Whistleblowing for public interest refers to the reporting of illegal acts or those which are against public interest to the outside. Specifically, this public-interest whistleblowing means the reporting of the violation of any public interest-related laws or socially hazardous information to a government agency. Korean government has also enacted ‘Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act’ and operated a whistleblowing system for public interest since 2011 in order to stabilize people’s livelihood and make a contribution to the establishment of a stable and transparent society after legally protecting and supporting whistleblowers who reported the occurrence or possibility of an act which can violate public interest (e.g., as citizens’ health & safety, environment, consumer benefits, fair competition, etc.) to the related authority. Korea’s whistleblowing system for public interest is deemed relatively well established from a legal and institutional standpoint, compared to that of other countries. Even so, the problems of the reporting system such as narrow scope and subject, retaliatory measures against whistleblowers and poor protection & benefits have been continuously brought up. As a result, the ‘Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act’ was amended and considerably improved in 2015. Nevertheless, there still is a room for improvement regarding the subject of whistleblowing for public interest and protection of whistleblowers to operate and promote an advanced public interest reporting system. According to a survey performed against actual whistleblowers, many respondents answered ‘a lack of protection for whistleblowers’ and ‘poor confidentiality’ and ‘insufficient financial aids’ when asked about the problems of the current whistleblowing system for public interest. They said that whistleblowers should have appropriate services such as counseling and legal advice during whistleblowing.
In addition, the public interest reporting systems of five major countries - the U.S., the U.K., Japan, France and Sweden - were comparatively reviewed. The U.S. and the U.K. are two major states in the world’s whistleblowing laws. First, the U.S. has enacted and operated Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) and Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA) in a public sector. In a private sector, other laws such as False Claims Act have been separately stipulated and operated. In addition, a considerable amount of reward has been paid to whistleblowers, improving the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts. As the leading country in public interest whistleblowing laws along with the U.S., the U.K. has a single law titled ‘Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998’ which is advantageous in regulating both private and public sectors in a unified manner. However, it is applicable to workers only. In terms of the means to protect whistleblowers, in addition, a judicial means which refers to an appeal to the Employment Tribunal is only available. Therefore, it is not that effective at present.
Japan enacted ‘Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act’ in 2004 by benching the U.K.’s system, and this law was referred to when Korea enacted ‘Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers.’ However, Japan’s law focused on the protection of ‘whistleblowers.’ However, there were significant limitations in applying the law because of too much concern over damage on corporate interest. Recently, as a result, there has been an attempt to benchmark Korea’s legal system.
Unlike the U.S. and the U.K., the laws relating to public interest whistleblower-related laws haven’t been developed much in Europe. In case of France whose laws were greatly referred to by Korea, for example, public interest whistleblowing (Dénoncer (or Signaler) l'atteinte d'intérêt public (or commun)) mostly focused on internal whistleblowers (Lanceur d'e) unlike Korea’s laws. Recently, it has developed into an individual law, focusing on health & environment and finance. So face, France’s internal whistleblower-related laws have been fragmented and applicable to certain areas only. In addition, there was no consistency among them. Regarding to the protection of whistleblowers, in addition, it’s been very rare to apply the related laws due to different procedures by each law. In France, however, there has been an attempt to change the laws according to recent internal whistleblowing legislation trends in the EU and Council of Europe (CoE).
Sweden, one of the best countries in the world in terms of the corruption perceptions index (CPI) published by Transparency International (TI), was even poorer than Korea in terms of the completeness of the laws just like other European countries. There were just individual regulations regarding the freedom of speech. Sweden is a good example which reveals that transparency and anti-corruption are closely related with social reality and cultural environments as well as with the establishment of related laws.
This study has derived implications after investigating the problems detected through analysis on public interest whistleblowing systems, current operations and whistleblowers’ opinions and reviewing current public interest reporting systems and operations in major countries. Based on the results, the following suggestions are made for the improvement of current whistleblowing systems for public interest: First, the subject of public interest whistleblowing and related government agency should be further broadened. Second, whistleblowers’ personal information should not be entered to keep their identity confidential in the process of handling a case, and it is needed to introduce a whistleblowing system in anonymity or by proxy. Third, the following measures are necessary: keeping special protection measures effective; deletion of estimation period for unfavorable retaliatory measures; implementation of enforcement penalty system; introduction of temporary remedy measures. Fourth, it is needed to increase reward for whistleblowing and facilitate the payment of a relief fund. Fifth, medical and legal aids should be provided to whistleblowers. Sixth, it is desirable to protect whistleblowers from criminal responsibility. Seventh, the organization’s authority (e.g., grant of investigation right to the Anti-corruption & Civil Rights Commission, etc.), and education & PR should be strengthened. Lastly, there should be a review on the integration of the two different laws (Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers, Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission) from a long-term perspective.