The parliamentary audit of the Seoul Metropolitan Government by the National Assembly's Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee on the 19th saw intense clashes surrounding allegations of "Hangang bus rebates" even before the main questioning began.

While Democratic Party of Korea lawmakers intensively grilled city officials over allegations of withholding data and delaying requests for police investigations, Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon pushed back, calling the accusations a political offensive. He argued that brokerage fees are distinct from rebates and that there is no evidence money was delivered to employees of the Seoul Housing & Communities Corporation (SH).

Democratic Party lawmaker Cho In-cheol pointed out that his requests for data regarding the Hangang bus rebate allegations were refused on the grounds that an investigation is currently underway.

Cho stated that he had only secured some attached materials without drafting or implementation documents, urging, "If you cannot provide the drafting documents, you must at least provide the implementation documents."

In response, Mayor Oh said, "I will review whether there is an obligation to submit them."

Lawmaker Hur Young of the same party also noted that not a single piece of data requested by his office had been submitted. He demanded the submission of follow-up actions taken by Seoul City after the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed a public interest audit request regarding the Hangang bus project in October of last year, records of reports made to the mayor, and lists of responsible departments and personnel.

Democratic Party lawmaker Jung Il-yong pointed out, "Seoul City is hardly submitting any audit data," adding, "If you claim submission is difficult because it is local government administration, why are we holding a parliamentary audit?"

Lawmaker Kim Nam-guk of the same party took issue with the fact that a company lacking ship-building experience and facilities manufactured the Hangang buses used by 700,000 citizens.

Raising suspicions that an amount equivalent to 10 percent of the ship-building cost was paid as a rebate, he argued, "This in itself disproves that the manufacturing process was substandard."

Kim emphasized that a precise explanation is needed regarding suspicions that Seoul City destroyed audit investigation materials, stressing the need for a thorough probe into allegations that the case was effectively buried for a year after the data disposal.

He also pointed out that problems existed within SH itself regarding this incident.

Criticism was also directed at the explanatory materials previously released by Seoul City concerning the Hangang bus rebate suspicions.

Jung Il-yong took issue with Seoul City Spokesperson Ho Jun-seok characterizing the parliamentary audit as a political offensive by the Democratic Party, protesting, "Did we come here to stage a political offensive?"

The response process of Seoul City from the time it became aware of the rebate allegations to requesting a police investigation also came under fire.

Cho In-cheol claimed, "Seoul City took no action whatsoever after the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the audit request on the same day, only belatedly requesting a police investigation last week following harsh rebukes from ruling party lawmakers on the Public Administration and Security Committee." He added, "It makes me think that Seoul City induced the dismissal of the request by submitting inadequate data to the Board of Audit and Inspection."

In response, Mayor Oh countered that the city has continuously investigated the related suspicions.

He explained that from July 23 to October 14, just before the Public Administration and Security Committee audit, the city conducted 23 rounds of investigations and preparations, including three requests for data investigation, one on-site visit, four interviews with related parties, and telephone calls.

He added that the investigation details could not be disclosed during the Public Administration and Security Committee audit because the relevant data had not been compiled, and noted that interviews with SH executives were conducted until last month.

Mayor Oh also pushed back against the Democratic Party's offensive surrounding the allegations, stating, "We view this as a political offensive."

Particularly regarding Kim Nam-guk framing the incident as a "1.5 billion won rebate case" during a preceding procedural remark, Oh asked back incredulously, "This is truly astounding. Where did 1.5 billion won come from?"

While acknowledging that the amount allocated to Gadeok Heavy Industries was slightly higher than that of other shipbuilders, Mayor Oh explained that the use of the funds must be verified through an investigation.

He emphasized that rebates and brokerage fees must be distinguished, stressing that paying brokerage fees is standard practice in the shipbuilding industry.

He stated that the brokerage fee identified at the time was 320 million won, noting that brokerage fees of around 1 percent are typically paid for small vessels.

He then questioned, "In the case of this [Hangang bus project], it was 2 percent, and that is what raised suspicions. Since brokerage fees themselves are legal, why do you call them rebates?"

Drawing a firm line, he stated, "There is zero clue or evidence indicating that a rebate went to an employee of our SH Corporation."

In response, Hur Young countered that Sungwoo ENG, which received the brokerage fee, is a company that has not registered as a marine brokerage business, arguing, "It is illegal because the fee went to a company unqualified to receive brokerage fees."

Mayor Oh retorted, "Whether 300 million won or 340 million won in brokerage fees went out, wouldn't it be a rebate only if even a portion of that went to an SH Corporation employee? Do you Democratic Party lawmakers currently have any clues that a rebate went to an SH Corporation employee? It is nothing more than suspicion."

Questions surrounding the destruction of audit materials and the cover-up of suspicions continued.

When People Power Party lawmaker Kim Jung-ja asked whether he had ever ordered the destruction or concealment of documents related to the Hangang buses, Mayor Oh denied it, saying, "No."

Joo Jae-wan, former head of the investigation division at Seoul City, also answered regarding whether he had reported the police request document to Mayor Oh, stating, "To my recollection, I did not provide a separate face-to-face report."

Mayor Oh stated that the day after the Public Administration and Security Committee's parliamentary audit, the city requested a police investigation into the Hangang bus rebate suspicions, and that an SH executive implicated in the suspicions was suspended from duties and relieved of his position on the same day.

In the afternoon, Mayor Oh took issue with the motive of the whistleblower who raised the Hangang bus rebate suspicions.

Answering a question from People Power Party lawmaker Uhm Tae-young, Mayor Oh said, "This incident began when an employee who worked in our audit office took these materials outside and disclosed them right before the Public Administration and Security Committee audit. While the individual claims to be a public interest whistleblower, after we internally grasped the circumstances, we found it was related to their personal personnel issues."

He claimed there was internal friction among employees during the process of the employee being transferred from the audit office to another department.

Mayor Oh pointed out that the public interest whistleblowing system should not be utilized as a tool to resolve personal personnel issues or interpersonal conflicts among staff.

Regarding the relief from duty of the SH executive, he also expressed the view that it is socially undesirable to relieve someone of their position based solely on suspicions without definitive clues.

In response to a question from People Power Party lawmaker Jung Dong-man asking if the Hangang bus rebate suspicions should be clearly revealed to citizens, Mayor Oh maintained that the whistleblower's motive was impure.

He criticized, "Taking various documents and materials related to an ongoing audit outside and publicizing them while the audit is actively underway arguably constitutes the leakage of official secrets. It appears they are trying to acquire whistleblower status to package this legally."

(Photo: Yonhap News)