“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.

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.

Everyone wants a happy life. But if you look around, you cannot find that many people who actually manage to lead happy lives. They say Koreans are comparatively less happy than those who live in other countries with similar levels of income. Korea’s suicide rate, one of the highest among OECD member countries, illustrates this fact well. What is the matter? Has’nt Korea joined the club of rich countries already? Most Koreans are free from the worries about basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter. I guess the main culprit is the suffocatingly competitive social atmosphere which has rendered us to live under a tremendous amount of stress from early childhood. When I was young, there was not much private education going on which devastated the bodies and souls of young children. Since we had to go through three levels of entrance examinations from that of junior high schools, the situation back then could have been much worse than today, Unlike children of these days, however, most children at that time were free from the devastation of private education. With ever increasing pressure of competition, our society has become an unbearably competitive one all of a sudden. Another horrifying environment awaits us when we enter the society after finishing schools. Think about the pitiful situation of the average salaried person who faces the pressure to retire voluntarily in his or her early 50s. Could he feel happy when he ponders about what will happen to him after retirement? With insufficient savings and pensions, he should endure miserable poverty during his long retirement years. What makes worse, the period during which he should live in retirement has become much longer with ever rising life expectancy. Would it be possible for the average Korean who is living such a stressful life to feel happy in his everyday life? It is definitely not easy to escape this trap of unhappiness by one’s own efforts. Besides, there is another bad news. According to studies by psychologists, genetic factors have a great impact on people’s feelings of happiness. Genetic factors account for up to 50 percent of all factors that influence the feelings of happiness. That is to say, some people could have a hard time to feel happy from the beginning of their lives. Then should we just give up our efforts to become happy? Based on my experiences as someone who has lived over 70 years, I think not necessarily. Even though the social atmosphere is bad and genetic factors act as a limitation, the efforts to become happy definitely do help. Certainly, there is some room to make your day-to-day lives happier through your efforts to enhance the feelings of happiness. But the question is in what one should do to increase the feelings of happiness. People who call themselves the ‘teachers of life’ tell us many ways to become happy. For example, some advises that you must always maintain a positive attitude, or that you must never give up hope even in adverse situations. Moreover, some says that you should let go of useless greed and feel satisfied with your current circumstances. In actuality, however, putting these into practice is easier said than done. In addition, it is unclear whether such efforts will actually make you happy. Hence, I would like to introduce two things that I have been practicing and have found to be quite effective in enhancing the feelings of happiness. The first one is very simple and easy to put into practice. On a sunny day, I quit working and go outside to take a walk enjoying the view of blossoming flowers and trees. However busy you may be, you can surely spare half an hour to refresh your body and mind. I can confidently predict that giving yourself a break from exhausting daily routines even for half an hour will indeed make you much refreshed and happy. I hope you don’t look down on this method. The fact that it is effective has also been proven scientifically. There are numerous studies that show being in the sun makes you happier. It is widely known that people living in countries with little sunlight tend to have higher numbers suffering from depression. Moreover, a research on happiness shows that living a life that is close to nature increases the feelings of happiness. You can greatly increase the feelings of happiness by merely taking a walk under the bright sun enjoying the view of flowers and trees. The second one is a roundabout way to reach the goal of happiness by trying to achieve good health first. I believe that this is surely a good way to increase your level of happiness effectively. Health is the most important precondition to happiness. It is a widely known truth that unhealthy people cannot feel happy. The cause of many people’s unhappiness can be found in their bad health. Therefore, striving to live a healthy life will certainly lead to a happy life. The question is how can we achieve both physical and mental health. I think a certain kind of prioritization is necessary in this context. That is, we had better focus on physical health rather than mental health. This is because a healthy mind comes naturally from a healthy body. That is not the only reason. The question of how to make one’s mind healthy is not an easy question to answer. Therefore, working to improve one’s physical health first is a more practical approach. In order to make a healthy body, we must first-and-foremost eat good foods. We must reduce the consumption of junk foods and processed foods. We must foster a habit of consuming only healthy foods. This is easy to say, but it is actually a difficult task to do. Especially for young people, it could be close to impossible to abstain from junk foods. But nothing is gained in this world for free! Leading a healthy and happy life requires the determination to forgo short-term pleasures. The second element of maintaining a healthy body is adequate exercise. It is good to enjoy any kind of sports as a hobby. You must have the experience of feeling refreshed and happy after you sweat a lot doing some sports activities. If it is difficult for you to exercise regularly for some reason, you must at least find some time to take a walk. They say that brisk walking has the same health-improving effects as any other form of arduous exercise. The last element of maintaining a healthy body is adequate rest. Just as a machine working non-stop soon breaks down, you can never be healthy if you overwork your body and mind. Even if things that should be done pile up like a mountain, be sure to make the effort to take some rest. If you do not take a rest because you think it is a waste of time, you may end up wasting more time by falling ill. Let us not forget that taking adequate amounts of time to rest is the most effective way of managing your time. I think I have lived, on the whole, a fairly happy life so far. And I believe that my ways of enhancing the feelings of happiness that I have explained above have turn out to be quite effective. That is why I wish to share my experiences with you. I am sure that you won’t be disappointed if you follow my steps. I could not be any happier if you try it out and find it effective. As your teacher, leading you to happy lives is what I find most worthwhile. The author is an emeritus professor at Seoul National University’s Department of Economics. --Ed.

South Korea has its General Elections on Wednesday. Watching the highlights to a recent television debate, which aired on local broadcaster JTBC, I could not hide my dismay. “The country that young people have ruined, the country that young people have messed up, the elderly must save.” This remark by former journalist Kim Jin, who appeared on the show as a panelist representing the conservative bloc, sparked much debate online. People raised concerns that such views may be shared among the leadership of the ruling People’s Power Party as Kim is not only a member of the PPP, but is also known to have personal connections to high ranking party members. Whether he represents the party or not, his views cannot be further from the truth. It is uncontested that South Korea’s young adults have always played a pivotal role in South Korean politics. They were at the hearth of renewing South Korea’s democracy. Students played an important role in the candlelight protests that impeached former president Park Geun-hye, who allowed her personal aide to meddle with state affairs. South Korea’s young adults also led the “Me Too” movement, seeking to correct gender-based violence in the workplace. Both cases illustrate young adults seeking to end outdated customs and practices that have plagued Korean society and politics. Korean young adults have always been at the center of the domestic political scene—not “mess[ing] up” the country, but urging it to keep up with the times. Meanwhile, young adults here have—on the contrary—often fallen victim to state power. A young 20-year-old corporal lost his life last year, fulfilling an unjustified, yet dangerous, order. His honor was further tarnished as politicians and military officials scurried to deny responsibility. Over 150 people—mostly in their 20s and 30s—died in a crowd crush on Halloween, while the top official responsible for the safety of her constituents missed safety precaution meetings to take a personal trip. Millions of students preparing for college admissions fell into despair after learning that the daughter of South Korea’s former Minister of Justice used her father’s influence to get into a local medical school. And the audacity to say that Korea’s young adults have “ruined the country.” Of course, I am not here to pour gasoline on the generational conflict Kim Jin has started. The elderly has contributed extensively to South Korea’s development, and has sacrificed far more than we can fathom. And we most certainly need their wisdom to navigate this age of political turmoil. But Kim Jin’s remarks exhibit exactly why we should walk into that poll booth on Wednesday. South Korea’s young adults are just as attentive and reactive to politics as any other generational demographic. South Korea’s young adults know how to hold politicians accountable. We know how to stand up for ourselves when state power oppresses. We know that when a person pits two of the most vulnerable demographics against each other, their intentions are not the most angelic. To show them that, that is why I vote. The author is a former Editor-in-Chief and the current Chief Editorial Writer at The SNU Quill. –Ed.

When I was at Seoul National University, my finance professor tended to mix life lessons into his teachings. Some of them have stuck with me to this day; for example, he would say that beer always taste the best the day before a lecture. Based on my personal experience, I can confidently say that this is definitely true. He also said that the most important capital investment of your life is your partner. Given that you go through most of your life with your partner, I cannot disagree with this statement. If I had to condense the life wisdom I have gained during my life it would be this: Not having children is the biggest mistake you can make. South Korea is repeatedly beating its own record year after year when it comes to low birth rates. Some of the latest figures you can find cited online are as low as 0.72 births per woman, according to the BBC. This is far from the 2.1 that promotes a steady population. To put this in perspective, at the current rate there will be less than six great grandchildren for every 100 Koreans today. Although it is hard to ignore this major societal issue, my opinion on having children comes from a purely selfish place to achieve happiness in life. Having a child has been an unmatched experience in my life, it has opened my eyes to another level of love and bonding. This does not only apply to the relationship with my child but also to my wife and to my parents. The fact is that I could never have accessed this level of love and bonding without having a child. This also means I could never understand what it means and feels to have a child without having a child. I have observed that many people show hesitance to having children and come up with a myriad of reasons for why they should not. They believe it comes with many changes to their life and with increased expenses. This is all true, however, once you have a child your complete perspective on life changes. Having a child is less of a disruption but more like an evolution. Your own priorities shift, and you will find yourself wanting to spend the weekend with your family rather than drinking with your friends. It ends up being a paradoxical situation; people without children need to consider if they should have children or not but without the ability to understand what it means to have children until they do. This is why, I want to tell all these people: Yes, you should have children, through whatever means that are available today, and it would be a big mistake if you did not. To truly live life is to have children, that I can say with complete confidence. The author is a former Editor-in-Chief at The SNU Quill and currently works as a Project Manager at TWS Partners. –Ed.