Every year, the people of Korea set aside an Alphabet Day in memory of King Sejong’s invention of the Hangul. Indeed, the world has revered the contribution of the king in the invention of the Korean writing system. Although there is discord among some scholars who argue that the king did not invent the system but relied on the input of scholars that he had appointed. Regardless of the position taken, the king’s contribution cannot be disregarded because it eventually resulted in the invention of the writing system. Moreover, the king’s contribution is evident in other inventions that were registered during his reign. The invention of the Hangul was poised to replace the Hanja script that was in use in the past years[1]. Despite the credit attributed to the invention of the writing system, the new system faced stiff opposition from famous scholars. Leading this group of scholars was the famous Ch’oe Malli who wrote a memorial against the implementation of the new Hangul writing system. Ultimately, the opposition could not to stop the implementation as it was led by witch-hunt.

In essence, the contribution of the king in devising the Korean system of writing was a mark of creative intelligence. It must be noted that the aim of the invention was to bring literacy to the people at a time when other leaders considered it dangerous to bequeath the people with literacy skills. The decision did not go down well with some of the scholars including Ch’oe Malli who thought that the king’s intention was to replace the Chinese alphabet. The scholars described the script as a useless and vulgar script that should not be adopted. While the proclamations can be dismissed at face value, the reasons given for the opposition point to a valid argument. This paper is an analysis of the context in which the proclamations were made and the validity of the reasons raised. It is an exploration of the assumptions that motivated the opposition as well as the basis upon which they were founded. In the end, the paper disagrees with the reasons raised through a critical analysis of the opposition presented by Ch’oe Malli.

In opposing the new writing system, Ch’oe Malli alludes to the similarity between the previous system and that of China. Accordingly, the reasoning was that since the country had pledged allegiance to China, it was in no condition to deviate from the ways of China. In pursuing a different writing system, the king was leading the country away from the ways of the Chinese civilization. Although the king would become vindicated in later years as Korea attained civilization, it was a big risk and was subject to concern. It is not surprising therefore that some scholars were in opposition to the new writing system as proposed by the king[2]. However, the reliance on the Chinese civilization is seen as a dictatorial tendency that was used to dissuade countries from seeking personal development. The scholars were therefore at fault by opposing a shift from the norm when the shift was for the benefit of the people. However valid the reason for the opposition was, the king’s intent was for the benefit of the people and was therefore warranted.

Korea was for a long time inclined towards China and was among the few countries that were not considered barbaric. Other communities such as the Tibetans, Tanguts and the Mongolians were considered barbaric because they did not follow in the ways of China. While this argument is sensible, it was only guided by the fear of the unseen. Perhaps the scholars opposing the implementation were only afraid that Korea would have grown distant with China. By so doing, therefore, the implementation of the new system would upset the relations with China. It is important to understand the prevailing affairs of time when the new system was proposed in terms of the country’s inclination towards China. At the time, the Chinese civilization was considered as a sure way of attaining development and any attempt to divert from the process was seen as an attempt in futility. It is in this regard that the communities in opposition of China’s way were considered barbaric[3]. That notwithstanding, the implementation of the system would have no negative ramifications and was necessary in educating the people. In fact, the king of Korea is touted as among the first leaders to seek for the literacy of his people at a time when other leaders suppressed the attainment of literacy.

The invention of a new writing system was necessary despite contrary reports from conservative scholars. It appears that Ch’oe Malli’s conservative ideals motivated his reasons to oppose the implementation of the new system of writing. According to his arguments, the then system of Idu writing was sufficient and there was no requirement to pursue a new system. In addition, the scholar was of the view that an introduction of a new system would upset the ideals of Neo-Confucianism. However, the arguments are not even true as the then system was not accessible to the common people. In fact, the system that was in use prior to the Hangul was not accessible to the common people as it required a lot of resources to learn how to read and write[4]. Only the elite persons in society had the privilege of attaining knowledge of the then writing system. In addition, the implementation of the new system was intended to improve the literacy of the common people. The primary intent was not to replace Chinese form of writing but was intended at unveiling a more accessible system of writing.

The speed with which the new script was invented was also a source of concern as the king did not involve the input of the ministers. Accordingly, the scholars were concerned that the new invention’s intent was self serving and not for the benefit of the people. To date, some scholars have advanced this thought and claimed that the king took all the praise when the process was done by a committee. The scholars argued that important decisions in the lives of Koreans should not be done in a rush but should be holistic to include the views of the wider population. However, the scholars were wrong in this assumption since the king had conducted the process for a long time in secret. Although the process was not all inclusive, it does not necessarily mean that it was wrong and had a negative intention. On the contrary, the king’s intent was for the benefit of the people and aimed at improving the people’s literacy[5].

Another point that was raised in the opposition is that Princes should focus their attention on Neo-Confucian studies. In this regard, therefore, the invention of a new system would undermine attempts to teach future leaders on the neo-Confucian ideals. This argument revolves around the relationship of the Koreans with the Chinese by focusing on their shared ideals. In fact, the argument is true since the king is rumored to have developed the new script at the presence of his son. By exposing the prince to a shift in the ideals of the Korean people, the king was acting against the traditions of the Koreans. Moreover, it was anticipated that a new vernacular script would add the burden on the studies that were being administered on the students. Although these arguments are valid and indeed true, they are only made in fear of change as the scholars did not want to witness a change. Also, the use of the new system was in no way detrimental to the students as had been advanced by the scholars. Finally, the Hangul is one of the easiest writing systems in the world and foreigners have come to attest of the ease of learning this system.

Part of the opposition advanced cited the shift from Confucianism as a dangerous step. Indeed, Ch’oe Malli observed that a change in the system would negatively impact on the students and the community in general[6]. However, this cannot be farther from the truth as evidence has shown over time. By defying the system of Confucianism, the king presented his people with a measure of self worth and independence. In fact, the new system much easier to comprehend yet brilliant in applications. Scientists have proved that the system was devised in a scientifically sound process making it one of the most beautiful writing systems in the world. Today, the evidence of Hangul’s significance is shown in the literacy ratings of the two Korean countries. As at 2009, the countries had a literacy rating of 99% which is the highest in the world. The high literacy ratings are in part due to the simplicity with which children can learn the Hangul writing system.

The contribution of King Sejong in inventing a new Korean writing system cannot be underestimated. The hall mark of this contribution is manifested in the high literacy rating in the two countries of Korea[7]. The invention of the new system was however not universally accepted as evidenced in the opposition by Ch’oe Malli. The opposition was built around the relationship between the community and China. The scholars were afraid that by choosing a different route, Korea would not enjoy the fruits of Chinese civilization. Moreover, they observed that a shift would undermine the then system and overburden the students in schools. However, these points did not constitute a valid reason against the implementation of the proposed system. The reasons cited in the opposition are only motivated by a fear of change and the upholding of conservative ideals by the scholars. This paper has found out that the invention of the new system was necessary in increasing the literacy levels of the Koreans. As such, the new writing system was warranted and contributed to the improvement of the Koreans.

Bibliography

Ebrey, Patricia Buckley, Anne Walthall, and James B. Palais. 2013. Pre-modern East Asia: to 1800: a cultural, social, and political history. Boston: Wadsworth.

De Bary, William Theodore. 2008. Sources of East Asian tradition. New York: Columbia University Press.

Seth, Michael J. 2011. A history of Korea: from antiquity to the present. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=634262.

[1] De Bary, William Theodore. 2008. Sources of East Asian tradition. New York: Columbia University Press.

[2] Ebrey, Patricia Buckley, Anne Walthall, and James B. Palais. 2013. Pre-modern East Asia: to 1800: a cultural, social, and political history. Boston: Wadsworth.

[3] Seth, Michael J. 2011. A history of Korea: from antiquity to the present. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=634262.

[4] Ebrey, Patricia Buckley, Anne Walthall, and James B. Palais. 2013. Pre-modern East Asia: to 1800: a cultural, social, and political history. Boston: Wadsworth.

[5] Seth, Michael J. 2011. A history of Korea: from antiquity to the present. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=634262.

[6] Ebrey, Patricia Buckley, Anne Walthall, and James B. Palais. 2013. Pre-modern East Asia: to 1800: a cultural, social, and political history. Boston: Wadsworth.

[7] De Bary, William Theodore. 2008. Sources of East Asian tradition. New York: Columbia University Press.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?