The controversy over plots of land President Lee Myung-bak purchased in the name of his son is not dying down even though he has started the process of registering it under his name. The fault is Lee’s own.

Lee bought the land in the outskirts of Seoul in May this year to build a new home in which to live when his five-year term in office expires in February 2013. The presidential office says he did so in the name of his son because of security concerns that would have to be addressed during construction.

In an apparent attempt to remove legal complications, his son bought the land with the money he borrowed from a bank and individuals whose identities were not made public. It is a criminal offense to purchase property under a borrowed name.

The presidential office says that Lee has started the process of buying the land from his son, registering it under his own name and paying all taxes resulting from the transaction. It adds he did so because his son’s purchase had become public.

The office claims that this process breached no regulations regarding land ownership. The explanation may be technically correct. Yet suspicions remain, and the main opposition Democratic Party appears to have no intention of relenting its offensive against the president.

First among the suspicions is about the alleged violation of the law on landownership. The opposition party claims Lee breached the law when he bought the land for his own use in the name of his son. But the Lee administration denies it.

In his testimony at the National Assembly on Tuesday, Prime Minister Kim Hwang-sik said no regulations were breached because Lee’s son purchased the land and registered it under his name and that its ownership was intended to be legitimately transferred to Lee.

Nor did the president violate the law on gift tax, the prime minister said, because his son paid for the land with the money he borrowed, not with any money from the president. But there was no explanation why he offered his parents’ private home as collateral when he borrowed 600 million won from a bank.

More damaging is an allegation that the Presidential Security Service, which bought an adjacent plot of land for security purposes, illegally subsidized the purchase of the residential land. The opposition party claims all plots of land were purchased together and that the land for the residential compound was later put at a low price and that for the security compound at a high price.

Denying the allegation, however, the presidential office says the land to be used for presidential security, which surrounds the residential site, is priced higher because it is adjacent to a road. Yet the question that remains unanswered is why the land for security was purchased for a sum four times the price set by a government agency for taxation purposes, when the purchase price of the residential land was just 20 percent higher than the agency price.

It is not just President Lee but the ruling Grand National Party that is under attack. The opposition party, recalling that the ruling party had accused former President Roh Moo-hyun of having built an extravagant home, asked why it was reticent about Lee’s new home, which would be more much expensive and spacious.

In October 2008, Rep. Hong Joon-pyo of the Grand National Party criticized former President Roh for residing in an “Efang Palace,” ― one similar to the sumptuous palace constructed on the orders from the first emperor of the Qin dynasty of China. Other lawmakers of the party made similar comments.

Apparently reminded of his “Efang Palace” remark, Rep. Hong, now chairman of the ruling party, reportedly called on the presidential office to scale down the security compound. The presidential office later said that it was considering selling part of the land or use it for the purposes of other than presidential security.

The tit for tat over “Efang Palace” is certainly beside the point. Nor is the dispute over the legal technicality concerning Lee’s land purchase relevant. What is at stake is the president’s claim to the moral high ground.