The National Assembly’s Anti-Market Legislative Rush Must Shift to Economy-Friendly Deregulatory Bills

Legislative bill proposals in the National Assembly have reached the level of a flood. During the first two years of the 21st National Assembly alone, as many as 14,831 bills were introduced, a figure higher than the total number introduced over the full four years of the 18th National Assembly. Civic groups and the media evaluate parliamentary activity by the number of bills introduced, and this is even used by political parties as a metric in nomination evaluations, further intensifying the legislative race among members of the National Assembly.

A closer look at the specific contents of the proposed bills reveals many disappointing aspects. The majority consist of simple wording revisions meant to inflate performance records or recycled bills. There are also countless bills driven by populist tendencies, partisan interests, or ideological camp logic. A representative example was when one political party submitted 181 bills in a single day immediately after announcing that the “number of bills chiefly sponsored” would be reflected in nomination decisions. It is regrettable that members of the National Assembly, forgetting their sense of responsibility as representatives of the people, focus only on the quantity of bills for the sake of their own political achievements.

Laws play a role much like traffic lights in our society. As society becomes more diverse and complex, institutions and rules must be simple and clear for society to remain dynamic. It should be enough to signal “stop” at a red light and “go” at a green light, but if the rules change frequently or there are too many traffic lights, considerable social inefficiency is inevitable. The current legislative flood in the National Assembly ultimately raises serious concerns that it will place many constraints on the economic activities of the people.

What matters is not the number of bills, but their substance. Looking at the economic laws enacted by the 21st National Assembly, there are far more anti-market, regulation-strengthening measures than market-friendly ones. For every one market-friendly bill enacted, two or three regulation-strengthening bills were created. Representative examples include bills that threaten corporate management, such as the so-called “three major corporate regulatory laws”—the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, the shareholder derivative suit system, and the labor director system—as well as bills that destroy business innovation, such as the “Tada ban” law.

To revive the Korean economy amid the threats of COVID-19 and the global economy, what is needed above all is the passage of many bills that ease regulations. Regulations that hinder job creation and obstruct economic development must be removed, including the “three lease laws,” which caused chaos in the real estate market; the Serious Accidents Punishment Act and the 52-hour workweek system, which infringe on managerial freedom; and regulations on big-box stores, telemedicine, mobility, and the fixed book price system, which infringe on consumer rights. In their place, it is important to fill the legal framework with bills that revive the economy and create jobs.

To put an end to this legislative flood in the National Assembly, the review process for member-initiated bills needs to be strengthened. The current procedure requiring the consent of 10 members of the National Assembly appears insufficient. Before a bill is placed on the plenary agenda, there should be sufficient discussion as to whether it is merely legislation intended to pad performance records and what impact it will have on our society. Instead of taking the approach that any bill passed by the legislature, as the people’s representative institution, automatically becomes law, reviewing whether it runs counter to the people’s basic rights and freedoms would help filter out laws that become obstacles to economic development and throw society into confusion.

Rather than focusing on a quantitative increase in bills, efforts should be made to improve the qualitative substance of laws. Building social consensus around this is important. Instead of evaluating lawmakers by the number of bills introduced or passed, the media and civic groups need to focus their scrutiny on whether laws support the people’s free and creative economic activity and business activity. This year, rather than awarding the lawmaker who ranked first in bill proposals, it might be worthwhile to recognize the lawmaker who ranked first in reviving the economy—or first in recycling bills.

Eun-kyung Kwak, Head of Corporate Culture Division, Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: 반시장적 국회 입법폭주, 경제친화적 규제완화 법안으로 전환해야

Author: Eun-kyung Kwak

Date: 2022-06-27

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=press&idx=24815