Francis Fukuyama has an interesting editorial on-line, The trouble with Japanese nationalism. Here is a small selection:

My exposure to the Japanese right came in the early 1990s, when I was on a couple of panels in Japan with Watanabe Soichi, who was selected by my Japanese publisher (unbeknownst to me) to translate my book “The End of History and the Last Man” into Japanese. Watanabe, a professor at Sophia University, was a collaborator of Shintaro Ishihara, the nationalist politician who wrote “The Japan That Can Say No” and is now the governor of Tokyo. In the course of a couple of encounters, I heard him explain in front of public audiences how the people of Manchuria had tears in their eyes when the occupying Kwantung Army left China, so grateful were they to Japan. According to Watanabe, the Pacific War boiled down to race, as the US was determined to keep a non-white people down. Watanabe is the equivalent of a Holocaust denier, but, unlike his German counterparts, he draws large and sympathetic audiences. (I am regularly sent books by Japanese writers that “explain” how the Nanjing Massacre was a big fraud.)

We must also not forget the following far right facts:

1. Japan had no choice in colonizing parts of Asia, but had to do so to protect the relevant countries from the evil European/American colonizers.

2. When it finally came to war, this was a result of conspiratorial maneuverings by FDR to force Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Japan is not responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR is.

3. Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent the most heinous war crime enacted upon humanity ever, period. All other tragedies pale in comparison. Only through such an evil act of terrorism was America able to defeat Japan.

4. The reason for increased crime in Japan today is the educational system that Japan was forced to accept under the occupational powers, which emphasizes individual rights over public morality. The result has been gradual degradation of morals. Evil men such as Takafumi Horie are primes examples of this.

5. The reason for Japan’s long economic stagnation is, in fact, the economic system forced upon Japan by American New Dealers, which though it worked at first …

etc, etc …

Recently the The Supreme Court of Japan ruled that a piano teacher had to play Kimi ga Yo during school ceremonies. (Link to Japan Times article about this.) This is a very controversial issue.

The editors of Yomiuri Shimbun endorsed the decision saying:

Tuesday’s ruling found the order in question constitutional, stating that the woman had an obligation to abide by the order issued by her superior as a government employee, and that the Education, Science and Technology Ministry’s curriculum guidelines and other school-related regulations require teachers to provide students proper education about the national flag and anthem. We find the ruling reasonable.

The Asahi Shimbun voiced concerns stating:

One of the five justices of the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court, which heard the case, voiced a dissenting opinion. “Coercing a person to cooperate with the singing of ‘Kimigayo’ at a public ceremony constitutes direct oppression against the person’s belief and creed,” the justice said. There must be many people who support this opinion.
The ruling is worrisome because it could be interpreted by the education ministry and the education board that the Supreme Court supports forced singing of “Kimigayo” and the hoisting of the Hinomaru national flag at school ceremonies. What needs to be made clear is that its decision only concerns piano accompaniment. It says nothing about the constitutionality of compelling teachers and children to stand up and look in the direction of the national flag and sing the song.

The Japan Times spoke out against the decision:

The ruling fails to properly consider the teacher’s spiritual pain caused by the principal’s order. It may lead many boards of education to think that they have a free hand in controlling school teachers who express dissenting views against singing Kimigayo while facing the “Hinomaru” national flag at school ceremonies …In refusing to obey the principal’s order to play the piano for Kimigayo, the Hino music teacher said the anthem is linked to Japan’s aggression in the past against other Asian countries; therefore, she would not sing it or play the piano accompaniment. She also said she could not let children sing the anthem without teaching them the history behind it … Clearly the top court gives priority to maintaining traditional custom and public order at school as embodied in the entrance ceremony. But it fails to consider whether forcing a form of expression — even if it is not verbal — on a person is tantamount to imposing related thoughts or ideas on that person.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Tokiyasu Fujita correctly pointed out that the piano accompaniment caused extreme pain to the teacher in light of her own beliefs and that the main point of the lawsuit should be whether coercion should be allowed in spite of such pain.
With the help of the recorded tape, the ceremony proceeded without a hitch, although some parents may have been displeased with the absence of a piano accompaniment. This prompts us to question why the education board was so intent on punishing the teacher even after the principal learned of her view on Kimigayo.

I’ve been aware of the Kimi ga Yo issue for quite some time. However, I wasn’t aware of the details of the recent ruling until the issue came up in NBR’s Japan forum recently. A poster there argued that if one viewed the situation with the eyes of an employer one had to admit the problematic nature of an employee voicing issues of conscience and then not doing their job. If the Supreme Court were to allow an employee to be exempt from some portion of their work due to an issue of conscience, this would be like opening Pandora’s proverbial box.

My response was to state the following:

I think one aspect of this that needs to be considered is that we are talking about teachers at public institutions of education. We aren’t talking about professional piano players.
–
There is a very similar comparison that can be made with “the pledge of allegiance” in America. The pledge contains the phrase, “one nation under god”. Some teachers might feel it is a betrayal of their own moral system to say these words.
–
Why should teachers be asked to betray their own moral system in front of their students? For the good of the nation? Aren’t the teachers guaranteed the right of having their own religious view?
–
Some teachers are being asked to play an accompaniment, others are being asked to sing and look at the Japanese flag. Many of those who would prefer not to perform these acts, are suffering greatly. Here’s a link to a recent article in the Japan Times:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070118f2.html
–
While I am on this topic, another issue of comparison with America would be evolution versus creationism in school. Should a science teacher have to teach “intelligent design” even if he thinks the theory is obviously false and merely an attempt to inject a religious agenda into school? Or worse, should a science teacher have to teach about “creationism”, especially in the case where he rejects it?
–
This can be compared with the issues in Japan regarding Japan’s history. Should the comfort women issue be taught about in history class? How about the Nanjing massacre?
–
I don’t think it should be so simple as to tell the teachers to follow one policy or else face the consequences. Teachers need to be able to have some freedom to exercise their conscience.
–
At least one solution is to decentralize the authority to choose a curriculum. Instead of deciding these issues at the national level, how about asking teachers and parents to decide about them on a local level. As I understand this, at least some decentralization has been suggested, and Education (MEXT) Minister Bunmei Ibuki is against such policies.
–
I really don’t want to run on here, but consider the case of sex education? No doubt there are many views on this, even in Japan. Or on a less serious note, how about school uniforms? Should girls have to wear skirts in school? I’m sure if we were to dwell on this no number of controversies would come up.
–
Would it be so bad to encourage the local community to debate and decide about these issues, themselves? The result of course would be an increase of diversity in Japan as each local community came up with different decisions. Certainly something anathema to those government officials who lean towards the right.
–
So I think the idea of a kihan-ishiki or normative consciousness, in which Japanese are suppose to all share certain common virtues is one that glosses over a lot that shouldn’t be glossed over. But as I understand it, at least some of these supposedly common virtues have been written into the recent revision of the Fundamental Law of Education.

Anyway, I think this is an important issue, and I am sorry to see that the Supreme Court of Japan feels a piano teacher can be coerced by threat of job security and income into playing piano accompaniment to song that once was written for a living god.

A well-respected author and blogger, Shigenobu Tamura (田村重信), reports in his blog that last year the monthly magazine Chichi (致知) featured an article in its April issue in which Bunmei Ibuki, the MEXT Minister, gave his opinion on the Koizumi reforms and education. I’m not clear on whether this was an interview with Ibuki or opinion piece by Ibuki. However, here is my translation of Ibuki’s statements as presented to us in Mr. Tamura’s blog (see below for notes on translation):

If we take the esteemed Ainu and the zainichi people [and so on] as exceptions [i.e. EXCLUDE them], we see that fundamentally Japan is one ethnos, one ethnic ruler-ship, one language, one belief system (a gentle multifaceted belief system); in this world a rare country [a country without precedent]. This is different from an artificial country like America, which is made up of a conglomeration of ethnicities with different languages and different values; without even writing it into law, people in Japan have a tacit understanding which establishes us [as a country]. Under this special environment, our forefathers, for more than a thousand years, through trial and error, again and again, by shaving off the bad, and letting the good remain, have passed down to us, societal norms.
:
Not so long ago, we used to say the following words; ” [Even if no one else sees the bad things you do] the Sun is watching”, “Don’t [become ashamed] to show your face to the World.” Illuminated by these traditional norms, Japanese of their own accord judged their behavior. [i.e. they didn’t need laws.] Based on generations of experience, the old mercantile houses formed norms, house constitutions — house precepts, and if they strayed from that path to pursue only profit by not fulfilling their obligations to the customer or by bullying their subcontractors, then they were sternly admonished. Yet the more our country has grown wealthy and abundant, the more our spirit of reverence has grown impoverished. While well clothed and well fed [we may be], from the viewpoint of ethics and morals, you hear “So long as its not illegal, it’s not a problem” “So long as you don’t get caught, it’s okay.” Unethical business dealings and deplorable scandals have become frequent occurrences.
:
The postwar educational system has had a big influence here. Take a person who has received this post-war education that gives priority to rights not duty, that puts the private above the public, when this person reaches adulthood, when that child who has been influenced [by this education] becomes an adult, then as a result, they won’t even understand it when they are admonished by saying “[Even if no one else sees the bad things you do] the Sun is watching”, “Don’t [become ashamed] to show your face to the World.”
:
[cut]
:
In order to get back the traditional societal norms Japanese have lost, the LDP will, with the same fervor with which the postal system was reformed, strive to revise the constitution and to revise the fundamental law of education, (to make) the educational (system) … what it should be.

I think these statements speak for themselves. Japanese aren’t suppose to argue with one another or disagree because they are all suppose be the same in some essential sense. Of course, this is useful for politicians who don’t want the public to eye them too critically. But this is not what is most troubling about these statements.

Note, that Ibuki’s entire line of argument is focused on revising the Constitution of Japan and the Fundamental Law of Education. He clearly states here and in other places that these important documents need to be reformed to reflect the values of the Japanese ethnos. He has specifically said these values are not universal, but special values of the Japanese ethnos. So these values, of course, are not those of the Ainu or those of zainichi people.

Is this internationalization? Is it even Constitutionalism? Probably not.

:
:
:

Notes on the above translation:

What follows are the original Japanese quotes as presented on Mr. Tamura’s blog page followed by my translation. CAUTION: I have removed ellipses in Mr. Tamura’s quoted text which shows where cuts were made. On Mr. Tamura’s page these were marked with the Chinese character “略”. This may cause confusion if you don’t first view the text as presented on Mr. Tamura’s blog.

Criticism of my translation will be readily accepted.

1.　日本は、アイヌや在日の方などの例外はあるが、基本的に一民族、一民族支配、一言語、同一の信仰（穏やかな多信仰）で成り立つ世界でも稀有（けう）な国である。

If we take the esteemed Ainu and the zainichi people [and so on] as exceptions [i.e. EXCLUDE them], we see that fundamentally Japan is one ethnos, one ethnic ruler-ship, one language, one belief system (a gentle multifaceted belief system); in this world a rare country [a country without precedent].

2.　人工的に移民でつくられたアメリカのように、言語も価値観も異なる人々の集合体である多民族国家と異なり、日本では法に書かれざる“暗黙の了解”が比較的成立しやすかった。

This is different from an artificial country like America, which is made up of a conglomeration of ethnicities with different languages and different values; without writing it in law, people in Japan have a tacit understanding which establishes us [as a country].

3.この特別な環境下で、われわれの祖先は、千年以上もの長きにわたって試行錯誤を繰り返し、上手（うま）くいかないことは削り落とし、よいと思われることを残して、社会規範として伝えてきた。

Under this special environment, our forefathers, for more than thousand years, through trial and error, again and again, by shaving off the bad, and letting the good remain, have passed down to us, societal norms.

4.少し前までは、「お天道様が見ている」、「世間様に顔向けできない」という言葉がよく使われていた。

Not so long ago, we used to say the following words; “the esteemed Sun is watching”, “Don’t [become ashamed] to show your face the honorable World.”

5.日本人は、そういう伝統的社会規範に照らして自らの行動を律してきたのである。

Illuminated by these these traditional norms, Japanese of their own accord judged their behavior. [i.e. they didn’t need laws.]

6.古い商家には、代々の体験にもとづいてつくられた家憲・家訓という規範があり、例えば、ただ利を追求するだけでなく、お得意様に不義理をしたり、お仕入れ先や下職（したしょく）の人をいじめるなど、道に外れたやり方で利を上げることを固く戒めてきた。

Based on generations of experience, the old mercantile houses formed norms, house constitutions — house precepts, and if they strayed this path [as established by the norms] to pursue only profit by not fulfilling their obligations to the customer or by bullying their subcontractors, then they were sternly admonished.

7.　ところが、そうした日本人の尊い精神は、国が豊かになるにつれ次第に希薄になってきている。

Yet the more our country has grown wealthy and abundant, the more our spirit of reverence has grown impoverished.

8.暖衣飽食の中で倫理観、道徳観は薄れ、「法に触れなければ問題ない」、「バレなければ何をやってもいい」と、悪徳商法や不祥事が頻発するようになった。

While well clothed and well fed [we may be], from the viewpoint of ethics and morals, you hear “So long as its not illegal it’s not a problem” “So long as you don’t get caught, it’s okay.” Unethical business dealings, deplorable scandals have become frequent occurrences.

9.戦後の教育の影響も大きい。

The postwar educational system has had a big influence here.

10.義務よりも権利、「公」よりも「私」を優先する戦後教育を受けた人が大人になり、さらにその影響を受けた子どもたちが大人になることによって、「お天道様が見ている」、「世間様に顔向けできない」という戒めが通用しない世の中になっている。

Take a person who has received this post-war education that gives priority to rights not duty, that puts the private above the public, when this person reaches adulthood, when that child who has been influenced [by this education] becomes an adult, then as a result, they won’t even understand it when they are admonished by saying “[Even if no one else sees the bad things you do] the Sun is watching”, “Don’t [become ashamed] to show your face to the World.”

10.　チャーチルも「民主主義は最悪の政治であるが、いままで存在したいかなる政治制度よりましである」と、その欠点を認めている。

Churchill’s quote that “democracy is the worst [form of] government but it’s better than all other government systems that have existed.” recognizes this defect.

11.賢人支配の独裁制に戻したほうがいいかといえば、独裁者がいつも賢人である保証はない。

Even if you were to say we should return to a despotism of ruler-ship by a wise man, there would be no guarantee that the despot would continue to be a wise man.

12.中小企業がやっとの思いで納めた十万円に価値を認めるのが政治である。

(Not clear without context.)

13.　保守主義の根本理念の一つは謙虚さである。

The main idea of conservatism is humbleness

14.　決断に際して最も信頼できる拠り所となるのは、先人が残してくれた伝統的な社会規範、すなわち「お天道様」であり「世間様」である。

The best foundation for making decisions is by looking at the normative consciousness that our forefathers have left to us. In other words “The Sun” and “the World”.

15.　日本人が失われつつある伝統的な社会規範を取り戻すためにも、自民党政治は、郵政改革と同様の情熱で、憲法改正、教育基本法の改正に取り組み、教育や相続制度のあり方、そして家業、家族をどう維持するかに答えを出さねばならないと思う。

In order to get back the traditional societal norms Japanese have lost, the LDP will, with the same fervor with which the postal system was reformed, strive to revise the constitution and to revise the fundamental law of education, (to make) the educational (system) and the inheritance system what it should be. And we must answer the question of how to support families and family businesses.

16.　伝統的な社会規範、人間の力を尊重し、それを取り戻す手を打つことによって、小泉改革に初めて車の両輪が揃（そろ）い、日本の将来に資する真の改革になると私は考える。

I think that depending on how well we can return to our traditional societal norms respect for human ability, then we will be able to move forward the reforms started by Koizumi.

You may not have known it, but the Japanese government has its own internet media web site. It’s called seifu kouhou onrain (政府公報オンライン), which roughly translates as government publicity online. There, they have a wide range of media, including audio and video programs on various government policies and issues.

Early this year, a popular Japanese tarento, Yuuki Maomi sat down with Bunmei Ibuki, current head of the MEXT (Education) Ministry, to discuss his policies. This was on January 29, 2006. Here, too, he discusses “rights metabolic syndrome“. He specifies human rights and rights of the individual as being at least some of the rights he is talking about. He thinks that rights need to be balanced against koueki (公益), the public good.

To see a video of the first half of the interview, click here.

To read a transcript of the first half of the interview, click here.

I have below, put the first half of the interview in blockquotes and then followed them with my own English translations. Please help me to improve these translations by offering comments.

Interview begins here:

○優木まおみ氏
　では、伊吹文明文部科学大臣にお話を伺います。失礼します。

Ms. Yuuki Maomi:
Okay then, Education Minister Ibuki I want to humbly ask you my questions. Please forgive my rudeness.

○伊吹大臣
　いらっしゃい。

Minister Ibuki:
Go right ahead.

○優木まおみ氏
　私、実は大学で教育を学んでいまして、小学校教員の免許を持っているんです。だから、今日は本当に教育というのは他人事ではない感じで、すごく楽しみにしてきました。

Ms. Yuuki Maomi:
Well, in fact, I actually went to the university and studied education, and I have received certification as an elementary school teacher. That’s why, today when we talk about education, I don’t at all feel like an outsider to the topic. I’ve been really looking forward to this.

○伊吹大臣
　教育というのは、だれでも話せることだからね。その代わり、だれでも理想の日本人像を持っていますから、なかなかまとまった議論にするというのは難しいんですね。

　どうぞおかけください。レディーファーストで。

Minister Ibuki:
When it comes to education, it is something we can all talk about. All Japanese have impressions about the ideal education. Despite this, it’s very hard to bring about agreement in a debate about the topic.

Please have a seat. It’s lady’s first.

○優木まおみ氏
　ありがとうございます。
　こんにちは、政府インターネットテレビ『大臣のほんね』。今日は伊吹文明文部科学大臣にお話を伺います。大臣、今日はよろしくお願いいたします。

Ms. Yuuki Maomi:
Thank you. [pause in program] Hello (directed at viewers), this is government internet TV, and this program is “The Minister’s real views” [honne views as opposed to tatemae views.] Today I will humbly ask questions of MEXT Minister Bunmei Ibuki. Minister, please look favorably upon me.

○伊吹大臣
　こちらこそ。

Minister Ibuki:
It’s indeed here. [i.e.You should not have to ask me to look favorably upon you, instead I should have to ask you to look favorably upon me.]

○優木まおみ氏
　伊吹さんが文部科学大臣に就任されて、およそ３か月が過ぎたわけですけれども、就任してからの感想というのを、まずお聞かせいただけますか。

Ms. Yuuki Maomi:
Mr. Ibuki, it has been about three months since you first took on the job of MEXT Minister, so first I’d humbly like to ask you what your impressions have been so far.

○伊吹大臣
　安倍内閣ができまして、安倍さんが小泉さん時代の忘れ物というんでしょうか。小泉さんは経済を立て直すために大変な御努力をなすって、その成果が随分いろいろなところへ出てきたわけですけれども、ライブドアの問題、村上ファンドの問題とか、格差による、勝った者の傲慢さ、負けた者の無気力というようなことが出てきていますから、そこを埋めようとして、教育再生を自分の最優先課題にされたと思うんです。

　教育再生の基本は今の教育基本法をなおすというところから始めないといけないので、安倍内閣の教育再生会議、文部科学省でお願いしている中央教育審議会。こういうところで広く国民の意見を聞いて、やっていきたいと思います。

Minister Ibuki:
The Abe cabinet has been completed, and Mr. Abe has spoken of what we must call Mr. Koizumi’s forgotten items. Mr. Koizumi put forth a great effort to fix up the economy, and there have been various successes, but we’ve had the Livedoor problem, and the Murakami fund problem, then resulting from (income) disparities you’ve had the insolence of winners and the apathy of losers; so these are gaps that need to be filled, and that’s why, for me, resuscitating education is a top priority.

○優木まおみ氏
　今お話にも出ましたけれども、平成18年12月に新しい教育基本法が成立しました。12月22日に公布・施行されたわけですけれども、今回の教育基本法改正のねらいというのは一体何なんでしょうか。

Ms. Yuuki Maomi:
Well, now that you’ve humbly mentioned it, in December 2006, a new Fundamental Law of Education was established. This was officially announced and set forth on December 22, but as far as the goal of revising the Fundamental Law of Education, what is this all about?

○伊吹大臣
　なおす前の教育基本法も大変よくできている法律なんです。例えば権利の大切さとかね、そのことはもう何ら間違いはないし、正しいこと。

　戦争に負けたときに、私は小学校の１年生だったんだけれども、これぐらいのバターの小さな１センチぐらいの塊はとても貴重なもので、栄養が随分あるものなんです。バターはいろんな栄養があるんです。だけれども、今はバターはそう貴重なものではなくて、幾らでも食べられるようになってしまったから、余り食べ過ぎるとメタボリック症候群になりますからね。そういうときは少しバターを控えて、そして、野菜も食べて、健康に暮らしていくというふうに時代が変わってきているわけです。

　だから、人権というのも個人の権利というのも大切なんだけれども、余り使い過ぎると権利メタボリック症候群になるので、家族あるいは会社、地域社会、そして日本の国の一員であるという公共の精神というんですか。自分の乗っている船のために努力をすることによって、自分の権利も主張できる。大切な自由にはやはり規律があるということを中心に法律が改正されたというふうに理解してもらったらいいと思うんです。

Minister Ibuki:
As far as the law is concerned, the previous Fundamental Law of Education was really well done. For example, the importance of rights and so on, no mistaking it, that was the correct thing.

At the time of being defeated in the war — by the way, I was an elementary school student , a first grader — this much butter, this little bit, about a 1 centimeter lump was a precious thing, it had a lot of nourishment. Butter has after all various aspects of nutrition. However, these days butter is not a precious thing anymore, we can eat all we like of it, and so if we eat too much of it we’ll get a metabolic syndrome, right? So we say in a time like this, we need to refrain a little bit, eat some more vegetables, that’s to say we live in a time where we’ve got to really watch our health.

That’s why I say, when we talk about human rights, when we talk about the rights of individuals, they’re important, but if used too much you’ll get a rights metabolic syndrome; there’s family or say the company, there’s local society, and then shall we say, (there’s you as) a member of the country of Japan, sharing the same spirit (mind/psychology).

Depending on how much effort you put forth for the boat you’re aboard, you can also emphasize your own rights. The main thing I want to ask you to understand is that freedom is important, but of course we’ve got to center our revisions of the law around the idea of order (discipline/rules).

○優木まおみ氏
　具体的には、どのように取り組んでいくというか、伝えていく形になるんでしょうか。

Ms. Yuuki Maomi:
Perhaps you could give a concrete idea about how you will proceed?

○伊吹大臣
　今、学校の先生というのは非常にお気の毒だと思うんです。それは三世代一緒じゃないから、おじいちゃん、おばあちゃんもいない。だから、御家庭で教えていたことや地域社会で教えていたことが、みんな学校の先生におぶさっているという感じがあって大変なんだけれども、それに負けてもらっては先生方もよくないので、待遇は十分考えながら、教員免許も何年かに一度は時代に合うように一度研修を受けてチェックをさせてもらいたいとか、教える内容も今お話ししたように、少しずつ権利と公益のバランスを取るように教えていくとか、地域の教育力を高めていくとか、そういう具体策をこれから教員基本法に沿って始めるということですね。

Minister Ibuki:
These days, if we speak of the teachers, I think we really have to feel sorry for them right now. This is because we don’t have three generations (of family) (living) together (these days), grandpa and grandma aren’t there (in the home) (anymore). Therefore, the stuff that used to get taught in the homes, the regional society stuff that used to get taught, isn’t taught in the homes anymore. It’s felt that the school teacher has to teach all this, which is very rough. But to receive defeat is no good, so while trying to treat teachers considerately, we’ve got to make sure that every so many years, they get a teaching certification that matches the age they are in. (We) want to give the teachers a training course, then check them, things like that. Then as far as that goes, there’s the course content, which little by little we’ve got to (increase) the balance between rights and public good and so on. We want to raise the educational power in the regions (of Japan) and so on. These are concrete things that (we) will follow along with as we revise the Fundamental Law of Education.

○優木まおみ氏
　お話は尽きませんが、後半ではさらに伊吹大臣の素顔に迫っていきたいと思います。お楽しみに。

Ms. Yuuki Maomi:
I’ve exhausted this topic, so for the second half of our talk we’ll ask Minister Ibuki to show his honest face. Let’s look forward to it …

Interview excerpt ends here.

There is a second part of this interview in which, Ibuki notes that Japanese style kaare (カーレ) or curry, and Japanese style potato salad can only be found in Japan. These are among his favorite foods. The second part of the interview is more about Ibuki’s personality than policy.

To see a video of the second part of the interview, click here.

To read a transcript of the second part of the interview click here.

To see videos of other ministers, click here.

To read transcripts of other ministers, click here.

Here’s something interesting. When discussing revisions to the Fundamental Law of Education in the Diet last November, Furumoto Shinichiro had a chance to question Bunmei Ibuki about his policies.

As I understand it, Furumoto is pushing Ibuki for specifics on what he wants changed in the schools as far as morals. In this context, Ibuki takes some time to explain what he means by kihan-ishiki or “normative” consciousness (規範意識).

Ibuki states:

この規範というのは、教育論がだれにでもできるというのは、まさにこういうところにかかっているんですが、何が人間社会のために必要なのかというのは、その人の人生観、価値観によってみんな違ってきますが、かなり共通のものがあるわけですね。各国共通のものがあります。各国共通のものは今の教育基本法にしっかりと書かれていると私は思います。

　しかし、日本独自のものがあるわけですよ。日本には日本の規範意識というものがあります。これは、日本の長い歴史の中でビンテージを持って醸成されてきた日本特有の文化の結晶のようなものですね。アメリカという国は、各国の規範意識を背負ってきた人が移民をもってつくった人工的な国ですから、一つの規範でなかなかやはり割り切りにくい国であるから、法律が社会の秩序の根幹に入っている。日本はやはりそうじゃない。そういうものは今回の教育基本法の中にかなり色濃く書かれているわけですね。

　ですから、当然、この法案が国会でお認めいただければ、学習指導要領等を含めて、何を教えるんだ、先生のお言葉で言えば道徳について、もう少し指導の範囲、あるいは教えるべきことを書き直すような御提案を中教審等からいただいてつくっていく、こういうことです。

Now let me take this apart, sentence by sentence and paraphrase what is being stated, note this is not an exact translation where I try to capture the style and organization of the words. I am trying as neutrally as possible merely to give a clear statement of their content. Corrections and help here would be very welcome, but here’s a translation as best I can do it:

1.　この規範というのは、教育論がだれにでもできるというのは、まさにこういうところにかかっているんですが、何が人間社会のために必要なのかというのは、その人の人生観、価値観によってみんな違ってきますが、かなり共通のものがあるわけですね。

Okay, as far as normative consciousness, let me explain about it. We can all debate about education. Further, we can get caught up on the issue of of just what is needed for people to live in society in terms of values. Certainly what a person thinks is needed will be a reflection of their life’s viewpoint, and their own value system. Each person will be different. However, there is a lot we all have in common, isn’t there?

2. 各国共通のものがあります。

There are values (moralities) which each and every country share.

3. 各国共通のものは今の教育基本法にしっかりと書かれていると私は思います。

As far as those values, I think they have been very well written into the Fundamental Law of Education as it is now.

4. しかし、日本独自のものがあるわけですよ。

However, let me tell you, Japan has it’s own special characteristics (in terms of morals/values) as well.

5. 日本には日本の規範意識というものがあります。

Japan has what we can call a Japanese normative consciousness.

6. これは、日本の長い歴史の中でビンテージを持って醸成されてきた日本特有の文化の結晶のようなものですね。

What is it (normative consciousness)? Japan throughout Japan’s long history has naturally engendered, like a wine of great vintage, a special characteristic culture that has crystalized.

7.　アメリカという国は、各国の規範意識を背負ってきた人が移民をもってつくった人工的な国ですから、一つの規範でなかなかやはり割り切りにくい国であるから、法律が社会の秩序の根幹に入っている。

Let’s take America as an example, it is a created, artificial country made up of migrants each carrying their own “normative consciousness” from their respective countries. That’s why it’s so very hard to find a single, clear-cut, norm for that country. This is why the societal system in America is based on law.

[In other words, because America is made up of migrants, there can’t be a kihan-ishiki, so it is a society focused on law (rights and so on). ]

8. 日本はやはりそうじゃない。

But just as you and I know it, that’s not Japan.

9. そういうものは今回の教育基本法の中にかなり色濃く書かれているわけですね。

That’s why I say, for this revision of the Fundamental Law of Education, we’ve got to write in the morality (values) that represent Japan.

10.　ですから、当然、この法案が国会でお認めいただければ、学習指導要領等を含めて、何を教えるんだ、先生のお言葉で言えば道徳について、もう少し指導の範囲、あるいは教えるべきことを書き直すような御提案を中教審等からいただいてつくっていく、こういうことです。

[This is a long, run-on sentence and hard to follow, basically I think he is saying something like: ] Therefore, as a matter of course, I want the Diet to approve this bill (the revision). It includes guidance for teachers concerning what morals need to be taught in school.

WHAT MASSACRE?
LDP, DPJ ranks hear Nanjing denial lecture
By JUN HONGO
About 30 lawmakers from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Party of Japan gathered Tuesday to hear a controversial historian talk about why he figures the Nanjing Massacre is a “complete fabrication.”
-snip-
Shudo Higashinakano, a history professor at Asia University in Tokyo, told the small group that the Nanjing Massacre was simply Chinese government propaganda.
-snip-
The professor was invited by a group of 16 lawmakers who already agree with him, including Toru Toida and Tomomi Inada of the LDP, and Jin Matsubara and Shu Watanabe of the DPJ, the main opposition force.
Higashinakano is a well-known public figure. Last year the Nanjing City Intermediate People’s Court ordered him and another historian to pay 23 million yen in compensation to a Chinese woman for alleging in a publication that she had lied about having witnessed the massacre. Historians worldwide generally agree that the Imperial Japanese Army killed at least 150,000 civilians and raped thousands of women and girls during its occupation of the former capital of China in 1937 and 1938.
-snip-
Higashinakano told the group there was no organized rape or murder, and individual soldiers caught raping women were severely punished by their superiors.
-snip-
The group applauded Higashinakano at the end of his 90-minute talk and Matsubara said, “I’m convinced now that the Nanjing Massacre never took place.”
-snip-
According to the organizer, the lectures are to counter several films being made outside of Japan and will be released this year to mark the 70th anniversary of the massacre.

I’ve never studied the issue of the Nanjing Massacre, so can’t comment on it. However, what gets me here is Jin Matsubara’s comment. He’s convinced *now* after seeing the 90 minute lecture that the massacre didn’t take place?

There’s so much controversy here that it would seem prudent at least to subject one’s opinion to as much scrutiny as possible before offering it. Just hearing a 90 minute lecture is enough to convince Matsubara the Nanjing Massacre didn’t happen?

What’s also worthy of note here is that this issue seems to have crossed the aisle here. So is the Democratic Party really so different from the LDP? Is it possible for a Japanese voter to vote for a major party that doesn’t have nationalists in it?

‘Kimigayo’ snub stings another teacher

The Tokyo metropolitan board of education punished a high school teacher Monday who refused to play the piano accompaniment to the “Kimigayo” national anthem during a school ceremony in November.

The punishment, including a 10 percent pay cut, marked the first meted out since the Tokyo District Court ruled in September that a metropolitan directive that obliged teachers to stand and sing the anthem at school ceremonies violated their freedom of thought.

The metropolitan government filed an appeal and the case is still pending.
Mikiko Ikeda, who teaches music at Hamura High School in western Tokyo, is the 346th teacher to be punished under the directive.

This is an interesting and sad problem. These teachers genuinely feel it is wrong for a public institution in Japan to sing songs like this.

Consider this, the pledge of allegiance in America states:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Note this contains the phrase *under God*. Now how about if this does not reflect the teacher’s personal views? What if they are atheists or polytheists or whatever and in good conscience they don’t want to say the pledge?

Should they have to? Should they have to lead their students in saying the pledge?

Here are the words for Kimigayo:

May your Imperial reign
Continue for a thousand years,
And last for eight thousand generations,
Until pebbles
Turn into boulders
Covered in moss.

According to Wikipedia:

Since the end of World War II, there has been criticism of the anthem for its association with militarism and the virtual worship of the emperor as a deity, which some see as incompatible with a democratic society. Similar objections have been raised to Japan’s current national flag, and demonstrations are sometimes held against both.

So should these teachers have to sing the song or play musical accompaniment? I would say certainly not, but apparently they do.

[This entry needs more work. I would have preferred to not post it yet, but given the timeliness of the topic will post it as is, and if possible add revisions to it later. Corrections are welcome …]

Asahi Shinbun wrote an editorial regarding Abe’s comments. It was on-line for perhaps a day or so, and now can only be found in Google’s Cache.

I want to repost the article here because I think it’s important.

Trying to do a proper translation would be too difficult, so my goal is only as follows:

1. To impart as fully as possible the same content as the original (There will be errors!)
2. To be as neutral as possible in doing so.

I will number each line, so if someone wishes to comment, it should be easy for them to reference each line. (Corrections would be great!)

1.「強制性」解釈のズレ、波紋　慰安婦問題、首相の発言　対米韓で危機感も

This is the headline. It states that a translation gap (or miss) of the prime minister’s words creates broad ripples creating a sense of crisis with America and Korea

2.　従軍慰安婦に対する日本政府の姿勢に改めて関心が集まっている。

There has been renewed interest in the stance of the Japanese government in regards to the army’s comfort women.

3.１日の安倍首相の発言が海外で波紋を広げているほか、米下院では慰安婦問題で首相の公式謝罪を求める決議案採択の動きもある。

Prime Minister Abe’s statements on March 1st, in regards to this issue, have created strong ripples overseas. That’s not all, they have also had an impact in the American Congress where currently a bill is being put forth asking that Japan apologize for the comfort women.

4.　首相は軍当局の関与と「強制性」を認めた河野官房長官談話を引き継ぐ立場を変えていないが、談話が示す「強制性」の定義をめぐる解釈のズレも、様々なあつれきを生む背景にあるようだ。（藤田直央、ワシントン＝小村田義之）

The Prime Minister (and the army authorities) intention was to indicate they will continue with the Kono statement without any change of stance. However, there was translation gap (miss) when the conversation turned to the definition of coercion. This was the background in which a lot of discord came about.

5. 　首相が河野談話継承を表明したのは、中韓両国訪問を控えた昨年１０月上旬の衆院予算委員会だ。

Last, October when answering questions questions about the budget in the House of Councilors this topic came up when Prime Minister Abe was answering questions about his trip to South Korean and China. At that time he gave his opinion about the Kono statement.

6.　この時、首相は「家に乗り込んで連れて行った」ことを「狭義の強制性」とし、「行きたくないが、そういう環境の中にあった」ことを「広義の強制性」と説明。

The Prime Minister said that the narrow definition of coercion would be going into people’s houses and taking the girls by force. However, the wide definition of force would be those who didn’t really want to go but were in an environment that compelled them to go.

[Here are Abe’s exact words as translated by the Communist Party of Japan:
“The question should be whether the women were taken out of their houses forcibly, or they wanted to choose to not go but they were in an environment that compelled them to go in the end. The latter can be regarded as a case of coercion in he broad sense of the word.”]

7.　そのうえで「今に至っても、この狭義の強制性については事実を裏付けるものは出てきていなかったのではないか」と指摘し、「広義の強制性」を認めた河野談話を引き継ぐという考え方を強調した。

At that time the Prime Minister pointed out, “Up until now, there has been nothing to substantiate the fact of coercion in the narrow sense of the word.” However, as far as taking “coercion in the wide sense” the Prime Minister noted that he would continue to recognize the Kono statement.

8.　河野氏は９７年の朝日新聞のインタビューで「『政府が法律的な手続きを踏み、暴力的に女性を駆り出した』と書かれた文書があったかと言えば、そういうことを示す文書はなかった。

In an 1997 editorial in the Asahi Newspaper, Kono stated that “as far as documents that would implicate the government in establishing formal procedures for the use of violence to round up women, there are no such documents …

9.　けれども、本人の意思に反して集められたことを強制性と定義すれば、強制性のケースが数多くあったことは明らかだった」と語っている。
(Kono continues)… However, if you define coercion as women being rounded up against there will then there are clearly many cases in which that happened.”

10.　首相が１日、記者団とのやりとりで「当初、定義されていた強制性」について「裏付けるものはなかった」と語ったのも同じ趣旨だ。
In the the Prime Minsiter’s (Abe’s) exchange with the reporters, when he stated as far as “coercion as initially defined, there is nothing to substantiate it.” he meant the same thing as Kono had.

[i.e. Prime Minister Abe thinks, that when talking about coercion in the narrow sense, Kono’s statement doesn’t admit there was any.]

11. だが、この発言には韓国外交通商相が不快感を示し、米国の主要メディアも河野談話見直しと関連づけて報じた。

However, in regards to the Prime Minister’s statement, South Korean Foreign Minister expressed displeasure, and the media in America interpreted as perhaps a revision of the Kono statement.

12. 首相が、強制性自体を否定したととらえられたためだ。

The statement was taken as a complete refutation of coercion altogether.

13.　ただ、日本国内には河野談話そのものを見直す動きもある。

There was also an impact in the country regarding revising the Kono statement.

14.　自民党の有志議員でつくる「日本の前途と歴史教育を考える議員の会」小委員会は「史実を踏まえ、より実証的な表現に修正すべきだ」との提言をまとめる方向で検討を進め、近く首相に申し入れる予定だ。

The current chairman of the “committee for the consideration of what Japanese history education should be”, stated, “we should not step on historical fact, rather we have an obligation to fix previous statements so they reflect the truth.”

15.　首相自身がかつて同会の事務局長を務めており、首相に近い下村博文官房副長官は先月２８日、「本来の安倍首相を支持してくれている保守派の人たちの期待感を裏切るような豹変（ひょうへん）を首相はしていない」と言及。

Prime Minister Abe was in fact, the original chairman of the “committee for the consideration of what Japanese education should be”, and a person close to the Prime Minister, the vice-chief secretariat, Hakubun Shimamura stated on the 28th of February, “It is not the Prime Ministers intention to betray those in the conservative faction that have supported him.”

16. 海外の反応は、こうした国内の動きへの懸念の表れとも言える。

So we can say that the Prime Minister’s statement had an affect inside and outside Japan.

17.　一方、首相発言をきっかけに、１月末に米下院に提出された従軍慰安婦問題をめぐる決議案にも注目が集まり始めた。

Meanwhile the American Congress is debating a bill which asks the Japanese government to apologize for the comfort women. This has gotten more attention because of the Prime Minster’s statement.

18. 同様の決議案はこれまでもあったが、日本政府が共和党の下院議長らに働きかけて本会議採択を回避してきた。

Previously the bill could not get out of committee because of the Republican controlled congress.

19.　ところが、昨秋の中間選挙で多数派となった民主党のペロシ氏が下院議長に就任。

However, the democrats led by Pelosi won control of congress in last Autumn’s election

20. 下院外交委員長も人権派として知られる同党議員になり、今回は採択の可能性があると見られている。

(…) and now there is a real possibility it the resolution will get passed.

21.　４月下旬に首相の初めての訪米を控える時期でもあり、加藤良三駐米大使は「日本政府はすでに謝罪している」と主張。

The Prime Minister will be making his first trip to America at the end of April. The Japanese Ambassador in America has stated emphatically, “The Japanese government has already apologized.”

22. 首相側近の世耕弘成首相補佐官も２月下旬に訪米して米政府関係者に首相の意図を説明した。

An close aide to the Prime Minister went to America to explain Abe’s intentions (aims).

23. ただ、こうした動きが逆に謝罪を拒否しているように映り、「火に油を注ぐ」（日本政府関係者）状況にもなっている。

[Hard to understand but maybe] However, if the prime minister refuses to apologize, it will be like pouring oil onto a fire.

24.　日本政府としては安倍政権が河野談話を継承していることに理解を求めるしか打つ手が無いが、外務省からは「この問題に触ればアジアと米国を敵に回すことになりかねず、外交的には静かにやり過ごすのが得策」（幹部）との声も出ている。

[Hard to understand but maybe] Abe has no intention to change the Kono statement which he inherited. The Foreign Minister of Japan stated, “we will have to be careful not to create animosity with China and America over this. A quiet course would be best.”

There seems to be a big brouhaha over the New York Times report by Nori Onishi entitled, Abe Rejects Japan’s Files on War Sex. The story concerned some recent remarks by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe about comfort women.

At least part of the problem is that Onishi reported the following:

“There is no evidence to prove there was coercion, nothing to support it,” Mr. Abe told reporters. “So, in respect to this declaration, you have to keep in mind that things have changed greatly.”

Is this quote wrong?

It’s hard to say.

Let’s look at what Abe stated:

1.a「強制性を証明する証言や裏付けるものはなかった。
1b. だからその定義については大きく変わったということを前提に考えなければならない」

Source: Sankei Shinbun’s Iza website:
http://www.iza.ne.jp/news/newsarticle/politics/41472/

My translation:
1 a “As far as coercion, there was no proof or testimony to substantiate it happened.
1. b “That’s why I’m telling you, we need to take into consideration that the definition was greatly changed.”

My translation skills are limited, but I think that anyone with reasonable Japanese skills will see the New York Time’s translation, while not that good, is passable.

Note the Japanese Chosun Shinbun, which I take to be a zainichi Korean newspaper, also reported a quote, nearly the same as the one above. See here.

So why do Occidentalism and JapanProbe accuse the NYT of mistranslation, when perhaps the translation is fairly passable; because, as best I can tell, they compare different quotes.

I’m am not sure in what context Abe made these comments. But he did not make them in isolation. He clearly said more than one thing. He was quoted selectively both in the Japanese press and in the English press. Occidentalism and Japan Probe possibly took one thing Abe said as reported in the Japanese press and compared it something *different* that Abe said as reported in the English Press. (I think.)

It was reported by some in the Japanese press that Abe stated:

2a「強制性については従来から議論があったところだ。
2b 当初、定義されていた強制性を裏付けるものがなかったのは事実ではないか」

Source: Nikkei
(I can not provide a direct link to this article at the Nikkei shinbun because it seems to no longer exists, however many blogs reported the article, and these can be found using a Google search. Click here.)

Now I translate the above statements as follows:

2a. As far as coercion this was previously debated.
2b. At first, using the original definition we had of coercion, there was no way to substantiate any coercion, and that is a fact, is it not?

Now the idea of mistranslation seems to have originated specifically from a single comment made by “Matt” who I take to be a leading contributor to the Occidentalism site. He stated:

Ponta, Pacifist, Kaneganese, Mika, Two Cents, should there be any revisions to my translation? I have changed the translation to past tense to reflect the past tense in the Japanese. A whole lot of different translations have appeared in English, all of them wrong, I believe.
「当初定義されていた強制性を裏付ける証拠がなかったのは事実だ」
“It is a fact there was no proof to support coercion as it was initially defined”
「定義が大きく変わったことを前提に考えなければならない」
“We must premise it [the kono statement about comfort women] on the thought that the definition of it [coercion] had been greatly changed from its [initial] definition”

But are these the exact quotes that correspond with the NYT quote?

The first one here corresponds roughly with with my 2b, as reported in the Nikkei Shinbun. The second quote corresponds roughly with my 1b as reported in the Iza website.

So perhaps that NYT’s quote was not so bad.

Now let’s look at the AP quote:

“The fact is, there is no evidence to prove there was coercion,” Abe said.
Abe’s remarks contradicted evidence in Japanese documents found in 1992 that historians said showed military authorities had a direct role in working with contractors to forcibly procure women for brothels.

Note that this quote taken in the context of the “direct role” of “military authorities” is not deceptive. That is just what Abe is saying. So this quote is not so bad, I think. Moreover, it can be read to roughly correspond with my 1a above.

If one views an NHK report of this at YouTube, one sees that NHK reported the story in a similar way. So I don’t think the AP was so far off here. Will people also want to accuse NHK of not reporting the story correctly?

While JapanProbe has argued that this is not really news, this may be incorrect as well. That is Abe here was at least *less* equivocal than in his previous statements. He clearly does not see any coercion as far as government invovlement is concerned. Previously, his statements were harder to interpret.

[I have modified this entry slightly and hope to revise more fully soon. It needs some cleaning up. I have continued to look into Ibuki in general and have a better idea now of what he is saying. 3-6-2007.]

I have several entries I want to make in regards to Bunmei Ibuki’s controversial comments. This will be the first of them.

I am calling it the Ibuki manifesto because I think people would be surprised to see what is on the Education Minister’s official home page.

Of especial interest is this page, which is very helpful in putting Ibuki’s recent remark into some kind of context.

What I will do is to summarize and paraphrase the more important aspects of this page. If you find that I’ve been unfaithful to the original, please comment!

Basically, the page discusses how Ibuki feels the Koizumi revolution (reformation) can be completed.

First thing Ibuki notes is that that “Ibuki-faction” supported Abe in the recent LDP leadership election.

So Ibuki is not only part of a faction, but leader of a faction. Now if the Wikipedia entry on the Liberal Democratic Party can be trusted, then as it turns out, this is the faction of Shizuka Kamei. And according to Wikipedia, the Ibuki-faction is: “considered by many to be the most right-wing grouping among the major factions.”

Okay, so Ibuki is probably right wing. No surprise there given his recent comments. Now, let’s look at some more of his manifesto.

Ibuki’s says, basically, that Koizumi’s reformation was only “half done” (中途半端) and that Ibuki now has “sense of impending disaster.” (危機感) .

Why? Well, you see, Ibuki has special insight into capitalism and free competition that Koizumi didn’t. Ibuki notes that there will be arrogant winners (勝者の傲慢) and apathetic losers (敗者の無気力) and that this will create a heavy burden on society.

He notes that while Koizumi’s reforms were okay, they weren’t enough. While it’s true that self-reliance (自助努力) and self-responsibility (自己責任) are good things, they are not the main things. By pushing things in the direction Koizumi pushed them, there will now be side-effects (副作用) that Ibuki and Abe will now have to manage.

Before going into detail, Ibuki digresses into another issue, the Koizumi Reform’s forgotten item (小泉改革の忘れ物), taxes. Ibuki says the govenrment will need more money to handle programs regarding health, nursing the old, and pensions. So it is urgent that we reform the tax system (税制改正). It’s time to think about raising more money for the government. (I take this to mean Japan should increase the sales tax.)

After this digression into taxes, Ibuki gets back to talking about the dangerous side-effects of a competitive capitalist system with is focus on self-reliance and self-responsibility.

Of course, the main side-effect, as Ibuki noted will be those winners and losers and the great gaps (格差) this creates in society between them. So the main way this will be fixed will be via education.

Now what sort of education system will we be needed? Well, not too many specifics are given, but first and foremost we are asked to accept the following unquestionable facts:

Although there are exceptions basically –
– Japan is one race (一民族).
– Ruled by one race (一民族の統治).
– A country of one language (一言語)
– A country without religious strife. (宗教的対立のない国)
– As we look out at the world we see how *rare* Japan is. (日本は、世界でも珍しい国)
– Throughout history, the work of (Japan’s) ancestors was to form a tacit set of normative consicousness went *beyond* the law. (?) (悠久の歴史のなかでの祖先の営みは、法律以上に強い暗黙の約束ごと、規範意識を形成してきました。)
– For just one sole time, following World War II, Japan was ruled by an occupation army, and for just under ten years Japanese culture stopped. (唯一度だけ、第二次世界大戦後に、日本の統治権は占領軍に移り、約十年弱の間、日本の文化は途絶しました。)
–It was during that very period when a the Fundamental Law of Education was passed creating the current educational system, an educational system that has gone on for 60 years, an educational system nearly all Japanese have passed through. (日本の統治権は占領軍に移り、約十年弱の間、日本の文化は途絶しました。この間に作られた教育基本法と教育制度は約六十年間続き、この制度で教育を受けた日本人が、人口のほとんどを占めています。)
–And now as we see the (undesirable?) results, it is time to resuscitate the educational system for the next one hundred years. (教育の効果は五十年後に現れ、その再生は百年の計。)

After this Ibuki talks about how the LDP will have to win the next upper house election and so on and so forth.

And that is, in short, the Ibuki manifesto.

So does this mean we can expect Ibuki to find a solution to the growing number of international children who aren’t receiving an education? Perhaps not.

However, when we put his manifesto together with his comments from last week-end we see just how distorted a world view Ibuki has.

He sees the Fundamental Law of Education, which de-emphasized national spirit and emphasized human rights as a Western perversion of the what real Japanese education should be. While we don’t have any specifics to go on here, he clearly wants to return to some form the pre-WWII educational system in Japan, where rights are de-emphasized and national unity emphasized.

Specifically he wants people to learn his version of what virtue is, which for him is probably some type of far right ideology.

I will continue to look into this, and report more here later.