[Exclusive] Transparency of 'Ssamjitdon' Funds, Presidential Office and National Security Office Rank Last

Full Survey on Transparency of Government Ministries' 'Business Promotion Expenses'
Presidential Secretariat and National Security Office Score 0, 'Lowest Rank'
Prime Minister's Office, Public Prosecutor's Office for Corruption Investigation, and Board of Audit Also Fail Consecutively

[Asia Economy Sejong=Reporter Song Seung-seop] It has been revealed that institutions with strong authority or those close to the president tend to disclose their business promotion expenses opaquely. Despite criticism from the media and civil society, many ministries reported the amounts used in aggregate or did not disclose the number of people involved. Although calls for thorough disclosure of business promotion expenses have been made for several years, criticism arises that the path to a transparent information disclosure society is still far away.

On the 5th, Asia Economy investigated the recent disclosure status of business promotion expenses of the Presidential Office, the Prime Minister’s Office, and all government agencies (18 ministries, 4 offices, 18 agencies, and 6 committees), finding that the Presidential Secretariat and the National Security Office handled related information the most opaquely.

This survey was conducted based on 10 criteria: the user of the business promotion expenses, date, time, location, purpose, individual amount, number of people, payment method, disclosure frequency (monthly, quarterly, semi-annually), and whether high-ranking officials (department or bureau chief level and above) disclosed the expenses. If the specific purpose of each payment was not disclosed, it was marked X (0 points); if the purpose was stated but not specific, △ (0.5 points); and if properly disclosed, O (1 point). The total score was out of 10 points, with higher scores indicating more transparent institutions.

The Presidential Secretariat and the National Security Office scored 0 points, the lowest among all government ministries except for the National Intelligence Service, which does not disclose business promotion expenses. Although disclosures have continued since the launch of the Yoon Seok-yeol administration, there is no way to verify exactly who used the tax money, when, where, how, and why. Only some detailed information disclosed separately by the institutions themselves allowed identification of examples of events where business promotion expenses were used and the total amount. The disclosures were posted collectively without distinguishing between the two offices.

Poor Disclosure of Business Promotion Expenses by the Chief of the Corruption Investigation Office

The Presidential Security Service and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (Gong-su-cheo) each scored 1 point, making them the second most opaque in disclosing business promotion expenses. Both institutions revealed who used the expenses (the head of the Security Service and the head of Gong-su-cheo), but failed in other areas. Kim Jin-wook, the head of Gong-su-cheo, spent 14.6 million KRW (155 cases) on business promotion expenses from January to September last year, but all entries were uniformly disclosed as “major issue meetings, Gong-su-cheo opinion gathering” without individual details.

The third group, scoring 1.5 points, included the Prime Minister’s Secretariat, the Office for Government Policy Coordination, and the Board of Audit and Inspection. They clearly disclosed who used the expenses but only revealed the usage details up to the vice minister level. Most government ministries disclose business promotion expenses up to the director and bureau chief levels. The Office for Government Policy Coordination disclosed only up to the second vice minister, and the Board of Audit and Inspection disclosed only the auditor general and secretary-general. Detailed execution records were labeled as “major policy issue coordination” or “urgent issues and major business promotion,” with only the total amount of business promotion expenses disclosed.

Ultimately, the higher the domestic protocol rank of the institution head, such as the president or prime minister, or the more authority the ministry has in inspection or audit, the less likely it is to properly disclose business promotion expenses to the public. Ha Seung-soo, a lawyer and representative of the civic group “Catch the Tax Thieves,” criticized, “It has become a trend that institutions with strong power do not disclose information well. The water upstream must be clean for the water downstream to be clean, so the Presidential Office must properly disclose information according to standards.”

The reason for the wide variation in the level of business promotion expense disclosure among ministries lies in a loose and broad system. The “Act on Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies” and its enforcement decree stipulate that information affecting citizens’ lives or necessary for administrative oversight, such as business promotion expenses, must be disclosed. However, the extent of disclosure is determined by guidelines established independently by each institution. Some institutions have different guidelines, and some have none at all.

For example, the Prime Minister’s Office has an internal “Administrative Information Disclosure Guideline,” which addresses publication-related matters in Article 4. It only states that the scope, frequency, timing, and method of disclosure should be predetermined on the website, but there is no provision specifying how far disclosure should go. In contrast, local governments must disclose separately the user, date and time, location, and execution purpose according to the Ministry of the Interior and Safety’s “Directive on Accounting Management of Local Governments.”