Most Popular
-
1
Opposition-led Assembly unilaterally passes bill to probe Marine's death
-
2
Inflation eases in April, continues bumpy ride
-
3
Golden chance to liquidate babies’ gold rings?
-
4
Seoul to more than double military drones by 2026 to counter NK threats
-
5
Russia sent more than 165,000 barrels of refined petroleum to N. Korea in March: White House
-
6
Seoul alerts overseas missions to NK terror threats
-
7
Over 60% of S. Koreans support W100m childbirth incentive: survey
-
8
Key suspects grilled over alleged abuse of power in Marine death inquiry
-
9
‘Inside Out 2’ adds four new emotions, explores teenage life
-
10
Questions raised over fair promotion of RM, NewJeans
[Editorial] Proof of defects
New controversy sheds light on problems of graft act
By 이윤주Published : Aug. 16, 2015 - 18:19
The Improper Solicitation and Graft Act had already been a target of public criticism when it passed the National Assembly last March. Some of the criticisms were so well grounded -- to the degree that the Korea Bar Association has petitioned the Constitutional Court to review its constitutionality.
Without some defects, the act, commonly called Kim Young-ran Act after its original author, should be hailed as the toughest law ever regarding punishment of public officials accepting bribes.
The act calls for, among other things, criminal punishment of public officials who receive 1 million won worth of cash, gifts or entertainment on a single occasion and 3 million won per year from the same person. The penalty is regardless of the relationship between such an offer and officials’ duties or reciprocal favors.
But the act faced strong criticism for its shortfalls. Even Kim Young-ran, who proposed the bill in 2011 when she headed the national corruption and civil rights watchdog, termed the act a “half-made one.”
She mentioned, among other things, the omission of lawmakers and other elected officials from its clauses on improper solicitation, and limitation of the scope of family members punishable for bribery to only spouses. The inclusion of journalists and teachers at private schools is another target of public criticism.
A fresh controversy has arisen recently, as some ruling and opposition lawmakers publicly supported the proposal to exclude farm and fisheries products from gifts to be regulated by the act.
The lawmakers said the new act should not deepen the hardships of farmers and fishermen struggling with the extended economic slump. But what would they say if small and medium-sized enterprises and merchants of other goods -- say, manufacturers of neckties and importers of wines -- make the same demand? Would they push for revision of the act every time they face such demands?
The latest controversy confirms that the act cannot be implemented as it is. It is fortunate that the parliament still has one year before the act takes effect. The ruling and opposition parties should start work to overhaul the act as soon as possible.
Without some defects, the act, commonly called Kim Young-ran Act after its original author, should be hailed as the toughest law ever regarding punishment of public officials accepting bribes.
The act calls for, among other things, criminal punishment of public officials who receive 1 million won worth of cash, gifts or entertainment on a single occasion and 3 million won per year from the same person. The penalty is regardless of the relationship between such an offer and officials’ duties or reciprocal favors.
But the act faced strong criticism for its shortfalls. Even Kim Young-ran, who proposed the bill in 2011 when she headed the national corruption and civil rights watchdog, termed the act a “half-made one.”
She mentioned, among other things, the omission of lawmakers and other elected officials from its clauses on improper solicitation, and limitation of the scope of family members punishable for bribery to only spouses. The inclusion of journalists and teachers at private schools is another target of public criticism.
A fresh controversy has arisen recently, as some ruling and opposition lawmakers publicly supported the proposal to exclude farm and fisheries products from gifts to be regulated by the act.
The lawmakers said the new act should not deepen the hardships of farmers and fishermen struggling with the extended economic slump. But what would they say if small and medium-sized enterprises and merchants of other goods -- say, manufacturers of neckties and importers of wines -- make the same demand? Would they push for revision of the act every time they face such demands?
The latest controversy confirms that the act cannot be implemented as it is. It is fortunate that the parliament still has one year before the act takes effect. The ruling and opposition parties should start work to overhaul the act as soon as possible.
