Shop A, which has been closed for internal disinfection after a corona19 confirmed person visited.
Store B, which has been diligently taking preventive measures such as internal disinfection, and has no bad luck with confirmed cases, has stopped operating in accordance with government policy.
Which of the two stores should our society compensate for first?
Everyone will have their own opinion, but few people think that either one should be excluded from the reward.
However, while it is currently possible to compensate for the damage of shop A, there is no way to compensate for shop B.
This is because the current Infectious Disease Prevention Act has a compensation clause for shop A, but there is no provision for the same case as shop B.
It is said that the COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented situation, but the legislation was insufficient.
This is the reason why discussions have begun to devise a compensation bill for small business owners who have been damaged by the government's quarantine measures.
Discussions on legislation that began under the direction of President Moon... Retroactive application agreed upon by the ruling party lawmakers
However, the discussion was delayed. In January of this year, the government started only after President Moon ordered a review of legislation on loss compensation. After the follow-up instructions from former Prime Minister Chung Sye-kyun, discussions began in earnest, but no progress was made. In the meantime, several loss compensation bills were introduced in the National Assembly. Some were in the form of amendments to the Small Business Support Act, and some were in the form of enacting special laws.
However, the parliamentary debate was delayed. Members of both the opposition and opposition parties raised their voices, saying, "We need a loss compensation law" and "We must compensate for the damage that occurred last year," but the legislation was not enacted. Attention was drawn to the fact that the Democratic Party, which can handle the bill alone with a majority of the National Assembly, did not show any full-fledged movement to discuss the bill. Some say that although the ruling Democratic Party publicly insists on retroactive application because of the government's reluctance to compensate for last year's damage, that is, retroactive application, it is actually delaying the enactment of the law. (The longer the legislation, which excludes retrospective application, is delayed, the lower the amount of damage to be compensated for because the implementation of the law is delayed.)
And the mid-term venture of the National Assembly held on May 12th. There was a scene in which some doubts could only be doubts. This transition period jojeonghun lawmakers to attend the so-called committee
"Can their members against loss compensation scheme retroactively,"
asked he, attending lawmakers
, "no"
to answer that. At that time, the majority of so-called lawmakers present were Democrats. After that, the
so-called sub-chairman Kang Hoon-shik, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea,
said,
"We confirmed earlier that we are all agreeing on the retroactive effect*
,
"
and prior to the meeting,
Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Kyu-min
asked a People's Power lawmaker,
"Please correct the example that the Democratic Party opposes retroactively."
He also urged
* Retroactive effect: A legal term that means that the legal effect takes place back in the past.
What was the intention of the Democratic Party's loss compensation law legislative hearing?
The enactment of the Loss Compensation Act, which compensates for damage that occurred last year and early this year, seemed to be on the rise.
However, it was not.
The Democratic Party announced that it would pursue a legislative hearing on the loss compensation law.
In the pretext of holding a hearing rather than a public hearing, I bet that I would listen to the voice of the small business owner who was the victim.
The people's power side did not cast a glance of suspicion.
The question was whether they were trying to delay the enactment of legislation on the grounds that the legislative hearings were held only three times before.
However, the Democrats pushed, and a legislative hearing was held on May 25.
An unusual appearance was created. Lawmakers from the ruling Democratic Party began to criticize the government for opposing the retroactive application.
Democratic Party lawmaker Shin Jeong-hoon
criticized the government officials who attended the legislative hearing, saying,
"
It
is very passive to the extent that it feels like it is not
basically
acknowledging
the state's responsibility for administrative orders
." In response to the government citing concerns about overlapping support and equity with other industries as reasons for opposing retrospective application,
Democratic Party lawmaker Lee So-young criticized, "These two arguments are very crude arguments to say that they cannot be applied retroactively
."
Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Dong-joo
emphasized,
"In the process of making the loss compensation law, there was no disagreement between the ruling and opposition lawmakers, including retroactive application
."
The suspicion that it would be a time-delayed legislative hearing seemed to dissipate with the legislative hearing. It has been observed that the foreign legislative hearing could become a driving force for the enactment of the Loss Compensation Act, which includes retrospective application. However, these observations were in vain. The second lieutenant-general of the National Assembly standing committee, which was scheduled after the legislative hearing, was canceled at the request of the Democratic Party that "inter-party consultation is necessary", and from June the Democratic Party turned against the retroactive application of the loss compensation system. It has nothing to do with the fact that the leadership of the Democratic Party, who had been desperate after the 4·7 re-election disastrous defeat, suddenly said that it would push ahead with national disaster relief funds.
In fact, the event that predicted this change of position was on May 25, when the legislative hearing was held.
Opposition lawmakers, including dozens of Democrats, held a press conference urging the enactment of a loss compensation law that includes retroactive application.
With about 170 seats, lawmakers belonging to the Democratic Party, which can handle the bill alone, held a press conference urging the enactment of the bill.
It was to show that there was a gap between the views of the Democratic lawmakers and the party leadership.
Democrats turned against retrospective application based on data recognized by the government as limitations
Until May retroactive loss compensation laws applicable; that Democrats who argue that require compensation for the damage caused early last year and this year are
"if retrospective application rather be more to where you need to restitution existing funding,"
the main basis of what is holding with
The main source of evidence for this is a two-page cost estimate submitted by the Ministry of SMEs and Startups on May 25th.
The data estimated the loss by reflecting the decrease in operating profit and fixed costs of establishments subject to a gathering ban or business restriction from August last year to February of this year. The content was 81.7%.
(It also included a content that 95.4% of damaged stores would have to vomit if fixed costs were not reflected.)
Small business owners who attended the legislative hearing took a position that the government's estimate was absurd, and the government's estimate
was also included. acknowledged that there are limitations or problems with
It was because some expenses were not included, or places that had already closed were included.
Democrats who favored retrospective application are now opposed to retrospective application, largely on the basis of the estimate.
Loss compensation method with high probability of not being able to compensate for COVID-19 damage
And yesterday, the Democratic Party passed the Loss Compensation Act, which excludes retroactive application, at the general meeting of the National Assembly Standing Committee, pushing for a surprise proposal and a standing vote.
However, there is a high possibility that this law, created in response to COVID-19, will not be able to compensate small business owners due to COVID-19.
This is because the government will lift or ease quarantine measures such as bans on gatherings and restrictions on business starting in July. Especially since the government is professing to achieve herd immunity in November. It is uncertain whether this goal will be achieved due to the delta plus mutation, etc., but
if collective immunity is
achieved,
there is no reason to take measures such as prohibition of gathering. This is the reason why the loss compensation law created by COVID-19 is highly likely to be impossible or very limited in compensation for damage caused by COVID-19.
As measures such as a ban on gatherings continued last year, some establishments anomalously changed their business patterns to evade the government's quarantine measures. As a catering company officials when I follow the actions of the government discontinued the sales are even faster by changing the operating form should the sales staff employment can maintain and ahninya is that damage is minimized to the questions of journalists
not properly implementing the actions of the "government If I don't, I won't be at a disadvantage when I receive compensation later
." Was this man's wish, who expected the government's compensation for damage to be taken for granted, a naive idea that knew nothing of the world?
Article 23 of our Constitution stipulates that it is the responsibility and duty of the state to guarantee the property rights of the people. In addition
,
it is stipulated that
'Acceptance, use or restriction of property rights due to public necessity and compensation therefor shall be made by law, but fair compensation shall be paid'
. The government can infringe the property rights of the people out of public need, but in this case, it must pay fair compensation. Has the government fulfilled its responsibility with the current loss compensation law, which failed to compensate for the damage last year and early this year, when the damage was concentrated? Some in the ruling party are arguing that it is meaningful just to legislate compensation for damage caused by quarantine measures, but what the people need is fair compensation from legislation, not legislation itself.
The following is a list of the participating lawmakers and the press conference of the opposition lawmakers who urged the enactment of the Loss Compensation Act with retroactive application on May 25.
Lawmakers from the opposition and opposition parties gathered with apologies to the many people who are struggling due to the national disaster, Corona 19, and to the small and medium-sized business owners and self-employed who have directly suffered economic damage.
Many lawmakers from the opposition and opposition parties, including myself, have submitted bills for compensation for corona losses in the National Assembly, but they have not yet reached a proper conclusion due to the easy attitude of the financial authorities.
It was too late. But now we have to come to a conclusion. This afternoon's parliamentary committee's legislative hearing is a good opportunity to draw that conclusion. The ruling and opposition parties should look only at the livelihood of the people and unite their opinions, and the government should respect the opinions of the National Assembly, the hall of public opinion, and come up with specific and prompt follow-up measures.
In order to wisely overcome the COVID-19 crisis, quarantine, vaccines, and financial support are needed.
Among them, economic support is subdivided into three categories.
First, sufficient ultra-low interest loans, that is, sufficient funds for recovery, should be provided so that those who have suddenly become difficult due to the Corona virus can become self-reliant.
Second, loss compensation should be applied retroactively to small business owners and self-employed people who have had their business disrupted due to an administrative order to prevent corona virus.
Third, it is also necessary to prepare for the economic shock caused by the corona virus. A pan-government TF should be formed to restore credit for those who have reached bankruptcy due to the corona virus.
Of course, it is true that some are expressing some concerns about compensation for corona losses. However, these concerns are all in the shadows.
First, there is a controversy over who will be compensated for the loss. This section should be limited to those who have received a government executive order. Those who have not received an administrative order are subject to damage support, not loss compensation.
Second, there is the issue of equity. Just as 'same things are the same, different things are different' is the principle of equity, it is necessary to give a large compensation to those who suffered a large loss after receiving an administrative order and a small compensation to those who suffered a small loss. To say that the same compensation is required regardless of whether a large loss or a small loss is incurred is rather contrary to equity.
Third, it is criticized that the financial burden becomes excessively large when retroactively applied. But there is nothing wrong with the people who obeyed the government's orders. If the state closes its eyes to the damage they have suffered, it will not only go against the spirit of the Constitution, but if a similar disaster occurs in the future, no one will respond to the government's administrative order. The time of retrospective application must be applied retrospectively to the time when the government's first executive order is issued.
Fourth, there is a controversy about raising funds. Compensation for losses requires a large budget. Therefore, it is important to raise funds by mobilizing all methods. First of all, I agree with the method of budget adjustment that the opposition is insisting on. We also agree on the use of deposits in the Bank of Korea from 67 funds and unrecovered amounts of public funds. Also, I think it is very important to issue government bonds for the shortcomings and buy them by the Bank of Korea to increase the money supply in the market.
In order for such economic support to be successful, organic cooperation between the National Assembly and the government at the pan-government level is desperately needed.
The state does not give up not even a single citizen. Without this belief, effective quarantine and voluntary participation of the people cannot be expected. I hope that the legislative hearing to be held this afternoon will yield results that will touch the people's pain.
The fiscal authorities are blocking the loss compensation law by setting the trap of national fiscal soundness.
Even at this moment when the country boasts the highest level of fiscal soundness among the major advanced countries in the OECD, countless small business owners are disappearing and dying.
The ancient Athena democratic spirit that 'the people are the nation' is being ruthlessly trampled by elite bureaucracies in South Korea in 2021.
According to the Bank of Korea household debt statistics, the loan balance of the self-employed in 2020 was 125.8 trillion won, nearly 1.5 times higher than the 87 trillion won in 2019.
On the other hand, as of 2020, the government spending on response to COVID-19 as a percentage of GDP in the Republic of Korea was 13.6%, which is less than half of the average of 28.4% in nine developed countries, including Japan's 44%, Italy 42.3%, and Germany 38.9%.
In a nutshell, the people live on by borrowing money, and the government is in a state of financial soundness magic eye that blurs the focus on whether the people are dying or not.
In the face of a national disaster, why did the nation have to bear the pain without the state taking action?
Unlike Japanese, German, and Italian people, why should our people be abandoned and ignored by the state?
Today, I am holding the all-night tent demonstration for the 44th day. The body and mind are exhausted and sometimes even the mind is in a state of confusion.
However, small business owners and self-employed people have been living like hell for more than 440 days without a national protective tent.
A country that abandons its people has no reason to exist.
The financial authorities must abandon the selfishness of the ministries that only call their own treasuries and unleash the guhyulmi to save the hungry people.
At today's legislative hearings, I hope that the reason for the nation's existence will be clearly demonstrated.
Only for the sake of 'people's livelihood', lawmakers of the ruling and opposition parties, transcending parties and camps, have gathered in one place.
Today's loss compensation law legislative hearing should be a hearing for people's livelihood above all else.
The conclusion of the public hearing is clear. It means that the self-employed small business owners who are driven to death must be saved unconditionally, regardless of the reason.
In the National Assembly, in front of the Blue House, and on the streets, how many people cried out for the enactment of the Loss Compensation Act for how long?
No need to look at the Blue House. Now it is time for the National Assembly to provide an answer.
If the National Assembly, which should look at government policies and deliberate on the budget, is dragged around waiting for the government's decision, how will the people judge the authority of the National Assembly?
We must fulfill our responsibilities under the mandate of the National Assembly.
The government hopes that the National Assembly's unique authority should not intervene in the legislative process and focus on preparing measures to compensate for losses.
The conclusion of today's legislative hearing should be the conclusion of today's legislative hearing that we will agree on the principle of compensation for losses in a broad framework, and that the details and procedures will be resolved in stages by defining the areas of authority and delegation.
Again, it's too late at the latest. As a member of the National Assembly, I have deep reflection and reflection.
Members here, each and every one of them, is an independent constitutional institution. As a constitutional institution, we must fulfill our obligations to the people.
So is the government. Rather than trying to confront the people, we should sincerely pay fair compensation for the people's sacrifice.
The people's ultimatum was delivered directly to the National Assembly. Our position at this time today is a declaration of conscience for the livelihood of the people.
I
ask for the will of all lawmakers in the ruling and opposition parties to unite
so that today's legislative hearing can be the end of the tunnel of pain that small business owners are going through
. Thank you.
May 25, 2021
Kang Seon-woo, Ko Young-in, Ki Dong-min, Kim Kyung-man, Kim Nam-guk, Kim Won, Kim Jeong-ho, Kim Ju-young, Kim Cheol-min, Kim Hoe-jae, Min Byeong-deok, Min Hyeong-bae, Park Jeong, Park Ju-min, Seo Sam-seok, Seo Young-seok, So Byeong-hoon, Ahn Min-seok, Yang Ki-dae, Yang Yi Won-young · Oh Ki-hyung, Oh Young-hwan, Wi Seong-gon, Yoo Jeong-ju, Yoon Mi-hyang, Yoon Young-deok, Lee Gae-ho, Lee Kwang-jae, Lee Dong-ju, Lee Byung-hoon, Lee So-young, Lee Su-jin, Lee Yong-bin, Lee Won-taek, Lee Tan-hee, Lim Ho-sun, Jung Il-young, Jung Pil-mo, Cho Oh-seop, Jin Seong-jun, Cheon Jun-ho, Choi Ki-sang, Choi Jong-yun, Heo Young · Heo Jong-sik, Hong Ki-won, Hong Jeong-min (the Democratic Party)
Dae-shik Kang, Min-guk Kang, Ja-geun Koo, Myeong-ho Kwon, Seong-dong Kwon, Woong Kim, Mi-ae Kim, Seon-kyo Kim, Seong-won Kim, Seung-su Kim, Young-sik Kim, Ye-ji Kim, Yong-pan Kim, Eun-hye Kim, Jeong-jae Kim, Tae-heem Kim, Hyeong-dong Kim, Hee-gon Kim · Park Dae-soo, Park Dae-soo, Park Seong-min, Park Hyung-soo, Bae Jun-young, Bae Hyun-jin, Baek Jong-heon, Seo Beom-su, Seo Jeong-suk, Song Seok-jun, Shin Won-shik, Yang Geum-hee, Eom Tae-young, Yoo Sang-beom, Yoo Eui-dong, Yoon Jae-ok, Yoon Ju-kyung, Lee Yong, Lee Dal-gon, Lee Man-hee, Lee Young, Lee Jong-seong, Lee Ju-hwan Lee Chae-ik, Jang Je-won, Jeon Joo-hye, Jeong Kyung-hee, Jeong Dong-man, Jeong Jin-seok, Jeong Hee-yong, Myeong-hee, Ji Seong-ho, Choi Seung-jae, Choi Chun-sik, Choi Hyeong-doo, Tae Young-ho, Ha Young-je, Han Moo-kyung, Heo Eun-ah, Hwang Bo-seung-hee (The Power of the People)
Kang Eun-mi, Ryu Ho-jeong, Bae Jin-kyo Sang-Jeong Shim, Eun-Joo Lee, Hye-Young Jang (above the Justice Party)
Min-Jung Kang,
Eui-Kyeom
Kim (Above the Open Democratic Party)
Eun-Hee Kwon, Yeon-Suk Choi (Above the People's
Party)
Yeon-Sook
Cho (Transition of Ages)
Hye-in Yong (Basic Income Party)
Eon-Seok Song (Independent)