The government has outlined its plan to draw up the Safety Innovation Master Plan, which is aimed at upgrading the nation’s safety system, in which numerous defects were exposed by the tragic sinking of the Sewol ferry in April.

Officials said the master plan, which will be completed by February next year, will be highlighted by a realignment of responsibilities among government offices during major disasters.

For instance, the new national safety agency that the Park Geun-hye administration wants to create, will, in principle, be responsible for coping with disasters, but the prime minister will take charge in case of disasters “on a higher scale.”

This is a half-baked idea. What will be the criteria for distiguishing “normal disasters” from “disasters of so high a scale as to warrant involvement of the prime minister?” Moreover, what good will the prime minister, who is not an expert on disaster management, be for the government’s operations in such an event?

Also questionable is the plan to leave disasters on land to the National Emergency Management Agency, which currently operates the firefighting service and 119 emergency and rescue services, and those in the seas to a new maritime safety agency, which is to replace the Korea Coast Guard.

It is still uncertain that President Park will be able to carry through her plan to shut down the Coast Guard, which she held primarily accountable for the loss of more than 300 people in the Sewol calamity, and replace it with a new maritime safety agency.

Many viewed the president’s decision to abolish the Coast Guard an emotive response to its botched rescue operations when the public agony and anger were reaching their peak. As things stand, the plan is opposed not only by the main opposition party but even by some members of the ruling party.

Moreover, the monthslong partisan standoff over the legislation of a special Sewol bill should warn officials that they should not be optimistic about pushing through the proposed government reorganization and other key elements of the master plan.

There are, of course, many things that can be done regardless of the legislative deadlock. For example, the master plan will integrate the emergency phone call systems now managed by about 20 different agencies. There is no reason to wait until next year to do things like this.

The master plan did well to pick areas that are most vulnerable to disasters, including nuclear power generation, air and maritime transportation, energy and hazardous chemicals.

These sectors, along with mass transit systems like railroad and subways, public facilities, accommodation facilities and major industrial sites, need closer safety inspections and improved measures to cope with disasters.

It would be good if the role of the private sector were expanded to upgrade safety prevention and management systems at worksites. Installing a chief safety officer at each major industrial facility could be one such measure. It would be better for the government to offer some incentives, like tax relief, to companies who make new investments in their safety systems.