Kim young ran act amendment

On December 11, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission reviewed and passed the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (a.k.a. Kim Young-ran Act). According to the amendment, public officials can receive gifts valued at up to 100,000 won on condition that the gifts are agricultural products or processed goods with more than 50% of agricultural content. The amendment also lowered the maximum amount of cash gifts to 50,000 won. As a result, the upper limit for meals, gifts, and cash gifts has been adjusted to 30,000 won, 100,000 won (for agricultural gifts), and 50,000 won respectively from the previous 30,000 won, 50,000 won, and 100,000 won. The commission agreed to lower the maximum limit for cash gifts for weddings and funerals to half the previous amount to reduce the burden on the citizens. Given that the people‘s burden of cash gifts actually increased after the enforcement of the Kim Young-ran Act, with people complaining that the standard for cash gifts has practically been set at 100,000 won, it was a reasonable decision to lower the maximum to 50,000 won. However, raising the upper limit for agricultural gifts after fierce opposition from farmers and fishermen, who argue that their sales have fallen by more than 30% after the law was enforced, can be controversial.

The Kim Young-ran Act significantly changed the Korean society. There are no arguments on the fact that the government has encouraged a transparent culture, after it pulled the brakes on illicit solicitation and excessive hospitality, which had been the common practice. Several surveys show that 80~90% of the citizens are in favor of the Kim Young-ran Act. Thus it is difficult to understand why the government rushed to revise the enforcement decree just a year and three months after the bill was enforced. Article 45 (reexamination of regulations) of the enforcement decree stipulates, “The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission shall review the validity of the following matters by December 31, 2018 and take necessary measures including making improvements.” In other words, the government had sufficient time to revise the bill while securing public support. Kim Young-ran, the former chairperson of the commission who led the enactment of the original bill said, “Making adjustments to increase the amount, which will work against the purpose of the bill, is not desirable.” On November 27, the commission had reviewed and voted against an amendment of the bill. Two weeks later, the commission passed the latest amendment, after a few changes in numbers to the previous amendment. It’s no wonder that the government is being criticized for trying to gather rural votes for next year‘s local elections.

Amending articles that are unrealistic or that can cause damage to certain industries is appropriate. But if we begin to mend our bills after recognizing exceptions, they are likely to end up as rags. Just like farmers and fishermen, restaurant owners can demand a higher cap on meals due to their sharp drop in sales. The government’s rush to amend the enforcement decree was not only inappropriate, but it is likely to trigger a heated debate on the issue of equity. The government should realize that observing the spirit of the law is just as important as making sure that the law does not stand apart from reality.