[Editorial] Whistleblowers should have legal protection

Posted on : 2013-02-15 14:45 KST Modified on : 2013-02-15 14:45 KST

Roh Hoe-chan, a National Assembly lawmaker with the Progressive Justice Party, lost his seat this week after a Supreme Court ruling. He was accused of violating the Protection of Communication Secrets Act by giving the name of a prosecutor who was referred to as the recipient of a bribe on a secret recording from the Agency for National Security Planning. It goes against any sense of the law or justice to punish Roh - as well as the journalists who disclosed the information - while ignoring the Samsung employees and prosecutors implicated in the bribery. Two sides came together to produce this comical verdict: biased prosecutors who claimed that the evidence was tainted by the illegal means by which it was obtained, and a court that insisted on only the narrowest interpretation of the law. It is distressing to see the court's third division going ahead with the ruling despite a request by 159 lawmakers from all party affiliations asking it to postpone the decision.

In legal terms, the problem lies with the May 2011 ruling by the court's second division, under judge Yang Chang-su, which overturned a not-guilty verdict by the appeals court. In the original ruling, the court said it was "justifiable" by criminal law for Roh to post a press release on his website about information that was to be given before the National Assembly's legislation and judiciary committee. The Supreme Court rejected this logic, arguing that the matter could "not be viewed as an issue of extraordinary public importance because of the distinct possibility of a major violation of the public interest from not disclosing something that occurred eight years ago." Never mind the argument that too much time had passed for the issue to be of any interest. It shows a severe confusion of priorities for the court, even as it acknowledged that distribution of the press release fell under the scope of a lawmaker's immunity and was therefore not a crime, to nevertheless strip Roh of his seat over the entirely secondary matter of his posting it on his website.

The court in the second trial also lambasted the prosecutors for failing to assert their right to investigate and secure evidence on Seoul District Prosecutors' Office director Ahn Kang-min in a timely manner. Indeed, the prosecutors - without so much as investigating the individuals recorded on the tape (Hong Seok-hyun, president of the Joongang Ilbo newspaper and Lee Hak-soo, chief secretary of Samsung Group) or the prosecution official mentioned as a bribe recipient - made the outrageous decision to go after the two journalists who reported the information and Roh, the lawmaker who made an issue of it at the National Assembly. Money has long yoked chaebol leaders and prosecutors together in a bond of collusion, and this case can't be seen as anything but that power working to unjust ends. Now, the same legal authorities who should be curbing this anachronistic application of the law have instead succumbed to its specious reasoning. Their rationalization of abuses is, as Roh put it, like nothing so much as a doctor taking out a patient's healthy stomach while leaving a cancerous lung in place.

The application of the Protection of Communication Secrecy Act is another problem. It was created to prevent illegal surveillance by intelligence organizations and investigative bodies, yet it has ended up being routinely applied to whistleblowers and the journalists who report their claims. Already, a group of 152 lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have proposed amending its circumstances precluding wrongfulness and its sentencing term. Whatever the case, it is in need of changes.

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

button that move to original korean article (클릭시 원문으로 이동하는 버튼)

Related stories

Most viewed articles