コンテンツへスキップ

“The issue of how the Science Council of Japan should be” is now to be settled

[Japanese] https://i-rich.org/?p=1833

Tsukasa Shirakawa

It was announced that the Government has decided to change the status of the Science Council of Japan from the current national organ to an independent organization with corporate status by Chairman Matsumura of the National Public Safety Commission during a press interview held on December 22, 2023. The pending issue since the Suga Yoshihide Cabinet refused to appoint part of members in December 2020 has now begun to move toward a certain resolution.

The Science Council of Japan has conflicted with the Government over the selection of its members many times. The Council is a national organ and the power to appoint its members belongs to the Prime Minister. However, the Council has never accepted having their recommended candidates rejected. So, if the Council is to be independent from the State, its membership selection will be up to the Council and there will be no more conflict.

The Science Council of Japan has been receiving one-billion yen in support from the Government, but this amount will be reduced from now on. For the time being, the Council will try to vary its financial basis while receiving financial support. At the same time, the Council will consider the system to clarify its management.

The Science Council of Japan has not agreed to the decision, and possibly it will be necessary to accept part of the Council’s opinion regarding the decided change. However, it is very unlikely that the decision itself will be turned over.

The truth about the “appointment refusal issue” and its unexpected fallout  

Prior to the “issue of the appointment refusal” by the Suga Yoshihide Cabinet, it was the then Prime Minister Abe Shinzo that was preparing for the reform of the Science Council of Japan. The two sides clashed two times. The first time was in 2016, when three posts were vacant among the membership, and to fill the vacancy, Prime Minister Abe asked two posts to be filled by the second candidates. The second time was in 2018. Then, out of 11 posts to be refilled, Prime Minister Abe asked one post to be filled by the second candidate. After much tug of war, both cases were settled when the Council gave up refilling the posts.

What we must heed here is that the Science Council of Japan puts up two candidates for each post, but in fact they only recognize the first candidate. The Council pursued this method for decades and fiercely resisted against any attempt to remove the first candidate by the Government, Ministry of Education or related organizations of the Council. Outwardly, there are two candidates for each post, but in fact, it was nothing but the appointment by the Council.

During the semi-selection held every three years to reselect half of the members, the same method has been taken.

During the reselection of members in 2017, following the then Prime Minister Abe’s request, the Science Council of Japan was to recommend 110 candidates for the membership capacity of 105, leaving five for the Prime Minister to refuse. In fact, however, the Science Council of Japan had designated “105 candidates to be appointed” and had no intention to appoint the remaining five nominal candidates.

In the background of the “appointment refusal” incident in 2020, there was a fact that then the Science Council of Japan unprecedentedly recommended exactly 105 candidates.

Plainly speaking, breaking the promise made with the former Prime Minister, the Council daringly challenged the then Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide. In response to the daring challenge, Prime Minister Suga refused “six candidates” beyond the conventional five.

However, this issue brought an unexpected fallout. That is, the connection between the Science Council of Japan and the Communist Party came to be generally known. Prime Minister Suga got exposed to a barrage of criticism from the Oppositions and the mass media regarding this issue. At the same time, both the Science Council of Japan and the Communist Party went on exclusively criticizing the Government, totally forgetting to effectively take care of the largest issue of the moment, the covid 19 pandemic.

The more the Communist Party became concerned about the Science Council of Japan, the more apparently their close relationship became revealed, and the more people came to feel repulsive toward the Science Council of Japan.

Why it is necessary for the Science Council of Japan to be independent from the Governmnet     

The Science Council of Japan stated in a letter dated July 25, 2023, addressed to Minister of State for Special Missions Kobayashi (in charge of scientific technologies policy) that “it is difficult to clearly separate military and civilian study from non-military study. In response to this recognition, most of the mass media reported that “the Science Council of Japan admitted military study.”

As soon as this report appeared, the Science Council of Japan asserted that it maintains the position advocated in 1950. Later, the Council stated again that it is difficult to separate military and civil technologies. Still, it became clear that the Council has no intention to abandon “postwar pacifism.” Even today, the Council is controlled by the postwar pacifist ideology and has no intention to fully carry out its task as a national organ.

From the very beginning of its foundation, the Science Council has consistently maintained that military study may cause a war and publicly stated that the Science Council of Japan shall not engage in military study, three times, in 1950, 1967 and 2017.

However, military-civil technology includes the Internet, AI and drones which are essential for future economic development. Japan falls behind the United States and other countries in these fields and China is beginning to advance further than Japan. Unless both State and civilians work together, Japan cannot cope with the global competition.

In addition, the Science Council of Japan concluded a Memorandum of Cooperation with the Chinese Science Technology Association and has indirect personal exchange with the military science academy directly under the Association and the People’s Liberation Army. If it is to cooperate with the organization, there is a fear lest it should contribute to the Chinese military technology.

While the Science Council of Japan is working cooperatively in Chinese military study, it refuses to be cooperative in Japanese military study. If the Science Council of Japan is such harmful organization toward Japan, it is perfectly natural that it should be independent from the State. We hope that the Science Council of Japan will become independent from the Japanese Government as soon as possible.

[Japanese] https://i-rich.org/?p=1751

President
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

Sugihara Seishiro

It is said that there are three pillars in the European and American civilizations. They are Greek philosophy, Christianity and Roman law.

Related to Roman law, a proverb says, “Law is to be discovered, but not to be made.” In gist, law is the pursuit of justice.

Under the Chinese civilization, law is a mere tool that those holding power use to rule the people and therefore, those in power may make whatever law they wish and use it in whatever way they like.

European and American laws have been derived from Roman law and ultimately exist to pursue justice. Thereby, the word “right” meaning “correct” also means “privilege.” However, this concept was not based on law, and it was necessary to back it with power. The word “right” refers to “right hand” and represents power. So, it refers to justice backed by power.

Thus, law in the European and American sense exists not at the mercy of an arbitrary power but as an authority by itself. Consequently, law is included in the concept of the “rule of law” or “nomocracy,” and such law governs the present world.

Consequently, under the “rule of law,” various principles came to be born. For instance, when a law is made to impose punishment, the principle of non-retroactivity meaning that the law shall not be applied retrospectively is one of the well-known legal principles.

Under those principles, regarding the relationship between the people and the State, the principle of independence of the three powers (legislative, executive, and judicial) is to be upheld. Through adequate checks and balances among the judicial, legislative, and executive powers, justice and order of law are secured.

Since the Meiji Era, Japan has sincerely learned from European and American judicial systems and endeavored to follow the “rule of law” and has now become a country perfectly observing the “rule of law.” However, recently, within the last few years, incidents occurred, making us apprehensive that the “rule of law” may be collapsing. We can perceive the omen of the collapsing rule of law, which poses a historical crisis of the “rule of law.”

On December 10, 2022, related to the issue of the former Unification Church, the so-called Saving Victims Law, officially, Law on Illegal Solicitation of Donations by Corporations, was enacted.

This law was enacted amid the tumult asking for the dissolution of the former Unification Church. However, in terms of the “rule of law,” whatever rigid law may have been enacted to dissolve the former Unification Church, the application of this law should be limited to the cases after the enforcement of this law. This fact was not fully disseminated by the executive office amongst the tumult. Should this fact been disseminated earlier, such chaotic situation could have been avoided.

Prime Minister Kishida changed his interpretation overnight, stating that civil law can be considered among factors for the dissolution of the Church. As long as change of interpretation on the part of the executive branch is within the range permitted by law, under the “rule of law,” it cannot digress from law. However, without pointing out the principle of the “rule of law,” he suddenly mentioned the change of interpretation as if aiming to further complicate the issue. This is a kind of digression that exceeds the powers allocated to the executive branch.

On June 16, 2023, the so-called LGBT Law, officially, Law on the Promotion of the People’s Understanding of the Diversity about the Sexual Preference and Gender Identity, was enacted by the Diet.

In terms of the “rule of law,” this law lacks “legislative fact” that necessitates the legislation of the law. Under such judicial circumstances, the enactment of such a law may destroy the order that the majority of the people have enjoyed and shake the stability of justice and order of law, leading to the destruction of the people’s peace, security and happiness. As a legislation, such law is digression of the “rule of law.”

On July 11, 2023, the Supreme Court made a decision allowing the plaintiff with gender identity disorder, who works for the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and is married with a wife and child(ren), physically looks like a man, has not undergone the requisite gender reassignment surgery due to health-related reasons and claims to be a woman, to use any women’s restroom within the Ministry.

By this decision, the claim made by the plaintiff with gender identity disorder has been satisfied and as far as this person’s right is concerned, it is protected. On the other hand, as for the majority of female workers at the Ministry, their right to use women’s restrooms in peace and quiet which has been enjoyed so far came to be violated.

In the first place, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry had the person in question to use the restrictively specified women’s restroom within the Ministry but did not prohibit the person from using any of the women’s restrooms.

On the part of the Supreme Court, it is not their mission to directly resolve the inconvenience of the plaintiff. Rather, considering the right of the majority of female workers to use women’s restrooms in peace and quiet, the Ministry restricted the use of women’s restrooms by the plaintiff. Then, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether this restrictive measure taken by the Ministry against the plaintiff was within the legal range. It is against the justice of the law to destroy the order the majority of people enjoy and violate the rights of the majority.

In addition, if a person in such an unusual situation is to be protected, it is only possible by discussing the issue and making new rules that cover all of those in the same situation. However, it is the work of the Diet to make new rules through discussion.

Judiciary’s task is to decide whether an issue brought up in a lawsuit is legal or not, based on the existing laws, regulations, and customs and through such process, it decides the final interpretation of the respective laws and regulations.

In the judiciary, it is against the “rule of law” to save certain individuals by destroying the order that has been enjoyed by the majority of the people.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in our country, which must endeavor to maintain the importance of the traditional order and ensure the stability of the State.

Thus far, I have pointed out the cases that, if ignored, may lead to the collapse of the “rule of law” on the part of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches and this should be my warning about the possible collapse of the “rule of law.”

[Please refer to this author’s book Basic Theory on Judiciary—Its Structure of the Rule of Law (Published by Kyodo Shuppan, 1973)

はじめに

「アイヌは北方民族である」「アイヌは縄文人の子孫ではない」「アイヌは日本民族ではない」こうした様々な言い方をする人がいるが、日本の根幹を揺るがす事実誤認であり、この事実誤認に基づいた主張は極めて危険な主張である。その過ちを正し、その主張がどのように日本を危機に陥れているのかを解説することにする。

北海道の的場光昭氏は愛国の士として北海道の保守世論を導くリーダーと目されており、その働きには私は敬意を表している。しかし、アイヌ問題だけは完全にミスリードであり、日本を危険な方向に導いていると糾弾せざるをえない。それを本論で説明させていただく。

的場氏の主張の誤り

以前にある人から「YouTube動画『的場塾 第60回 歴史が物語るアイヌの縄文人遺伝子要素』を見たか」[1]との連絡が入った。私は見ていなかったので、すぐに視聴した。その人が「腰が抜けそうになった」と指摘した37分辺りを見てみると、確かに驚く説明がなされていた。北海道のアイヌ人と沖縄人と日本列島本土人とが同じ枝から分かれている図(図1)を使って、「アイヌは縄文人の子孫ではない」という解説がなされているのだ。

図1 日本列島人の形成モデル

この図を正しく読むならば、アイヌも沖縄人も本土人もみな同じ遺伝子の枝から分かれており、みな縄文人の子孫であることを示している。にもかかわらず、図と真逆の説明が平然となされているこの動画を見ると、私も腰が抜けそうであった。

さらにまた、他の人からもこの動画の問題を指摘する連絡が入った。この動画の大部分は被差別民に関する解説である。なぜ被差別民の話が出てくるのかというと、的場氏は江戸時代に本州から大量の被差別民が北海道に渡り、アイヌと混血したと説明しているのである。もし被差別民との多少の混血はあったとしても全員が混血したとはとうてい考えられないし、たとえそうであったとしてもこの結論は明らかに誤っている。

的場氏の解説では、「アイヌは縄文人とは関係のない北方民族である」と説かれているのだが、つまり元々のアイヌは縄文人の遺伝子を持っていないし、そこに被差別民が入り、その混血によって縄文人の遺伝子が混入したと説かれているのだ。ところが現代本土人は縄文人由来の遺伝子は約10%しか保有していない。それに対して現代アイヌは約70%も縄文人由来遺伝子を保有している。[2][3] たとえすべてのアイヌが被差別民と入れ替わったとしても70%という数値にはならない。最大値で10%にしかならないはずである。

これほど被差別民を全面に持ち出したりするのは、極めて不適切であり、かつ深刻な人権問題である。学術的な誤りは正せば済むが、人権的な発言は学術的には正せない問題である。

的場氏の論には他にも多々誤りがあるのだが、あと一点だけ取り上げる。当該動画の36分過ぎに、斎藤成也氏が「アイヌが縄文人の直系の子孫」と言った直後に斎藤氏が「本当はそうではない」と言っているシーンを繰り返し引用して紹介している。つまりこれによって、斎藤氏が「アイヌは縄文人の子孫ではない」と言ったと解説がなされているのだ。

実は私はこの斎藤氏の動画(『遺伝子解析から見た東アジアの民族関係』[4])を以前に見ており、そのシーンを見て大いに違和感をもった。なぜなら、斎藤氏の書籍ではきちんとアイヌを縄文人の子孫だとして解説されているからである。それで不思議に思って斎藤氏に直接、電話をかけて確認してみた。斎藤氏は動画の発言は「100%の縄文人ではない」という意味で言ったとの証言を得た。的場氏にはもう一度斎藤成也氏の著書を読み直して本筋を理解していただきたいと思う。

つまり、的場氏の当該動画では図の意味が真逆に解説され、著者の本意と真逆の解説がされているのであり、これは学術的問題である。同時に、被差別民を安易に利用して説明があるなど、極めて深刻な人権問題も含んでいるといえる。結論として『的場塾 第60回 歴史が物語るアイヌの縄文人遺伝子要素』における主張は不当であり、世論をミスリードするものである。

ロシア関係で見る的場氏の主張の危険

ところで、学術的な誤りはよくある話であり、それは学術論争のなかで時間をかけて解決されていくものであろう。しかし、アイヌに関する問題はそんな悠長なことを言っていられない。そのことを、以下説明する。

 的場氏は、アイヌはもともとアムール川流域に居住していた北方民族であると説いている。それではアイヌはロシア系となってしまい、これにロシアの現大統領プーチンが飛びついた。2018年12月19日付け『北海道新聞』では、ロシアのプーチン大統領は、「アイヌ民族をロシアの先住民族に認定する考えをしめした」と報道した。この流れに沿って、2022年4月7日の『J-castニュース』では、ロシアの政治学者セルゲイ・チェルニャホフスキーが、「東京(日本政府)は、政治的にロシア領であった北海道を不適切に保持している」と主張していると報じたのである。その根拠として北海道に住むアイヌ民族はロシア民族のひとつだと紹介している。翌8日にはロシアのセルゲイ・ミロノフ下院副議長が、「専門家によると、北海道の全権はロシアにある」と発言していると、『Zak・Zak』が報じている。

 驚いたことに、この流れに文部科学省が乗ってしまった。江戸時代までの北海道には日本民族よりも他民族のほうが多く住んでいたので、明治以前の北海道は日本ではなかったとして、指導したのだ。地理で、本州以南を色着けしながら北海道を白地にするよう、教科書検定で指導してしまったことにより、論理的にはもはや北海道は日本固有の領土と呼べなくなってしまったのである。

 そうなると、北方領土問題でも日本は極めて不利な立場となる。択捉も国後も日本民族固有の島ではなくなってしまうのだ。そこに住んでいたのはアイヌであり、それをロシア民族とされると、日本の主張は根底から崩れるのである。それどころかロシアはすでに上述のとおり、北海道の領有権まで主張しはじめているのだ。

 こうした状況を放置していると日本は第二のウクライナになりかねない。実際に2022年11月25日付け『ニューズウィーク日本版』では、「ロシアはウクライナでなく日本攻撃を準備していた」と報じているのである。これはFSB(注:ロシア連邦保安庁、旧KGB)内通者のメールから判明したとのことであるが、どれほど真実性があるかは分からないものの、そうだとしても看過してはいけないし、ロシアを甘く見てはいけない。

ゲノムから見たアイヌ

2020年8月に発表された東京大学、東京大学大学院、金沢大学が共同で発表した『縄文人ゲノム解析から見えてきた東ユーラシアの人類史』[5]によると、「アイヌ民族が日本列島の住人として最も古い系統であると同時に東ユーラシア人の創始集団の直接の子孫の1つである可能性が高い」とされ、縄文人の系統は「東ユーラシア人(東アジア人、北東アジア人)の”根”に位置するほど非常に古く、東ユーラシア人の創始集団の直接の子孫の1つであった」と説明している。

 つまり、アイヌとは縄文人の子孫であり、したがって日本民族なのであり、もっと詳細にいえば、日本列島の最も古い住人であるのだ。北海道や千島列島には有史以来、日本民族しか住んだことがなく、そこには民族問題など存在しない。それどころか日本民族が東ユーラシア大陸へと進出していったのである。考古学にあってはユーラシア大陸のシベリアには日本の遺跡よりも古い遺跡はない。アムール川中下流域から出土する縄文土器も日本のものよりはるかに新しい。古代人は確実に日本から出かけてシベリアで住み始めたのである。だとすれば、プーチンの論法に従うならシベリアこそ日本の領土なのだ。

 確かに、夷、蝦夷は中央政権と対立し、それを征するために征夷大将軍が日本の政権を担ってきたのだが、征夷大将軍の幕府政権と夷は日本史を表裏一体となって織りなしてきたのである。そこにロシアが口を挟む余地など寸分もない。日本民族を分断しようとする工作には絶対に乗ってはならないし、保守派はこの見識を共有して一体となってロシアと対抗しなければならないのである。そのためにはアイヌについて間違った主張をしてはならない。

[1]的場光昭You Tube『的場集中講座第8回近・現代アイヌに紛れ込んだ縄文人DNA』(2024年2月)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7cc9OtqPo4

 私のこの「論考」は的場氏のこの動画を直接に批判するものなので、この動画を以下のように直接貼りつけておきたい。日本語による動画なので、この「論考」の英語版を読む人にとっては十分に理解できないものとなるが、悪しからず了解していただきたい。
(筆者最終アクセス日2024年4月27日)

[2]『日本経済新聞』2019年5月13日「縄文人の起源、2~4万年前か 国立科学博物館がゲノム解析」

[3]Hideaki Kanzawa-Kiriyama, Timothy A. Jinam, Yosuke Kawai, Takehiro Sato, Kazuyoshi Hosomichi, Atsushi Tajima, Noboru Adachi, Hirofumi Matsumura, Kirill Kryukov, Naruya Saitou, Ken-ichi Shinoda, Late Jomon male and female genome sequences from the Funadomari site in Hokkaido, Japan, Anthropological Science, 論文ID 190415, 公開日 2019/05/29.

[4]斎藤成也You Tube動画『遺伝子解析から見た東アジアの民族関係』(2021年6月)
https://youtu.be/nb5euntzGa0

この動画も日本語の動画なので、この私の「論説」の英語版のみを読む人にとっては十分に理解できないが、この動画の一部が(20分過ぎのところ)切り取られて、注1の的場氏の動画で紹介されている。しかしそれは斎藤氏の言う意味と逆になって紹介されている。

なお、斎藤氏には同趣旨の著書として、斎藤成也『DNAでわかった日本人のルーツ』(別冊宝島 2016年)や『核DNA解析でたどる日本人の源流』(河出書房 2017年)などがある。
(筆者最終アクセス日2024年4月27日)

[5]Takashi Gakuhari, Shigeki Nakagome, Simon Rasmussen, Morten E. Allentoft,Takehiro Sato, Thorfinn Korneliussen, Blánaid Ní Chuinneagáin, HiromiMatsumae, Kae Koganebuchi, Ryan Schmidt, Souichiro Mizushima, Osamu Kondo,Nobuo Shigehara, Minoru Yoneda, Ryosuke Kimura, Hajime Ishida, Tadayuki Masuyama, Yasuhiro Yamada, Atsushi Tajima, Hiroki Shibata, Atsushi Toyoda,Toshiyuki Tsurumoto, Tetsuaki Wakebe, Hiromi Shitara, Tsunehiko Hanihara, Eske Willerslev, Martin Sikora, Hiroki Oota, Ancient Jomon genome sequence analysis sheds light on migration patterns of early East Asian populations, Communications Biology 2020.

Miyamoto Fujiko, guest fellow

Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=1924

The similarity between the Japanese and the Korean languages

When I first began learning the Korean language, I wondered why the Korean language and Japanese are so similar in grammar and pronunciation of words.

I realized that it was easy for me to learn the Korean language or Hangul, because I am Japanese, have received education in Japan and live in the Japanese culture, in which I naturally learned kanji. In South Korea, Japanese kanji idioms and words remain almost intact and at present, these Japanese words are replaced with the phonetic letters of the Hangul. Thus, once you learn the rule of Hangul pronunciation, Hangul words instantly become Japanese kanji idioms in your head.

Kanji writing system was first invented in China and then, through the Korean Peninsula, kanji culture was introduced to Japan with the arrival of Buddhism. The Korean people generally think that Korea taught kanji to Japan. During the Meiji period, the Japanese invented many two-word idioms out of English words and reversely, through the thirty-six years of Japan’s annexation of Korea, kanji invented by the Japanese people came to be used in the Korean Peninsula.

For example, kanji words such as gakko (school), shakai (society), yakkyoku (drug store), keizai (economy), keikaku (plan) and yakyu(baseball) were all invented by Japanese people. The Korean people hardly know this fact.

Abolition of the use of kanji in the current Korean language writing

Nevertheless, kanji writing has become a problem in the present Korean language, where words made of kanji are written exclusively in Hangul. Such a complete expulsion of kanji made me feel very uncomfortable when I saw my children’s school textbooks in South Korea. Hangul being phonogram, the textbook written in Hangul seemed to have been written entirely in the manner of the Japanese phonetic hiragana letters.

Hangul writing is excellent in the sense that almost all foreign languages, including English, can be pronounced in Hangul. However, when it comes to homonyms, Japanese people can understand the meaning looking at the kanji, but in Hangul, there are no kanji to indicate the meaning of the word and one must try to understand the meaning by referring to the context of the sentence and guess the original meaning of the word written with Hangul letters.

To mention some extreme examples, Hangul letters for bouka (fire prevention) and houka (arson) are the same. And Japanese words zenki (first period), zenki (aforementioned), denki (electricity), denki (biography), denki (electiric appliances), zenki (entire period), senki (time for opening hostilities), senki (battle flag) are all written in the same Hangul letters. In English, a word may be phonetic but may have a prefix or suffix which makes the word ideographic. On the other hand, Hangul is a mere enumeration of sounds without any ideographic structure. Hearing a word, one cannot understand the meaning immediately, which is unnatural as a language.

Thus, in exclusive use of Hangul, I cannot help questioning whether South Koreans grasp the meaning of the word correctly and deeply and use the word fully knowing its meaning.

For example, we have the medical term of jibiinkouka (dealing with ears, nose and throat) in Japanese and looking at the kanji word we can immediately understand the parts, but I wonder whether South Koreans could immediately grasp what each Hangul letter refers to.

Educational problem arising from the non-use of kanji

As mentioned above, I remember wondering, looking at a Korean junior high school textbook, how well my sons understood whether the word refers to place, person or other thing. In junior high school, there is a class for learning kanji and students learn exclusively kanji in that class. However, the textbooks for other subjects do not carry kanji at all. It is highly questionable how effective limited learning of kanji is to children in their study.

As a private tutor, I taught Japanese to a Korean company executive in his fifties to sixties. He told me that when he was young, kanji was still used in newspapers, which was helpful in learning Japanese. However, at present, none of the newspapers use kanji or no kanji subtitles are seen on the Korean TV, or no kanji is used on the Internet, which poses a problem to children in learning subjects at school.

Personally, I am posting on YouTube videos that cover civilian activities in South Korea. In making the videos, it is essential to create Japanese subtitles to indicate the proper names of places and universities. I had extreme difficulties in checking the proper use of kanji on the Korean Internet, for there are no kanji available. Fortunately, searching through the Yahoo! Japan engine, I have found that names of places and proper nouns are written perfectly in kanji.

Thinking problems due to the non-use of kanji

It is said that the South Koreans have the national characteristic of putting emotion prior to reason. I think that the elimination of kanji culture has greatly affected the Japan-South Korea diplomatic relationships, which has become a serious obstacle to conducting reasonable dialogues.

I once saw a video showing the discussion between old Koreans in their eighties who had graduated from the Seoul University in the Korean Peninsula during the Japanese rule and the war-time journalist Mr. Inoue Kazuhiko. I was totally amazed at the Japanese language fluently spoken by those old Korean men with their use of respectful and humble language and their wide vocabulary of Japanese. South Koreans living in Japan and those Koreans now studying in Japan learn kanji in the Japanese culture and I feel that they are very different from the South Koreans living in Korea in their thinking and judging abilities.

Of course, Hangul has excellent features, and I am simply amazed at the current Koreans’ quickness in action and thinking with their promotional power and wonderful energy.

In December 2019, Mr. Kim Byungheon started it all with the action for the removal of the comfort woman statue in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul, in which I have been participating myself. Mr. Kim Byungheon is the President of the Korean History Textbook Research and represents the National Action to Abolish the Comfort Women Act. How can he continue to gallantly reveal lies in the anti-Japan South Korea and to undauntedly tell the truth when such opinions are suppressed in South Korea? Where does his swift action and ability to analyze the situation come from? I believe that is because director Kim Byungheon majored in Chinese classical literature and is an expert in kanji, faithfully conforming to the meaning what kanji bears. He is far more considerate and sophisticated than other Koreans. While ordinary South Koreans are apt to swallow the distorted history they were taught, director Kim is superbly quick to detect lies and fallacies.

In 2014 and onwards, director Kim at the Korean History Textbook Research directly made many phone calls to publishers about the many mistakes found in school textbooks and pointed out errors and corrected them, which is a truly remarkable achievement.

According to director Kim Byungheon, particularly, 99% of the statements regarding Japan in Korean modern history are either fabricated or distorted. This year will be the fifth anniversary of the movement of the National Action to Abolish the Comfort Women Act led by director Kim Byungheon. I believe that the rich idea and powerful action within the movement have been formed, based on the Korean trait of thinking and swift action, combined with a thoroughly thought-out theoretical philosophy well versed in kanji and conscientious morality.

Resume the use of kanji in writing

Therefore, South Korea, having deleted kanji culture, should gradually resume the use of kanji in school education and spread it throughout the Korean society.

Incidentally, it was at the time of the Park Chung-hee government that the exclusive use of Hangul in South Korea was implemented. In May 1968, President Park instructed his cabinet to establish a five-year plan for exclusive use of Hangul, setting 1973 as the goal. Since then, President Park himself changed all writings into Hangul. Then, in October that year, the goal was reset to be 1970, three years earlier than the original plan, together with powerful seven-articled instruction, concentrating on the use of Hangul. The concept of the deletion of kanji and exclusive use of Hangul policy “regards the ideographic kanji as anti-modern in the modernization trend. Through the linguistic life of our country, it is considered a part of enlightening efforts to eliminate kanji. Total elimination of kanji is modernization,” which is simply absurd. It was all because kanji was eliminated completely that South Korea eventually failed to notice the historical lies. Without the revival of kanji writing, it would be impossible to narrow the gap in the historical and international issues between Japan and South Korea.