By Lee Sun-ho
On Jan. 22, President Lee Myung-bak vetoed a law intended to classify taxis as a form of public transportation which would have enabled cab company owners to receive government subsidies and other benefits, as buses, subways and railways do.
To the majority of the general public, the first veto exercised by the outgoing president in the final days of his five-year administration, was regarded as a quite reasonable decision. It was a responsible move for the departing government to make a decision on one of the most controversial social issues involving various interested groups.
The ruling Saenuri Party, the main opposition Democratic United Party and other opposition lawmakers passed the new bill with an overwhelming majority (222 votes out of 255 seats present) in the National Assembly on Jan. 1.
However, critics have denounced this rare bipartisan move as a populist initiative rooted in the parties’ campaign pledges to obtain votes from taxi drivers at last year’s presidential election while neglecting the government’s dire fiscal conditions. If implemented, the law could cost the government an additional 1.9 trillion won ($1.8 billion) a year, further straining the already serious budget deficiency.
To be designated as public transportation, the pertinent sector should operate on regular routes and at fixed schedules as well as carry a multitude of passengers in a specific area. However, the controversial taxi law defines public transportation as that which transits people within a designated area. The government support for public transportation was introduced to help ease traffic jams, reduce environmental damage and save fuel costs.
In other words, taxis can hardly be defined as public transportation by any standards, and few countries have recognized taxis as a form of mass transportation.
A considerable number of people are unlikely to abide by the new rule even if President Lee had signed it into law. Moreover, there are several fundamental problems in the nation’s transportation industry before lawmakers tackle the secondary issue of taxi operators’ financial straits.
Cab companies and their employees for their part had better remain content with the subsidies and other benefits considered by the government in a separate bill as an alternative.
Media reports say that even the opposition DUP has softened its stance a bit to reflect majority views and persuade the taxi industry. The nation’s 17,000 taxi companies and 255,000 drivers need to watch the new government bill and try to find a compromise between their interests and larger public welfare.
The government bill, drafted by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs and entitled the "Taxi Supporting Law,“ also makes it possible to suspend the business of taxi companies or individual drivers who own their cabs if they mistreat their passengers. Industry experts also point out irregularities that are widespread among taxi operators should be eradicated and a transparent accounting system be introduced.
The alternative law should eventually be drafted in ways that best reflect people’s well-being and spends taxpayers’ money most effectively instead of pandering to only the interests of a specific interest group. The government’s policymakers must take maximum care to both improve the lives of taxi drivers and better their services to passengers by rectifying the current structure heavily in favor of only taxi company owners.
After all, there can be no free lunch in a capitalistic society and the purpose of any law should be to best balance the interests of specific groups and those of the entire community by maximizing harmony and minimizing conflicts. This is what Rudolf von Jhering, a German jurist, tried to tell the public as early as the 19th century through his two most famous books, "The Struggle for Law,” and "Law as a Means to an End.”
The writer is an outside director of Samyang Tongsang Co. in Seoul. Contact him at kexim2@unitel.co.kr.
<우리말 풀이>
거부권 행사된 택시법 해법 수수께끼
I. 택시법 (대중교통의 육성 및 이용촉진에 관한 법률 개정안) 거부권 행사
가, 지난 1월22일 (화) 있었던 이명박 정부 최초로 시행된 사례
나. 정권말기 이해당사자들의 첨예한 대립과 반발에도 불구 매우 잘 한 일
다. 지난 1월1일 (화) 여야 만장일치 (255명 출석 중 222명 찬성)로 국회에서 의결통과
1. 국민세금의 세출을 고려하기 < 선거철 득표를 겨냥한 포퓰리즘 극치
2. 매년 1조 9,000억의 국민 혈세 지출 < 세출절감을 소홀히 함.
II. 대중교통수단의 요건 – 대부분 국가들의 일반적인 사례
가. 출발지-목적지 노선 확정, 출발-도착 예정시간 준수, 불특정 다수 승객 동시수송
나. 거부권 행사된 사안 – 특정업종까지 포함시키는 어려움
다. 교통난 해소, 환경문제 완화, 연료비 절감 등의 목적.
III. 대체입법 (택시지원법) 제정 움직임 – 바람직한 방안 (정치<민생)
가. 택시법 거부권행사로 급선회 -> 택시회사 및 택시기사들 앞 일정 혜택은 유지
나. 야당인 통합민주당도 다수여론을 의식 -> 택시기사들을 잘 설득 시키면 수용의사
다. 국토해양부가 입안중인 대체입법포함 요건 – 1월 24일(목) 입법예고
1. 3월중 국회제출예정 <- 출구전략 반영 <- 의견수렴 후
2. 택시기사들의 질적 향상 -> 고객서비스 개선
3. 택시회사들의 엄격하고 투명한 회계체계 도입 -> 부정부패 및 비리 근절
4. 택시기사들의 민생문제에 보탬이 되는 방향으로 손질 -> 예산은 절감
5, 3월중 국회제출 -> 2월25일 (월) 출범하는 차기 박근혜 정권에 부담을 덜도록 추진.
IV. 법질서 – 19세기말 독일의 법학자 루돌프 예링의 주창 시범사례
가. “세상에 공짜는 없다” <- 피나는 노력으로 쟁취 <- 권리를 위한 시의적절 대처
나. “법의 목적은 평화, 법의 수단은 투쟁” <- 개인의 이익추구 및 사회적 대통합 <-
생동하는 힘의 향방 주창.
{글쓴이 : 李善浩, 三洋通商(株) 사외이사}
Home > 게시판
.jpg)
