Most Popular
-
1
Actor Jung Woo-sung admits to being father of model Moon Ga-bi’s child
-
2
Wealthy parents ditch Korean passports to get kids into international school
-
3
Man convicted after binge eating to avoid military service
-
4
First snow to fall in Seoul on Wednesday
-
5
Final push to forge UN treaty on plastic pollution set to begin in Busan
-
6
Korea to hold own memorial for forced labor victims, boycotting Japan’s
-
7
Nvidia CEO signals Samsung’s imminent shipment of AI chips
-
8
Job creation lowest on record among under-30s
-
9
NK troops disguised as 'indigenous' people in Far East for combat against Ukraine: report
-
10
Opposition leader awaits perjury trial ruling
[Editorial] Author’s concerns
Anticorruption bill needs rewriting
By Korea HeraldPublished : March 11, 2015 - 19:43
Kim Young-ran, the former Supreme Court justice who authored the original bill for the landmark anticorruption act named after her, has announced her long-awaited position on the controversial law.
In sum, Kim, who proposed the bill in 2011 when she headed the Anti-corruption and Civil Rights Commission, said the act, which passed the parliament recently, was much different from her original draft.
Indeed, she did not hide her disappointment with the fact, for instance, that the parliament dropped clauses on conflict of interest.
“This made the act a half-made one,” she said.
Kim also rightly pointed to the fact that the act did not subject lawmakers and other elected officials to its clauses regarding illegal solicitation. This could, she said, allow lawmakers to act freely as illegal “brokers.”
Kim also expressed regrets that the act limited the scope of family members punishable for bribery to only spouses. She cited past cases in which children and brothers of former presidents were implicated in corruption.
The act calls for, among other things, criminal punishment of public officials who receive 1 million won worth of cash, gifts or entertainment, regardless of its connection to their duties or reciprocal favors.
The parliament’s expansion of the scope of those who are subject to this key antigraft clause of the act to journalists and teachers at private schools has aroused a dispute over its constitutionality. The Korean Bar Association has taken the case to the Constitutional Court.
Kim said she did not think that the act violated the basic law, although extraordinary supplementary measures were needed to make sure the act does not infringe upon the freedom of the press, which she said was an “important democratic value and essential freedom.”
But it is deplorable that despite all these problems and complementary measures that need to be taken, she supports unconditional implementation of the act.
It is wrong to put into effect a law with so many problems and questions even though we have enough time to fix it. It is fortunate that the parliament approved a grace period of 1 1/2 years. The National Assembly should make a comprehensive review of the act by considering the views of its original author and other critics.
In sum, Kim, who proposed the bill in 2011 when she headed the Anti-corruption and Civil Rights Commission, said the act, which passed the parliament recently, was much different from her original draft.
Indeed, she did not hide her disappointment with the fact, for instance, that the parliament dropped clauses on conflict of interest.
“This made the act a half-made one,” she said.
Kim also rightly pointed to the fact that the act did not subject lawmakers and other elected officials to its clauses regarding illegal solicitation. This could, she said, allow lawmakers to act freely as illegal “brokers.”
Kim also expressed regrets that the act limited the scope of family members punishable for bribery to only spouses. She cited past cases in which children and brothers of former presidents were implicated in corruption.
The act calls for, among other things, criminal punishment of public officials who receive 1 million won worth of cash, gifts or entertainment, regardless of its connection to their duties or reciprocal favors.
The parliament’s expansion of the scope of those who are subject to this key antigraft clause of the act to journalists and teachers at private schools has aroused a dispute over its constitutionality. The Korean Bar Association has taken the case to the Constitutional Court.
Kim said she did not think that the act violated the basic law, although extraordinary supplementary measures were needed to make sure the act does not infringe upon the freedom of the press, which she said was an “important democratic value and essential freedom.”
But it is deplorable that despite all these problems and complementary measures that need to be taken, she supports unconditional implementation of the act.
It is wrong to put into effect a law with so many problems and questions even though we have enough time to fix it. It is fortunate that the parliament approved a grace period of 1 1/2 years. The National Assembly should make a comprehensive review of the act by considering the views of its original author and other critics.
-
Articles by Korea Herald
