Last week, Seoul National University decided to approve its medical students' gap years, almost a year after the students started refusing to attend classes in protest of the government's medical reform initiatives. SNU became to first university to do so, despite the government's pressure not to. In what appears to be retaliatory measures, the Ministry of Education launched an audit on SNU. The chairperson of the Emergency Committee of SNU Medical Center Professors, Professor Kang Hee-kyung, said it was only right that the school approve the student's gap years. In an interview with campus newspaper, SNU News, professor Kang said "If we do not approve the students' gap years, we have to hold all of them back a year. And that cannot happen." Eventually, the ministry back down, announcing on 6 Oct. that it would allow students to take a gap year, given that they return for the 2025 spring semester. However, it was a different announcement by the ministry that sparked massive debates. In order to preemptively combat future medical staff shortages that is expected to result from the students' walkout, the ministry said it would mull reducing the medical school curriculum from six years to five. This proposal sparked criticisms from both the opposition party and the medical community. Suspicions arose that the ministry did not thoroughly consider the impact of such a decision. The medical community argued that five years was not enough time to learn everything one needs to actively save lives, while both colleges and the Ministry of Health said it was not consulted when the Education Ministry drafted the proposal. Facing harsh backlash, the ministry took a step back on Monday, saying that the proposal did not mean all colleges had to adopt the five-year curriculum. Rather, it meant the government would fully support colleges that wished to do so, according to the Ministry. Criticisms continued that the ministry was hasty in announcing the proposal, and that it was changing its words. Ultimately the ministry retracted its proposal on Tuesday. But debates concerning the measures did not stop there. Doubts were cast as to whether the Yoon administration was capable of making thorough and thoughtful policy decisions. Suspicions were raised as to whether inter-ministerial communications and inter-cabinet coordination were functional. However, this is not the first time that different ministries in the Yoon administration failed to unify their voice. Labor reform and gender equality initiatives were all tarnished by communication issues. The Yoon administration has one of the highest rates of policy initiatives that were scrapped before fruition. Meanwhile, the side effects of the medical students' walkout still linger as questions that need to be answered by the government. As med students return next year, how are universities going to cope with the sudden influx of students and still provide them with quality education? How will the administration address medical staff shortages that arise from a smaller graduating class? Many of the med students that took a gap year enlisted in the military. How will the government deal with shortages of medical officers in the military a couple of years down the line? More importantly, can the governmen better coordinate and communicate its policies? Can it escape its exclusive attitude and communicate with local universities and the medical community in order to overcome the situation? Only questions remain. The author is a former Editor-in-Chief and the current Chief Editorial Writer at The SNU Quill. –Ed.

Dear readers, For the past couple of years, I have been contemplating the space that The SNU Quill occupies within our largely Korean-speaking university—where our English publication fits into the broader community. It’s kind of funny, considering the sheer vastness of our campus; it took us over an hour just to install two magazine stands across the university grounds (which you can find in the Student Center and Doosan Humanities Hall, by the way). Still, within the sprawling reaches of our campus, the reality remains: space is limited. When an ahjussi manspreads on the subway, we instinctively shrink back; each claim to space carries inherent consequences for others. Similarly, I found that I’ve been increasingly denying myself the right to fully occupy space. I began dressing in clothes that stand out less, afraid to intrude on others’ visual spaces. I step aside, soften my voice, slump my posture. But within these pages, I reclaim my rights to project my voice and declare my opinions. And this has always been the ethos of our magazine—to give a platform to those who might otherwise go unheard. With this realization, it became clear to me what The SNU Quill offers to our writers and readers alike. It is a space where we can collectively assert our presence. The 81st edition’s theme is grounded on “Space.” A new building stands where another once stood, some flourish while others are pushed further into the margins. The inevitable question arises: who gets to take up space, and who decides how it’s allocated? This question is now more pressing than ever. We invite you, dear readers, to join us as we explore the concept of space: how we define it, navigate it, and occupy it. The cover, captured by our photographer Hye-won, serves as a striking frontispiece capturing this edition’s theme—geometric, energetic, and hopeful. We open SNU Society with an interview featuring Professor Vanessa Lim from the English department, who shares her journey navigating academia in Korea as a foreigner. In our Features section, we explore the challenges faced by youths, Kyopo, and prisoners in Korea, shedding light on the unique struggles they face. Our Arts and Culture section dives into the vibrant world of K-pop, public art, and the secrets behind the chocolate we consume. This edition also features an article by Kim Ha-jin, the first-prize winner of our magazine's very first English Column Writing Competition. His compelling account offers a firsthand look at his experience during Seoul's Pride Parade. As we delve into our musings over space and identity, it is my hope that you find a sense of belonging within these pages. Afterall, the world calls to you—harsh and exciting—announcing your place in the family of things. Sincerely, Min Yun-geun

Proud graduates of Seoul National University, Ph.D., Master's, and Bachelor's! I deeply congratulate you on your graduation. Appreciation and gratitude, memories of many encounters, the tension of standing at a starting line, moments containing both excitement and apprehension about the future, I think these are the timeless experiences shared at commencement ceremonies. Thinking again on the meaning behind this crossroad between past moments and the upcoming future, I extend my deepest congratulations and encouragement to you, graduates, the star of this special moment. There were probably moments of adversities and fulfillments layered in the days you’ve spent studying and researching, to be able to stand here today. It is even more meaningful that you have achieved this success while enduring through the COVID-19 pandemic. To adapt to the accelerated future, you have been working hard by broadening your experiences and to taking on challenges. The diverse skills you have accumulated by overcoming these difficulties are your unique assets that will shine in your future. As you celebrate today, remember to express your gratitude and to share your joy with those who have supported you with love—your family and friends, the professors who have taught and nurtured you, and the staff members who have supported your activities throughout the campus. Above all, I hope you deeply cherish the expectations of the country, the society, and the people of Korea, who have supported Seoul National University on the basis of trust, so that you may study and research. To my beloved graduates, Now Seoul National University has become your alma mater. From now on, in society, you will express and practice the identity and values you have formed here. The “Values of Seoul National University,” that we have aspired to share as an academic community, will now be realized in the global stage through your contributions. As graduates, you are Seoul National University’s messenger and symbol. If truth has grown into your light here, now spread that light far into the world. If, in the process of seeking the truth, you have discovered the seeds of hope and the possibility of happiness, now share that hope and happiness with more people. Today, Mr. Kim Jun-koo, the CEO of Naver Webtoon, has joined us as a special guest to congratulate your commencement. About 20 years ago, just like you, Mr. Kim stood at a new starting line. After graduation, Mr. Kim has pioneered a new field, demonstrating to us all, the power of hope and passion. When webtoons, now a big culture, were at its infancy, and now-famous webtoon artists were once unknown with uncertain futures, it is Mr. Kim Jun-koo who sowed and cultivated the seeds of webtoon in Korea together with them. And now, Mr. Kim is spreading K-webtoon beyond Korea and into the world. I hope that all of you graduating today will also believe in your ability and potential and boldly venture into the world. There, you will find your happiness, and hope which you will spread to all. To you graduates, the future of us all, I trust that even as you step out into society, you will not lose the sense of pride that comes with being a part of Seoul National University. This pride is different from arrogance or self-praise—it embodies a passion for pursuing universal values. The title of being a Seoul National University graduate is not a label for self-promotion, but a qualification that represents our pride in the value of learning and contribution that opens doors to the future. I hope you live up to that qualification by not settling for comfort but instead leading the way in pioneering an uncertain future. Develop the insight to look more broadly and further, to illuminate our collective future, and fully utilize your honed abilities to realize the common good. Your alma mater will always support you, and be proud of you. Even though you leave your beloved campus today, the gates to Seoul National University will always be open to you. When your experiences in the field spark a desire for more learning, when you need the wisdom and guidance of mentors who have once awakened the meaning of maturity in you, or when you feel nostalgic for the memories on campus, always feel free to return to the campus of Seoul National University. As an 'academic community leading the era of great transformation,' Seoul National University will continue to innovate and grow, becoming a source of pride for both you and the entire nation. To you graduates, who have walked the road of learning with resilience, I once again congratulate and support your graduation and your new and brighter journey. I wish your future to always be filled with both great and small moments of fulfillment. Thank you. This speech was given by Dr. Yoo Hong-lim, Presdient of Seoul National University, at the 78th Commencement Cemerony. The speech was given in Korean, and was adapted to English by The SNU Quill's editorial staff. --Ed.

“Pain(Pain) from the high prices! Pain(Pain) because Monday arrived so quickly! Pain(Pain) because my friend is so well-off!” 1 belted out ancomedian turned EDM DJ, clad in the robes of a Buddhist monk. It was a surreal yet the mostcaptivating moment amid the bustling atmosphere of the 2024 Seoul International Buddhism Expo, set upon the stage at SETEC (Seoul Trade Exhibition & Convention). The ceiling-shaking,electrifying beats and the euphoric symphony of synthesizers and heavy basslines immediately quickened our pulses, yet they could make anyone wonder if it was not an oxymoron. In this public venue, designed to entertain while promoting Buddhist beliefs and cultural values, a perplexing juxtaposition unfolds. How can a faith tradition that has long vehemently emphasized detachment for its soteriological path, denouncing anything that could lead to self-indulgence, allow such a sensory-stimulating and impulse-inducing form of music and art? How could anyone have imagined, at least in a traditional mindset of Buddhism, the sound of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra being channeled through this vulgar, impious, and even blasphemous medium called EDM? Reception could vary depending on the respondent and how effectively the musician or organizer communicated their intended message to the audience. I think, regardless of the outcome, this perplexing scene and its associated intellectual curiosity unveil a much larger issue than merely the legitimacy or applicability of a musical genre for the Buddhist cause. In the public eye, this bizarre, eccentric, and mind-boggling presentation of Buddhism is often dismissed as mere entertainment, devoid of deeper reflection. Yet, to scholars like myself, heavily equipped with theoretical resources, this incident represents an encounter with “secularization” or “pluralization,” in a sociological sense, challenging or advancing conventional modes of religious communication. It raises the question of how willing each participant in the communication of religious teachings is to embrace and positively interpret a creative or, in some cases, norm-breaking medium. What is the nature of the problems I found in this musical performance that pleases the ears but puzzles the mind? Actually, it is my personal uneasiness derived from religious sensibilities. Like many others, not to mention my professional expertise in religion, I know, at least in principle, that the type of music, EDM, used on the stage is not suitable for the core message of Buddhism. Its particular features of hyper-stimulation and escalating tension can lead people into unwanted physical pleasure and indulgence through its sonic rollercoaster and infectious rhythms, controlling/manipulating the mind in ways contrary to Buddhist teachings. But does this matter? Who cares, and who can actually discern the alignment between faith and practice? It may be my overthinking. Nonetheless, I still think that serious issues can emerge and deepen especially when communication fails. Those who guard tradition and orthodox practice may resist, misunderstand, or outright reject innovation and creativity, fearing they compromise their faith. Similarly, communication can falter when the audience fails to grasp the genuine intention behind such creativity, focusing on “the finger” rather than “the moon,” as the famous Koan instructs. In other words, a positive reception demands an exquisite balance of understanding among all stakeholders, including the performer, the audience, and the religious host or authority—in this case, the Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism. Whatever motivations may be behind this venue, if all stakeholders are satisfied with the performance, I think it is good to go for a new stage: the stage where the faith community can further engage with and reach out to the unreached. The use of EDM music may seem like a small step at the moment, but it could be a sign of a significant leap in innovating the old, albeit ineffective, means of communicating Buddhism's central tenets on liberating humanity from suffering. Of course, this incident is not unprecedented. Throughout history, religious communities have grappled with innovations, either embracing, discouraging, or outright rejecting efforts to modernize the means of their spiritual messages. Gospel music, rooted in African American cultural and musical heritage, initially faced resistance within the mainstream church. Likewise, Contemporary Christian rock, metal, hip-hop, rap, and worship dance currently pose challenges for conservative communities. In Buddhism, early monastic codes prohibited monks and nuns from performing or indulging in music. Similarly, Sufi music has long faced criticism and sometimes violent attack from conservative Islamic communities, who deem it haram. The real question is not the medium of communication itself but the successful delivery of the intended message. Religious communities can select various outward means—whether music, film, literature, or sports—to promote and realize in history their ultimate Truth, much of which I believe to be summarized as “love” and “justice.” Referring to the Buddhist concept of upaya (skillful means), I think that we can utilize any possible means if it helps alleviate humanity's suffering. Echoing the wisdom of the first century’s prominent Jewish Rabbi Hillel, the fundamental essence, or what we hold dear until death, is “love.” All the rest—be it theology, doctrines, institutions, philosophy, or EDM—is just commentary! The author is a Professor at Seoul National University's Department of Religious Studies. --Ed.

Being queer means that you cannot be innocent. Lying is a part of being queer, a part of queer living. Sometimes this is fairly intuitive, for example, you could think of a person in a same-sex relationship who lies to their coworkers about their partner. They may fake being in a heterosexual relationship. This is a part of survival: the facade is used to keep a job, to stay alive. Thus, lying always accompanies queer living. But dishonesty is not only about survival. You may think, in the previous example, that if there comes a world where gay people are accepted, where homophobia is overthrown, we may drop the facade. You may think that homophobia, biphobia and transphobia is the sole reason for non-innocent queerness. You may even think that saying that queerness cannot be innocent is a part of this homophobia, biphobia and transphobia. On the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia(IDAHoT), we should focus on defeating such stigma, so that queer people may live an innocent life. But is that so? We lie because we are not understandable. Sometimes this lack of understanding is as simple as social stigma, an employer may discriminate based on your sexual orientation or gender, your family may not accept your queerness. Sometimes you keep quiet to be safe. But not being understandable goes beyond discrimination. A close person may not understand your queerness – for instance, let’s say you're nonbinary. Your friend may not understand what this means, no matter how honest you are about your gender. Living in a world made of men and woman, one may not be able to wrap their head around a concept beyond this. Even if you are honest about your gender, even if you explain that you are neither man nor woman. You may not be understandable – you are alien to this person. Is this wrong? Is this a part of queer-phobia, a kind of discrimination? Even if it is, you cannot just make people understand by saying it is ‘wrong’. To combat this, we need to think more about non-understandable lives and alienness. When we fight for rights, we often fight to become understandable. However, fighting to be understandable sometimes means that we leave people behind, people that are not understandable to us. The criticism against cross-dressers in the trans rights movement is a good example. Sometimes cis-identifying cross-dressers are blamed for what people say about trans people - it is the cross-dressers, not the trans people, that objectify women and fixate gender norms. Even putting aside the complex relationship between cross-dressing and transness, this way of ‘moving the blame’ shows that trying to become understandable leaves non-understandable life behind. The problem is, there will always be people living non-understandable life. It is not only the cross-dressers, the polyamorists, the sadomasochists, or other queer people not quite accepted by the LGBTQ community. Being understandable is relative. Just as queer people are not understandable to some, incel men and TERFs may not be understandable to people in the queer rights movement. This non-understanding makes for unknown waters. Regions outside the LGBTQ community, or cross-sections between mutually non-understandable communities. These waters are as dark as the ocean floor to us, thus we think of them as dead. However, the ocean floor is teeming with life. This life is alien to us. Creatures like basket stars, sea pigs and sea spiders may seem so strange, not at all what we expect creatures to be. They are non-understandable, but only to us. They are only alien to the world where we live, as they have adapted to conditions elsewhere. Even the seemingly unlivable deep sea has life. Unknown waters always contain life – queer, non-innocent living, that may seem so alien but has evolved in its own way. I do not intend to say that we must understand everything, that we should be understanding about queer-phobic people as well as queer people. On the contrary, I say we can never understand everything. We cannot conquer the whole universe; there will always be unknown waters. Thus we should not stop at fighting to become understandable, to become non-alien, to become innocent. We also need to stand for non-understandable, non-innocent life. Even if other life seems outright wrong – as non-understandable people live through wrongdoings, just as LGBTQ people lie to survive. We have to acknowledge what we cannot understand, because we are also non-understandable. On the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia(IDAHoT), we should not only remember homosexual, bisexual and transgender life, but also keep unknown waters in mind. The first step to making queer life livable is acknowledging it and not leaving it behind. Remember that there is life there - no matter how dark the waters seem. The author is a graduate student at Seoul National University's College of Natural Sciences and a member of SNU's LGBTQ community (Queer in SNU: QIS). --Ed.

Stepping into my first lecture in Seoul National University, I was greeted with a much different classroom picture than I was used to. Everywhere I looked, there was a sea of black hair, and the air was filled with the cadence of Korean. It was a striking departure from the diverse array of skin tones and the familiar hum of English that had been my norm. Naturally, I anticipated such scenes; I was bound to encounter such sights while attending a university with only a 7% foreign student population. Undoubtedly, attending a university in a foreign country can be a daunting task, especially when the native language is not one’s own. Yet is language the biggest barrier to entry for korean universities for international students? Or could the problem lie elsewhere? As an international student whose mother tongue was not Korean, I, along with many of my international peers, considered language to be the primary limitation to attending Korean universities. However, even beyond the language barrier, conversations with fellow international students revealed a common sentiment – many had never even considered South Korea as a destination for higher education. Despite the institution's esteemed reputation domestically, it seems to remain somewhat obscure on the global academic stage. The reasons for this lack of recognition vary. Perhaps it is the dominance of Western universities in international rankings, or perhaps it is the fact that South Korea has only emerged relatively recently as a hub for higher education. Additionally, the scarcity of English-taught programs and the perceived difficulty of integrating into Korean society are factors deterring many students from applying to Korean universities. Nevertheless, for those willing to venture beyond the familiar confines of Western academia, Seoul National University boasts world-class faculty, state-of-the-art facilities, and a dynamic learning environment on par with its western counterparts. However, although I myself have found my education experience at Seoul National University to be both enriching and fulfilling, my social experience has been a different picture. It is undeniably convenient that my peers share similar pop culture interests, facilitating easy conversation. Yet, while discussing familiar topics may be comfortable, it won't lead me to uncover the Brazilian food enthusiast devouring hotdogs on YouTube or stumble upon the latest funky yet catchy Vietnamese house music. Those new discoveries and new avenues for topics of discussion only lend themselves in an international setting. As I found myself conforming to the status quo to blend in with my peers, I sensed a piece of my identity slipping away: My diversity. I slowly noticed myself mentioning my unique international experiences less often, instead joining conversations revolving around topics that were more common among my peers. International students bring a unique tapestry of experiences and perspectives to our campus. The presence of international students lend to a more dynamic learning environment, and enhances our understanding of the world through fresh perspectives. Preserving our diversity is crucial, as it ensures that we continue to uncover new world perspectives and embrace the richness of different cultures. In conclusion, international students play a vital role in making Seoul National University a diverse and exciting place to learn. Our unique perspectives and experiences enhance the understanding of the world and enrich campus life of our local peers. As we look to the future, I hope to see even more international students joining our community at SNU, bringing with them their own stories and cultures. Together, we can create an even more vibrant and inclusive environment where everyone feels valued and supported. The writer is the student body president for international students. --Ed.

Political scientists have long been interested in why parties are unable to identify or implement a bargain before resorting to or terminating a war. But our bargaining models generally assume there are bargaining points agreeable to both parties. A key issue for the Israeli-Palestine conflict and a future Palestinian state is the possible lack of a bargain. Before considering any bargain, there is an obstacle – Hamas. I do not foresee any serious steps toward a bargain and Palestinian statehood if Hamas continues governing in Gaza with a coherent military structure. If Israel destroys Hamas as a military structure (its five remaining battalions), and then some security force, consisting of Arab states, the United Nations, or Israel, can monopolize security in the Gaza Strip, it might allow for a non-Hamas governing body (like the Palestinian Authority) to begin governing, and we can begin to consider a bargain. I do not expect this to happen. Israel will probably invade Rafah and destroy Hamas’ remaining battalions. But there will be an ensuing urban insurgency by Hamas and others that will require significant security forces, potentially resulting in civilian deaths, to provide an opportunity to any governing body. I do not foresee Arab states or the UN willing to provide this type of security. But let’s say I’m wrong. If Israel destroys Hamas as a coherent military structure, and the Palestinian Authority, with outside security assistance, begins governing, is there a possible bargain? The Clinton Parameters are a likely guide for a possible bargain and address four key issues: territory, Jerusalem, security, and the Right of Return. They stipulate a Palestinian state with more than 90 percent of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip with territorial compensation from Israel. Sacred sites and ethnic neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would be distributed to the two sides in a sharing arrangement. The Israeli military would mostly withdraw from Palestinian territories within a set time period and be replaced with an international security force. And the Palestinian claim of a Right of Return (to Israel) would be disclaimed. The last two issues stand out as particular obstacles for a possible bargain. The current Israeli governing coalition refuses to adopt any steps leading to Palestinian statehood. However, if Israel’s Labor Party can develop a coalition, there is a history in Israel of leaders, Barak and Olmert, expressing willingness to adopt a Clinton Parameters-like bargain. However, after 7 October, I expect a more hawkish sentiment will be adopted even among Israeli parties and voters more amenable to a Palestinian state. This would likely manifest in more demands related to security oversights. Because Palestinian leaders would likely demand sovereign security institutions, this would narrow the bargaining range, that is, reduce the possibility of a bargain. Also not clear is if a Clinton Parameters-based bargain would be accepted by Palestinian leaders and if it could be implemented. The Palestinian Authority lacks political and economic institutions necessary for statehood, does not have a sufficient monopoly on violence and may lack the capacity to prevent disgruntled Palestinians actors from using violence. Even if Palestinian leaders are willing to accept a Clinton Parameter-based bargain, its successful implementation is unclear given the likelihood of violent internal opposition. Some observers suggest specific challenges related to the Right of Return, partly because it relates to the idea of Israel itself. Some Palestinian leaders, along with international institutions and a number of Arab countries, have materially and ideologically kept the refugee issue alive, and it continues to play a salient role in Palestinian politics. I expect that it would be challenging for future Palestinian leaders to give up this claim – because of leaders’ own ideological connection to the issue, its domestic salience, and giving up this claim may generate violence from other Palestinian actors. There would likely be significant domestic costs. However, the Right of Return remains a non-negotiable stance for Israel. The Palestinians refugee problem was created in 1948 and 1967, and any significant incorporation of Palestinians into Israel proper would dramatically change Israel’s demographics and society. So, is there a possible bargain? Even if Hamas can be replaced with another governing body it is not obvious there exists an implementable bargain. My guess is that Israelis will adopt a hawkish demand for a demilitarized Palestinian state. Giving up the Right of Return will be a challenge for Palestinian leaders – and the lack of political and economic institutions presents further challenges. I am not confident that a bargain exists, even without Hamas governing Gaza. But the world is hard to predict. Perhaps the web of issues related to Iran and Hezbollah, external pressures and support, settlements, demographics and economic conditions, technology, religion, domestic competition, and general passing of time can interact in unforeseen ways to produce an implementable bargain. The author is an Associate Professor at Seoul National University's Department of International Relations. --Ed.

Mid-February 2024 the UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP) released a report on the progress of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in this part of the world. While significant progress has been made on several fronts, much has to be done to increase living standards, provide jobs, rehabilitate the natural environment and reduce socio-economic inequalities. The Covid-19 pandemic led to an increase in poverty. “At its current pace, the report further highlights that the region will not achieve all 17 SDGs before 2062 – marking a significant 32-year delay.” This is a sobering conclusion, particularly for those who believed that the 21st century would undoubtedly become Asia’s century. Without change and increased efforts to address poverty, inequality, and climate change, it is far from certain whether Asia can indeed turn itself into a prosperous, inclusive and sustainable continent. As the report demonstrates, the indicators economic loss from disasters (indicator 1.5.2), moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (2.1.2), unemployment rate (8.5.2), sustainable fisheries (14.7.1), proportion of land that is degraded (15.3.1), internally displaced persons (16b P1), and several other indicators regressed instead of progressed. Even for relatively successful countries like China and Malaysia, it remains to be seen if they can achieve high-income status in the coming two decades. Perhaps the most worrying indicator is youth unemployment which is currently approximately 20 percent in China and 10 percent in Malaysia. The lack of sufficient job opportunities in manufacturing and services sectors in urban areas implies that the processes of structural economic transformation and absorption of rural migrants are not silver bullets anymore to increase living standards. This will have profound implications for the current and future youth in Asia and the Pacific. In addition, US efforts to de-risk its economy (reduce supply chain dependence on China) and automation and robotization could further change labour markets in the Global South in significant ways. The advantage of low wages is becoming less relevant when multinational companies require fewer people to produce things. What will young women and men do without enough work? How can the young generation address social and environmental challenges when they increasingly find it hard to remain part or become part of the middle class? And, what are the prospects for countries that still have a longer way to go to eradicate poverty like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, The Philippines, and Cambodia? Given increasing climate change impacts and regression on various environmental indicators, the UN-ESCAP argues that “integrating robust climate action measures into national policies, strategies and plans is of paramount importance….Simultaneously, urgent remedial actions are warranted to enhance access to decent work and support economic growth.” This is of course easier said than done. A possible avenue is to increase efforts in the spheres of green growth, renewable energy, and rewarding farmers and fishers for activities that rehabilitate the natural environment. One example is to think about strategies how to reduce the dependence on coal while also taking care of the tens of thousands of coal miners. Yet, in several countries coal production is set to rise rather than decline. Another example is to focus more on coastal communities. Many Asian countries have long coastal zones inhabiting millions of people and these areas are prone to flooding and are hit hardest by typhoons; see my blog on this topic. Another avenue is to for us, here in the Republic of Korea, to think about our own actions and patterns of consumption. From where do we import our food and other products? Do we actually help farmers and fishers when we eat and drink or do we perpetuate existing patterns of inequality and environmental degradation? Who benefits the most when we order a cup of coffee at one of the many cafes on the Seoul National University campus? As the UN-ESCAP states: “Similarly, fostering responsible consumption and production (Goal 12), safeguarding life below water (Goal 14), and life on land (Goal 15) are pivotal for the Asia-Pacific region to accelerate its progress towards the 2030 Agenda.” Without increasing initiatives at the individual, country, and international levels we need to wait until 2062 before all SDGs are met. Before that, the geography of economic inequalities as well as environmental inequalities could become so disturbing for the most marginalised people that the only way out is outmigration. This is a scenario that would destabilize the social fabric in many Asian and Pacific countries and could fuel anti-immigration sentiments in the richer countries. Let’s not wait until happens, but demand action from our leaders and think about what we as individuals could do. The author is a professor at Seoul National University’s Department of Geography. –Ed.

Two years have passed since our campus became re-energized back to pre-COVID times. With the revitalization of the student community—leaving behind the atrophy of online semesters—the SNU Human Rights Student Council (SHRC) has also relaunched. While we still face many challenges, I believe it is formidable to have an official Student Council-affiliated organization to discuss and voice human rights issues. Most of us are familiar with the term "human rights," but it is also feels quite distant. The notion itself is well known, but most of us are unable to resonate with it as something connected to ourselves. Perhaps, it is felt that it belongs more in books rather than in reality. However distant it may feel, human rights are here and now: in concrete reality. A pair of automated doors with buttons placed where a wheelchair user cannot reach, the first question of a survey that can only be answered with the words "male" or "female," a vegan cafeteria on campus that has closed down, a worker’s rest area placed underground with terrible air quality and high humidity, the pressure to perform at a talent show during a freshmen mixer, a sexist joke… The list goes on. Even on campus and within the university community, we come face-to-face with problems related to the human rights agenda, especially those of minorities, like the instances stated above. Many people may perceive the “rights of minorities” as something that only concerns an extremely small group of people who are distant from themselves. Those “minorities”, however, are here and now—just like the non-minorities. In fact, they may be right next to you. They, however, face challenges and problems due to social institutions and structures that stem from the so-called “normalcy.” On the other hand, this means that the challenges and problems they face can be eliminated—at least considerably—through changes in social institutions and structures. The most obvious example of these challenges and problems is a non-barrier-free environment. “The term barrier-free” refers to removing barriers to social life for people with disabilities, the elderly, and other minorities. A shuttle bus that is inaccessible to wheelchairs, or a website that relies heavily on images to convey important information which prevents blind people from using a screen reader from decipher the content, are both examples of non-barrier-free environments. These environments are intended only for those who can use both legs to board buses easily and for those who can see visual images, respectively. "Normalcy" is layered onto our society in many ways, and those who do not fit the mold are often excluded from spaces, institutions, and opportunities. Although society demands “normalcy” like mentioned above, only a few, or no one at all, fits this normalcy in every way. Hence, creating a community that is not solely for "normal humans" but for all of the diverse people that are here and now, is ultimately about creating a community for all of us. I believe this is one of the causes that SHRC exists for. SHRC is responsible for finding solutions to prevent and alleviate discrimination and human rights violations, implementing projects to raise human rights awareness, and ensuring that the Rights and Diversity Agenda units on campus function properly. Currently, the Rights and Diversity Agenda units include agenda groups that advocate for LGBTQ+, disability, women/gender, labor, and vegan rights, but our agenda is not limited to the ones listed. Last year, we organized a "Rainbow March" to protest Seoul City’s decision to refuse the use Seoul Plaza to host the Seoul Queer Parade. We also established a regular council to improve human rights issues on campus. This year, we plan to participate in regular human rights meetings with the school administration, and work towards the enactment of the Seoul National University Human Rights Charter, among other things. SHRC’s effort to create a community that guarantees everyone's rights continues. We would like to ask you, the members of SNU community, to keep alert of the current human rights issues within our campus. We also expect that the university administration will be more proactive in ensuring the human rights of members of this community. Please remember, human rights are not a distant issue; it is a matter for those of us who are here and now. The author is the chairperson at Seoul National University’s student-led Human Rights Council. --Ed.

Disasters reveal aspects of society that are normally invisible. They identify the mechanisms leading to negative outcomes, expose the values a society prioritizes, show resource allocation, and uncover responses in chaotic and urgent situations. More importantly, they reveal who makes decisions about a risk and to whom that risk is structurally transferred. In other words, risk reveals power relations within a society. So, what did the Sewol ferry disaster reveal about the nature and power relations in Korean society? On 16 April, 2014, a 6,800-metric ton vessel capsized and sank on a clear, windless, wave-free day. The crew took no steps to ensure the safety of the passengers, and only escaped to the Coast Guard patrol boat while the ship's standby announcements were being made. The Coast Guard did not communicate with the Sewol crew, let alone order the passengers to leave the ship, and only picked up the passengers who managed to get out on their own, while the Sewol capsized. The media made a significant error by incorrectly reporting that all passengers had been rescued. Additionally, the president visited the Central Disaster Safety Task Force at 5:15 P.M. and asked uninformed questions, displaying a lack of awareness of the situation. Furthermore, no presidential meetings occurred at the Blue House until 20 April, 2014. The public hoped that divers could rescue at least one passenger while part of the ship's bow remained above water. However, the Coast Guard lacked deep-sea diving capabilities, and the state failed to provide accurate information or to communicate transparently with the bereaved families. Instead, police were mobilized to monitor and track their movements. From the day of the tragedy, state intelligence agencies—including the National Intelligence Service, the Military Intelligence Command, and the police—not only conducted illegal inspections of the bereaved families but also monitored all activities related to the Sewol ferry disaster, including online spaces, government ministries, media organizations, and even the Supreme Court, indiscriminately collecting information and reporting it to higher authorities. On 15 May, 2014, it was revealed that the 'Marine Accident Reporting System Chart' required the NIS to be the first to report any accident. In order to uncover the truth behind these numerous allegations, the families sought to establish a powerful investigative committee endowed with compulsory investigative and prosecutorial powers. However, the political parties were unwilling to support this, leading to the enactment of a special law that lacked these crucial powers. The Sewol Special Investigation Committee, which was created with great difficulty, faced complete obstruction by the Blue House and the government from its inception until it was forcibly disbanded. In late 2016, a candlelight protest led to the impeachment of former president Park Geun-hye and the installation of a new government. However, this new administration did not make significant efforts to investigate the Sewol ferry disaster. During the Moon Jae-in administration, the Blue House illegally destroyed documents related to the Sewol ferry, and the remains were not released to the public until five days after they were found. In September, 2022, the investigation by the Special Investigation Committee on Social Disasters concluded without resolving the various suspicions related to the Sewol ferry disaster. The Sewol ferry tragedy exposed more than just the unsafe operation of passenger ships and the incompetence of the Korean Coast Guard. It revealed that the Coast Guard, whose mission is to protect people's lives, stood by and watched people die. It showed that the media, tasked with delivering facts, could propagate lies that had no basis in reality. It demonstrated that the president could be indifferent—or even hostile—towards a national tragedy, that state agencies could inspect and suppress bereaved families, and that systemic obstruction could hamper the investigative committee established by a special law enacted by the legislature. Furthermore, the tragedy uncovered a harsh reality within our society: even after bereaved families and citizens fought back against this grave injustice and a new government was installed, the new administration did little to uncover the truth. After the Sewol ferry tragedy, many people said, “I will remember and I will act.” Ten years later, what should we remember, and what should we do? We should remember the injustice in Korean society, and our actions should aim to change that injustice. That would be true mourning and true memorialization. On the 10th anniversary of the Sewol ferry tragedy, I hope this will be an opportunity to start a discussion about the character of Korean society as revealed by the tragedy, and to determine what actions should be taken to make that character more just. The author is a doctoral candidate at Seoul National University’s Department of Sociology and former Investigation Team Leader at the Special Commission on Social Disaster Investigation.--Ed.