• The Southeast Asian review
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.1-47
• /
• 2017

This paper examines how democracy is being taught in secondary school level of Indonesian civic education. For this purpose, this study analyses the textbook contents concerning democracy. First, this study sets the freedom, the right, the unity and the stability as key words and analyzes the characteristic of describing democracy by looking at how each keyword is explained in the textbook. The result of analysis shows that democracy of Indonesia can be described as "Pancasila democracy" and textbooks have tendency to relatively emphasize 'the unity', and 'the stability' by differentiating themselves from "liberal democracy" and "liberalism." The freedom in textbook can be interpreted in the context of organic-statism that state and interests of state have the ascendancy over individuals. This viewpoint is based on the historical contexts of Indonesia. However, when textbook describes about Indonesian democracy and its values, they deal with contents of democratic principles, "the freedom of opposition", "the negative freedom", and natural rights. And the study interprets the existence of the two contrasting concepts - relative emphasis on the unity of state and the statement about the importance of individual rights and the freedom - in the textbook as a logical tension in transitional process of traditional organic-statism. Second, the study examines educational contents in accordance with the method of description in textbook. It has been found that there are logical tension and fallacy in describing the principle of fundamental concepts and applicate that concepts into Indonesia case. Also, when describing Marsinah and Munir case, there are some parts distorted and overlooked the facts. On the other hand, the gaps between the explanation in textbook and reality can be pointed out. This study which examined textbook and contents of the rights of the individual is an introductory study on textbook, education and democracy for development of Indonesia and their education.

• KDI Journal of Economic Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.171-209
• /
• 2008

The Great Depression is one of the most important economic incidents in the twentieth century. A significant and long-lasting impact of this event is the rise of the government intervention to the economy. Under the catastrophic downturn of the economic condition worldwide, people required their government to play an active role for economic recovery, and this $mentalit{\acute{e}}$ prolonged even after the Second World War. Social science textbooks taught at Korean high schools mostly referred to the Great Depression for explaining the reason of government intervention in economy. However, the mainstream view commonly found in the textbooks provides a misleading theological interpretation. It argues that inherent flaws of the market economy causes over-production/under-consumption, and that this mismatch ends up with economic crisis. The chaotic situation was resolved by substitution of the governments for the market, and the New Deal was introduced as the monumental example ('laissez-faire economy ${\rightarrow}$over-production${\rightarrow}$the Great Depression${\rightarrow}$government intervention${\rightarrow}$economic recovery'). Based on economic historians' researches for past three decades, I argue that this mainstream view commits the fallacy of ex-post justification. Unlike what the mainstream view claims, the Great Depression was neither the result of the 'market failure', nor the recovery from the Great Depression but was due to successful government policies. For substantiating this claim, I suggest three points. First, blaming the weakness or instability of the market economy as the cause of the Great Depression is groundless. Unlike what the textbooks describe, the rise of the U.S. stock price during the 1920s cannot be said as a bubble, and there was no sign of under-consumption during the 1920s. On the contrary, a new consensus emerging from the 1980s among economic historians illustrates that the Great Depression was originated from 'the government failure' rather than from the 'market failure'. Policymakers of European countries tried to return to the gold standard regime before the First World War, but discrepancies between this policy and the reality made the world economy vulnerable. Second, the mainstream view identifies the New Deal as Keynesian interventionism and glorifies it for saving the U.S. economy from the crisis. However, this argument is not true. The New Deal was not Keynesian at all. What the U.S. government actually tried was not macroeconomic stabilization but price and quantity control. In addition, New Deal did not brought about economic recovery that people generally believe. Even after the New Deal, industrial production or employment level remained quite low until the late 1930s. Lastly, studies on individual New Deal policies show that they did not work as they were intended. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act increased unemployment, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act expelled tenants from their land. Third, the mainstream view characterizes the economic order before the Great Depression as laissez-faire, and it tends to attribute all the vice during the Industrial Revolution era to the uncontrolled market economy. However, historical studies show that various economic and social problems of the Industrial Revolution period such as inequality problems, child labor, or environmental problems cannot be simply ascribed to the problems of the market economy. In conclusion, the remedy for all these problems in high school textbooks is not to use the Great Depression as an example showing the weakness of the market economy. The Great Depression should be introduced simply as a historical momentum that had initiated the growth of government intervention. This reform of high school textbooks is imperative for enhancing the right understanding of economy and history.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.37-50
• /
• 2016

Recognizing the problem of fallacy in geographical name of Changokbyeong(蒼玉屛), assumption has been made on the location of Changokbyeong through literature research on antique maps, ancient paintings, and old prose, through field survey on rock inscriptions and landscape characteristics, and through interviews with local people. Furthermore, Baegyeonwa, the Cuckoo Hut, and Iyangjung(二養亭), an annex to the cottage, both of which were managed by Saahm Park Soon(思菴 朴淳), the Subject of Jouissance, were studied in depth with emphasis on the spatial structure as well as special features of the area as a garden. The major findings are as follows: Changokbyeong is a spatial threshold that imparts a sense of unity with Okbyeng seowon(玉屛書院) and indeed Changokbyeong is presumed to have been the frontal river terrace of Okbyeng seowon according to the analysis of antique maps and rock inscriptions. This ancient location and the Ogari Stone Wall, the present day Changokbyeong, are only 460m away so that both areas are considered as falling under the influence of Changokbyeong landscape. The expression "Changokbyeong Geupsangeum(蒼玉屛及散襟)" written in an old prose tells us that the high rock wall with Sangeumdae inscribed on the rock might be the rock wall of Changokbyeong. In addition, while not a single rock inscription has been found on the Ogari Stone Wall, 11 rock inscriptions designed and ordered by Saahm Park Soon, the Subject of Jouissance, are found on every corner of the high rock wall standing in front of Okbyeng seowon, 8 of those 11 being place names and recitative poems(known as Jeyeongsi: 題詠詩) in close formation resembling the handwritings in a little notebook. This provides a strong evidence for assuming the location of Changokbyeong to be the frontal river terrace of Okbyeng seowon. The "Songgyun Jeoljo Suwol Jeongshin(松筠節調 水月精神)" rock inscription on Changokbyeong should be considered as the stamping ground and as the symbolic language of Changokbyeong that bears the high character and nobility of the Subject of Jouissance, Saahm Park Soon. The inscription should also be recognized as the handwritings of Wooahm Song Si-Yeol(尤庵 宋時烈) correcting the misconceptions that persisted until today. Meanwhile, the garden remains of Saahm's Changokbyeong are composed of four sites: Sangeumdae-Sugyeongdae-Cheonghakdae-Baekhakdae from the left. At the back of Sangeumdae, there is the original house, the Baegyeonwa(拜鵑窩), and on the fantastically shaped stone wall at the left of Baekhakdae, there is the annex, the Iyangjung, together creating a landscape composition that overlooks the splendor of the Ogari Stone Wall. The Iyangjung is located on the highest spot to the left of the four sites, and it is believed to have been a little outhouse and library for Saahm which remains to the present day as a place where Saahm's character can be felt. The drinking plates[窪樽] made of rock that are affectionately arranged on the broad flat rock in front of Iyangjung is part of the garden remains that reflects the artistic taste of Saahm regarding the drinking culture at the time.