The 62nd SGRA Forum “Can Renewable Energy Change the World – Moving Beyond “An Inconvenient Truth””, a joint session with the APYLP (Asian Pacific Young Leaders Program) and SGRA, was held on February 2, 2019 at the International House of Japan (Roppongi).＊APYLP is a program organized by the International House of Japan for the purpose of connecting young leaders in the Asia Pacific region.   The theme of this forum was “renewable energy,” an issue which has made rapid progress since COP21 was agreed in 2015 in Paris. The purpose of the forum was to consider the possibility of renewable energy in our societies through considering the rapid progress of the past and its prospects in the future from the viewpoints of international politics and economy, environmental innovation, energy and community.＊COP：Conference of the Parties “parties”：UNFCCC(The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (気候変動枠組条約締約国会議) Summaries of the research papers and key-note speeches can be found below. .We started our morning session with an opening address by Ms. Junko Imanishi (Representative of SGRA), introduced by the moderator, Sonja Dale (Adjunct Professor, Hitotsubashi University), who was delighted with the full house of over 120 people.Three Raccoons presented about their research in the first session.Adjunct Professor Park Joonui (George Mason University) spoke about her research titled ” Renewable Energy in Trade Wars: Solar Power in South Korea’s Energy Mix and the Impact of Protectionism”.She discussed how the environmental policies under President Moon seem to be too ambitious, how China is monopolizing the market through mass-production as a state policy, and the protectionist stance of the US. She ended her presentation with a warning about the present situation in Korea in which the business of renewable energy is becoming distorted because of the decline in the solar cell industry in Korea, and emphasized the necessity of changing Korean national policy.The second presentation was made by Professor Gao Weijun, University of Kitakyushu、and was titled “Chinese Policy on Renewable Energy and the Direction of Environmental Improvement”. He surveyed present environmental problems in China and discussed the necessity of change in renewable energy to overcome the serious environmental pollutions at present. Professor Gao introduced large-scale domestic and overseas projects which are being carried out by government initiatives. However, he emphasized that the government should establish meticulous environmental policies in order to avoid favoring big projects.The third presenter was Associate Professor, Yeh Wen-chang, Shimane University.His presentation was titled “How low can the cost of solar power go? What tasks lie ahead?” He discussed the many innovative possibilities for reducing generating costs by solar cells, and shared his method of cost calculation for PV (photovoltaics-太陽光発電). He also called for the necessity of innovation in the combined accumulation and generation of electricity.   We had a coffee break in the garden under the spring sunshine. In the second session we heard about the situation in Iitate Village, Fukushima Prefecture. In Iitate, they are trying to promote the generation of renewable energy for regional industries. The purpose of this attempt was to gain energy independence and restore the environment after the Fukushima nuclear power incident. Mr. Kenta Satoh, a member of the Iitate Village Assembly, looked back at the damage caused by the incident on March 11, 2011 and the experiences of people who had lived as evacuees for seven years up until last year.  He explained the meaning and vision of generating renewable energy as a core for the reinvigoration of Iitate Village and as a community development project.Mr. Kei Kondo, Iitate Power Company, discussed their efforts to generate solar energy in Iitate on a small scale and spoke about the difficulty of increasing their production capacity within regional levels under the present regulations in Japan.    In the afternoon session, we had two keynote speeches and smaller panel discussions. The first key-note speech, titled “Global Shifts in Renewable Energy,” was given by Associate Professor, Llewelyn Hughes from Australian National University,.  He gave an overview of the world-wide shift towards low carbon energy and pointed out its necessity for climate change. He explained the Japanese policy for energy which, though promoting low-carbon energy, has no clear guidelines.The second keynote speaker was Mr. Hans-Josef Fell, President of Energy Watch Group (ex-Member of German Parliament), who gave a talk titled  “German Experience of Energiewende and Community Power”.  He discussed his experience of community organization by PV business operators in 1994, the first in the world. He also played a role in the establishment of the EEG (Renewable Energy Act) bill in the German Parliament, and has been working for the promotion of renewable energy around the world under the slogan “Renewable Energy 100,” a program which aims at the actualization of renewable energy societies.    After the five presentations and two keynote speeches, we separated into three separate panel sessions - “global shifts/international economy”, “environment/innovation” and “energy and community”.    In this forum, we sought to discuss solutions for problems as well as the possibilities for actualizing renewable energy societies in a single day, and we handled topics from various fields. It was not easy to integrate and assimilate these different fields and findings. I personally thought that we could share, at least, the knowledge of not only the presenters but also all of the participants, and the awareness that there is no turning back in of the global shift towards de-carbonization and renewable energy.This shift is inevitable. From the presentations, however, it became clear that this process would not go so smoothly. It also became clear that every country and every field has their own problems to solve. We cannot say that all the questions could be solved.For example, when we think of climate change and using up natural resources which has been actualized as global warming, shifting to renewable energy (non-carbon energy) would be an urgent issue for all societies on earth. We, as a result of entering big capital enterprises, may be able to change the present global environmental problems by shifting to natural energy from fossil fuel. However, even if we change the source of our power on a large scale, we cannot change the substance of civilization itself, which is supported by mass-production and mass-consumption. In the panel sessions, the many protests and demonstrations in Japan and Europe were discussed, and the issue of gigantic mega-solar power systems which are destroying the scenery and circumstances of societies. The problems of environmental pollutants which are being discharged in the process of production of solar panels were also discussed, as were other problems such as the introduction of FIT (Feed-in Tariff：(売電の)固定価格買取制度)  and the problems it caused for late-comers in entering the market and the effects of FIT on finance in Germany. The necessity of technical innovation in technology for the storage of electricity was also discussed.  As a matter of course, I do not think that an issue related to the future of the earth such as this can be solved easily.  We should be cautious of haste in discussing issues such as this.  Surely, it is a reality that societies using renewable energy will spread and expand in the world and this trend or wave is only growing. The sub-title of the forum is “moving beyond “An Inconvenient Truth,”” which is the title of the book written by Al Gore, ex-Vice President of the United States, which was written as a cautionary tale about the problem of global warming.“An Inconvenient Truth” is one which goes against the currents and thoughts of current time, and is not liable to be talked about or hidden.In the discussion of renewable energy, it became clear that in the Fukushima nuclear power incident, a lot of “inconvenient truths” were being hidden and not talked about.  I hope that many of these “inconvenient truths” will be discussed more openly and with more frequency, and not be hidden nor neglected at the level of citizenship for the purpose of establishing our consensus for spread of renewable energy.   SGRA News in Japanse (Original) on 14th March, 2019 Photos of the Day  (TSUNODA Eiichi / Secretary General, Atsumi International Foundation)  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sonja Dale       

Recently, China has made remarkable economic progress. In the academic world, however, we are unable to see similar progress. Among the scholars whom I have been indebted to, there have been some who have been communicating with scholars in China. Their essays, which were scheduled to be published in China, were sometimes prohibited from publication because of censorship. However, owing to the persistent endeavors of their friends in China, these essays were published with certain parts blacked out. When I talked with a professor about this phenomenon, he pointed out that if an essay has been partially censored, we cannot say that it is the same essay. He then explained about the spirit of “academic independence” in Waseda University. As a graduate of Waseda University, and from the standpoint of “academic independence”, I do find some agreement with his uncompromising spirit. However, I did feel some conflict over it. If not for censored publication, there might be a possibility that they cannot dispatch any information at all or that they have to give up on contributing their essays under the threat of censorship. Dispatching information under any difficult circumstances would be a different form of “academic independence”.     In Taiwan, my native country, there is no such censorship. However, “academic independence” is being challenged in a different way. When we talk about Taiwan overseas, we are asked if we support independence or unification. Actually, there are considerable supporters for both independence and unification in Taiwan. If we are allowed to have our own thoughts, siding with either independence or unification would be a form of “personal freedom”. It is in a “democratic country” that we can respect each other although we may have different opinions. However, confrontation in political ideology in Taiwanese society has taken a serious turn. Some researchers “work-out” their research in order to create a logical backing to assert their thoughts. One typical example is the “Taiwanese heritage dispute” which was based on the doctrine that “85% of Taiwanese have the heritage of Taiwanese aborigines”, which was published by Professor Lim M, National Taiwan University College of Medicine. Such a doctrine was hard for me to understand given that I am a researcher of modern history. A famous jurist, Santaro Okamatu, who crafted the Taiwanese Private Law in the colonial period of Taiwan, gave a statement which said that “all people in Taiwan have Chinese ethnicity, and do not belong to the primitive race. People have their own special cultures and characteristics.” There are some discriminatory terms in this statement, but we get the impression that Taiwan, in the colonial period under Imperial Japan before the war, consisted of Chinese (Han) people who had a specific culture and characteristics. There were some who had marital relations between such Chinese race and aborigines. But, such relations were very few. Moreover, they were not hostile against each other, but rather were not interested in the other and lived in “different worlds”. We can find this account in many historical documents. Before the war, we used the term “Go-yo (御用)” to preface words which related to the Office of the Government of Formosa, like “Go-yo newspapers”, “Go-yo merchants” or “Go-yo scholars”. However, according to recent studies, even newspapers which were known as “Go-yo newspapers” carried many articles which criticize government policies.  According to my research, professors of Taiwan Imperial University, who have been labelled “Go-yo scholars” were engaged in working for the government and practiced their “academic independence” despite the harsh environment, keeping their dignity and fulfilling their responsibilities.  Another example is the “Preservation of Historical and Scenic Spots and Natural Monuments” which was initiated by the Office of the Government -General in the 1930s.  There were many “new” historical spots possessed by Taiwan under Imperial Japan which implied their political intentions. On the other hand, there are also other spots which were designated variously while under the Netherlands, the time of Koxinga or the Qing dynasty. These spots which were designated before Imperial Japan are precious and valuable for Taiwan today and are linked to Taiwanese identity. The three cases mentioned above differ in time and the place. Yet, from them we can realize the importance of “academic independence”. In recent years, historical revisionism has become an issue. I, as a researcher of history, think it is my mission to convey historical facts to people without any bias. And, as a graduate of Waseda University, I will conduct my research with “academic independence” in mind.However, I do not think that “academic independence” only belongs to graduates of Waseda.  Rather, “academic independence” should be shared with researchers of all fields and from different countries and universities. That is why I decided to write this column.      SGRA Kawaraban 597 in Japanese (Original)  (Chiang Yung_Po / 2018 Raccoon, Research Assistant, Research Institute of Law in East Asia, Waseda University)  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sonja Dale   

Since the Japan-Russia Summit Meeting between Prime Minister Abe and President Putin, the Kuril Islands dispute has been reported on and in the global spotlight often. Actually, the year 2018 was “the Japan Year in Russia” and “the Russian Year in Japan” and, at the same time, the Hundred Year Anniversary of the Siberian Intervention. Commemorating those events, we decided the title of the 11th Ulaanbaatar Symposium to be “Kyakhta and Khuree：A View from Eurasia”.   Historically, Kyakhta was not just a trading center but a political and military center as well. Important international meetings were held there often, which affected the establishment of the order of North-East Asia. After the middle of the 19th Century, a lot of Jews and Tatars came to Khakhta, a place of refuge for them. On the other hand, Japanese have been interested in Siberia including Khakhta since the Meiji era and across the Korean Peninsula and the Qing Dynasty.  Between the latter part of the 19th Century and early years of the 20th Century, many Japanese politicians, diplomats and intelligence officers such as Takeaki Enomoto, Kiyotaka Kuroda, Yasumasa Fukushima, and merchants or karayukisan (Japanese working at brothels abroad) visited Khakhta. There were many Japanese shops and hospitals. It is said as a myth that the Japanese economic growth was established after the World War II, but that the foundation of this growth was already established in the 19th Century.I think it very meaningful to study the histories of Kyakhta and Khree (the former of Ulaanbaatar) from viewpoints of area-studies and international relations which include relations between not only Russia and the Qing Dynasty but relations with Japan.     In the evening of August 30, 2018, the day before the symposium, the Japanese Ambassador to Mongolia, Masato Takaoka, invited President Tomoko Kaneko (Showa Women’s University), Honorary Professor Hiroshi Futaki, and Lecturer Akira Kamimura (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies), Professor Kunio Minato (Kochi University), and myself to dinner. We had a pleasant talk about politics, the exploitation of mines, the International ‘Memory’ Olympic (Mongol has been in the top the past few years) , grand Sumo tournaments, and the relations between Japan and Mongolia.   We had “The 11th Ulaanbaatar International Symposium ‘Kyakhta and Khuree: A View from Eurasia’ ” on August 31, 2018 at the conference hall in the 2nd Building of Mongol National University, and hosted by SGRA (Sekiguchi Global Research Association) of Atsumi International Foundation, the Institute of International Culture of Showa Women’s University, and Department of Asian Studies, Mongolian National University jointly. The Japanese Embassy in Mongolia, Showa Women’s University, Institute of International Affairs of Mongolian Academy of Science, the Mitsubishi Foundation and the Association for the History and Culture of the Mongols supported us. More than eighty scholars and students from Mongolia, Japan, Russia, China and Germany participated. At the opening ceremony Ambassador Masato Takaoka (Japanese Ambassador to Mongolia), President Tomoko Kaneko (Showa Women’s University), and  G.Chuluunbaatar, (First Vice President, Mongolian Academy of Sciences) gave their congratulatory speeches. After this, we had research reports. The official languages at the symposium were Mongol and Japanese. However, many presentations were made in Mongol and we provided interpreters for presentations in Japanese. The executive committee selected fifteen reports from 22 invited researchers and applicants to improve the quality of the symposium reports. Unfortunately, one of the young researchers from Poland could not get a visa and we had 14 presentations in the end. The purpose of the symposium was to look back at recent research first and study the history, politics, economy and cultures of Kyakhta and Khuree with a view from Eurasia based on recently discovered historical records. Through exploring and discussing these issues we aimed to develop a creative and fruitful discussion for the restoration of our pride and glory. At the reception party at night, we could enjoy “Morin khuur”(馬頭琴：stringed musical instrument of Mongolian origin), Urtyn duu (Long song), and dances. To conclude, I would like to sum up our results as follows： It is noteworthy that there were many reports which utilize maps of Kyakhta and outer Mongolia which scholars could not use much in the past.Progress has been made in research about international agreements which relate to Kyakhta.New theories about the present of Kyakhta and Khuree using fresh data or materials were presented. Please refer to “Research on Mongolia and North-East Asia” No.4 and “Bulletin of the Academy of Japan and Mongol” No. 49.  You can refer to the Mongolian newspaper “Soyombo”, “Red Star” and symposium that was broadcast by Mongol TV about this symposium.  SGRA News in Japanese (Original) on 12th April ,2019 Photos of the day  (Husel Borjigin / 2003 Raccoon, Professor, International Studies, Showa Women’s University)  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sonja Dale

On March 23, 2019, we had the 18th Japan-Korea Asia Future Forum at the Institute of Future Manpower (未来人力研究院) in Seoul, Korea.  When we had the 4th Asia Future Conference in August 2018 in Seoul, we planned to re-start planning for this event after considering the past results and problems of the forum. However, Ms. Imanishi made an urgent request and we decided to hold the forum at this time. The background of her urgent request was the unusual development of political relations between Japan and Korea, which has recently broken away from the  established norms. For this forum，we invited five specialists each from both countries. They exchanged their frank opinions on why relations between the two countries has become worse, how they judge the present situation, and what we should do to overcome the present problems.      Following the opening address by SGRA Director Junko Imanishi, two specialists from Japan and Korea each gave their key-note speeches. Professor Tadashi Kimiya, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, the University of Tokyo spoke first under the title “How to ‘scientifically’ analyze and practice Japan-Korea relations” According to his explanation, towing to the opposition and preference of policies in both countries, the confrontation between them was left alone rather than amplified. In the past, the two countries would cover each other by emphasizing the commonality of their oppositions and preferences for their policies. He said that it would be possible to form minimal consent although it may be difficult to cooperate with each other to establish closer bonds. And, there are already good relations between the citizens of both countries which can make the situation between them controllable. He ended by emphasizing the need to restrain from actions which make it difficult to ease confrontations between the two countries.   Professor Li Wong Dok, Kookmin University (国民大学), presented on “The relations between Korea and Japan: The present situation and a perspective for improvement.” He started off by explaining the strange phenomena that Korean people are still actively coming and going despite facing the worst political situation with Japan. The Japanese dislike of Korea and anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea are getting worse gradually and he judged that we can see the reverse phenomena in relations between Japan and Korea, namely the relations between offender and victims. He said that the “issue of conscripted workers” is the leading cause in the recent deteriorating political atmosphere in the relations of both countries and presented three possible solutions. The first solution is leaving it as it is. The second is establishing a foundation. The third is judicial settlement (arbitration committee or the International Judicial Court).  He opined that the third scenario is the most possible way for resolution.       After the coffee break, we had a fruitful free discussion. 黄永植, Ex-Chief Editor, Hankook Ilbo（韓国日報）, criticized that freedom of speech in Korea is shrinking and intellectuals are keeping silent. He emphasized that we should not overestimate the importance of the issue of conscripted workers.　Ms. Akiko Horiyama, head of the Seoul Branch of the Mainichi Shimbun, urged that now is the time when the Korean Government should answer. Professor Kan Kimura, Kobe University, said that “a collapse of governance”, which we saw in the 1990s in Japan, is seen in Korean governmental policy to Japan and it’s recovery is important now. As for the issue of conscripted workers, it would be desirable to appeal to the International Court of Justice.Professor Park Yong-Jun, National Defense University, explained the necessity of the practical use of the “Japan axis” in the process of denuclearization and peace.Jun-ichi Toyoura, the head of the Seoul Branch of the Yomiuri Shinbun, pointed out that regarding the issue of conscripted workers which has been left alone for more than five months, if the Japanese Government would appeal to the International Court of Justice, it would mean a defeat by the Japanese Government against Korea. There is no other choice than establishing a foundation.Associate Professor, Nobuo Haruna, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, suggested the necessity of relativization of the relations between the two nations which does not stick to the present framework of “Korea is victim and Japan is wrongdoer”. Professor Kimiya commented that denuclearization by North Korea is more important than the “issue of conscripted workers”. Professor Nam Ki-Jong (南基正), Japan Institute, Seoul National University, emphasized the necessity of “Declaration of History” by both counties which acknowledges the role and process specifying the compensation by the Japanese Government. He also said that appealing to the ICJ is just “rhetoric” and both counties should try to solve the issue positively. Associate Professor Kim Sung-be, Chungnam National University, said that the odds are against Korea but we should proceed with the discussion.Lastly, Li Jing-gyu, the chairman of the board of directors, the Institute of Future Manpower commented about the timely selection of the theme and ended the forum with his closing address. After the closing address at around 17;30, we had a social gathering and the atmosphere of our office changed to a wine-bar.  As expected, our wine cellar became empty and we enjoyed “a frenzied night” again like the past Japan-Korea Asia Future Forums. Usually, when we say “we exchanged frank opinions” or “we had a heart-to-heart talk”, it means we could not reach a consensus. At this forum, however, as we could have an in-depth debate, we cannot say that we did not achieve this. At international meetings with experts from various fields, the shouldering of national standings or interests is often discussed. At this forum we saw that discussions were divided by individual ideals and not by just by nationalities. We had a feeling that there was a level-headed evaluation of the policies by Moon Jae-in, the President of Korea to “bury the past pro-Japan” or “collapse of governance against Japan”.  Needless to say, the good relationship between Japan and Korea is essential for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, establishing a peaceful system, and peace and prosperity in North-East Asia. In the relationship between the two countries, if only straightforward “principles” are discussed there will be no appeal. If they discuss based on “sentiment”, which is not straightforward, a good solution cannot be attained.  Recently, “principle” or “sentiment” are not so workable. If they try to manage only by “fear” which exists behind everything, the relationship between both countries would falter. It will be important to balance the three factors of “principle”, “sentiment” and “fear” from now on. Thank you to all the people who contributed to the success of our 18th Forum, Director Imanishi, Chairman Li and Ms. Ishii who kindly sent us the Japanese sake “Haru-shika” and other necessary goods for the party.     SGRA News in Japanese (original) on 2nd May, 2019 Photos of the day  (Kim Woonghee /1996 Raccoon, Professor of  Inha University (Korea))  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sonja Dale

No one would object to me declaring that “I am very active”.In my childhood, I used to play the cornet as a member of the marching band / chamber concert band in primary school. In middle and high school, I switched to theatrical club and was an actor and concurrently scriptwriter cum director until I came to Japan to study. The reason why I switched was because of the warm climate in Singapore. It was just too tough to play an instrument in the marching band under the blazing sun.After coming to Japan to study, I returned to the theatrical field again while working as a government official. I appeared twice a year on the stage of the Singapore National Theater as a semiprofessional actor up until I went to graduate school in Japan. Due to this hidden career, once I appear on the stage or in front of people, I am still in the habit of straightening my posture and raising my voice in order to attract attention and treat leading actors and the guest of honor with due respect. When I talk about teaching in universities in Japan as my new “stage”, there was a world of difference from Singapore. Whatever you may say, the reaction from students in Japan is very subdued. Sometimes, everyone keeps silent, like putting on a “Noh” face.Since I have been studying in Japanese universities for more than ten years as an undergraduate, a Masters student and a PhD student, I can say I know well the “inactiveness” of Japanese students.There is scarcely any passionate discussion even in a class at the graduate school of the University of Tokyo, which is said to be the top educational institution in Japan. I am not sure whether these students are just trying to express Japanese “refinedness(奥ゆかしさ)”, or if they do not want what they say to be considered foolish, or if they are just not thinking anything.  Anyway, it is very, very quiet in the Japanese university classroom, so much so that the saying “silence is golden” feels sacred here. This situation is the reason why the Ministry of Education in Japan is now urging schools and universities to practice “active learning”. They strongly encourage schools to develop group discussion, debate and group-work in classes to solve problems actively. I, as an active teacher, do not let such students continue keeping on a “Noh” face, even if the Ministry of Education would not urge this. In other words, I, being so active on the stage, am too proud to leave such students alone. But, since such students have been getting a passive education sitting on hard chairs for a long time, it is not easy to get them to open their silent mouths. I asked them to write comments on reaction papers after class, which many university teachers also do. I forbid them from writing simple reactions which a lot of students in primary schools are apt to use, such as “I was surprised when I know XXX”, “I learned a lot from XXX”, “I am interested in XXX”, and “I enjoyed a lot from XXX “.  I told them I would subtract points for using such simple phrases, and asked them to write their doubts, questions or counterarguments.  I presented several good comments on Power-point as the basis for further discussion in the following class. I can say now that it proved to be effective because many students  tried after that to write meaningful comments that would be taken up in the next class.I also decided to pass students the microphone because I realized that students have a lot to say and thought I would let them discuss further. I did this because writing reaction papers is a form of “reactive learning”, not active learning. As a matter of course, when many students are given a microphone, they turn their faces away, or could not say anything, or opined irrelevantly.It was like an improvised play for me in that I could not try to lead any response or opinion and , had to create an environment in which any response or utterance would be acceptable.. This is why active learning is far more difficult than one-way teaching in which teachers just keep speaking. What I like to emphasize here is that it is not OK to just keep discussing nor for students to just speak any opinion. If fruitful discussions, which are based on academic theories or knowledge, cannot be developed, then it is just a brainstorming session in which they just exchange their opinions.Then, what should we do?  It is not easy to explain fully in this paper.  I will just say that I want to make use of my experience on the stage on this new stage that is the university classroom.  I have had many questions in my mind over the past several years: even if there is fruitful discussion, is it alright that only teachers provide topics or subject of discussion?  Is it necessary for teachers to prepare their teaching materials by themselves? We are now in a time when students can find out any information they want if they check Google.  So, in several of my classes, I, as a teacher, decided to ask students to decide on a concrete theme by themselves although I suggest a rough idea in the syllabus.For example, in an “Introduction to Social Problems” course, I asked students to decide the subjects and questions by themselves. In a lecture of “Theories of Modern Society”, they decided by themselves how to present their opinions or which country and subject to take up. When students present their opinions, I asked them to stop reading in the same monotone manner that Japanese politicians or public officials use when they are afraid of reading mistakenly. If they do so, points would be subtracted. Do not think that it got easier for me by leaving students to be independent or to direct themselves. On the contrary, it became more important for me to prepare myself further to face a situation in which students may choose any subject. As such, I became an “ultra-active” teacher. I have never specified textbooks and have decided to stop distributing lecture materials when I have classes in a computer room. In other words, I have stopped lecturing itself. The reason for this is that I have determined that it is alright once students gather reliable information from searching on the internet and make the most suitable textbook by themselves after I instruct them on the main subject. I allowed students to do this alone or put their thoughts together with group members. Walking around the class, I sometimes spoke highly of a student who put her ideas together using her own words and good materials. Or, I gave questions to the students who just “copy and pasted” wrong or false information. Needless to say, you may be able to imagine that such teachers become busier in class. I cannot write much about my “battle” because of the space limitations of this essay.Fortunately, the classroom environment mentioned above is being evaluated highly and students themselves are also gradually changing.  I do not think that the “inactiveness” of Japanese students comes from the national character of Japan. Rather, it is because students have become too accustomed to the Japanese educational system. It is quite natural that students are more interested in education achieved through cooperation or interactive and two-way education. School lessons are established by teachers and students together. The Japanese campus of Temple University, an American college based in Pennsylvania USA, will move to the campus where I am working now in September this year. It is the first time in Japan that a Japanese and American colleges will share a campus. There will not only be an increase in the number of foreign students but also the presence of male students in classes.I am already excited thinking about how my “battle” will be become more challenging! SGRA Kawaraban 592 in Japanese (Original) (Sim ChoonKiat / Associate Professor, Showa Women’s University )  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sonja Dale