Anger among firefighters' groups over Gyeonggi Governor Chu Mi-ae's remark likening fire-service spending to a ‘fiscal straw’ entered its third day. A protest was held outside the provincial office on October 16, and the ruling Democratic Party apologized the same day, after a factory fire injured firefighters in Bucheon.
According to the Weekly Kyunghyang, the Hankook Ilbo and the Sisa Journal, the row began on October 13 at the National Assembly Public Administration and Security Committee’s audit of Gyeonggi Province, held at the provincial office in Suwon. People Power Party lawmaker Kwon Young-jin raised the province’s ‘fiscal emergency’ declaration and asked whether the national share of fire funding should rise. Chu replied that fire services were the most troublesome fiscal burden and used the phrase ‘fiscal straw’.
광고 문의 · 300×250The context and the numbers
Chu’s argument rested on cost structure. The Weekly Kyunghyang and Hankook Ilbo report that she put Gyeonggi’s 2027 firefighter personnel costs at about 1.1 trillion won and project costs at about 500 billion won, roughly 1.7 trillion won combined. Her point was that firefighters became national civil servants in 2020, yet local governments still shoulder much of the bill.
The problem was the wording. The Sisa Journal reported that critics heard a dangerous, life-risking occupation being described as a source of fiscal waste. Whatever the policy intent of widening the central government’s share, reducing firefighters’ service to a cost item drew a backlash.
On October 14 the fire headquarters of the Korean Government Employees’ Union said the remark damaged firefighters’ honor and demanded an apology, arguing that if the system is flawed the governor should press Seoul for a higher national share rather than shift blame onto fire organizations. The Sisa Journal added that the Gyeonggi branch of a fire-safety union affiliated with the FKTU demanded a formal apology to the province’s roughly 12,000 firefighters, and that critical posts appeared on an internal fire bulletin board.
On October 15 the province, through spokesperson Hong Eun-kwang, said the remark was meant to highlight that local governments bear most fire costs while the national subsidy ratio has fallen. The opposition did not subside, and on October 16 a joint fire union held a rally and a one-person protest outside the provincial office, again demanding an apology.
An apology from the party, a remark from the president
On the morning of October 16 a fire at a coating factory in Ojeong District, Bucheon, injured eight people including six firefighters; one firefighter was taken to hospital in cardiac arrest. The Hankook Ilbo reported that Democratic Party spokesperson Lee Yong-woo issued a written apology to firefighters and their families that day. The party said that even if the intent was to explain local finances, it took seriously that the remark did not fully reflect firefighters’ efforts and pride, and pledged to expand safety, staffing, equipment and pay support in next year’s budget review. The party’s apology thus came before any from the governor.
Chu cancelled a Jeju trip and visited the fire scene, comforting firefighters and promising full support for treatment and recovery. The Sisa Journal reported that when reporters asked about the remark and the union backlash she cut in, saying they should not raise it, and an official at the scene blocked follow-up questions. Apart from this, no direct apology by Chu for the remark itself has been confirmed.
President Lee Jae-myung, at the opening of the 107th National Sports Festival in Jeju the same day, wished the injured firefighters a speedy recovery. According to the Sisa Journal, he said that for people who risk themselves for citizens’ lives, even a fortune would not be too much, that respect and compensation for soldiers, police, firefighters and other uniformed citizens remain insufficient, and that firefighter safety should come first. He reportedly did not name anyone.
Separately, our search found no report supporting the claim that a firefighter memorial-project budget was cut. The budget facts confirmed so far are limited to the 2027 personnel and project cost estimates and the argument that the national subsidy ratio has fallen. Whether any memorial budget was cut is unconfirmed.
A third view
The row can be split into a question of wording and a question of system design. There is a view that the complaint that local money still carries a large share after the shift to national status is legitimate, and lawmakers in both camps have raised the need for more central funding. Frontline firefighters, however, were hurt by the way a cost-burden argument was set beside their own risk to life. Other countries, such as the United States with its reliance on local taxes, also see recurring structural disputes over fire funding, but a common lesson is that when politicians’ language touches the dignity of a profession, the policy debate itself suffers. The key is whether this ends as an apology fight or leads to a better division of costs with the national government.
