Let’s Actively Use the Proactive Administration Immunity System

[Rotary] Let’s Actively Utilize the Active Administration Immunity System

When the interpretation and application of laws are ambiguous, citizens expect public officials to prioritize the public interest above all else. Civil servants, too, seek fulfillment in public service by solving problems with a sense of mission. Yet there is a gap between ideals and reality. In practice, people more often encounter gatekeepers hiding behind the letter of the law than problem-solving officials. Citizens and businesses grow weary and frustrated when told “the legal basis is unclear” or “there is no precedent.”

What is clearly impermissible should remain impermissible. However, it is problematic when officials empathize with an issue yet hold back for fear of being held accountable later. The “proactive administration immunity system” exists to break through this very situation.

Grounded in the Public Audit Act and the Proactive Administration Regulations, the system’s core principle is that officials who actively handled duties for the public interest shall not be held liable absent willful misconduct or gross negligence. Representative mechanisms include each agency’s Proactive Administration Committee and the Board of Audit and Inspection’s prior consulting service. This is a promise that the system will share the burden of judgment placed on individual officials.

There are numerous cases where the proactive administration system has demonstrated its power. A cannabis-derived medication effective in treating pediatric epilepsy could not, under regulations, be imported in advance without a patient’s own application. Because it took more than a month from the import application to actual receipt of the drug, the process was useless in emergencies.

An official at Agency A knocked on the door of the Proactive Administration Committee. The committee ruled that protecting patients’ right to life takes precedence over strict textual interpretation of regulations, and permitted advance importation of the medication. Thanks to this decision, patients could obtain the drug within one or two days, subsequently triggering a virtuous cycle in which the relevant regulations were amended.

There is also a case where the Board of Audit and Inspection’s prior consulting service opened the way for corporate investment. Company B wanted to expand its factory but could not obtain an access road permit due to a buffer green zone between parcels. Local government C wanted to attract the investment but feared accusations of favoritism or an audit. Ultimately, Local government C requested prior consulting from the Board of Audit and Inspection. The Board determined that if the public interest value such as job creation was significant, granting the permit while minimizing environmental impact was appropriate. Once the assurance of immunity was established, the local government acted and the corporate investment was realized.

The proactive administration immunity system may reflect a bitter aspect of administrative culture — a sorrowful practice in which saying “no” by default has become the safer choice when situations are ambiguous, rather than trying to say “yes.” The president’s recent emphasis on ministerial responsibility so that civil servants can work without fear of post-hoc accountability is likely a desperate measure to break through the behavior of the public service.

Business leaders and citizens who face unreasonable regulations should more actively utilize the purpose and mechanisms of the proactive administration system. I would like to offer two practical suggestions.

First, let us be the first to stand behind officials who work proactively. When an official breaks through regulations on their own initiative and solves a problem, we should praise them and recommend them as proactive administration officials. The government provides preferential personnel treatment and awards to such individuals every year. Applause from the private sector makes public officials dance.

Second, when officials hesitate, let us be the first to suggest using the immunity system. If an official empathizes with a problem yet cannot make a decision, we should say, “Let’s work through this together via the Proactive Administration Committee or prior consulting.” This simultaneously provides officials with justification for immunity and serves as a path for businesses to cooperate as partners in proactive administration.

For reference, a passive administration reporting system also exists. If passive administration is reported to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, an investigation is conducted. However, I wish only to mention this system by name. I hope it is a system that never needs to be used — for the sake of both businesses and public officials alike.