Sung-Goo Kang

Representative Ombudsman at Defence Programme Administration, Korea

March 2009

Sung-Goo Kang is the Representative Ombudsman at the Defence Acquistion Programme Administration (DAPA) in Korea, and Secretary-General of Transparency International Korea. In his role at DAPA, Sung-Goo Kang performs a valuable oversight function in Korean defence acquisitions.

Sung-Goo Kang
Representative Ombudsman at Defence Programme Administration, Korea

The Defence Anti-Corruption Digest team recently spoke to Sung-Goo Kang, Representative Ombudsman at the Defence Acquisition Programme Administration (DAPA) in Korea. DAPA was established in 2006 to increase the integrity of defence acquisitions in Korea. We asked Sung-Goo Kang about the benefits an agency like DAPA brings to Korean society.

“Until now the acquisition related functions were dispersed among many ministries, for instance the Ministry of Defence, the joint chief of staffs, and the armed forces. However, after the establishment of DAPA, acquisition was concentrated into a single organisation. This was a significant institutional improvement, developing efficiency and expertise in line with international trends and good practice. Yet the greater meaning lies in the pursuit of transparency. We will build a DAPA that is more in tune with the interests of the people. The pursuit of transparency is the foundation on which DAPA is built. Establishment of DAPA means that the defence programmes no longer belong to a special domain of the nation, but are an ordinary domain to which universal standards must be applied.”

With an organisation focused on transparency, communication with the public is crucial to its functions. The challenges involved in this were discussed by Kang.

“DAPA has made great steps forward since its establishment in January 2006, and it has regularly published a magazine and newsletter, and maintains a website. This communication is however not sufficient compared to the significance and value of DAPA. This insufficiency is in some part a derivative of the military culture which still remains in the organisation. Many members of DAPA are still unconscious of the importance of communication with the public. They work very hard but the level of communication is not yet sufficient.”

Transparency as a concept requires disclosure on the part of public organisations. Yet in a practical sense, choosing the right level and means of disclosure is hugely important and there are no universal rules to determine what these should be. In relation to DAPA, Kang spoke about how its disclosure policies operate.

“Most purchase details are open through the website. DAPA was introduced following the creation of The Disclosure of Information Law which enshrined citizen rights to information and participation in processes, and ensured the transparency of state administration. Defence, however, is a very special area. Everybody who is interested or who has a relationship with DAPA can easily search the details of any purchase. According to the current status of information disclosure appeal, it rated 79 percent in 2006, 85 percent in 2007 and 88 percent in 2008. The data suggest that the rates of disclosure have been increased, and this is a positive attitude.

An innovative organisation like DAPA is at its most effective when it has the support of the private sector. We asked Kang what benefits DAPA brings to defence companies.

“Companies say that fairness of competition is the first benefit. Until recently, there was a perception in defence that bribery was necessary to secure a contract, but now they can devote this money to research and development, and pursuing competitive advantages. Costs have fallen, and fair competition has been the greatest benefit.”

DAPA is an innovative approach to defence procurement, embracing many elements of best practice that other procuring agencies in defence in other countries have not taken on in their entirety yet. We were interested to hear what Kang felt made the programme unique.

“In Korea, DAPA Ombudsman is the first system to be supported by law. It is also the first ombudsman system introduced in central government. DAPA consists of three ombudsmen, each recommended by civil society. This means civil society was invited to the monitoring of the defence sector, which had been a very secretive and untouchable area beforehand. This is a unique system, and derived very much from the characteristic of the Korean anti-corruption movement, one of the most important of which has been civil society initiatives.

Transparency International’s Integrity Pacts were introduced to Korea in 2000. The Integrity Pact is a contracting tool which binds procuring agencies and bidders on a contract to strict anti-bribery and disclosure requirements, overseen by an Independent Monitor, and which carry sanctions stipulated in the contract. We asked Kang about the introduction of these processes and how they have been received so far.

“Integrity Pacts were introduced by Transparency International Korea. The first Integrity Pact was first introduced in the Seoul Metropolitan Government in 2000, and after that more than 90% of government agencies adopted Integrity Pacts, including DAPA and most central government ministries. We promote heavily the ombudsman monitoring system in the use of the Integrity Pact, because without monitoring it is just a sheet of paper. DAPA has also introduced Integrity Pacts, but so far these have not been sufficient. I would like the monitoring of Integrity Pacts in the defence sector to be made routine, and I would like to see DAPA involved in this monitoring. Generally, violation of the Integrity Pact carries sanctions, but until now there has been no case of a violation of an Integrity Pact in DAPA.”

We next asked Kang how DAPA views the importance of competition in defence procurement, an important means of reducing opportunities for corruption.

“One of the main goals of the establishment of DAPA was to serve the real competitive needs of the defence industry. Competition is a principle in every purchase. The defence sector is a very special domain in Korea, with some special technologies in some sectors protected and purchases guaranteed by governments. Before DAPA there was very little competition. Yet the law is changing, and general competition is now becoming a trend. Until now some sectors, and some technologies such as in aerospace, have been supported by government and so have lacked competition, but this too is changing. Specialisation and systematisation of defence industries were abolished in 2007, and more companies are compelled to compete. Ensuring integrity through DAPA mechanisms remains crucial in such circumstances.”

Given the achievements of DAPA so far, it has come as a shock to many in Transparency International and in Korea that the programme now faces uncertainty and the possibility of being terminated. Further, in October 2008, Transparency International urged Korea to restore its independent anti-corruption body. We asked Kang if he would like to comment on these issues.

“Regarding the Independent Anti-Corruption body, the situation is getting worse. The Transparency International Annual Members’ Meeting resolution gave a shock to Korean society, and has been reported in the media. However, the government does not wish to restore the independent anti-corruption body (KICAC). At the national assembly many congressmen have criticized the government. The chair of Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, the newly established government agency replacing the independent body, has stated that Transparency International does not understand the situation, and that the resolution cannot be accepted. There has been no real progress since then. The general situation has been deteriorating significantly and the government has not been paying any attention to the anti-corruption agenda. Civil society is very critical of the government but there has not been a strong response yet.

I would also like to add that since the establishment of DAPA there have been no cases of corruption. I am very proud of this. There is no reasonable reason for trying to weaken DAPA, and its record so far will make it harder to do so.”