Park Hong-geun, Minister of the Ministry of Planning and Budget, acknowledged the necessity for increased firefighting funding but stated that specific funding enhancement measures will be reviewed further with relevant departments. Regarding the Future Response Fund, which has faced controversy over its so-called 'slush fund' during the National Assembly's deliberation process, he emphasized the need for operational autonomy to respond to rapidly changing external environments, such as artificial intelligence (AI).
During his visit to the Ministry's press room on October 21, Park responded to questions about expanding firefighting resources, saying, "There is a situation where local finances are becoming strained, and there is a call for more support. I agree that we need to take a closer look at this issue."
Firefighting resources are primarily funded through individual consumption taxes imposed on tobacco products. Despite the transition of firefighting personnel to national status, local governments continue to handle firefighting operations, leaving the issue of financial burden between the national and local levels unresolved. As the need for additional firefighting personnel and equipment persists, concerns have been raised that worsening local financial conditions could hinder stable funding for firefighting services.
While Park expressed agreement on the need for expanded firefighting resources, he clarified that specific measures have not yet been finalized internally. He noted, "We need to comprehensively assess how much the individual consumption tax will decrease and its impact on local governments. We must examine the effects of the consumption tax, the financial capacity of local governments, and the sufficiency of resources to determine what needs to be supplemented."
Regarding the operational methods of the Future Response Fund, he highlighted the necessity for flexibility in its management, in line with the fund's original purpose. Unlike budgets subject to National Assembly review, funds can change project plans within certain limits, which raises concerns about transparency and control in financial management. Notably, there are worries that the government's proposal to allow self-modification of fund management plans by up to 30% could lead to financial operations beyond the National Assembly's oversight.
He explained the rationale for maintaining the fund separately from the general and special accounts, stating, "It is intended to be operated flexibly and adaptively for specific purposes," adding that managing specific resources for specific objectives aligns with the rule of law. However, he acknowledged concerns regarding the scope of self-modification and stated that he would consider opinions raised during the National Assembly's review process.
The target return rate and operational methods of the Future Response Fund were identified as areas needing further review. Park previously suggested a return rate 1.7 percentage points higher than the three-year government bond rate, explaining that this was based on considerations of pension fund returns. However, he cautioned that it is difficult to make definitive statements before the fund law is passed.
He emphasized the need to consider both the stability and profitability of the fund, stating, "There must be justification for achieving a return higher than the interest on government bond issuance." However, he clarified that the fund's purpose is not solely to generate profit and that specific operational frameworks, such as whether to establish a separate management company or utilize pension fund investment pools, need to be designed further.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.