Extra-Ordinary Conversation

Striving to understand the Bizarre and Beyond

[23han-blog]

What is Political Correctness?

Today is Wednesday, 1st February 2017.

The first piece of writing posted on EOC was on ‘wrong’ and ‘different’ http://23han.tumblr.com/post/145936656222/wednesday-15-june-2016 . It was not a perfectly written article but it was about the need to acknowledge the difference between  ‘다르다’ (da-reu-da/different) and ‘틀리다’ (teul-li-da/wrong) . What this article lacked was the criterion to how to set these differences and simply asked the readers to address the difference between the two words. In 2017, EOC started to discuss about ‘Political Correctness’ (Part I & II) http://23han.tumblr.com/post/155245021417/how-political-correct-should-we-be-part-i http://23han.tumblr.com/post/155874493537/political-correctness-part-ii . These two articles about Political Correctness do not merely try to explain that you need Political Correctness. It was written to set a foundation to more discussions we wish to develop. The word Political Correctness provokes us into thinking about how we should interpret ‘political’ and whether ‘correct’ defines ‘appropriate’ or ‘accurate’. Exploring ‘what is being politically correct’ and setting a certain criterion for Political Correctness should not be decided hastily.

There are many explanations on Political Correctness when searched on portal sites. If we can say that something is political correct, then we should also be able to state what is politically incorrect. It should not merely be a matter of accuracy but ask beyond it and demand for justice. However if ‘Correctness’ is understood as ‘accurate’, then under this premise it means that Political Correctness aims to emend the wrong understanding that were seemingly ‘inaccurate’ – which ultimately determines Political Correctness as means to ‘correcting’ a thought. When is it that we can apply this to our society? EOC aims to continuously remark upon this issue to untangle its complexities. The answer will surely be found during the process as we explore this issue, rather than as a final product.

This issue cannot easily be a welcoming subject. This idea (Political Correctness) which is used mostly in English-speaking countries was injected straight into our society – South Korea - without any modification and became a controversial issue. If we refer back to Lee Hyon-soo (a retired international banker) , the definition of Political Correctness – according to him – is “using words or behavior which will not offend any particular group of people in society”. Then we are set to look into how a certain group of people are named and ponder upon how to use words less offensively. First, how a group is made is not a difficult issue. A group of people who need protection or a group of people irrationally exempt from mainstream society could be such examples. Let us assume that in order for these people to be respected equally, there needs to be a certain word to define them. Let us think into who uses the specific words to mention these people. Initially, we can see that the person directly involved would use it. These people should be able to decide what words are used. However, their efforts cannot change the words already used by the majority of people. At this point, we can see that there are a set of people who would try to come of aid to their needs. For instance, for those who are discriminated just because they have different skin color, many people have come together to fight for those without any power. The word ‘African American’ exemplifies such an endeavor.

Such efforts are neither always appropriate nor accurate. In Korea, people who are mentally or physically challenged are called ‘jang ae in’ (disabled person), and a synonym ‘jang ae oo’ (disabled friend) is also used. ‘oo’ meaning ‘friend’(友 – Chinese character) was adapted for more intimacy with these people and consider them as friends. This was made with good intentions and did not aim to attack or victimize anyone. The question that arose was, “Why is it that these ‘challenged people’ should be subject of ‘friendship’?”. Though the word itself is amicable, the disabled people found it difficult to accept themselves becoming a ‘friendly figure’ just because they are disabled. It also implied disabled people are ‘lesser’ people in a society who should be helped where the ‘superior’ people decided who is ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’. In order for someone to be a ‘oo’ (a friend), they should bond by spending time together, and should not simply be called ‘friend’ just because you want to be friendly. Disabled people would rather think that such an effort to be ‘friendly’ is selfish and would rather prefer the initial word ‘jang ae in’ than ‘jang ae oo’. A word with an objective meaning, defining exactly who they are, could be less offensive and derogative.

Of course, in order to respect others, recalling Political Correctness is an act of politeness. However, the freedom that we speak of is as J. S. Mill stated, as long as such words do not harm another person’s freedom then it should be accepted. Rather, excessive self-censorship could lead to negative decisions that purify too many words that may be actually needed, contributing to a diluted result. If such manner becomes prevalent, our society will be no different to a Big Brother society. Freedom of expression is in fact the foundation of all civil liberties. If the fundamental freedoms are not honored then is it truly being politically correct?

If we aim for such censorship, it could forge reprehensible results for many people. It could mean that under the umbrella of Political Correctness, a political incorrect result could be fabricated. In South Korea, people who evoke disagreeable words for Political Correctness are called “PC Choong” (Computer-PC roaches). When we look into the meaning of this suffix, we can notice that it is not courteous or solicitous. In English-speaking countries, the word “Social Justice Warrior” is used and this word also seems to be a word of disdain. These so-called people may personally believe that they do what they do for justice. However, the word ‘justice’ has a more weighty substance than people can imagine. Such a word that is as sharp as the blade of a knife, should be thought over with great contemplation and agony that is beyond ordinary thought. If we believe that we all can be Batman, the pain that Batman had to suffer in darkness would become meaningless. Faith and belief will undoubtedly lead us down a better path. However, they should never be blindly wielded.

 This was written by Hongphil of EOC and translated by TK.

 The original article written in Korean can be found on Naver Blog http://blog.naver.com/23_hada/220924584681

[23han-blog]

Political Correctness Part II

Today is Sunday, 15th January 2017

Allergy Rhinitis (AR) also known as hay fever, is a type of inflammation in the nose which occurs when the immune system overreacts to allergens in the air (wikipedia)

 What is AR?

01.    Symptoms include a runny or stuffy nose, sneezing, red, itchy, and watery eyes, and swelling around the eyes. It is a hypersensitivity disease of the nasal mucous membrane.

02.    A common illness affecting 10-24% of total population, among which 30% of children suffer.

 AR is triggered by,

1.      Lack of air circulation in apartments

2.     Western-style furniture that is difficult to clean such as beds

3.     Decrease of cleaning due to women working outside the house

4.     Increase of dust because of air pollution.

 This is a simple informatory leaflet given to parents and children at the hospital explaining the cause of AR which became a photo of debate on Instagram with about a hundred comments. Is there anything you would like to comment on, upon this leaflet?

 A leaflet that scientifically explains an illness and highlights how to prevent it should be based on facts; medicine and doctors’ consultations are decisions based on years of scientific study and results of medical technology. Wisdom from years of medical experience is crucial part of being a doctor and understanding an illness or disease, however, an informatory leaflet which states that the cause of AR is “(3) Decrease of cleaning due to women working outside the house” is questionable.

 In order to easily understand the argument behind this controversial statement, the following paragraphs will narrate each opposing side’s opinions.

 A cause of AR is “(3) Decrease of cleaning due to women working outside the house”. This statement is wrong.

 YES, IT IS WRONG = this statement is ‘wrong’ because it is politically incorrect. To assert that a cause of an illness is a certain group of people is scientifically misguided and even immoral. A community cannot be faulted into a reason of an illness.

 NO, IT IS NOT WRONG = this statement is not about blaming a certain group of people. It could be a cause that happened in many families. It is a change in society that could cause hay fever. You should not be oversensitive about what could be a cause of a phenomenon in a majority of families: families where mothers used to be housekeepers and have now started to work outside the homes.

 YES, IT IS WRONG = the premise underlying this statement is that women must clean the house. From a common-sense standpoint, why this should be a cause to an illness cannot be justified. Why should women be the only ‘cleaner’ in the house? Having a job and fulfilling a life outside the house for women and men is a right that most societies have in the modern era. If AR is caused by women leaving the homes, then this contends that ‘no one does the house work’. Women in our society, in Korea, will continuously have to either fall under the title ‘house keeper’, ‘house wife’ or ‘super-moms’. Supermoms whom hold the responsibility of having their own jobs as well as doing all the housework, when they come home after work. What do the fathers do when they come back home after work, when their wives become ‘supermoms’? Symptoms of AR caused by moms not doing their ‘jobs’ tells us that men do not need to clean and a dirty home is caused by the mothers.

 NO, IT IS NOT WRONG = some men do housework after their daily jobs. As much as there is an increase in working women, there is also an increase in men doing housework. However, in our society, especially our Korean society, this could still be said to be a minority. If we want to talk about who does what in a household then this goes into every feature of different types of families: gay families, single parents, etc. We are talking about the majority. The majority is; it would be nice for fathers to clean the house BUT the majority of fathers come home and rest and the working moms (or housewives) have to do both cleaning and work - yes they do become supermoms. This is a pity. And we are not saying women should not become successful and only clean but the fact when we look at the majority; the majority of women would clean better than men and the majority of fathers come home and are not given responsibilities to do house chores.

 Of course, we want the change. The change of view that all men and women are equal (all equality in gender and race) but embedded inside most people is education and tradition. There are certain cultural features in a nationality, which are passed down as tradition - which we cannot ignore. If we regard this as sexism, it is wrong because what we currently have is THIS situation where women are still home keepers and men do not do a lot of housework. We want all equality, no implications tagged to women or men. However, generally, women had to clean and it has been passed down every generation. There are changes, but still, a majority of women do clean better despite changes being made. Many women believe this as well. How would we view women who think that women should not work and only nurture the household? Should we state that they are wrong? We are not aiming to degrade women, we are talking about general facts of the majority.

 YES, IT IS WRONG = General facts are different to scientific evidence which proves the cause and effect of a disease. However since the leaflet mentions a general fact to be societal cause to AR, then why didn’t it state or add “lack of fathers cleaning”. If we follow your logic that tradition and culture must be valued and the society that we have today still enforces women to clean the houses, then according to this logic, it is only clear that ‘men do not have the ability to clean’ should also be added to the leaflet. Thus, the leaflet must be revised into:

ORIGINAL ARGUMENT: A cause of AR is “(3) Decrease of cleaning due to women working outside the house”

à REVISED ARGUMENT: A cause of AR is “Decrease of cleaning due to women working outside the house and men’s incompetency of doing housework.”

 Since this also puts men’s lack of potential to cleaning, this statement must also be revised. Both genders are given blame and could we state that this is correct? Maybe, whatever the reason might be for a mother or father not cleaning the house, the true reason to why AR could be triggered is fundamentally because of “a lack of cleaning in the house, increasing the amount of allergy-triggering atmosphere”. There is no attachment to men or women and does not pin point anyone.

  Arguing whether a word or statement is ‘politically correct’ has become an issue that scrutinizes every connotation in our language. Whether the above argument is right or wrong is something that we must decide. Is it politically correct to highlight gender as the root cause of a disease or shall we accept its cause as a general phenomena in society? Of course, considering the offence towards a certain group of people, it does seem absurd to print such a medical leaflet. However, how should we view those arguing that an offence could be made to every group of people in an era where diversity and difference is welcomed? In an era where many voices are heard and we are given the privilege to have our rights protected, when should we be saying ‘NO’ and ‘YES’? Was it right for us to say the opposing side of the argument is wrong, when by stating so we may be reversely suppressing their voices? Where tradition and culture is valued, how do we find the clear line to ‘discrimination’ and ‘having a backbone’?

 The question that arises is; Do we actually acknowledge and truly know what is political correct? There are countless beliefs and in the modern times, even if five people believe it, we cannot exclude it. As much as thoughts are respected, there will always be a disagreement and someone will complain. We have become and are becoming more and more careful. This is what civilization and history has given to us, since humans have always made mistakes and harmed each other. However, in a society where there is so much diversity and where we must all be careful to state what is ‘correct’, what can we say? We can only say facts. We should only say facts because numbers are most accurate and do not offend (though evaluation of numbers could also be subjective – which is a different story).

 As seen in the above argument, we have so many views and opinions. However, if we were about to die and we read this argument, what would we think? Would we laugh? Could we say this is a problem of youth? Or is this the beginning of a change for the better world? Have we become so allergic to the world where we follow or unfollow something so easily that now we need to stand for something? Generally everyone knows what is right and wrong – we are having fewer extremes (manslaughter, slavery) but we could also be losing what is right and wrong. We could be having less moral fiber. Now everything is an argument where all opinions are mixed and this has worked towards freeing those who had been suppressed and who suffered without a voice. However, should we be questioning if in a society where every person’s opinions are important, are ‘bad’ people sneaking past in the good of society?

 Should we be politically correcting Political Correctness?

 This was written by TK of EOC. Thank you for reading.

[23han-blog]

How Political Correct Should We Be? Part I

Today is Sunday, 1st January 2017

 In a world where most nations have adapted democracy, freedom is a privilege to everyone to the extent that it does not harm another person. This freedom gives us unbounded space to make our own decisions and post blogs on thoughts towards a certain issue. This freedom is not unconditional. Our ancestors had fought for their voices to be heard, died for causes that freed people from pain, and resisted against power for a freer world; the world that we have today in 2017. Those who had been suppressed, hidden from their true identity, have now taken the courage to state who they are to the world, because the world now takes value in every minority and protects their freedom. Voices are heard, and yet again voices are also hidden and faded out. Nonetheless, the mainstream is no longer black and white, and has been added new colors. However, on a platform where so many voices are heard, the language that we use has to be reexamined. Words that we know to define a certain community or identity still have its limits to restrain someone’s freedom. Language which has the power to shape our thoughts has its power to shape the world. This is how “Political Correctness” comes into context.

 Lee Hyon-soo (a retired international banker) wrote a brief summary on the meaning of “Political Correctness” in The Korean Times.

 “political correctness, which means using words or behavior which will not offend any particular group of people in society. The rationale behind the idea of political correctness is that it is important for everyone to be treated equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender, race, appearance and religion, among other things. As English-speaking Western societies have evolved, the use of gender-specific language has become a thing of the past. Now it is politically correct to use gender-neutral terms. ….”

 He gives us some examples as:

- stewardess: flight attendant

- waiter-waitress: server

- housewife : homemaker.

 Other than gender-neutral terms, some other politically correct words are: - Negro: African American - colored people: people of color  - handicapped: physically challenged - blind: vision impaired - illegal immigrant: undocumented immigrant

 Lee continues to mention how Political Correctness has become a term of debate, through mentioning how at times, “It is interesting to note that some terms which are purported to be politically correct have gone too far”.

Some examples are:

- perverted: sexually dysfunctional

- poor: financially inept

- dishonest: ethically disoriented

- wrong: differently logical

- ugly: under-attractive

- garbage man: sanitation engineer

- car wash worker: vehicle-appearance specialist

- alcoholic: anti-sobriety activist

Lee ends the article by stating that, “there are some people who feel censored by political correctness. They believe that political correctness infringes too much on their freedom of expression. Despite such criticism, it is generally acknowledged that political correctness is vital in society because without it all imaginable prejudices would still be around.”

(Source: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2016/11/162_219094.html )

 It is not difficult to agree with Lee, on how Political Correctness does seem to correct “differently logical” (wrong) words used in our society that still repress or offend a certain group of people. However, we can also clearly see how so many words could be subject to offence and disrespect. The question of where do we draw the line should be answered. Are we all to be censored by Political Correctness because we might infringe on others’ communal representation and unconsciously overpower them through a certain word? Are we to lose our own freedom of speech because we have become too conscious of words and its meaning? Where should we draw a line? Could we ever draw a line?

 As much as our mothers and fathers have fought for a brighter world, we too must go through this phase where language has control over our thoughts in the information era, where freedom has given us a stage to spill our words. ‘Free’ words that could yet again suppress but Political Correctness could also trespass onto the very rights that were fought for.

   This was written by TK of EOC. Thank you for reading.

[23han-blog]

Do you hear the people sing?

Today is Thursday, 15th December 2016

Since civilization has recorded history, if history was to be evaluated as to have progressed, this would be because we have abolished slavery, and overcome an age of social discrimination to reach a time where we are all respected as equals. Democracy has bloomed and since, every human being is entitled to power. The majority no longer exist for the minority. There are setbacks to a progressive history but from the price of innocent souls we have formed a communal will for a peaceful and free world. If history seems to regress then it should be met by strong resistance to not fall back into past practices. 2016, Republic of Korea seems to be showing this moment in history.

 As we made this system, we handed power to not a person, but law. In order to protect ourselves from violence and chaos we voluntarily pledged to obey the law. Therefore, in Modern society, those who break the law; anyone who harms the stability of society, is subject to punishment. Law-abiding consciousness should be set prior for a democratic citizen. However, there is no need to be restricted to a system that is unjust and irrational. This is because the people are no longer slaves. Thus, the people fight against illegitimacy.

 If a governments’ policy or law that has damaged human dignity, fundamental principle of justice and public interest is known to members of the society, and the people fight for change or abolition of a policy or law through a conscious stronghold, appealing for justice, and violate the positive law in a public and nonviolent manner, this is a political action called ‘civil disobedience’ (extract from Philosophy of Law by Kim Dokyun, Lee Sangyoung, translated by TK). According to Philosophy of Law, civil disobedience shows that people take voluntary actions, following public justice principles - within its means must not be accompanied by violence. People should also note that any action that is not based on one’s conscious could be subject to punishment. If civil disobedience is a means to merely disagree with social order, deriving from personal greed then this should be subject to going against one’s conscious and face its consequences.

 Hannah Arendt, on civil disobedience, stated that civil disobedience cannot be regarded in the same light as criminal disobedience. According to her writing, a criminals’ aim to sabotage the public is completely different to a civil disobeyer who openly resists to the law (Hannah Arendt, Civil Disobedience). Therefore, Arendt distinguishes revolution and civil disobedience differently. The fact that a revolution could arouse criminal offense is why they should be differentiated; civil disobedience consists of nonviolent resistance.

 Civil disobedience is discussed upon issues concerning conscientious objection to military service. Then, how is the way that we are living now be explained?

 We strive to live in a society that has a stable system and can call itself to justice. If a free and equal society is the result of history progressing, then we cannot stand still and have it taken away from us. Hundred thousand of citizens gathered at Gwanghwamun every week in order to protest against the power that corrupted the democratic republic. Struggle for democracy is deeply engraved within the modern history of Republic of Korea. The liberal democracy of ROK that is protected lies within the power of not the president but of its people. It is the heritage that thousands of people sacrificed themselves to protect. However, the president of today, with the manners of authoritarianism, has damaged the division of power and not protected the fundamental human rights of its people. What is most clear in modern democracy is that the government has been entrusted power by its people. If anyone tries to countermarch against this, then it should be met with fierce resistance.

 It is shocking to see what is happening in South Korea. Due to the difficulties of changing a system, people have sought physical action to solve this problem. However, within the hands of the people at Gwanghwamun are nothing other than candles. People are lightening up the dark by maintaining order and singing with their candlelight. From the thousands who stood in the very same place with their firebombs, full of smoke, we have reached a time where people have come together without any physical conflict, with only the lights of candles to show their will to resist. To not repeat a painful history, people have gathered together to drive out the night.

 9th December 2016, the National Assembly passed the bill to impeach President Park Geun-hye. Every week thousands of people came together and the Court promised them their rights and freedom to march down Gwanghwamun. Even after the impeachment was approved, people are still on the streets; singing and lighting candles. Peoples’ judgements have not settled. The world is changing slowly. However, it is changing nevertheless. We would like to contribute this article to those who stood in the dark with their candles, and show our gratitude.

   This was written by Hongphil of EOC and translated by TK.

The original article written in Korean can be found on Naver Blog http://blog.naver.com/23_hada/220886576122

[23han-blog]

The Unknown Variable, Trump.

Today is Thursday, 1st December 2016

On the 8th of last month, after winning the competition against Hillary Clinton, Trump was elected as the next president of the United States of America. Unlike what the media predicted as Hillary being elected, Trump’s successful election, winning with considerable difference in toll numbers, has received attention since the beginning of his candidacy. Now is the time to pay full attention to him. As the world hegemon changing its policies and taking a different stance from the past, it will not simply mean domestic transformation and its influence will not just affect one or two nations.

Currently, we have been hearing news of President-elect Trump appointing personnel. Although Trump does not seem to be following his fixed stereotypical impression that he first gave by the look of his appointment, he still remains ultra-conservative and his route is predicted to be a difficulty for foreign affairs and national security. However, one thing for certain is that nothing is completely determined. After his election, President-elect has been examining his past remarks and is planning how to operate his administration. As the next president of the country that has more than just a small influence on the whole world, he surely needs to be cautious is his decisions. However, including the academia, there is diverse observations about Trump. Renowned for The End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama stated that the world order would collapse after Trump’s election, however after Trump became the president-elect, American stock markets have been on a rise (“Donald Trump’s stunning electoral defeat of Hillary Clinton marks a watershed not just for American politics, but for the entire world order” F. Fukuyama https://www.ft.com/content/6a43cf54-a75d-11e6-8b69-02899e8bd9d1). The uncertainty that we see in his being elect, could be a quality of his administration; thus analyzed to be a crucial element of the Trump administration.

What is it that we can anticipate from this ‘uncertainty’? We can assume that Trump’s policies will bring great shift. Especially as he has a career as a businessman, there will be much interest in his economic policies. First the following will show how the domestic order will change. According to Fortune’s analysis, homes with children will receive preferential treatment on tax, and there will be no reduction to medical and public welfare expenditure. What was said in his campaigns where he pledged to abolish Obama Care and cut taxes, are actually very similar to what the Republicans have traditionally stood for (All You Need to Know About ‘Trumponomics’ in One Chart, Fortune, 2016. 8. 11). However in order to clearly see if this is true, we must wait and see until he takes office.

Furthermore, Trumponomics seems to be based on America-first-policy. President-elect Trump has declared withdrawal from Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and this process is said to have a big effect in international trade order. It could bring not only America’s but China’s stronger status internationally. It is not easy to ignore that America and China’s influence in our country’s trade economy will be affected. Additionally, President-elect Trump stated that he will reexamine the Free Trade Agreement for America’s interest. In a situation where Korea-US FTA is at stake, our country is currently undergoing its own difficulties where the seat for the minister of economy is vacant. Though we are not even ready to prepare for 2017 policies, we are more at loss with preparing for Trump’s ‘uncertainty’.

It is predicted that Trumponomics will lead to Trumpflation. Trump has stated that there will be an immense expansion of investment into infrastructural development which will highlight the second New Deal Policy. Through this will many new jobs be made. John Bilton, the head of the Global Strategy Team of JP Morgan Asset Management has analyzed that because of Trump’s reinforcement of protective trade, America’s productivity will drop and offset the effects of a short-term stimulus. Corporate tax reduction is balanced with the global trend but as tax reduction is focused on the wealthy, the question of whether the redistribution of wealth possible is set on the table. America’s economy which he wishes to protect; will he be able to bring its productivity up with the dangers that economic stagnation accompanies? From being a businessman to becoming a president with a particular history, how he will reveal solutions to forthcoming tasks will need to be closely evaluated.

More than anything, America’s state of affairs will have a considerable impact on Republic of Korea. It is difficult to ignore not only renegotiation of FTA and its economical influence as mentioned above, but also national security that will be targeted to change. Considering the current high tensions within the Korean peninsula, it is not simply an election of a country’s president that we should view his entrance.

Trump’s pledges could be represented through his slogan. “Make America Great Again”. The reason why he was elected could lie in the expectations towards this promise. Could Trump really make America great again? After the Korean War, since 1950s America has experienced an economic boom. Trump’s insistence for protective trade could be derived from repulsion towards thinking globalization has hindered America’s gains. If this is so, how could we predict the measures to which he will use to make a richer America? The reason why, we should not simply look upon this issue as a subject of interest but maintain a close eye towards it, lies here.

  This was written by Hongphil of EOC and translated by TK.

 The original article written in Korean can be found on Naver Blog 

http://blog.naver.com/23_hada/220875605928

[23han-blog]

The President’s Responsibility.

Today is Tuesday, 15th November 2016.

Within the vortex of contemporary history live two women with broken lives. Called as “my little sparrow” by her father, Svetlana Alliluyeva seeks political asylum at the US Embassy in India, leaving her motherland in 1967. Arriving in New York, she gives a press conference denouncing her father and the Soviet regime. After this, she becomes used within the power struggle between the US and Soviet Union, thus leads a confined and imprisoned life. Though she had her mother’s surname, her father’s name became chains to her own name and, living a life where she was neither an American nor a person of her own country, died in a sanitarium in Wisconsin.  "Wherever I go, here, or Switzerland, or India, or wherever. Australia. Some island. I always will be a political prisoner of my father's name," she stated in an interview and it seems that she was never free from her dictator father’s name.

Park Geun-Hye - the daughter of the President of Republic of Korea, Park Chung-Hee - became the acting First Lady after she came back home whilst studying abroad in France, since her mother was shot. She also lost her father from an assassination. Her father who consecutively filled the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th Presidency, staged from a military coup d'état titled as a “Military Revolution’, amended the constitution whilst holding a long term of dictatorship. Until Kim Jae-Gyu assassinated him in 1979, 26th October, he kept his power under emergency measures as a constitutional measure to govern ROK. Although he achieved economic development known as the ‘Miracle of Hangang’, he wrote into our history a suppression of human rights through dictatorship which breaks down the fundamentals of divisions of power. The ‘Inhyukdang Incident’(People’s Revolution Party Incident) which was the main example of suppressing human rights under the Park Chung-Hee regime received a judgment of acquittal in 2015. It took 50 years to know that this was a false espionage case, when in 1965 the Supreme Court sentenced the death penalty and the sentence was executed within less than 24 hours. Park Chung-Hee’s daughter stated in a radio talk show in 2012, that the Inhyukdang Incident in relation with the Yushin regime was “to be judged by history” and “what we should be doing now is what is given to us now, and we should fulfill our mission to make our best effort”.

What would it have been like to live as a daughter of a dictator? It is difficult to imagine, or apply the guilt-by-association system and ask for moral responsibility. However, we also cannot support for an acquittal. The name of her father was not only shackles, but it also could have given a halo effect.

On the 12th of this month, over one million people gathered at Gwanggwamun Square in central Seoul. After the 1987 Civil Uprising, it is known to be the biggest scale yet to have gathered. On this day, at the Square, people with candles and signboards were all shouting “Park Geun-Hye Resign”.

President Park Chung-Hee’s daughter Park Geun-Hye became the 18th President in 2012. No matter how displeased one may be of her being president, if the elections were not falsely manipulated, then under democratic legitimacy the president of ROK is directly elected by the people. Voting is a right and freedom of the people. Even if one may vote by simple preference, because it is a principle of democracy for secret ballots, we cannot deny any votes. Within her future-oriented attitude, many could have read into it the past of splendid economic accomplishment.

However, now, as the president of this country, she is set to take great responsibility. The reason why people gathered at the square for resignation is because of the position that she fills.

With recent incidents, known as ‘Choi Soon-Sil’-Gate, is added more shock as more is revealed that even the Blue House is involved. The President of ROK has the duty to protect the constitution and at the inauguration, is set to take an oath. The Constitution of ROK presents the people as the sovereign, not an individual, and clearly following the democratic spirit supports the balance of power. If an individual with no authority exercised power, or if an individual given authority to promote public interest exercises power for one’s own interest, then that person must be punished for violating the Constitution. This is the reason why so many people came to the Square in front of the Blue House and lit their candles in the dark. It is difficult to ask of the president the responsibility of a failed policy. However it is a different question to ask for being responsible for a crime. The Prosecutor has asked exceptionally for investigating on President Park. According to the constitution, unless of criminal act for causing national disturbances within and without, a criminal prosecution is not possible, however at a point where the people who have voted for her have turned their backs, it is difficult not to ask what is wrong. Being responsible for a wrongdoing does not always relate to legal prosecution. Being responsible for doing something wrong is something that children know, and is a truth we all recognize. Furthermore, realizing the subject of disrupting the constitutional law, revealing the wrongdoings and asking for the responsibility is most needed in the current situation.

People make their own decisions and actions. A person who committed a wrongdoing on the basis of rationality and consciousness should feel ashamed and act responsibly. People brought candles to the streets, not firebombs. After an era of violence and oppression, the people of today have come to light their candles for a tomorrow. For a ruler, to repeat the past without adapting to the current period, they should have the burdens of responsibility no other individual can ever have.

Do you feel the weight of responsibility?

President Park released a statement to the nation stating “a president’s term is finite, yet Republic of Korea must live on forever”; asking for the maintenance of state affairs. Now we need to ask the same thing back. As the president stated, our nation will forever be a democratic republic that supports freedom and equality. Exempting personal feelings, being responsible for wrongdoings and differentiating sacrifice and tolerance is where we can see the future of a righteous Republic of Korea. For those who are faithful to the history of our time, you, Park Geun-Hye, now stand as the president of Republic of Korea to hold your last responsibility.

  This was written by Hongphil of EOC and translated by TK.

The original article written in Korean can be found on Naver Blog http://blog.naver.com/23_hada/220861984844

[23han-blog]

President Park Geun-hye and the Constitutional Amendment.

Today is 1st November, 2016.

 On the 24th October, during her parliamentary speech at the National Assembly, President Park Geun-hye expressed a strong will towards a constitutional amendment. It is to reform the constitutional article which states a single, five-year presidency. The current constitutional law Article 70 states “The term of office of the President shall be five years, and the President shall not be reelected.” The Constitution, revised for the ninth time after a national referendum was determined in October 1987, is a harvest of the people’s fight for democracy within the Republic of Korea’s modern history. It is through this constitutional law that we were able to push back military and authoritarian power and allowed us to vote with our very own hands - the president of the country. Like so, the history of our constitutional law shows us that the single term presidency has an ideal meaning.

 However, there has been continuous debate about a constitutional amendment within the academic and political spheres. As much as geographical structures do not even need a year to see change, the society seems to undergo rapid change and it has merely been approximately thirty years since the last constitutional reform in 1987. President Park seems to be strongly proposing the reform because five years does not seem enough to fulfill foreign policies in relation with major government public relations. As President Park stated in detail, the low birthrate and aging society is changing the population geography and structure of the society which leads us to strive towards multiple values than that of the past when we valued one specific principle. Taking this into account, as President Park stated, the single, five-year presidency, “it has now become clothes that no longer fit our body”.

 Since the National Assembly was claimed by the opposition party this year, Jung Sae-gyun, the chairman of the National Assembly, has been expressing his views towards constitutional amendment since he has taken office. Last 17th July, on the Constitution Day, he also proposed a reformation and the opposition party did not respond negatively. The spokesman of the opposition party, Kookminuidang (국민의당), Son Geum-joo stated that he hopes that President Park could open the road towards a constitutional amendment.

 In such a situation, we need to examine closely into President Park’s statement on an amendment that she proposed on 24th October. First, let us review the procedure of constitutional amendment of ROK.

 A constitutional amendment is defined as maintaining the current Constitution through the amendment procedure whilst changing the articles and sentences by revising, deleting or adding to the content (Source: Sung Nak-In, Constitutional Study). Chapter ten within the Constitution of ROK holds information about the constitutional amendment. The following are the relevant regulations.

 CHAPTER X AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

 Article 128

(1) A proposal to amend the Constitution shall be introduced either by a majority of the total members of the National Assembly or by the President.

(2) Amendments to the Constitution for the extension of the term of office of the President or for a change allowing for the reelection of the President shall not be effective for the President in office at the time of the proposal for such amendments to the Constitution.

 Article 129

Proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be put before the public by the President for twenty days or more.

 Article 130

(1) The National Assembly shall decide upon the proposed amendments within sixty days of the public announcement, and passage by the National Assembly shall require the concurrent vote of two thirds or more of the total members of the National Assembly.

(2) The proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be submitted to a national referendum not later than thirty days after passage by the National Assembly, and shall be determined by more than one half of all votes cast by more than one half of voters eligible to vote in elections for members of the National Assembly.

(3) When the proposed amendments to the Constitution receive the concurrence prescribed in paragraph (2), the amendments to the Constitution shall be finalized, and the President shall promulgate it without delay.

 If President Park proposes a constitutional amendment based on the first article of Article 128, the proposed amendment will undergo a notification period of more than twenty days and through the procedure of Article 130, then there will be a reformation and promulgation. Such a procedure does not seem simple. As much as the Constitution is the supreme law of the country, its reformation should not be so simple.

 It is important to thoroughly examine the second article of Article 128 within such a procedure.

              Amendments to the Constitution for the extension of the term of office of the President or for a change allowing for the reelection of the President shall not be effective for the President in office at the time of the proposal for such amendments to the Constitution.

 If we understand this article correctly, it states that the president who proposes the amendment of an extension or reelection of the presidency will not be subject to the revision made. After a dictatorial government, the constitution was arbitrarily formed so that we could reexamine our constitutional history and proclaim the democratic spirit within the constitutional laws and articles. Therefore, even if there is a constitutional amendment under President Park’s office, President Park cannot serve consecutive terms under the amended Constitution.

 If it is the case that this article is amended, what will happen? There is no other article in relation to this article within the Constitution. If this article is revised through, deleted and a new article is added into the Constitution, the President could add a law which allows the law to applied to the president who amended the constitution. Some in the academic sphere state that this is a limit of the article, or an expression of sovereignty that strengthens democracy through the single term presidency which was set by our self-examination. The Constitution is not simply a common law. The Constitutional Court has recognized the existence of customary law and no one views the lack of principles within the Constitution as constitutional.

 The Constitution shows the will power of those with sovereignty. The supreme leaders of the country are the people. Therefore, if there should be an amendment, it should follow the voice of the people. If the people wish it to be, then it should be done.

 Lastly, we should re consider the time when we need the amendment. Former President Roh Moo-hyun suggested a constitutional amendment and the chairman of the National Assembly Jung Sae-gyun proposed an amendment as soon as he came into office, which all indicate that discussions of an amendment did not suddenly arise on 24th October. However, why should it be now? Did President Park need to give a proposal at this moment when there is suspicion and disorder? In the past, President Park is known to have criticized President Roh’s constitutional amendment proposal as a “blackhole”. Asking for a uniform stance based on past statements is not the issue at this moment and does not seem to apply to this debate. However, we do need to study the word she used. If it is a “blackhole”, it is surely enough to swallow any suspicion or attention that emerge.

  This was written by Hongphil of EOC and translated by TK.

 The original article written in Korean can be found on Naver Blog http://blog.naver.com/23_hada/220802279752

  Sources: Sung Nak-In, Constitutional Study

[23han-blog]

Saturday, 15 October 2015

About Being ECO.

Earth. The most beautiful, bountiful and alive planet in our solar system. The planet which supports over eight million unique species – it is a breathing being itself that supports the lives of others. As much as this miraculous planet has been researched upon throughout years, there is still much that is difficult to understand. Conundrums that push us to answer mysteries about Mother Nature and to find reliable solutions when natural disasters hit, are continuously set on our table. Humanity has endeavored throughout centuries to survive in the vastness of this planet, and as scientific technology has broadened our horizons on our knowledge of nature, we have come to understand that some natural disasters are man-made.

As much as global-warming has been an unresolved problem, awareness towards our environment has been taken in many different levels. From individuals, societies, governments and international society; reserving animals, plants, and natural ecosystem is a task that we all are trying to participate in. Though much process has been made, from laws to international organizations which help build consciousness towards this problem, there are still many people who do not practice being eco-friendly. Reasons to this could be because; there has been fierce debate over the cause of global warming - being a natural or man-made phenomenon, which has caused doubt over why we need to make inconvenient measures to save our planet. However, whatever had triggered our Earth to act the way it has - acting with its terrifying natural disasters which have heightened in the recent decade -  because of the increasing number of endangered and extinct animals, and permeating dirt and toxins from pollution, we all, as one, must change our perception towards Mother Nature which is losing its capacity of rehabilitation.

Initially established as a special fund to help the economic and politic aspects of underdeveloped countries in 1965, United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has expanded into a global development network where they advocate for change; specifically that of (i) sustainable development, (ii) democratic governance and peacebuilding, (iii) climate and disaster resilience. The classic model of sustainable development, of three integrated pillars – economic, social and environmental – that has served nations and the UN for over a decade in the early 21st century was said to be flawed because it did not reflect reality. 

Researchers say that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set to expire in 2015, have helped focus international efforts on eight poverty-related goals. However, despite successes in some areas – the number of people living on less than one dollar a day has been more than halved – many MDGs have not been met, and some remain in conflict with one another. Economic gains, for example, have come at the expense of environmental protection. Politicians are struggling to link global environmental concerns with addressing poverty.

The new set of goals (Agenda 2030) – thriving lives and livelihoods, food security, water security, clean energy, healthy and productive ecosystems, and governance for sustainable societies – aim to resolve this conflict. The targets beneath each goal include updates and expanded targets under the MDGs, including ending poverty and hunger, combating HIV/aids, and improving maternal and child health. But they also define a set of planetary “must haves”: climate stability, the reduction biodiversity loss, protection of ecosystem services, a healthy water cycle and oceans, sustainable nitrogen and phosphorus use, clean air and sustainable material use. Different to previous goals, Agenda 2030 has flourished their framework and new structure tailored to play the “backbone of the wider UN Development System, helping agencies work together for sustainable development”.

http://www.icsu.org/news-centre/press-releases/press-releases-2013/sustainable-development-goals-must-sustain-both-people-and-planet

The UNDP seems to be doing an impressive job in influencing the world and its people. However, how close have we actually come? Are these goals being met? Are we more eco-friendly? IS the Earth becoming healthier? Have people actually been influenced by the UNDP goals?

Corporate Social Responsibility and ethical dilemmas where we are made to choose the ‘right-thing’ is always difficult to tackle as the goals seem somewhat vague. Nonetheless, people are working towards these goals. Corporate Environmentalism is seeing some potential as companies see benefits in showing to the people that their work aims to not only make profit but also save the Earth. Recent headlines such as “How Google is using big data to protect environment” (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/corporatesocialresponsibility ) and “Green days: why outsider musicians are putting eco-consciousness on record”  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/27/un-urges-business-leaders-to-double-investment-in-green-energy-by-2020) could all be seen as results of a successful UNDP influence.

Setting ambiguous targets is one thing and meeting them is another. We all do not fully realize how much our actions will save the Earth and if anything that we do will actually come into effect. Whether companies and people can meet the voluntary targets for a cleaner environment is far from certain. However, in the world of consumerism, people do seem to consider companies like Volkswagen, who fail to follow environmental laws, in a negative light.

Movies that show us all about a dying Earth, such as Tomorrow (2004), Interstellar (2014), San Andreas (2015) make us wonder what our future will be. As much as environment influences every single person on this earth and the continuing generations, nations have set goals specifically for their economic and cultural standards.

In South Korea, the Ministry of Environment is a branch of government charged with environmental protection. The mission of the Ministry of Environment is said “to protect the national territory from threats of environmental pollution and to improve the quality of life for the public.” In order to fulfill this goal, they have set various major policies related to air, water, soil, waste, green growth, nature, human health and chemicals, and climate change. In the bigger picture, the tasks of the Ministry of Environment include:

·        Enactment and amendment of environmental laws and regulations

·        Introduction of environmental institutions

·        Building up the framework structure for environmental administration

·        Drafting and implementation of mid to long term comprehensive measures for environmental conservation

·        Setting up standards for regulations

·        Providing administrative and financial support for environmental management to local governments

·        Inter-Korean environmental cooperation

·        Environmental cooperation with other countries.

 South Korea has also joined hands with NGOs and implemented environmental laws that restrict citizens from excessive waste production. Korea seems to be one of a few countries which have adapted recycling fervently. However, more work needs to be done; air pollution, lack of natural resources, and ease relations with North Korea’s nuclear tests. As continuously repeated throughout this whole article, much has to be fulfilled. Yet the steps that we take as an individual and as a community, however small they may be, will accumulate into a bigger leap towards a cleaner, safer and healthy Earth.

     This was written by TK of EOC. Thank you for reading.

   http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jan/19/sustainable-development-goals-united-nations

[23han-blog]

Saturday, 1 October 2016

PLAGIARISM has continuously caused debate throughout the years, in all areas of creativity. In such countries as America and Europe, plagiarism is considered a serious crime where one’s rights of creativity is stolen and violated. In Korea, people seem to lack the awareness of perceiving plagiarism as a great offence which should be looked upon with shame; maybe it is because students from a young age are not educated about the essential respect towards intellectual property. Thus, there have been many incidents in the past (and those that are still undercurrent) where graduate students and corporate researchers have plagiarized and copied works. In light of the 2016 US presidential elections, plagiarism has yet again been highlighted through Mrs. Trump’s speech.

[Mrs. Trump – what happened?]

Melania Trump seemed to have plagiarized a part of Michelle Obama’s speech, during the opening night of the Republican National Convention 2016.

Following is the excerpt of Obama and Trump’s speeches.

- Obama 2008 –

“And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them.”

“And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and to pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children – and all children in this nation – to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”

- Trump 2016 –

“From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect.”

“They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily lives. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son. And we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow. Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/19/melania-trump-republican-convention-speech-plagiarism/87278088/

As seen above, Trump’s speech does not seem to match Obama’s speech word by word. However, the flow and content of the two short paragraphs seem to model Obama’s original speech. In fact the speech was written by Trump’s editor/writer of the campaign. Due to this incident Candidate Trump had difficulty justifying his wife’s work to his supporters. Though this was clearly an act of plagiarism which lightened up controversy of who was to blame, the editor stated to resign but Trump ordered no one to be fired at this time. In America such an issue is considered a serious criminal offense where people may lose their whole career and reputation because of not citing the correct reference. To see how serious this is, it is necessary to look into the copyright laws.

[Copyright Law]

Though copyright laws vary between countries; the fundamental constitutional frame forms from the definition of plagiarism, and its punishments. The definition of plagiarism can be seen in how Trump’s words were different yet the same in content: including any form of imitation or copying of other’s work or ideas without any form of compensation. When deciding how harsh a punishment shall be, as with any wrongdoing, the degree of intent and the nature of the offense determine its status. When plagiarism takes place in an academic setting, it is most often dealt by the academic institution involved. If, however, the plagiarism involves monetary benefits or job placement, it constitutes a crime punishable in court.

In the U.S., most cases of plagiarism are punished by fines between $100 and $50,000 and up to one year in jail. However, depending on the benefits reaped from plagiarism and the intender’s purpose, one could also be prosecuted for felony. Other than criminal punishment, any form of plagiarism will not be tolerated by most corporations and institutions and jobs will be lost, additional to the collapse of one’s reputation.

Intentional or Accidental? Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. Even if one did not realize they were plagiarizing, they may still be found guilty. However, there are different punishments for willful, innocent, or accidental infringement. To distinguish between these, courts recognize what is called the ‘good faith defense’. If one can demonstrate, based on the amount they borrowed and the way that it was incorporated into their work (reasonably believed what they did was fair use); chances that their sentence will be lessened substantially is very likely. If one merely copied something, it is unlikely to be considered “fair use”. But if the material has been transformed in an original way through interpretation and analysis, it is more likely to be considered “fair use”.

Source: http://www.plagiarism.org/ask-the-experts/faq/

[Plagiarism in Korea]

Korea has an embarrassing list of plagiarism incidents where artists and writers have been put under scrutiny of the whole nation because of their misdemeanor. From singer and song director Primary accused of plagiarizing Caro Emerald’s ‘Liquid Lunch’ in his song ‘I GOT C’, to the eminent writer Shin Kyung Sook receiving allegations of plagiarizing a 1961 story by Yukio Mishima, in her Legend; too many artists have been revealed to have copied intellectual possessions.

In South Korea, the specific punishments toward plagiarism are also decided by its nature. If there have been clear intentions towards the offense, it will be considered a criminal action; however, the copyright owner must press charges. On the other hand, if one has had adequate research into not copying other works before their own work is presented, and they had no intention to have plagiarized, then the offense is put into civil action where it becomes a case of indemnification for damages. The Copyright Act, enforced in 2009, states “to protect the rights of authors and the neighboring rights and to promote fair use of works in order to contribute to the improvement and development of the culture and related industries.” This eighty-six-paged Act goes into detail to the definition and detailed articles of variables. However, our country still has yet far to go in order to truly protect intellectual property.

 Despite having a detailed Copyright Act, the problem of continuous plagiarism lies within the people’s awareness of its seriousness. Students still abuse works online and do not recognize that the least-expected media, such as Youtube, emails or radios, must be cited properly in their essays. Researchers use petty means to integrate other’s ideas into their studies. Corporates declare their creative property to be ‘unique’ when smaller private businesses struggle to fight for their stolen work. People who see such controversy on the news and newspaper still do not believe it is a serious offense and the reaction of it within the courts also seem to be inadequate.

 Some people may state that not much can be ‘unique’ and ‘creative’ in the twenty first century where ‘creative’ art is saturated. Some are even known to state that the current copyright laws give too much power to the copyright holders which could hurt competitiveness and culture (leading to higher Internet censorship). Hence, the borderline of plagiarism and creativity is blurred and more needs to be done to clearly define and protect intellectual property. In Korea, it seems to be the case where we must first take a step towards full acknowledgement of how copying another person’s work is not ‘borrowing’ but ‘stealing’.

  Source:

http://blog.daum.net/mojjustice/8706597

https://namu.wiki/w/%ED%91%9C%EC%A0%88#s-3.1

http://www.moleg.go.kr/english/korLawEng?pstSeq=52683

 This was written by TK of EOC. Thank you for reading.

[23han-blog]

Thursday, 15 September 2016

What is International Humanitarian Law?

 Today is 15th September, 2016.

 Do you know what International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is? It could be the first time that you have heard of such a word. Then, do you know the fact that all civilians and injured must be protected? This fact itself would not be as unfamiliar as the word mentioned previously. IHL prohibits indiscriminate manslaughter in times of war and, in order to lessen the loss of lives, it forces common-sense knowledge of prohibiting bombing facilities that are protecting civilians, injured soldiers, children, and elderly by law – this is IHL. As much as this international law has a humanitarian purpose, it is also called under the name “the law of war” or “the law of armed conflict”.

In an epoch where wars are considered a taboo, it is natural for us to be unfamiliar with such a law; it is almost a relief. However, this law which claims to stand for humanitarian principles still does not cease to have significance in our time. Especially, the peaceful and abundant grounds of the Korean peninsula are in fact in a state of truce – no matter how it may feel to us. Officially the war has not ended. Furthermore, the international tension within East Asia is rising day by day. Even if war does not break loose, we must have the capacity to deal with such situations that may happen or is actually happening. Today, in order to acknowledge and understand these efforts, we will look into the origin and contents of IHL.

1. The Origin and Formation of IHL.

In reality, it is difficult to find such an era where the state of the earth is as peaceful as ours. Two wars in scale of the whole world and an age of cold war which threatened the very existence of the Earth made many countries that constitute the international society reflect upon their actions to make war a taboo subject. We are not ignoring the fact that there is violence done by terror and civil wars but at least it is difficult to find nations on full-scale military impact. In other words, we can interpret it as past wars did not have international standards and because of it there were too many innocent victims.

At Italy’s Unification War in 1858, a Swiss Henry Dunant who was on his way to North Italy for business purposes came to face a brutal scene. In his 「A Memory of Solferino」 where he recorded seeing such an atrocity, we can see that it was these violent results of war that changed his life. After experiencing this incident he began to realize the importance of humanitarian aid and further kept a neutral character, without adhering to his nationality, to establish an organization that would provide relief work. His endeavor established the Red Cross in 1863 and this led to found the basis of the Geneva Conventions.

With a total of four agreements (conventions) [first agreement: The Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, second agreement: The Geneva Convention of Sick and Shipwrecked Member of Armed Forces at Sea, third agreement: The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prinsoners of War, fourth agreement: The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War] and three Additional Protocols (shown below), the Geneva Convention gained the effect of many nations agreeing to protect injured soldiers, prisoners of war and civilians at times of war.

·        Protocol I (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts

·        Protocol II (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts

·        Protocol III (2005) relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem

 From 1899 to 1907, a peace conference was held in Hague where three treaties and declarations were adopted as means to restrict the war. Like so, the IHL can be seen to be composed of the Geneva Convention that protects victims and the Hague Law which minimizes the damage of wars.

2. The Contents of IHL.

The aforementioned IHL can only be applied when there is armed conflict. This shows that the efforts to prevent war itself are considered less important. Even today, the international society tries to prevent use of violence and military force and other international laws restrict them. Amongst these endeavors, IHL focuses on minimizing the damage that has already been done.

We know that our human rights should be respected. In whatever situation, we should be free, equal, whilst pursuing happiness and treated in a humane fashion. We can be protected for these things. IHL has been set to protect our rights at times where there is extreme violence. Therefore, it guarantees that injured soldiers will receive indiscriminative treatment whether they are ally or enemy, civilians will be protected to receive the least amount of harm and prisoners of war will receive treatment as humans not losers. Specifically, soldiers who have surrendered or who have lost the capability to fight must not be harmed or killed, and hospitals that have the mark of Red Cross cannot be bombed as the medical team treating the injured must be protected. In addition, prisoners of war cannot be blindly imprisoned and they must receive food and treatment as well as the right to call their families. Such content seems common-sense that even without compulsory regulations these laws should not be violated, however we can see that there is danger of the most basic rights not being protected if there were no laws. IHL has taken account of these situations just in case of worst situations where these laws will protect the most human rights.

Furthermore, IHL tries to stop the outbreak of unnecessary pain even at war. Therefore, when avoidable pain is set off or there are means to seriously damage the environment, IHL prohibits certain weapons being used. Weapons that IHL restrains using are exploding bullets, biological and chemical weapons, anti-personnel mines etc.

As aforementioned, it is difficult to understand the IHL (which tries to minimize the damages of war) as a law that does not restrict the actual outbreak of war. There are still many people who put in the effort to oppose against ruthless violence and armed force and try to prevent them. IHL exists so that these endeavors will see light and that in inevitable situations, suffering will not escalate.

However, it is fortunate, or unfortunate that many people do not even know that such laws exist. If people do not know about IHL, that exists in striking situations, they will not be able to fortify such a law. Therefore, it is important that the humanitarian gesture found within the IHL must be given wider publicity. In addition, it must receive continuous attention in order for it to be applied appropriately in changing states of armed conflicts. For instance, as IHL is under the premise of armed conflicts, there must be further discussions towards how to approach the situation of civilians being put under danger due to terror.

The humanitarian approach in our country, the Korean Peninsula, is no exception. The immediate tension and the rights of those not protected of their rights; the humanitarian approach seems to stare us straight in the face. In other words, there is much that we need to do and endeavor upon. Above all things, even in situations where violence reaches its limits, we must remain aloof from others and preserve human dignity.

   This was written by Hongphil of EOC and translated by TK.

 Sources: the Korean National Red Cross 「International Humanitarian Law? 」

Reference: the Korean National Red Cross International Humanitarian Law Institute (http://www.redcross.or.kr/ihl/main/main.do)

[23han-blog]

Thursday, 1 September 2016

The Girl Was There.

 Today is September 1st, 2016.

 Since Korea-Japan Foreign Ministers reached an agreement regarding the “comfort women” on 28th December 2015, there has been continuous controversy about its interpretation and implementation. Those at the meeting would not have predicted the various voices of disapproval; from the demolishment of the ‘Sonyeosang’ (a statue of a young woman to honor the comfort women) to the establishment of comfort women foundation. As much as this has been an issue of pain in our history, it is important that we truly recognize what to pay attention to. Today, by looking into the official positions seen in the Korea-Japan Foreign Ministers meeting, we need to see if we have not missed anything.

1. 28th December 2015, the meeting of Korea-Japan Foreign Ministers

2015 is the year of Korea-Japan normalization of diplomatic relations. On the 28th December 2015, Yun Byong-sei, Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Japan Minister Fumio Kishida opened a meeting to discuss the problems related to the “comfort women” and revealed contents of agreement. The following are Korea and Japan’s positions upon this issue, respectively.

• Japan’s position, clarified by Japan Minister Kishida.

First, on the 50th anniversary of Japan-Korea normalization of diplomatic relations, it was a pleasure to visit towards the end of the year to meet Yun Byong-sei, Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the Japan-Korea talks.

Upon the problems of “comfort women”, both Japan and Korea have had intensive discussion between its chiefs of the bureau. The Japanese government is announcing the following on its results.

① The issue of “comfort women” is an issue that regards the wounding of many women’s honor and dignity by the military of its time, and the Japanese government realizes its responsibility. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe expresses his apology and reflection on everyone who was hurt upon this incident and has his most sincere apologies and remorse towards those who still do not heal from it.

② The Japanese government has always undertook this issue seriously and on account of past experience, wishes to take action on healing the wounds of all “comfort women”, those passed away and still living. Specifically, establishing the foundation based for the “comfort women” who have passed away that the Korea government has been supporting; allocating from Japan’s national budget and will further cooperate with the Korean government to heal the physical and mental distress that all “comfort women” suffered.

③ The Japanese government as announced above, on the premise that the conditions will steadily be mediated, confirms that the issue has been resolved, finally and irreversibly. And, in further UN or international society, the Japanese government verifies that the Korean government refrains from criticism and attack on the Japanese government upon this issue.

About the national budget funding, approximately ten million JPY is postulated. This has been the finalized content of Japan-Korea meeting, and it will thus be the beginning of a new era between Japan and Korea.

• Republic of Korea’s position

Korea and Japan have had ministers meet upon the issues of former “comfort women” drafted into the Japanese forces under Japanese colonial rule. Korea reveals its position on the results of the meeting.

① The Korean government assesses the Japanese government on its actions toward this issue until this point, and on the premise that the Japanese government sincerely acts on the results of the meeting, reveals that this is the final and irreversible settlement on this issue. The Korean government cooperates with Japan’s implementation of results.

② The Korean government recognizes the concern of public peace and honor caused by ‘Sonyeosang’ placed in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul and will further try to negotiate with organizations in relation to adequately resolve its issue.

③ On the premise that the Japanese government acts sincerely on the results of this meeting, the Korean government will refrain from criticism and attack upon this issue at the UN or international society.

To summarize the aforementioned content of the press-conference of Korea-Japan Foreign Ministers meeting,

① Japan has verified that the drafting of “comfort women” is an action of the Japanese military, and has revealed the position of Japan by the name of the Japanese Prime Minister.

② As an apology and reflection, a foundation for “comfort women” will be established to restore the honor and dignity of all victims. The foundation will be established by the Korean government and funded by the Japanese national budget. The foundation will be run on its founding purpose.

③ The establishment of the foundation is finalized and irreversible, so as long as it is managed, discussion upon it in the international society will be refrained.

④ The ‘Sonyeosang’, in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul, will be considered as an issue of discussion between relevant organizations as it is a concern of public peace and honor (it was discussed as an issue that will be “endeavored upon”)

After the contents of agreement, the Foreign Office revealed the following in the Q&A session.

First, the Japanese government had since only acknowledged the ethical responsibility, however, at this meeting agreed to acknowledge the historical fact of “military involvement” and clearly used “Japanese government’s responsibility” for the first time, instead of “ethical responsibility”.

Second, as Prime Minister Abe’s second running of Office, revealed clearly for the first time upon victims in the “comfort women” camps. Furthermore revealing his position of “reflection and apology”, publically and officially.

Third, as aforementioned, ▲confirmation of historical fact on military participation, ▲announcement of Japanese government’s responsibility, ▲official and public reflection and apology of the Prime Minister supporting the measures of implementation, ▲the creative mechanism arranging the monetary support from the Japanese government’s national budget for Korean government’s foundation, all carry forward the process of healing honor and dignity lost for all victims of the sex camp.

The Foreign Office’s clarification of the contents of the meeting seems to cover up the controversy arising after the press interview. The Foreign Office revealed that the above content was ‘successful’. ‘Success’ meaning the results accomplished. Whether this meeting had given true results will need to be continuously observed.

2. The reaction of the international community.

Problem of “comfort women” has not only been a national problem and has been considered as a significant problem internationally that the international society had applied pressure for its settlement. US President Obama on his 2014 April visit to Korea stated that what the victims of “comfort women” camps suffered was “terrible and egregious”, a “shocking” violation of human rights and mentioned that Prime Minister Abe and the Japanese citizens need to be frankly aware of the past. Kerry, US Secretary of State, also stated that “We take note of Japanese leaders’ repeated statements that the position of the Abe government is to uphold the Kono and the Murayama statements. The United States has continually encouraged Japan to approach this and other issues arising from the past in a manner that is conducive to building stronger relations with its neighbors.”

Source from http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/05/242538.htm

It is not difficult to see the influence of US government concerning the “comfort women”. After the Korea-Japan agreement, the White House and US Department of State welcomed the full implementation of its settlements. On January 7th, in a Korea-US summit phone call, President Obama congratulated the justified results of the meeting and highly appraised the president’s courage and vision.

UN Secretary-General Ban appreciated “President Park Geun-hye of the Republic of Korea and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan for their leadership and vision for the betterment of the relationship between the two countries, as reflected in an earlier agreement at the bilateral summit on 2 November. The Secretary-General has stressed the importance of the countries in North-East Asia to build a future-oriented relationship, based on the recognition of history.”

Source from http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sgsm17436.doc.htm

Other than the US and UN Secretary-General, other countries such as Australia, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore, UN and EU etc. whom also have suffered similar issues as “comfort women” have highly appraised this meeting. This agreement seems to have achieved international appraisal.  

3. The peculiarity of this agreement (compared to previous attempts)

There have been previous attempts at resolving problems of “comfort women”. However this agreement has not only aroused domestic awareness but received international evaluation that is different from the past. What this agreement truly comprehends should be closely scrutinized by comparing the Foreign Office’s previous attempts and settlements.

(1) The continuity of Kono Statement.

This meeting clearly recognized the “comfort women” as the responsibility of Japanese government and Japanese military; however, “many women had their honor and dignity harmed by the military involvement” is a continuous statement that the Japan government revealed since the 1993 Kono Statement. Prime Minister Abe’s 2nd cabinet stated the succession of the Kono Statement. Therefore this meeting clarifies the Japanese government’s responsibility that was not mentioned in the Kono Statement.

(2) Difference between ‘Asian Women’s Fund’

The fund that has been established at this meeting is different to the ‘Asian Women’s Fund’ that was founded in 90s, as this is established in our country and is not a private fund-raising, but is supported by the “Japanese government’s national budget”.

Furthermore, this fund is based on the purpose to “heal the mental scars and recover the honor and dignity lost” for the victims – which differs greatly on the humanitarian assistance the ‘Asian Women’s Fund’ had.

(3) Comparison with Sasae Proposal.  

The unofficial Sasae Proposal that the Japanese Democratic Party suggested, only revealed the ethical responsibility, but the current agreement clearly reveals the Japanese government’s responsibility. Furthermore, there is a difference in the arrangement of the mechanism as an institutional strategy that included the Japanese national budget to fund the Korea-established foundation.

4. The attitude of Korean and Japanese government toward the “comfort women”.

As much as a new attempt to discuss issues has been made, the previous governments’ attempt to resolve this issue needs to be acknowledged. First, Our government stated that “it is an issue related to the anti-humanitarian illegal activities that has not been resolved, and the responsibilities still remain for the Japanese government“ (South Korea-Japan talks related government-civilian panel, following the disclosure of results). On the other hand, the Japanese government claims “agreement on reparation of ‘comfort women’ has been resolved”, and “reveals reflection and apology through Kono Agreement”. The Japanese government has established (indirect national fund) ‘Asian Women’s Fund’ in 1995 as an ethical procedure to aid each victim five hundred thousand JPY. (When the fund was first set, there were movements by the victims and related organizations to block the fund, as the essence of the fund was for the Japanese government to avoid legal responsibility. That is why the Japan government considered the victims as subject of charity rather than a subject of compensation).

Each country seems to have different positions towards the problem. Why the Korean and Japanese government have different perspectives and how we should interpret it should lead to the value judgement of these positions.

5. Evaluation

From the content of the agreement, the significance of it lies in the Japanese military’s responsibility and establishment of a foundation that is more specific and effective in its implementation than past results. This will be remembered as an exemplary of how the offending country apologized for the wrongdoings towards the victims of the war. Therefore, countries that had interest towards the “comfort women”, especially US and the international society perceive this agreement in a positive light and view it as a production of understanding.

However, the results of the agreement do not seem to be as positive to each government as they had hoped. There seems to be an immediate mixed reception in each country’s society towards the agreement and the actual victims of the sex crimes, the elderly from the “comfort women” camps, do not welcome the contents of the agreement. They have even revealed to refuse accepting the Japanese government’s national budget of ten million JPY.

The issue of ‘Sonyeosang’ has also been highlighted. The interpretation towards the Korean government’s press conference stands divided. The Japanese government interprets the relocation of the statue as part of the agreement, whereas, the Korean government reveals that it is not a condition of the agreement that must be executed. Why is it that these two countries have different interpretations? The contracts of agreement must be examined and considered for reevaluation.

The Japanese government, stated on 25th August, 2016, to support each victim of the “comfort women” camps with one million, and those who passed away with two thousand KRW from its ten million national budget

The Japanese government seems to implement the contents of the agreement promptly. The Japanese government can clearly prove to the international society that the fund was supported by the national budget and that they sincerely performed the contents of the agreement. In other words, they do not need to suffer the international pressure upon this issue any more. Our government states that this agreement is not ‘final and irreversible’ if it has not been ‘sincerely’ implemented. However, it has not been defined how ‘sincerely’ can be proven. Additionally, what is dwelt with at a national measure cannot be verified one by one by the public. Although the results are considered a success, why is it that there lies a continuous anxiety towards its results?

We all know that the victims of the war do not simply want compensation. The “comfort women” come out every Wednesday with their old broken bodies. They wish to see the true apology of the offending country and seek that such an atrocity will never occur again. To take their place, the nation has come forth as diplomatic representatives. National interest and security is an important matter in diplomatic relations. However, they must never forget who they stand for.

Can this agreement be considered as a turning point that is truly different to other meetings? Please consider the aforementioned contents to judge for yourselves – the contents of the agreement are the official position that the Republic of Korea takes.

The ‘Sonyeosang’ that the Japanse government targets as subject of demolishment sits in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul today. Who was it that made her sit there? The supremacy of the state exists to protect the people, however, the pain that we all suffered because of the loss of sovereignty results in the young girl - who was not protected - to live in permanent pain for the rest of her life. Time passed and 2015 was the year that celebrated the 50th year of normalization of diplomatic relations. Could the girl now truly be protected? It is possible that the girl will not go anywhere. She will have to sit there and continuously tell us something that we must never forget.

 This was written by Hongphil of EOC and translated by TK.

The original article written in Korean can be found on Naver Blog http://blog.naver.com/23_hada/220802279752

[23han-blog]

Monday, 15 August 2016

[What you might not know about the Olympics]

 Today is Monday, August 15th.

 The Olympic Flames are burning high on the sizzling grounds of Rio. People of all backgrounds meet to cheer for their country or simply to enjoy an exciting game. Where athletes drenched in sweat strive to become the best, and the audience cheer them on, hoping for their success; the Games unite us all in flooding emotions. Here is what we did not know about the Olympics.

 1. The Olympic Games - Who, what, when, how, why?

 The Olympic Games started in ancient Greece (Olympia) around 776 BC, where a series of athletes from city-states competed in honor of Zeus. Though starting as a tribute to the mythical Gods, the games became a political and religious tool, where politicians and priests would announce their agendas. Though more sports games were included as years progressed, initially, men would compete in games such as ‘foot race, chariot race, discus, jumping’. On the other hand, women were banned to watch or play within the games because men would compete naked, but later they were allowed to compete on horseback. It is known that women’s athletic competition was held at the ancient Heraean Games, dedicated to the goddess Hera, as early as the 6th century BC. The winner of these games would receive olive wreathes and vats of olive oil which in time became a peace symbol. Furthermore, they would obtain lifetime acclaim that would define their lineage. The games were held every four years, and it went under many changes under political and religious influence (i.e. Roman Empire and Catholicism).

 2. The Modern Olympic Games

Influenced by ancient Olympic Games, in 1894 Baron Pierre de Coubertin founded the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to govern the Olympic Games. During its evolution, many changes can be seen in how the Games divided into the Winter Olympic Games, Paralympic Games, and Youth Olympic Games.

 *The first modern Olympic Games = 1896 Summer Olympic hosted in the Panathenaic Stadium in Athens.

 3. The Olympic Rings and Flame

 The Olympic Rings - Blue, Yellow, Black, Green, Red on a White Field. = Europe, Asia, Africa, AU & Oceania, America.

The Olympic Flame – a relay system adapted since the Berlin Games in 1936, starts from Greece to the Olympic Venue. The torch is carried by athletes, leaders, celebrities, and ordinary people. On the final day of the torch relay, the day of the Opening Ceremony, the flame reaches the stadium and lights the cauldron, signifying the beginning of the Games.

 4. Who participates? What sports?

 The Summer Olympic program consists of 41 sports, and the Winter, 15.          

Source from: https://www.olympic.org/sports

 Each sport has a ‘Qualification’ criterion, where the IOC gives numbers to how many athletes may compete, and what the minimum qualification scores are. Each country’s National Olympic Committee (NOC) then chooses their athletes. Each NOC has their own standards for each sport, to picking their best athletes. So, all athletes must go through the NOC before the official Games are held. Athletes can either be professionals or amateurs as long as they win within the competitions to go to the Olympics. Most countries are encouraged to participate within the games, and they may by applying. But at times are seen to boycott because of domestic political issues.

 5. How does a country get picked for host-country?

 Every two years, cities around the world make bids to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to host the Olympic Games. Any city that wants to host the Olympic Games puts in its name to the IOC and is considered an “Applicant City”. For the next ten months, the IOC investigates the city on several points:

i) The city must prove that it is big enough to handle the Olympics. With the games come a huge number of tourists, athletes, journalists, and politicians. They must show that they can host the games in new stadiums and venues, they must house all the people in adequate hotels, and they have to transport everyone from one place to the next with a reliable mass transit system. They also need to show that they can handle the high level of security needed at the games.

ii) The city needs to convince residents that the expenses of covering the Olympics (which may be covered by raising taxes) are worth it in city improvement and new jobs.

iii) The cities need to maintain a highly positive media exposure to carry the games.

 If the IOC decides that a city has fulfilled the three points above, the city is considered a “Candidate City” and goes into the second phase of the process. After submitting an application and an application fee, the IOC makes a final judging on which city is the best candidate for the coming Summer or Winter Olympic Games. The costs for bidding for the games are incredibly high. Bid committees must pay an application fee (The fee for hosting the 2012 Olympics was $150,000 U.S. - approx.￦165,000,000), to the IOC. This high fee is meant to discourage cities that are not committed to the efforts necessary to host the Olympics. Following these fees, the cities generally need to begin large construction projects like building the “Olympic village” to house the athletes, new sports arenas and stadiums, and transportation systems.

Source from: http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/athens_games/backyard.htm

 6. Gold, Silver, Bronze – the price?

 The gold medal consists of just over 1 percent actual gold. The rest is made up of 92.5 percent silver and 6.16 percent copper - and is only worth about $644 (approx. ￦710,000). The silver medal is a modification of the gold medal. The gold is replaced with more copper, making the medal worth around $330 (approx. ￦360,000). The bronze medal is made of 97 percent copper, 2.5 percent zinc and 0.5 percent tin - and is only worth about $4.70 (approx. ￦6,000). If gold medals really were solid gold, a typical gold medal would weigh 3.35 pounds and be worth around $76,000 (approx. ￦84,000,000) in terms of the pure value of the gold (Wired calculated).

 Hundreds of gold medals are awarded during every Olympic Games, and it’s inevitable that some athletes do not get rich. These athletes sell their medals. There is a wide variance in what medals cost at an auction. An average price for a “common” gold medal - for example, archery or water polo, with no well-known athlete’s name attached - is about $10,000 (approx. ￦11,000,000). Rarer, older medals can easily sell for much more. For instance, a January 2016 sale that included four gold medals, with prices from $47,746.83 (approx. ￦52,600,000) for a Chamonix gold (1924) to $10,114.83 (approx. ￦11,000,000) for a Melbourne gold (1956). If a medal is gilded with publicity as well as the standard six or more grams of gold, the value equation is completely different, and auction prices can shoot through the roof. The only remaining medal of the original four won by Jesse Owens (US) in 1936 sold for $1.47 million (approx. ￦161,900,000,000-1618억) in 2013.

Source from: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-are-olympic-medals-actually-worth/

 7. Just a medal? What about a cash prize?

 Other than that of winning the actual Olympic medal, each athlete receives cash prize from their government (or National Olympic Federations). So the cash prize awarded to athletes is different from country to country. The highest cash rewards can be seen in Malaysia (G: $600,000/S:$300,000/B:150,000), Azerbaijan (G: 510,000/S:$255,000/B:$130,000) and Thailand (G:$237,000 – over 20 years period).

Source from: http://www.totalsportek.com/news/olympic-gold-medal-prize-money/

 In South Korea, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism states that the cash prize for medalists will be ￦60,000,000 for gold, ￦30,000,000 for silver and ￦18,000,000 for bronze. Other than the cash prize from the ministry, athletes would receive additional reward from their supporting sports federations, associations or corporate sponsorships. KGA (Korea Golf Association) has shockingly offered 3mil. for gold, 1.6mil. for silver and 1mil. for bronze. KVA (Korea Volleyball Association) stated that they will dispend 5mil.KRW for gold, 3mil. for silver, and 2mil. for bronze for the women’s team – on top of 1mil. that they have already received for making it to the final round. Furthermore, all medalists are entitled to lifetime annuity: ￦1,000,000 for gold, ￦750,000 for silver and ￦525,000 for bronze (regardless of the number of medals the athlete has won).

Source from: http://news1.kr/articles/?2738157

 8. How does a country get lots of Olympic medals?

It seems that countries with more wealth and larger populations bring more Olympic medals. After all, rich countries with more people produce more top athletes and have more money to support them. This theory is certainly borne out in the fact that the United States (103 medals, 46 gold) and China (88 medals, 38 gold) brought home the most medals in 2012, and they are likely to do so again in Rio de Janeiro 2016. However, why has India, with 1.3 billion people, won only 26 Olympic summer medals in its whole history — while China, with just 82 million more residents, has won 473? And why has Cuba, Latin America’s 10th-most populous country, won more Olympic medals than any other nation in Central or South America, including the far more populous Argentina, Brazil and Mexico? And if money is the answer, why has Kenya won 29 times as many medals as Saudi Arabia, despite having a per capita gross domestic product that is 17 times lower?

 The answer to having more Olympic medals could be “policy”.

In “Success and Failure of Countries at the Olympic Games”, written by Danyel Reiche, the “WISE” formula helps explain Olympic success. WISE stands for promoting ‘W’omen in sports; ‘I’nstitutionalizing national sports promotion; ‘S’pecializing in particularly promising sports; and ‘E’arly adoption of such trends as newly added disciplines.

 W = Promoting women in sports helps nations excel at the Olympics.

Why? Because having few women in an Olympic delegation means that a country cannot bring home many medals in women-only events. That’s one reason China has been winning more medals recently than any country other than the United States. China’s Olympic athletes have been 51.1 percent women, giving it the highest female participation rate in the world. Many Muslim nations, by contrast, have much lower female participation rates.

 I = Nations that “institutionalize” the promotion of Olympic sports tend to be more successful.

‘Institutionalizing sports’-nations create a centralized system for identifying talented athletes, supporting them financially and with first-class training facilities, coaching and scientific expertise. South Korea established a “Ministry of Sports” in 1983. Britain has had “Sport” in the title of a government department since 1997. After those institutions were launched, each country increased its Olympic medals. And more nations have lately been creating government agencies to promote sports. However, a nation can succeed at the Olympics without a dedicated government ministry. The United States relies on the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC), a nonprofit organization that doesn’t receive federal funding, as the main body to promote elite sports.

 S & E = Specializing in the sports, or adopting them Early, in which the nation is most likely to win a medal.

Nations that focus on promoting sports where they’re most likely to win are more likely to bring home medals. Countries have generally taken two strategies: either promote sports in which the nation has long excelled or support sports newly added to the Olympics. For instance, Australia has focused on its historic strengths, winning more than one-third of its Olympic medals in swimming. Meanwhile, since the Olympics added women’s weightlifting in 2000, China has invested in it heavily and has won half of that sport’s gold medals. Poorer or smaller countries tend to take a more targeted approach as well. For instance, Ethiopia invests in running, winning all 45 Olympic medals for the country in that sport, most of them in long-distance running. Jamaica has won all but three of its 68 Olympic medals in sprinting events. Governments have to make a strategic decision to specialize. Some governments do not because of a deeply rooted ideal of equality; they chose not to specialize when other countries launched that strategy, and they seem to bring home fewer medals as a result.

 In other words, wealth and size aren’t the only paths to Olympic victory. With the right policies, any country can decorate their athletes in gold.

Source from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/03/want-more-olympic-medals-heres-what-nations-need-to-do-to-win-in-rio/#comments)

 9. So, why is it so important to get medals? – for the individual and country?

 Individually, it has been explained above how receiving a medal not only gives an athlete the honor of being internationally ‘the best’, but also gaining popularity from the audience and receiving additional cash from the country. Nationally, the host country benefits of introducing tourist attractions and cultural values to the world. The bigger question lies in why each country strives so hard to acquire these medals. However, what does it mean to have lots of medals? Why should a country have lots of medals?

 Simply, we can understand that if a country has lots of medals, the international society may view them as a progressive government in which promotes the welfare of the country through sports, and that is has overcome struggles of meeting the people’s basic requirements. Recently, DPRK Kim Jeong-eun is said to have ordered athletes to acquire five gold medals in total during the Rio Games. In a country where people are still suffering in dire poverty, why does a leader try so desperately to achieve such a goal? Kim Jeong-eun can be seen to have different aims for acquiring gold medals – to boast about his investment in sports for the people’s (or his) welfare – but, simply, having winners and record holders can inspire a whole generation to aim higher, keep youth out of crime and channel that energy in a positive way. The athletes who have won or even participated have left a legacy that will always be remembered, plant hope into future generations, and inspire younger athletes to take up sports. Also winning medals usually shows a higher government (private funding) and a few mentions of your country to the world.

 10. NO MEDALS? Why compete at all?

 The last time a majority of participating countries won an Olympic medal was in 1960. In London 2012, only 85 countries (41.5 percent of those participating) reached the podium. One-third of all the 204 National Olympic Committees that participated in the 2012 Summer Games have never won a medal in Olympic history. For the IOC, bringing people from around the world together — not just gathering medalists — is the mission. But why would nations participate if their chances of winning medals are slim to none?

 1) Sending a delegation to the Olympics is a sign of statehood and builds national identity

Taking part in the Olympics is one of the “signs of statehood” from which smaller, poorer or newer countries gain recognition in the global community of sovereign states. The concept of “signs of statehood” has, according to scholar Andrea Stanton, both a domestic and an international dimension. Within a country, signs of statehood are a functional and universally recognized currency, helping to build community identity as much as a flag or a national anthem. At the international level, joining the United Nations is the most important sign of statehood. But belonging to the Olympic community is another top priority. In fact, some countries are recognized by the IOC before joining the U.N. The International Olympic Committee has more members (206) than the United Nations (193).

Entities that aren’t U.N. members but send delegations to the Olympics come from places where sovereignty is contested, for different reasons: China is opposed to Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) and Hong Kong entering the U.N. system; Kosovo faces strong opposition from Serbia and Russia; Palestine is blocked by Israel and the United States. For those entities, the Olympics are seen as a first step toward fuller international recognition later on. Competing at the Games also can unify divided countries. This can be important for more diverse countries. An example is medal-less Equatorial Guinea, a Central African country with several official languages that has sent delegations to every Summer Olympic Games since 1984. Another is Lebanon, a nation-state that doesn’t have one dominant religion – and which has taken part in all Summer Olympic. Cheering for the national teams can help bring diverse countries together in a common identity. In Rio 2016, South Korean gymnast Lee Eun-ju is seen taking a selfie with North Korean gymnast Hong Eun-jung. “This is why we do the Olmpics” said Ian Bremmer, President of Eurasia Group.

 2) IOC support helps some countries prepare for regional games

Lebanese (and other) athletes know they won’t bring medals home from Rio. But IOC support helps them get ready for regional games — the Asian Games or the Pan-Arab Games — where they have a chance at the podium. Those games — like the Olympics — aren’t purely for the love of sport; nations compete with their neighbors for soft power and influence in regional affairs.

Source from : https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/04/most-nations-going-to-the-olympics-wont-bring-home-a-medal-heres-why-they-compete-anyway/)

   During 16 days, about 300 games take place. People pray, cheer, laugh and cry. This is the Olympics. It is an international festival where everyone come together to cheer for their own country and other countries too. Patriotic spirits are built and as people cheer for their country’s athletes, national identity is revitalized with the single connection between the athlete and the people. New bonds are forged and hope for a collective future is built. We should all wave our olive branches for all athletes who strive for inspiration.

  “What is the prize for the winner?”

“An olive wreath”

“Good heavens! …. Men who do not compete for possessions, but for honor.”

(Conversation between Xerxes and Tigranes in Ancient Greece)

  This was written by TK of EOC. Thank you for reading.

[23han-blog]

Monday, 1 August 2016

Today is Monday, first of August.

South Korea is a democratic republic. This is an important fact and a proposition that seems as natural as air but something that cannot be nor should be denied. It is something that is taken for granted and known wearisome, so I wish to discuss this single sentence.

Today, there is no other concept that is used as extensively as democracy in the world. Most of the nations around the world claim to advocate democracy (for example, North Korea is officially known as Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) and democracy is spread around the world as it is known to be the most advanced political form. In the process of being implemented there are unavoidable impediments but the significance of democracy itself is unquestionable. Conceived within the development of Liberalism and the Enlightenment, democracy has ceased regal powers and presented the people as the subject of power. Power is set within the hands of the nation’s people, not the King. This is called state national sovereignty, and it is one of many important principles that constitute democracy. Like so, democracy excludes the fate of the majority made by a few people and rather, lets its fate be decided by members of the whole community.

The origin of democracy known to be the democratic form of government in Ancient Greek times, comprised of the participation of its people within the city Polis. Polis, organized in a city unit, left the fate of the city within the hands of its people as they grouped together and exchanged opinions. A democracy where decisions are immediately reflected is called direct democracy and at the time, this was the most ideal democratic form. Thousands of years later, the name of democracy has resurfaced in the modern times but has not adopted its form. The reason is simple. Because it is impossible. The unit of the political form in modern times is the nation. The number of this unit that is comprised of its people is incomparable to that of Ancient Greece. Would it be possible for everyone to participate in an agreement in the same day at the same time, as it was done in the Polis? Until a uniform conclusion is settled by hundreds of people expressing their views, everyone would have to suspend their everyday work. Shops and stock markets would close down, children would not go to school and the daily routines of every member of the society would be paralyzed. Such a paralyzed situation expressed in two words is social disorder. Therefore, a counterplan is suggested where I vote for someone else to do the job for me. Deciding the fate of my community is very important however, maintaining my job, family, daily life and leading my life is also very important. Hence, we give some people what ‘I’ am entitled to by authorizing them to professionally deal with affairs instead of me. The few people who I choose to take my place are called representatives. Whilst I am having meetings with clients, or making dinner, these representatives make decisions instead of me. Because my intentions are reflected and applied through these representatives, the democracy that we see today is called indirect democracy.

Of course, such suppositions are not proven by historical evidence. In the present-day, indirect democracy represented as parliamentarism is based upon each nation’s distinct historical background. In the case of our country; South Korea established a democratic state in a relatively short time after gaining independence and the representatives named ‘members of the National Assembly’ meet to enact laws to run the nation upon the principles of a constitutional state. Yet, these representatives, all following the democratic system, do not have the authority of legislation because they were innately born with such rights. The People who have the authority have entrusted them with power to work. The People are the owners of the power.

<Republic of Korea National Assembly>

Thankfully, democracy seems as natural as air. However, because of its prevalence, the rightful rulers give up their rights to execute. Disbelief towards politics that it is too ideal, the fatigue left from a devoted daily schedule, or oblivion of not even knowing that they are the owners of the country; there are many reasons how people reply to words such as democracy and voting. Such replies as that there is nothing that I can do or that my objectives are not recognized.

It is a shame that such replies cannot be refuted wrong. It is not the error of the management of the system but how the institution is designed; embodied very reasonably and ideally democratic.

The citizens of Republic of Korea, who are over 19 years old, vote for members of the National Assembly on the same day at their designated polling stations, every four years. Each poll is placed in fixed districts that are determined by the number of its residence, not as an indicator to segregate boundaries. However, for the convenience of its people, the poll stations are appointed to the closeness of voters’ residence, so it is difficult to exclude the feeling of representing their dwelling region. In fact, locality is stressed as a vote strategy. However, each representative voted from each region constitutes the National Assembly of Republic of Korea and regulate the system of the whole country. Therefore, despite the fact that the people voted for the representative, he/she must make decisions for the benefit of the whole Republic of Korea, even if it may disagree with voters’ intentions and may lead to their disadvantage. This is what the delegated have been given the power and duty to do. It also applies for the head of administrations, the president, who was chosen by sovereigns of the nation, the people. For this reason, the people may feel like they are regulated by the power of the minority whenever they face incomprehensible decisions made.

However, this is because the institution is designed to see the nation as a single unit than an assemblage of single entities. Rousseau, who claimed the social contract theory that forms the basis of the modern state theory, seemed to miss the Ancient Greek Democracy as stated in how he declared to return to the natural state. Thus, to Rousseau, the citizens were the public (peuple), signifying the individuals who participated in direct democracy. Rousseau stated such national sovereignty as popular sovereignty (sovereignty of the people’s rule). This is a very ideal thought. However, in the modern era as much as indirect democracy is applied realistically, no matter the significance of direct democracy, it is difficult to perfectly apply popular sovereignty. Therefore, today, national sovereignty exceeds the individual to form the whole nation as its people. Of course, popular sovereignty is not completely excluded. National sovereignty and popular sovereignty do not exist as oppositions but supplement their vulnerabilities for the development of the system.

If this is the case, should all decisions made contribute to the bigger community of the nation than that of the region that I reside in? This violates the rights of the people who are entitled to sovereign power and betrays the subjects of authority. Therefore, in Republic of Korea, local autonomy systems are set so that each region can operate respectively. Local autonomy systems are authorized by the Republic of Korea government, but legally, Seoul Metropolitan Council operates their own administration service to that of the Republic of Korea government.

Furthermore, in order to compensate the limits of indirect democracy, direct democratic procedures are arranged. Typically, Recalls as requesting the people to be representatives, and Referendums where the people vote to decide an important matter. Currently, Republic of Korea has not adopted the Recall system, but the Referendum is guaranteed by the constitutional law.

However, expecting this system to be perfectly operated by the current form is a delusion and arrogance. Viewing whose hands the power lays in and only considering the power as important to the occupant for legitimacy, cannot be regarded as democratic. Democracy has been adapted as indirect democracy in order to be operated realistically, and indirect democracy functions through voting. Votes are not given out of courtesy to exercise one’s rights; it is a right that I am entitled to from the very beginning. Voting equals one’s exercise of rights. This right, like two sides of a coin, also simultaneously incorporates a duty. Therefore, as owners, the duty to not be neglectful in checking if my rights are being rightly exerted is also generated. The rightful owner should not abandon their awareness that they are the owner.

Your freedom also promises to disregard your rights. Therefore whether you are to exercise your rights solely depends on your decision. Nothing can be done if you abandon your voice - if you regard it as not being heard within the mass crowd. No one can force you to not abandon your rights by infringing on your freedom. It is true that we may hesitate to anchor our hopes in our democracy when we encounter the current political status. As a result, this piece of writing is merely a reminder about the supreme law of Republic of Korea that is the root of all laws

“The Republic of Korea shall be a democratic republic. The sovereignty of the Republic of Korea shall reside in the people, and all state authority shall emanate from the people. <Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Chapter 1 Article 1, Article 2>”

   This was written by Hongphil of EOC and translated by TK.

The original article written in Korean can be found on Naver Blog http://m.blog.naver.com/PostList.nhn?blogId=23_hada.

Source of photo https://pixabay.com/static/uploads/photo/2015/09/08/04/34/korea-929494_960_720.jpg

[23han-blog]

Friday, 15 July 2016

The Big Picture of Feminism: On the Definition and Forms

 Feminism is a movement in which people strive to promote the equality of women within the traditional patriarchal society. The boundaries in which women should be treated equally can expand to various respective social spheres. The OED defines a single statement to feminism as: “the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes”. Merriam-Webster provides a few more specific definitions by stating: “organized activity in support of women’s rights and interests” and “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes”. As seen in these definitions, the word feminism and theories that have evoked from it can be approached from the perspective of viewing it as an activity for all sexes or specifically for women, or as theories that view the dynamics of the woman within a society from a political, social, cultural, economic point of view – all of which should be analyzed differently within each specific area of study. This shows how the rights of women have been in fault within the different layers of society that made them ultimately as minors and inferior to men, physically and mentally.

 However, beginning with the small voices during the Renaissance and developing into a louder collective voice, women are reestablishing their identities and reinvigorating their sense of importance to the society; other than that of a nurturing mother. Since, women have not only walked together as organizations in demonstrations that changed laws but have developed theories into writing that have shaped a horizon of diverse feminism movements. Many of which are discussed upon Glenn Jordan and Chris Weedon’s Feminism and the Cultural Politics of Gender. Through understanding how feminism, which sprouted in the West, changed and adapted to different situations in parallel with the Western culture, maybe we may be able to view the bigger picture of feminism flourishing within our own society.

 Though it is not sure on who initiated the very first ‘feminism movement’ in Europe, women who were disgusted with the discrimination and abuse they suffered in the familial and social sphere, talked to each other in small groups. This brought their trivial conversations into the political sphere which highlighted the collective problem in the society; where a mass of people (women) suffered. When these groups of women started to come together, can be detected in texts through a Renaissance era female writer during the seventeenth century. Madeleine de Scudéry wrote about the women’s rhetoric and the significance of the woman talking outside the house; expanding their speech from within the kitchen into a socio-politic sphere – from talking about the baby and gossiping about neighbors to talking about the recent social issue amongst a group of men and women. Scudéry developed her writings within the ‘salon’ which was a new venue of social interaction for the aristocracy and wealthy bourgeoisie. The purpose of these gatherings was amusement; above all, the participants conversed wittily on the affairs of the day, current literature, and topics both morally serious and utterly frivolous.

 Like so, other than salons, beginning from the late sixteenth century until the modern times women started to group together and build their own voices that in time strengthened into voicing the anger of not being treated equally to men. How these women grouped together and took action onto the streets for change to be made, is most commonly understood through the “Three Waves”: The first wave comprised of suffragettes promoting women’s right to vote, the second wave campaigned for legal and social equality and the third developed onwards from the ‘failures’ of the second wave. These waves clearly show the flow of feminism movements in line with history. However, as this article started with highlighting the definition of feminism, it is necessary to explain and distinguish the forms (types) of feminism seen throughout its development. By connecting the following forms of feminists explored upon below, one will be able acknowledge its merits and faults to advocating for women’s rights.

 Jordan and Weedon clearly classify five perspectives towards the form of feminism seen in the Western culture. It is stated that a feminist should not be bound to just one definition as they may entitle themselves within the intersection of two or more forms. Nonetheless understanding these perspectives will help analyze the fundamental purpose of feminism and its foundations to its definition.

 “1. Liberal feminists stress the importance of equality of opportunity. They emphasize women as individual writers, artists or critics, whose work should be valued irrespective of gender or race. Liberal feminists tend to disregard women’s difference from men.

2. Women-centred focus on the work of women from a perspective that privileges female difference. Their objectives include establishing alternative traditions of women’s cultural production and rewriting women’s history from both Black and White feminist perspectives. Women centered Feminists find their strongest expression in Radical feminism. Radical Feminism developed the tendency to view women’s creativity as something different from male culture to the point where there could be no overlap between the two cultures.

3. Marxist feminists have explained gender difference in terms of its usefulness to capitalism. They have argued that capitalism has an interest in maintain gender identities and relations which guarantee a low-paid expendable female workforce in manufacturing and service industries, a largely feminized and low-paid public sector, and an unpaid workforce to care for children, the elderly and disabled in their own homes. This benefits men since it gives them privileged access to better paid jobs, public life and leisure outside work.

4. Postmodern form of feminism draws on poststructuralist theories. Power relations that of class, gender and race make up an individual’s gender identity according to different contexts. None of it is naturally female or male as both femininity and masculinity are culturally constructed.

5. Black and ‘Third World’ Feminist insist on the centrality of racism and colonialism to understanding gender relations. They challenge the Eurocentric tendency of much feminism to privilege Western norms as universal.” (Feminism and the Cultural Politics of Gender, 183-186)

 As seen in how Jordan and Weedon have categorized forms of feminism, it is not so difficult to understand their relations to the actual diachronic history of feminism movements. By understanding that there are various forms of feminism, one can understand the whole scope of gender politics as not a single definition but a crossroad of multiple ideologemes that meet to build the word “Feminism” which ultimately endeavors for everyone’s equality.

 Within our society, where feminist are seen stereotypically as ‘radical feminists’, they undergo harsh criticism that they excessively emphasize women’s suffering that ultimately abuses men; leading to a reversed oppressive structure. As seen in how feminism is not one hard definition, more and more people need to open their prospects towards its true purpose and meaning. One must also be aware to always consider the socio-historical culture of the country in relation to exploring its definition. Questions on whom and what sparked the first feminism movement, when its first demonstration was, or how the Korean feminism movement started and is growing, all must be unfortunately abandoned to be discussed on in other forthcoming articles. This article intended on examining the meanings of feminism in relation to its agendas that group them into different forms in hope of stepping outside the gender discourse and viewing ‘feminism’ in a broader perspective.

 This was TK of EOC.

 Thank you for reading.

[23han-blog]

Friday, 1 July 2016

Beauty, Power and the Gaze upon them.

 “Beauty, is found deep within”, is a quote that I had always lived by since I was a teenager as it displays the necessity of looking at the soul and heart of a person to truly understand what a person’s ‘beauty’ is. In this way, beauty has always been something to me that cannot be measured or revealed visibly to the naked eye as you have to interact to see the genuine beauty in a person. However, my brother who is very cynical about inner-beauty said, “ugly people, who have no confidence in their appearance say that”, which was very upsetting and discouraging to hear at a young age. His comment of beauty always struck me as very frank and disturbing, but I could understand that he was very honest and his opinion showed me an aspect of commercialized beauty: he would continue saying that people who did not invest in making themselves beautiful on the outside think that they can compensate it by saying their inner-self is more beautiful.

 This made me think if beauty was truly something that had to be of a quality in a person, or if humans could not live without being beautiful, inner or outer; was visibility of ‘beauty’ and searching for it an instinctive trait in humans? Questions also led to what is the definition of beauty, and how it can be measured when the standard of beauty changes and everyone views it differently. It is the diversity of perspectives and ideas of beauty that makes fashion and art possible, but how is it that we all judge those especially in the entertainment business of being ‘beautiful’, ‘handsome’, ‘sexy’ or ‘suitable to be a celebrity’? These questions made me ponder further on what it takes to acquire beauty in the Korean society. Celebrities dominate the market, and they seem to settle the definition of trend and beauty. This is a topic that has been widely discussed as the problematic aspect of referring celebrities as the role model of beauty because it’s biased, stereotypical image gives young people the wrong approach to beauty standards. As much as this topic has been much debated about in the media, there is still slow progress, if any, in changing wrong fixed perspectives of beauty. Therefore, I wanted to discuss upon why this problem of referring to celebrities as ‘beautiful’ is yet a continuous complication in Korean society.

 Other than the economic output of using ‘beauty’ to promote profit, examining the raw image of beauty is much needed. Furthermore, the power of beauty to influence people should also be studied as we can discover the dynamics of people who influence and who are influenced. The image of beauty as stated briefly above is a complicated conception that is measured but cannot truly be measured because of the subjectivity of human beings. However since Helen who launched a thousand ships, Cleopatra, to Marilyn Monroe, and Kim Kardashian; these women, who have their own sense of unique ‘beauty’, all served to be the representative of beauty in their days. This leads us to think, who chooses that these women are the ideal and exemplary of ‘beauty’ when we all are subjective towards ‘beauty’ itself?

 Answers to this question could be that humans are genetically designed to detect ‘beautiful faces and figures’, or that there must be a collective agreement of a crowd and ‘common’ people who are considered ‘less-beautiful’ to decide these standards. Considering the latter reason, the power of ‘beauty’ relies on the hands of those who judge and look at these women; the common men and women of the society who are ‘less-beautiful’ than these women to perceive them as exceedingly beautiful. Studying the essence of beauty and categorizing what physical qualities attract people genetically is out of my reach to research, however, understanding that the so-called ‘common’ people decide this beauty helps analyze a power structure. If we, the people, decide what ‘beauty’ is by praising ‘people-of-beauty’, we must think of what power we endow them with. In the modern era, giving people the power to use their beauty provides them all kinds of power, because beauty has become aligned with the economic market. However, the problem lies on what power returns to the common people when we support these ‘beautiful-people’ with power. This is when the defect of beauty hits back on its people: the less-beautiful are set standards to acquire power as well, thus leading to various problems in the modern society. Such problems could be excessive cosmetic surgery, stereotypical beauty standards for young women to represent themselves through makeup, and distorted images of femininity and masculinity deprived of true inner-beauty. These problems are becoming greater as the power of beauty relates to monetary benefits: it is an asset to be beautiful and sometimes decides the type of occupation and lifestyle. Accordingly, beauty could be said to be a tool for survival, especially in the modern society. It is not difficult to see many Korean young women paying too much money to be ‘photo-shopped’, or being concerned with excessively modified resume photos to meet a perfect ‘office-look’; merely to get a job rather than broadening their scopes to exploring diverse experiences to develop their skills to become a better employee. Having cosmetic surgery in order to be more beautiful is considered as trendy and fashionable, masking the reality that it is a medical procedure that has its dangers and only enforces a fixed definition of perverted beauty into society for people to follow. What society can be called healthy when teenagers as young as fifteen or younger save up their pocket money to get cosmetic surgery; desiring to change the beauty that they were born with only to look a little bit more like that someone ‘beautiful’ on television that everyone idolizes.

 Many of these problems have been tackled on the media and more people are becoming aware of its disadvantages to the society as a whole. However, advanced media literacy has hindered its progress to resolving the problem because more people are only simply aware of its problems and consider constant topics about it as cliché rather than something that they should take immediate action for. For that reason, critical social imbalances remain in the society and power is abused by those who have it which overall shapes the risks in society; physically and spiritually. In other words, the gaze of men and women to acquire such ‘beauty’ at all costs exerts pressure. Pressure upon how an individual should represent themselves forms insecurity to keep pace with the current culture, which is ironical especially in the post-modern society where everything is changeable and unpredictable. The increasing suicide rates for those forced to meet societal requirements, and the loss of a solid identity leads to frail egos which may have many psychological problems. Consequently, defining ‘beauty’ and modifying the gaze of how we perceive beauty needs to be revised and reconstructed, as current beauty standards merely create anxiety and the power dynamic underlying it only heightens the gap between people. It is only through forming a concrete objective of beauty – not to be measured or judged upon – will the people form a foundation of healthy principles and ideal approach to understanding the entertainment industry purely by aesthetic value. Ultimately, relieving the common people from standards to abide by and recreating a truly free and self-ruling society.

 This was TK of EOC.

 Thank you for reading.

[23han-blog]

Wednesday, 15 June 2016

Good morning to those around the world, wherever you may be.

It is a bustling morning in Seoul, and a cup of hot coffee with a splash of almond milk under the rising sun seems to add a sense of calmness to this mid-week drainage of a Wednesday.

 Today I wish to address you all on the topic of misused vocabularies: specifically that of ‘wrong’ and ‘different’. The use of these words in the English language is not such a complication as there is a distinct difference – It is wrong to steal pastry, but everyone has their own justifiable reason to steal: the Cookie Monster and Jean Valjean would have different motives. The aim of this article is to highlight the problem of the Korean use of these two vocabularies. Many Koreans would easily misuse these words: It is different/wrong to steal pastry, but everyone has their own justifiable reason to steal: the Cookie Monster and Jean Valjean would have wrong motives. As utterly confusing and dumbfounding this may sound, the fine line in the definition of these two words in Korean causes the abuse of these words.

 The Korean word for different is ‘다르다’ (da-reu-da) and ‘틀리다’ (teul-li-da) for wrong. The definition of these two words are clear-cut; “Not the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality” and “Not correct or true; incorrect” (Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford UP). However, the practical use of these words in everyday conversations seems to have assimilated. Too many people use ‘wrong’ instead of ‘different’; though we must not generalize that everyone makes this mistake, it is merged so innocently into our speech that we do not even know that it is wrong. In other words, the sounds differ but the practical description has integrated so that ‘wrong’ is used simultaneously as ‘different’. A frequently used phrase could be, You and I are different (너와 나는 달라). Unquestionably, You and I are not wrong, we are different, but the synthetic definition of these two words allow people to say You are I are wrong (너와 나는 틀려) and people would not even point out this misusage because it sounds perfectly normal in Korean.

 Analyzing why the Korean definition of these two words has consolidated together is not why I have mentioned this issue; though further linguistic research should be done upon this subject. I wish to bring attention to anyone who has been using these words in the wrong manner and raise caution to those who wish to use grammatically correct Korean. Maybe people are too preoccupied in their work to correct each other of such a petty mistake of a word that does not even sound that bad, and out of the thousands or millions of vocabularies that we hear or read, maybe this is not the biggest grammatical error that is being made. However, details and the most trifling errors cause chasms that should not be ignored, especially when language is complementary to our consciousness and unconsciousness. It could be said that the usage of words between certain groups of people in a particular context defines its meaning. For this reason, maybe we should not think only within the limited linguistic meaning as language has its diverse connotations when spoken. However, why then, should we have dictionary definitions and teachers of language and rhetoric? Language is fundamental to forming what we think and sometimes what we say attaches itself onto our unconsciousness.

 When we are left with words separated from their original meaning, it makes us question the transparency of language. How are we to articulate feelings or thoughts when the words we use are disembodied and isolated from what it is supposed to signify? Is this the reason why in the Modern Era, where language and many things have limitless meanings and implications, people are in loss of a firm; falling into the pitfalls of disconnection from society and self. In order for us to stabilize the definite use of words, we must immerse ourselves in conversations where we bashfully correct and revamp the lost definitions of vocabularies. No matter how familiar the use of these words have become, there is still a distinct difference to applying these two words into sentences: it is clear that saying what is different 다르다 as wrong 틀리다 portrays an idea saturated in society that people may consider difference as something wrong. Without this revision of what we say, we will continue to sever the substance from its body, expelling us from understanding the truth of words that we use to disclose ourselves.

 Saying what is different as wrong is wrong. It is not wrong to say what is wrong and it is rather wrong to not say what is wrong and saying what is different as wrong. It is not wrong to be different.

 This was TK of EOC.

Thank you for reading.

 “People who cannot distinguish between good and bad language, or who regard the distinction as unimportant, are unlikely to think carefully about anything else.”  ― B.R. Myers

[23han-blog]

Extra-Ordinary Conversation (EOC)

EOC follows the principles and spirit of the Constitution of The Republic of Korea.

EOC bases on humanitarian ideals.

EOC pursues a community based on freedom and equality.

EOC promotes the values of freedom of expression and is aware of the responsibilities that arise from its freedom.

EOC aspires for an atmosphere of free conversation and welcomes a wider exchange of views

EOC establishes rules within this space and reveals the operation in its accordance.

 Identity: “Of conversing with each other in order to add a new perspective into the society and world.”

Originally founded in the Republic of Korea, EOC uploads all content to the Korean blog site (‘이상한 통신’ http://blog.naver.com/23_hada) before this tumblr site is updated. EOC is a space to speak freely with each other in order to broaden horizons. We believe this space should not be restricted by language; thus, this tumblr – using the universal English language - is for anyone interested in issues related to South Korea. Articles will be uploaded on the first and fifteenth of every month.

- EOC aspires for ‘my’ story to reach ‘you’ and to develop ‘our’ story.

- EOC is extraordinary (very unusual or remarkable/unusually great). We strive to let our voices be heard by others, but we do not aim to mimic the typical media. EOC is ‘extra’-ordinary (something more than normal/reaching for the ideal). We strive to follow our policies, apply and employ our identity into this space, in order to contribute to the better harmony of the society.

- EOC aspires for this space to be where we can promote the right-to-know and engage in conversations.

 Within this space…

1. We strive for the freedom of speech and respect the diversity of views.

2. We respect all comments.

3. We gladly receive criticism as we are always ready for enlightenment.

4. We distinguish the difference of criticism and condemnation

5. We agree to reply to any comment if asked for. However, it may take some time.

6. Our webpage is not utilized for commercial purposes. Thus, any business offers will be refused.

7. We ban immoderate cursing and vilification. Inappropriate actions will be deleted and the reasons to taking these measures will be revealed.

8. We will take legal action against any action of willful damage that is detected.