidates emphasized differentiating their healthcare policies from those of the Yoon Suk Yeol administration, including reconsidering the expansion of medical school admissions.

Lee Jae-myung and Kwon Young-guk focused on strengthening public healthcare, while Kim Moon-soo and Lee Jun-seok emphasized enhancing medical professionalism.

From a social integration perspective, do you find these approaches appropriate to restore the healthcare system? and what factors should be considered in healthcare reform?

6. (Choi) And on long-term care costs, both Lee Jae-myung and Kim Moon-soo pledged to include caregiver costs in long-term care hospital coverage.

But estimates suggest it would require an additional 15 trillion Korean won annually from the National Health Insurance Fund. With projected deficits as early as next year, how feasible is this promise?

7. (Kim) Interestingly, one major social pledge where all candidates showed rare unity is the relocation of the administrative capital to Sejong City. Although this pledge resurfaces in every election, what are the practical hurdles to making it a reality?

8. (김) Still, criticism lingers over the pledges. While candidates have rolled out a range of social pledges, including those related to healthcare and elder care, critics argue many are aimed more at attracting votes than at offering viable solutions. In your view, what should be the top priority among these social policy pledges?

9. (Choi) Lastly, a major variable in the race.

Whether Kim Moon-soo and Lee Jun-seok merge candidacies remains uncertain. Despite Lee's resistance, the People Power Party continues its push. Based on past examples like Yoon and Ahn in 2022, what impact could this have on the election?