Can the Law Solve Everything?

Does the Law Solve Everything?

People easily fall into wishful thinking.

The same seems true of making laws.

If a law is enacted and enforced, will the world really turn out as the law intended?

There is no need even to invoke the problems of omnipotent statism or legislative absolutism.

The public knows all too well that a great many laws do not work as intended.

A law was enacted in the name of protecting non-regular workers, requiring that they be converted to regular status after 2 years. In reality, however, virtually every organization began dismissing non-regular workers after 2 years, turning non-regular jobs into 2-year contract positions.

A law created to protect them ended up making life even harder for non-regular workers.

And what about the recently controversial Lecturer Act?

Claiming to address lecturers’ poor working conditions, the law was revised to guarantee lectures for at least 1 year, guarantee the right to reappointment review for up to 3 years, provide workplace health insurance, pay severance, and even pay salaries during school breaks.

But since university tuition has been frozen, universities have had little choice but to reduce the number of lecturers by increasing courses taught by full-time professors and expanding large lecture classes.

The Lecturer Act ended up making things even worse for lecturers themselves.

The Road Traffic Act, which took effect in September 2018, made helmets mandatory when riding bicycles.

As public opposition grew so strong, even the police announced that they would defer enforcement and focus on guidance instead.

The Minister of the Interior and Safety also posted online that he hoped the National Assembly would amend the law.

In effect, even the government that submitted the bill admitted that it was a law that would not be properly observed.

When laws are churned out so indiscriminately like this, they lose binding force and are not well observed.

Quite a few laws exist only nominally.

Nor is it only ordinary citizens who fail to comply with the law.

There are many cases in which the National Assembly and the government also fail to abide by the law properly.

I have hardly ever seen the government budget pass each year before the deadline set by the National Assembly.

There is no penalty whatsoever for this.

There are no provisions like in the United States, where the federal government shuts down or government spending is frozen.

If the National Assembly fails to pass the government budget, shouldn’t members of the National Assembly have several months of their salaries cut on the spot?

Of course, even the author saying this seems, before he knows it, to have been infected by the mindset of legislative omnipotence.

But there seems to be no need to worry.

That is because members of the National Assembly would never pass such a law.

The provisions of laws are also a problem.

Some legal provisions are designed not with the public’s interests in mind, but to make bureaucrats’ jobs easier while shielding them from responsibility.

The various committees are artificial bodies created so that bureaucrats can effectively lead everything while avoiding accountability.

If someone points out flaws in a policy, all they have to say is that it was decided by a committee.

If outside experts’ advice and expertise are needed, they can be obtained autonomously regardless of the law, yet committees are deliberately written into law largely as a means of evading responsibility.

The expression especially common in our laws, “may do ~,” is another example.

If it “may be done,” then why must it be stipulated in law at all?

Because if a bureaucrat undertakes something without such a clause, it becomes a problem during an audit.

These provisions were not made with the people in mind, but out of concern for bureaucrats.

Whenever the National Assembly is not in session and remains deadlocked, many lawmakers say the country suffers because livelihood-related bills cannot be passed.

But is that really so?

I wonder whether our lawmakers have been passing laws that never should have been enacted, piling up all manner of regulations like mountains, and then claiming that they have done their job.

This applies regardless of whether they are in the ruling or opposition party, progressive or conservative.

Sometimes I even think it might be better if the National Assembly remains deadlocked and fails to convene, so that it stops producing bad laws.

Or, conversely, what if outstanding legislative activity awards were given to lawmakers who abolish laws that are not truly laws, laws whose existence or absence makes little difference, laws that in practice greatly harm people’s lives, laws that are unnecessary and merely generate more regulation, and laws that serve only to help lawmakers and legal professionals make a living?

Sungbong Cho

Professor, Department of Economics, Soongsil University

---

Original title: 법이 모든 것을 해결하는가?

Author: Seong-bong Jo

Date: 2019-02-13

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=column&pn=14&idx=11423