The Prime Minister's Office on the 15th rejected a media report that the live broadcasting of Cabinet meetings has made it harder for ministers to voice views that differ from the president's, calling the account "not true." The report said that at an Oct. 2 dinner for Cabinet members hosted by Prime Minister Han Seong-sook, some ministers suggested it would be desirable to narrow the scope of the live broadcasts. The Prime Minister's Office responded that ministers "are freely expressing their opinions, and the president is actively accepting them." Whatever the facts, isn't the very existence of such a controversy rooted in the president's micromanaging style of governance and frequent policy reversals?
Cho Won-chul, minister of government legislation, said on the 15th that "the president is not necessarily obliged to appoint a nominee who has been recommended." Asked by a ruling party lawmaker during a parliamentary audit about the meaning of the right of recommendation, Cho described it as "a kind of recommendation, and a proposal." He added that if the president intends to reject a recommended candidate, "it would be contradictory to seek the National Assembly's consent," and that it is the chief justice's constitutional duty to comply with a request for a renewed recommendation. The thrust is that the president ranks above the chief justice under the Constitution — but does that square with the principle of separation of powers?