A series of recent incidents clearly demonstrate that public institutions are still trapped in ‘their own league.’ While transparency is outwardly emphasized, old practices and a sense of privilege run rampant behind the scenes. It’s necessary to take a critical look at whether true innovation is possible in such a situation.

2026: ‘Their Own League’ Recruitment Corruption Persists

In 2026, public sector recruitment corruption continues to recur like a chronic illness. Shockingly, Korea Expressway Corporation Service was found to have issued ‘tailored job postings’ for retirees and even hired unqualified individuals for experienced positions. An audit by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport revealed evidence that recruitment information was provided to Expressway Corporation retirees in advance, and interviewers were informed of their Expressway Corporation background, effectively guiding their selection. It’s no surprise that this has led to criticism of a ‘Dopia (Expressway Corporation + Mafia) cartel.’

• Tailored Job Postings: Manipulating recruitment conditions with specific retirees in mind is a clear violation of fair recruitment guidelines.
• Hiring Unqualified Individuals: The career verification process was run perfunctorily, leading to absurd situations where even those who did not meet the qualifications were hired.
• Pre-disclosure of Information: Providing recruitment information to specific applicants in advance, granting them special favors, undermines the essence of competition.

These cases cannot simply be dismissed as the deviation of a few individuals. They are evidence of widespread unfairness and a sense of privilege that remains firmly entrenched throughout the public sector’s recruitment system. Job seekers are inevitably plunged into deep frustration, wondering, ‘Is my effort meaningless?’ In such a situation, it is far-fetched for public institutions to gain public trust.

Shaky Personal Information Protection Undermines Public Trust

As serious as recruitment corruption is the lax state of personal information protection in public institutions. The results of the ‘2025 Public Institution Personal Information Protection Level Assessment’ released in April 2026 are truly disappointing. The bizarre phenomenon occurred where even institutions that had experienced personal information leaks received a ‘Normal (B)’ rating. With a structure that guarantees a ‘Normal’ rating if there are no leaks for a year, one must question whether this is a proper assessment.

• Perfunctory Assessment: Institutions with a history of personal information leaks still received a B rating, raising criticism about the effectiveness of the assessment.
• Low Ratings for Sensitive Institutions: Even major institutions handling sensitive information, such as the Ministry of National Defense and the Board of Audit and Inspection, remained at a B rating, signaling a red light for national security management.
• Evidence of ‘Revenge-for-Hire Terror’ Personal Information Leaks: Recently, evidence was found that a group that illegally leaked others’ personal information for money to carry out ‘revenge-for-hire terror’ had stolen information from public institutions.

Personal information is the asset of the public. If public institutions, whose duty it is to protect this information, maintain a complacent attitude, they must abandon the illusion that they can get away with it like ‘Lucky Vicky.’ It’s no different from carrying a ticking time bomb. Security is a matter of responsibility before technology. Public institutions must keep this in mind.

Public Institutions Preaching Innovation, Where is the Real Innovation?

The government and public institutions are hosting the ‘AI Innovation Challenge’ in 2026, emphasizing the spread of AI utilization and future administration through digital transformation. The ambition for the public sector to lead AI innovation is significant. There are also predictions that data and semantic interoperability will be essential for AI to create real value. However, the stark reality hidden behind these grand slogans is bitter.

• Discrepancy between Technological Innovation and Ethical Foundation: Focusing solely on introducing cutting-edge AI technology without resolving fundamental ethical and fairness issues like recruitment corruption or personal information leaks is merely a showy facade.
• Absence of Public-Centric Innovation: While AI may bring convenience to people’s lives, for those who have experienced unfairness in the recruitment process without ‘Aljalttakkalsen’ (a Korean term for doing things smartly and efficiently), it sounds like nothing more than empty propaganda.
• Need for Fundamental Change: True innovation begins with changes in organizational culture and the consciousness of its members, before systems and technology. Innovation not underpinned by transparent and fair operation is like a house built on sand.

Public institutions are operated with taxpayers’ money and have the fundamental duty to serve the public. While the introduction of new technologies is important, it is even more crucial to firmly establish fundamental values such as fairness and trust. ‘Future administration’ begins not with flashy technology, but with transparent and responsible operation that meets the public’s expectations. In 2026, what public institutions need is not performative innovation, but genuine change.

게시물 Public Sector Recruitment Corruption in 2026: How Long Will ‘Parachute Appointments’ Continue?이 솜삽 블로그에 처음 등장했습니다.