By Bernard Rowan
These days, some big heads bow in South Korea. Stories show the mighty falling, or at least stumbling a bit. A former president and several chaebol heads have come under investigation for possible illegal acts. These are important events for Korean society, as they signal the final accountability to the law of all people. They are painful events because leaders of powerful public and private entities may have violated trust and their responsibilities.
However, what I want to write about in all of this concerns the distinct pattern of Koreans continuing high profile prosecutions that don't bear fruit. Punishing the heads of one or two conglomerates or a high-level official amounts to small drops in a bucket.
The problem posed by the investigations and (possible) indictments of former President Park, Lotte head Shin, and Samsung boss Lee top a list that has grown long over the years. The list's members include former presidents and other business magnates. Many face the music, but the cultures of corruption stubbornly remain, morph, and look for cover.
Koreans' difficulty stopping corruption is neither unusual nor healthy. Many countries should invigorate their statutes and investigatory work to identify and lessen public and commercial corruption. They all need new and improved laws, civil service codes, enforcing protections, and transparency. They also need public education, including in schools and universities, as well as professional training programs.
Korea set up a whistleblower law, but it's still not safe enough to speak out. The General Accountability Project website (whistleblower.org) includes best practices for whistleblower policies. Korean lawmakers, business federations and universities should strengthen them further, for the laws in place have been there since the 2011 Korean Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers.
Recent whistle-blowers such as Lee Hae-gwan (against Korea Telecom) and Ko Young-tae (against Park Geun-hye) are two of hundreds deserving better protections. The first protection, however, remains for them all: the respect by Koreans for public truth and honesty in the face of power. Koreans must protect those disclosing violations of the law.
The recent Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (2016) is an important milestone against favoritism and spoils. The law bans receiving gifts above certain amounts and intersects the cultural practice of giving favors in exchange for loyal or good service. It includes spouses of officials, journalists, and teachers covered by the act. I read that Hyundai and CheilJedang have set up screensaver quizzes and "clean" credit cards that block payments to banned kinds of sellers ("Trick or Treat", The Economist, October 15, 2016).
However, there are further issues, perhaps of even greater weight and concern. Chief among them are "revolving door" prohibitions. As David Lee wrote in the Nikkei Asian Review (November 7, 2016), too many problems arise when people who work in government go into the businesses they used to oversee. Lee notes that Koreans have a word, "gwanfia," for such people. Korea's laws do not cover all levels of governmental employees and elected lawmakers. The enforcement is inadequate. The reporting processes are weak.
Incoming generations of leaders need training in ethics as well as budgets and vigorous implementation. Curricula for public and private professions must improve. Needed to be included are case studies of corruption and good practices to target and reduce corruption in Korean society.
Paik Wan-ki's classic text, Korean Administrative Culture, discusses the Korean cultural ideas of family-ism and emotional humanism. These values should change. Official and business colleagues resemble families with hierarchies, collective norms, and biases to extended networks of seniors and juniors. In these contexts, corruption, inappropriate influence, and decision-making find safer havens.
I don't think that Korean networks are bad or good. However, in the 21st century it seems, Korean democratic and economic progress wants a limit on in-network behavior. Now, it isn't good to accept favors or to use one's position to benefit oneself and friends against the public trust. It's good to sacrifice benefits for the good of others who entrust their care, taxes, and incomes to professionals. The next stages of the Miracle of the Han River want more of this flow to transcend the Han caused by the endless fall of so many mighty folk.
Bernard Rowan is associate provost for contract administration and professor of political science at Chicago State University. He is a past fellow of the Korea Foundation and former visiting professor at Hanyang University. Reach him at browan10@yahoo.com.
.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
However, what I want to write about in all of this concerns the distinct pattern of Koreans continuing high profile prosecutions that don't bear fruit. Punishing the heads of one or two conglomerates or a high-level official amounts to small drops in a bucket.
The problem posed by the investigations and (possible) indictments of former President Park, Lotte head Shin, and Samsung boss Lee top a list that has grown long over the years. The list's members include former presidents and other business magnates. Many face the music, but the cultures of corruption stubbornly remain, morph, and look for cover.
Koreans' difficulty stopping corruption is neither unusual nor healthy. Many countries should invigorate their statutes and investigatory work to identify and lessen public and commercial corruption. They all need new and improved laws, civil service codes, enforcing protections, and transparency. They also need public education, including in schools and universities, as well as professional training programs.
Korea set up a whistleblower law, but it's still not safe enough to speak out. The General Accountability Project website (whistleblower.org) includes best practices for whistleblower policies. Korean lawmakers, business federations and universities should strengthen them further, for the laws in place have been there since the 2011 Korean Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers.
Recent whistle-blowers such as Lee Hae-gwan (against Korea Telecom) and Ko Young-tae (against Park Geun-hye) are two of hundreds deserving better protections. The first protection, however, remains for them all: the respect by Koreans for public truth and honesty in the face of power. Koreans must protect those disclosing violations of the law.
The recent Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (2016) is an important milestone against favoritism and spoils. The law bans receiving gifts above certain amounts and intersects the cultural practice of giving favors in exchange for loyal or good service. It includes spouses of officials, journalists, and teachers covered by the act. I read that Hyundai and CheilJedang have set up screensaver quizzes and "clean" credit cards that block payments to banned kinds of sellers ("Trick or Treat", The Economist, October 15, 2016).
However, there are further issues, perhaps of even greater weight and concern. Chief among them are "revolving door" prohibitions. As David Lee wrote in the Nikkei Asian Review (November 7, 2016), too many problems arise when people who work in government go into the businesses they used to oversee. Lee notes that Koreans have a word, "gwanfia," for such people. Korea's laws do not cover all levels of governmental employees and elected lawmakers. The enforcement is inadequate. The reporting processes are weak.
Incoming generations of leaders need training in ethics as well as budgets and vigorous implementation. Curricula for public and private professions must improve. Needed to be included are case studies of corruption and good practices to target and reduce corruption in Korean society.
Paik Wan-ki's classic text, Korean Administrative Culture, discusses the Korean cultural ideas of family-ism and emotional humanism. These values should change. Official and business colleagues resemble families with hierarchies, collective norms, and biases to extended networks of seniors and juniors. In these contexts, corruption, inappropriate influence, and decision-making find safer havens.
I don't think that Korean networks are bad or good. However, in the 21st century it seems, Korean democratic and economic progress wants a limit on in-network behavior. Now, it isn't good to accept favors or to use one's position to benefit oneself and friends against the public trust. It's good to sacrifice benefits for the good of others who entrust their care, taxes, and incomes to professionals. The next stages of the Miracle of the Han River want more of this flow to transcend the Han caused by the endless fall of so many mighty folk.
Bernard Rowan is associate provost for contract administration and professor of political science at Chicago State University. He is a past fellow of the Korea Foundation and former visiting professor at Hanyang University. Reach him at browan10@yahoo.com.
![[ANALYSIS] China's ban on Micron tests Washington-Seoul alliance](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/1785a57b07ae45a7b7db49fdf4acd720.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Long-awaited extension of Korean Pavilion at Venice Biennale to be pushed forward](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/d8d5090875824ce08a90bb2c5a8f8c05.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
