Differences in opinion are bound to exist in any organization. Departmental egoism and self-interest inevitably arise in our everyday lives. National governments are no exception. Disagreements among government ministries are bound to happen, and this is not a phenomenon that emerged over just a year or two. Because debate is an asset that builds a healthy organization, there is no need to view differences of opinion themselves in a negative light. However, when divergent voices are overtly expressed and inter-organizational conflicts are brazenly "exhibited," it becomes an entirely different matter. Even in past administrations, policy line conflicts, such as the so-called "pro-engagement versus pro-alliance" factions, existed. Regardless of which party was in power, there were also turf wars among ministries to secure policy initiative. However, the clash between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Unification unfolding after the foreign affairs and national security ministries' presidential work reports on the 5th leaves a particularly bitter aftertaste. This is because the level of conflict goes beyond mere competition over policy lines, raising doubts as to whether an integrated North Korea policy actually exists within the government. During a briefing following the conclusion of the work reports, Foreign Minister Cho Hyun evaluated the "Korean Peninsula Peace and Co-prosperity Initiative" pursued by Unification Minister Chung Dong-young as "idealistic." Regarding the Unification Ministry's announcement that it would secure momentum for four-way talks involving the two Koreas, the United States, and China, he even went so far as to say it should be taken with a "discount." On his way to work the next day, Minister Chung met with reporters and pointed out that "reality can only be changed when there is an ideal." When asked about concerns regarding the exposure of disagreements, a Unification Ministry official retorted, "Did we expose the disagreements?" It is true that the Unification Ministry's work report was indeed "idealistic," but it was unusual for the Foreign Ministry, which typically employs diplomatic language, to respond with exceptionally undiplomatic remarks. The series of events—where the head of the Foreign Ministry seemingly disparaged the remarks of the Unification Ministry chief, and the Unification Ministry chief immediately expressed discomfort—gave the impression that raw emotions were laid bare. While there are cases in a single government where roles are divided and situations are manipulated to one's advantage through "staged coordination," it can be said with certainty that this was not such a situation. Yet, this prompts the question of whether this is merely an issue concerning the foreign affairs and security line. Government officials are whispering that negotiations for the South Korea-U.S. fact sheet security sector, intertwined with U.S. investment, are split between the "trade faction," which emphasizes "commercial rationality," and the "security faction," which wants to accelerate the revision of the nuclear-powered submarine and atomic energy agreements. In the economic and social spheres, the Minister of Employment and Labor and the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy are voicing noticeably different stances on major pending issues. Regarding Industry Minister Kim Jeong-gwan's remark that the 52-hour workweek system needs to be overhauled, critics immediately pointed out that it conflicted with remarks made by Labor Minister Kim Young-hoon the previous day. Are we witnessing the emergence of a conflict between the "labor faction" and the "industry faction"? The fact that disagreements between ministries or cabinet ministers are relatively visible is not unrelated to the Lee Jae-myung administration's proactive governance stance of disclosing information. With Cabinet meetings broadcast live and work reports also fully televised, the government's "inner workings," which were previously difficult to know, may be easily exposed. Unlike previous administrations that typically rushed to control and conceal information, this pattern was initially sufficient to receive positive evaluations in terms of honestly demonstrating the process of state administration. However, as even the unrefined aspects of policy planning stages and uncoordinated differences of opinion are exposed, fatigue among observers seems to be piling up. Laying the groundwork for a hundred schools of thought to contend by inducing debate without unilaterally favoring a specific faction or ministry can contribute to boosting vitality in the early stages of governance. However, after fierce competition among various voices, they must eventually converge and be organized into a single, refined direction. The "ability to coordinate and organize," which maintains the center of gravity and makes decisive judgments amidst numerous differing opinions, is the true competence of state administration. The shelf life of the freshness provided by "raw governance" does not last forever. I would like to ask if it is now time to prove competence beyond the "disclosure of process" with "refined outcomes and decisiveness." Just as debate is a competency, speaking with "one voice" must also be a competency.