[ad_1]
– “The member of the Security Committee refuses to continue discussing
-He seems to be politically entangled ”
-You know the reason for the boycott but push it
-Evaluate the response of international private organizations
-Learn opinions from separate national advisory tracks
-The Prime Minister’s Office said: “No participation”
-The president mentions “There was a conflict of opinions”
On the 29th, the New Gimhae Airport plan (expansion) verification committee under the Prime Minister’s Office, which was overwhelmed by unfair disputes, clarified directly, but the controversy is growing. In fact, the verification committee admitted the ‘forced decision’ in the final report of the Security Division, which sparked controversy, and it was revealed that it formed another advisory group on security in Korea. Furthermore, suspicions of the involvement of the Prime Minister’s Office are growing as the Verification Committee and President Kim Soo-sam give conflicting explanations.
|
|
| At the ‘Buulgyeong Citizens Rally for Gadeok Island New Airport Attraction’ held in Busan City Hall Square on the 29th, Democratic Party representative Choi Jong-tae Suyeong-gu shaves The hair. Reporter Jeon Min-cheol [email protected] |
■ The decision to exclude the security subcommittee practically admitted
The Verification Committee issued a position statement that day and refuted the date of the meeting, but in the clarification process, it admitted the ‘exclusion decision’. The unfair controversy erupted in earnest when 4 out of 5 security subcommittee members were absent from the general verification committee meeting on the 25th, and the final report decision was revealed.
Through the press release, the assurance committee said: “On September 23, the assurance committee chairman shared the general subcommittee discussions and the full report with the chairman of the security subcommittee, repeatedly requesting to attend the entire committee to express opinions until the meeting was held. However, the chairman of the security subcommittee and two other members refused to attend the entire committee, saying that the draft they sent was the final draft and that no further discussion could be held. Accordingly, the chair of the verification committee convened the entire committee on September 25 to report the progress in detail to the committee, and solicited the opinions of the attending members, including one of the safety subcommittees, and made a decision. ” It is explained that there was no problem with the procedure because a member of the security subcommittee attended, 13 of the 20 people who were able to do it and 12 members of the majority agreed. In the end, it is possible to interpret that the Chairman of the Verification Committee pushed for a resolution knowing the reasons for the boycott of the members of the security committee.
President Kim also expressed his dissatisfaction with members of the Security Committee for the release of the meeting’s content abroad during a call with the International Newspaper. “Some people seem to be politically and socially entangled,” he said. “There was a gracious promise not to speak beyond what we discussed.” It is criticized that the Verification Committee has also revealed a policy of “legal action” in that the content of the meeting was partially disclosed in the day’s statement, amplifying the controversy over equity.
■ Composition of other security advisory groups?
A ‘new’ fact emerged in the process of clearing up the suspicion that the scale of the map used to establish flight procedures and the unofficial opinion of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was reflected. In addition to the Subcommittee on Security, the Verification Committee formed an advisory group composed of national experts.
The verification committee said: “There was a disagreement on the scale of the map used to establish flight procedures and, in accordance with the decision of the verification committee, ICAO was contacted for an official opinion, and a group was formed. advisor (panel) as an authorized expert in Korea to receive opinions, Also presented to the Subcommittee on Security. This was reflected in the report of the Security Subcommittee and the General Subcommittee carried out the final discussion ”.
The members of the safety subcommittee pointed out the possibility of collisions such as that of Geumjeongsan Mountain in the ‘Go-Around’ (emergency procedure to take off after a failed landing). I had a related query. However, the judgment on ICAO’s response is interpreted as being left to an advisory group other than the member of the safety committee.
Increased suspicion of intervention by the prime minister’s office
Suspicion of the Prime Minister’s office’s involvement in the verification committee became even more intense. The verification committee denied the allegations, but Chairman Kim Soo-sam, who oversees the verification committee, cited the conflict between the Prime Minister’s Office and the members. The assurance committee explained: “The support team has provided fair administrative support, such as supplying materials requested by the members, Busan, Ulsan, Gyeongnam or the Ministry of Lands, Infrastructure and Lands, and has not participated in the preparation Of the report”.
However, President Kim said in an interview with the Kukje newspaper, “The staff from the prime minister’s office only served as our secretariat, but they did not come out as committee members,” he said. “In other words, some of the staff in the prime minister’s office may have different views from our members.” It means that there was a “ different opinion ” among the Prime Minister’s office staff, who should only be “ assisted ” and the member who is the “ verification subject ”, and interpretations are made as to whether there would be there has been a conflict because the Prime Minister’s office went beyond the auxiliary function. However, he added, “But those are emotions, not true.”
Reporter Kim Hae-jeong [email protected]
