[These Days] The British Flag Desecration Law and the Korean National Assembly

Like the previous National Assembly, the 20th National Assembly also showed a truly diverse range of appearances to the public.
[Photo by YouTube screen capture]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Jong-hwa] When opposing the government's excessive regulations or emphasizing that certain laws are unnecessary and regressive, the case most frequently cited by the media and intellectuals is the UK's 'Jeokgi Ordinance (赤旗條例, Red Flag Act)'.

The Jeokgi Ordinance is also called the 'Red Flag Law,' as the term implies. Its official name is 'The Locomotives on Highways Act,' often shortened to the 'Locomotive Act.' It was amended three times, and the name Jeokgi Ordinance began to be used from the second amendment in 1865.

Although it holds the title of the world's first traffic law, history regards it as a harmful law that regressed the UK's automobile industry.

The background of the Jeokgi Ordinance's introduction is as follows. In 1826, a 28-passenger steam-powered vehicle appeared in London, UK. Ten such vehicles were deployed as route buses connecting London and nearby cities, gaining great popularity. The spread of other steam-powered vehicles gradually increased, ushering in the 'Golden Age of Steam Cars.'

However, problems began to arise. Steam car explosions were frequent, the massive steam vehicles often blocked roads, and their noise and weight frequently damaged roads, becoming a social issue. In this situation, carriage operators, who were on the decline, rebelled and lobbied politicians to pass the Jeokgi Ordinance.

In 1861, the UK Parliament enacted the related law. It was a road traffic law created to address problems caused by the emergence of automobiles. According to the Jeokgi Ordinance, the weight of steam cars was limited to 12 tons, and the maximum speed was restricted to 10 miles per hour (16 km/h), and 5 miles per hour (8 km/h) in urban areas. In other words, 'since coachmen should not lose their jobs, automobiles must operate slower than carriages.'

In 1865, the law was amended to strengthen restrictions further. Steam cars were limited to speeds of 4 miles per hour (6.4 km/h) outside cities and 2 miles per hour (3.2 km/h) within cities. Each vehicle had to have three people on board: a driver, an engineer, and a flagman. The flagman had to carry a red flag during the day and a red lantern at night, running 55 meters ahead of the vehicle to warn carriages of the automobile's approach. It was from this time that the term Jeokgi Ordinance was used.

Cars celebrating the abolition of the Red Flag Act in 1896, running through the streets of London.
[Photo by YouTube screen capture]

As public opinion worsened, the flagman was removed in the third amendment in 1878, but a pedestrian lookout had to run 18 meters (20 yards) ahead of the automobile to warn carriages of its approach. Additionally, automobiles still had to stop when encountering horses, and a clause was added prohibiting the emission of steam that would startle horses.

This law was enforced for over 30 years and was repealed only in 1896. Just before the Jeokgi Ordinance was enforced, British automobiles could reach speeds of 40 km/h, but the UK, which had been the first to commercialize automobiles globally, lost its leadership in the automobile industry to France, Germany, the United States, Italy, and others within about 30 years. It reportedly took over 70 years to close the technological gap caused during this period.

Could the UK's exit from the European Union (EU), known as 'Brexit,' also remain a blemish in British history in the distant future? Once the world's greatest power as the empire on which the sun never set, the UK Parliament sometimes made such missteps. What about Korea's parliament, the National Assembly? Setting aside past mistakes, even judging by the present, it is so shameful that it cannot hold its head high.

Among the bills produced by the 20th National Assembly, there are quite a few that surpass the Jeokgi Ordinance. The number of bills proposed is the highest ever. Does this mean that lawmakers were very active in legislative activities? Not at all. Most of the bills proposed by lawmakers were 'laws that do not resemble laws.'

Even the lawmakers reviewing the bills are exasperated, calling it 'legislative pollution.' Due to the excessive proposal of bills aimed at gaining good evaluations from the media and civic groups and securing favorable nominations, important bills are either poorly processed or do not even come up for review.

According to investigative journalism outlet Newstapa, a representative example is the 'Glass Ceiling Committee' bill proposed by Representative H. This bill requires the establishment of a 'Glass Ceiling Committee' within organizations such as companies or institutions to eliminate the so-called 'glass ceiling' that blocks women's promotion.

The problem is that this bill was individually amended for every public institution-related law. For example, to create a Glass Ceiling Committee at the Taekwondo Promotion Foundation, an amendment titled 'Partial Amendment to the Act on Promotion of Taekwondo and Establishment of Taekwondo Park' was proposed. Proposing bills in this manner results in legislative pollution.

In the case of the Glass Ceiling Committee bill, about 200 cases were referred to almost all standing committees, and legislative researchers in charge had to prepare review reports on this bill. Proposing ineffective laws and reviewing them wasted manpower, time, and budget.

What thoughts did the public have while watching the various scenes unfolding in the National Assembly? Could it be because they understand the seriousness of the issue? The expressions of the members of the National Assembly also vary.
[Photo by YouTube screen capture]

The standing committees receiving this bill submitted review reports stating, "Instead of proposing bills 'individually' for all public institutions, it would be more efficient to propose them under the 'Framework Act on Gender Equality' or the 'Act on the Management of Public Institutions,' etc."

In a scene from the National Assembly's Industry, Trade, and Energy Subcommittee meeting last September, Specialist S explained a bill that proposed changing the term 'construction worker,' meaning construction industry managers and workers, to 'construction business operator.' As soon as the specialist finished the explanation, a lawmaker asked again, "'Worker' to 'business operator'?"?expressing disbelief and double-checking the content.

Another lawmaker then exclaimed, "I truly think this is legislative pollution. What difference is there between 'worker' and 'business operator'? At this rate, lawmakers will want to change their own titles to 'legislative operators'." He added, "This kind of law is really shameful. I have nothing to say, nothing at all."

This is a scene where lawmakers, after receiving the specialist's report during the review of the 'Partial Amendment to the Rational Use of Energy Act' bill submitted to the subcommittee, confessed their own shame. Although they did not propose the bill themselves, they expressed shame as fellow lawmakers.

Ahead of elections, each party is recruiting many new figures. This happens every election cycle. The result is showing like this. How should we evaluate the legislative activities of lawmakers? The consequences of elections are this severe. Why is the shame left to the people?