[Editorial] Business community's urgent plea: 'Regulatory easing is urgently needed for industrial transformation'

Business leaders have once again stressed that regulatory easing is urgently needed for a major industrial transformation. Ryu Jin, chairman of the Federation of Korean Industries, said, "Google, Apple, Meta, NVIDIA, Tesla, Netflix and OpenAI were all born in California and grew under a system where everything is allowed except what is prohibited." He made the remarks at a recent press briefing for the FKI Summer Forum for Executives.
Calls for deregulation are nothing new; people have heard them so often that they are almost worn out. Yet the fact that they keep coming up shows that government authorities are not moving. Under every administration, policymakers including the president have echoed remarks like Ryu's, but little has actually been done.
The reason deregulation ends up as an empty slogan is the combination of legal rigidity and civil servants' fear of taking responsibility. Regulations can also be seen as a form of control that lawmakers and bureaucrats are reluctant to give up. That is why, no matter how loudly the business community calls for change, the government often does not even pretend to listen.
The Lee Jae Myung administration, like its predecessor, has emphasized deregulation, but the results have been minimal. Even when the president steps in and gives instructions, politicians do not move and working-level officials lack the will to act. At the very least, the government would need to streamline unnecessary bodies and push ahead by creating a deregulation committee or a senior presidential aide in charge of the issue. Yet even that kind of move is absent. Instead, more regulations are being introduced through legislation.
Ryu said, "It may not be easy to fully adopt the American-style negative regulatory system, but if the scope is limited to new technologies, new industries and special zones, it is entirely possible." He added, "Before it is too late, we must redesign the regulatory system so that future industries are not constrained by outdated standards." We sincerely hope this demand will be realized in policy.
Ryu's remarks refer to a Regulatory Sandbox that relaxes rules, at least in certain sectors. Even if it is not a negative regulatory approach in the U.S. sense, where everything is permitted unless banned by law or regulation, the request is to create room where companies can operate freely without regulation. Of course, there are some Regulatory Sandbox cases, but compared with major countries, they are far too few.
We are now at a crossroads: either we seize the lead in advanced technologies and future industries, or we do not. If companies and young entrepreneurs are blocked by a maze of regulations and give up on new attempts and challenges, the political establishment and the administration must bear responsibility.
A prime example is the business community's repeated demand that exceptions to South Korea's 52-hour workweek system be allowed, at least in certain industries such as semiconductors. Chey Tae-won, chairman of KCCI, who held a separate forum in Jeju, said, "Employers should comply with the 52-hour system, but if there are workers who want to do more, I hope their free will will be respected."
Competitor countries keep their laboratories lit around the clock and devote themselves to development, but if we alone remain bound by fixed working hours, we will inevitably fall behind. Even when only those who want to work more say they will do so, the opposition is inflexible. In the end, the situation reflects a rigid mindset that prioritizes labor rights protection and leaves no room for flexibility.
The same is likely true for other regulations as well. Under these circumstances, how can anyone expect progress? The National Assembly bears even greater responsibility than the executive branch. We urge lawmakers to once again review the many regulatory reform proposals the business community has repeatedly called for, and not evade their responsibility.