Controversy escalating over fairness, vagueness
This is the first in a three-part series on the controversy over an anti-graft bill scheduled to take effect on Sept 28. ― ED.
By Kim Bo-eun
Just two months before the implementation of the so-called Kim Young-ran Act, disputes are increasing over the controversial anti-graft law and calls are mounting for it to be amended.
The act, which was passed by the National Assembly in March last year, will go into effect on Sept 28. Named after former Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) chief Kim who first proposed it, the act is aimed at stemming corruption in the public sector.
However, many experts and some lawmakers are calling for amendments, raising questions about its fairness and ambiguous clauses that could be interpreted arbitrarily.
Unlike the initial plan, the act later included teachers working for private schools and journalists. Fueling the controversy is the fact that lawmakers, who passed the act and were supposed to be its targets, partly excluded themselves.
The inclusion of private school teachers and journalists has expanded those subject to it to 2.4 million. Including their spouses, the number is estimated to reach 4 million.
That has also caused controversy over equality: for example, doctors at Severance Hospital would be subject to the regulation because they belong to the Yonsei school foundation, while those at Samsung Medical Center would not because the center is run by Samsung's public utility foundation.
A group of lawmakers from the ruling Saenuri Party submitted revisions earlier this month to exclude teachers and journalists.
"If the work of private school employees and journalists is considered to be for the public, then lawyers, doctors and civic groups must also be included," said Rep. Kang Hyo-sang.
Another troubling aspect is the vagueness of the act.
It bans those subject to the regulation from being treated to a meal that costs more than 30,000 won ($26), from receiving gifts priced over 50,000 won, and receiving congratulatory and condolence money over 100,000 won for weddings and funerals.
Due to the absence of further details, critics say there would be possible scenarios which can be interpreted arbitrarily.
For example, it is not clear whether a gift worth 70,000 won bought at a discounted rate of 49,000 would be acceptable.
Also at a dinner between a company official and a public worker, if the former has a 10,000 won entre and the latter has one that costs 48,000 won, the civil servant is treated to a meal costing more 30,000 won. But if the law calculates the amount by dividing the total amount by the number of participants, the per capita food cost is 29,000 won and the public servant is safe.
The law also prohibits receiving a single gift of 1 million won and a total of 3 million won in a year, whether the gifts are provided with particular intentions related to the receiver's work or not.
However, there is no clear definition of what "work-related" means.
Right after the act was passed, the Korean Bar Association (KBA) filed a constitutional appeal, outlining the troubling causes.
The Constitutional Court is yet to make a ruling as to whether the inclusion of private school teachers and journalists in the act is unconstitutional.
The act was first proposed after a case in 2011, in which a prosecutor was indicted for receiving a Mercedes Benz but ended up being acquitted because the court was unable to find that the gift was provided in exchange for work-related favors.
It was submitted in August 2013, but lawmakers began to pass it only after the Sewol ferry disaster in April 2014, as corruption among public officials was raised as one of the factors behind the incident. Also, the passage came within a year.
"The act was hastily passed without sufficient preparation by lawmakers who were eager to show they had done something," said Kang Sin-eop, public information director of the KBA.
"We believe an anti-graft bill is necessary, but this act needs much revision. Realistically, however, it will be difficult for the revisions to be made before it goes into effect," he said.
Meanwhile, others point out the limits of attempting to deter corruption through regulations.
The anti-graft law is not the first of its kind. Similar regulations existed prior to the law, including the public servants' code of conduct, the abolition of "secretive funds" at companies and a system requiring companies to record the names of people who are treated to meals or entertainment worth over 500,000 won.
However, all of these measures failed, as those subject to the regulations resorted to expedients, such as using false names and splitting bills.
"Punishment can serve as a short-term measure, but for a long-term effect, education and promotion through campaigns must be emphasized," said Kim Young-chul, president of the Korean Association for Anti-Corruption Policy Studies.
This is the first in a three-part series on the controversy over an anti-graft bill scheduled to take effect on Sept 28. ― ED.
By Kim Bo-eun
Just two months before the implementation of the so-called Kim Young-ran Act, disputes are increasing over the controversial anti-graft law and calls are mounting for it to be amended.
The act, which was passed by the National Assembly in March last year, will go into effect on Sept 28. Named after former Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) chief Kim who first proposed it, the act is aimed at stemming corruption in the public sector.
However, many experts and some lawmakers are calling for amendments, raising questions about its fairness and ambiguous clauses that could be interpreted arbitrarily.
Unlike the initial plan, the act later included teachers working for private schools and journalists. Fueling the controversy is the fact that lawmakers, who passed the act and were supposed to be its targets, partly excluded themselves.
The inclusion of private school teachers and journalists has expanded those subject to it to 2.4 million. Including their spouses, the number is estimated to reach 4 million.
That has also caused controversy over equality: for example, doctors at Severance Hospital would be subject to the regulation because they belong to the Yonsei school foundation, while those at Samsung Medical Center would not because the center is run by Samsung's public utility foundation.
A group of lawmakers from the ruling Saenuri Party submitted revisions earlier this month to exclude teachers and journalists.
"If the work of private school employees and journalists is considered to be for the public, then lawyers, doctors and civic groups must also be included," said Rep. Kang Hyo-sang.
Another troubling aspect is the vagueness of the act.
It bans those subject to the regulation from being treated to a meal that costs more than 30,000 won ($26), from receiving gifts priced over 50,000 won, and receiving congratulatory and condolence money over 100,000 won for weddings and funerals.
Due to the absence of further details, critics say there would be possible scenarios which can be interpreted arbitrarily.
For example, it is not clear whether a gift worth 70,000 won bought at a discounted rate of 49,000 would be acceptable.
Also at a dinner between a company official and a public worker, if the former has a 10,000 won entre and the latter has one that costs 48,000 won, the civil servant is treated to a meal costing more 30,000 won. But if the law calculates the amount by dividing the total amount by the number of participants, the per capita food cost is 29,000 won and the public servant is safe.
The law also prohibits receiving a single gift of 1 million won and a total of 3 million won in a year, whether the gifts are provided with particular intentions related to the receiver's work or not.
However, there is no clear definition of what "work-related" means.
Right after the act was passed, the Korean Bar Association (KBA) filed a constitutional appeal, outlining the troubling causes.
The Constitutional Court is yet to make a ruling as to whether the inclusion of private school teachers and journalists in the act is unconstitutional.
The act was first proposed after a case in 2011, in which a prosecutor was indicted for receiving a Mercedes Benz but ended up being acquitted because the court was unable to find that the gift was provided in exchange for work-related favors.
It was submitted in August 2013, but lawmakers began to pass it only after the Sewol ferry disaster in April 2014, as corruption among public officials was raised as one of the factors behind the incident. Also, the passage came within a year.
"The act was hastily passed without sufficient preparation by lawmakers who were eager to show they had done something," said Kang Sin-eop, public information director of the KBA.
"We believe an anti-graft bill is necessary, but this act needs much revision. Realistically, however, it will be difficult for the revisions to be made before it goes into effect," he said.
Meanwhile, others point out the limits of attempting to deter corruption through regulations.
The anti-graft law is not the first of its kind. Similar regulations existed prior to the law, including the public servants' code of conduct, the abolition of "secretive funds" at companies and a system requiring companies to record the names of people who are treated to meals or entertainment worth over 500,000 won.
However, all of these measures failed, as those subject to the regulations resorted to expedients, such as using false names and splitting bills.
"Punishment can serve as a short-term measure, but for a long-term effect, education and promotion through campaigns must be emphasized," said Kim Young-chul, president of the Korean Association for Anti-Corruption Policy Studies.
