Skip to content

Month: May 2024

Published on

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

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

Tsukasa Shirakawa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published on

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

Sugihara Seishiro
President
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published on

Autrhor : Tadashi Hama

Reviewed Book : Harry Wray, Seishiro Sugihara  Is Japanese Debate on the Atomic Bombing All Right as It Is—the first US-Japan dialogue over the atomic bombings (published by Nisshin-hodo, 2015)

The book reviewed is Is Japanese Debate on the Atomic Bombing All Right as It Is—the first US-Japan dialogue over the atomic bombings (published by Nisshin-hodo, 2015). In the book, American Harry Wray criticizes the view of the atomic bombings the Japanese people generally have. On the other hand, Japanese Sugihara Seishiro comments and counterargues, chapter by chapter, stating his views on the Japanese side. Thus, this book is considered the first Japan-US dialogue over the atomic bombings. In the Japanese version of the book, the English texts written by Harry Wray are translated into Japanese by Ms. Yamamoto Reiko, who obtained her doctorate at Meisei University and studied the purge of teachers under the US occupation at the university’s Center for the Study of Postwar Education. The book was published in 2015 by Nisshin-hodo. The English version, titled Bridging the Atomic Divide: Debating Japan-US Attitudes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was published in 2019 by Lexington Books. Japanese texts written by Sugihara were translated into English by Chinese-Australian Norman Hoo.

The book’s coauthor Harry Wray was born in Nebraska, USA, in 1931 and died in 2017, without seeing the English version of this book. Mr. Wray finished the graduate school at the University of Hawaii in 1971 and lived in Japan for many years, teaching at various universities in Japan. In his study of the educational reform during the Occupation period, he interviewed fifty Japanese who worked for the educational reform during the Occupation and twenty-eight members of the Allied Forces personnel, making a great contribution to the study of educational reform during the occupation period. He was a Japanophile.

The other author, Sugihara Seishiro, was born in 1941 in the city of Hiroshima and lived there until immediately before the atomic bombing on the city, close to the very epicenter. In 1967, Sugihara finished the master’s course in education at the graduate school of the University of Tokyo. It is said that he did not advance to the doctor’s course because he was in conflict with the senior professor who led lecturers at the Japan Teachers’ Union that played an enormous role in spreading the self-deprecating view of history in postwar Japan.

Reviewer Hama Tadashi’s review was posted on the website of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact in September 2019 as followed:

<Book Review>
Bridging the Atomic Divide: Debating Japan-US Attitudes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
By Harry Wray & Seishiro Sughihara
Lexington Books
Reviewed by Tadashi Hama

Newsletter No. 231 introduced this newly published book, which discusses, in a frank and candid manner, an extremely sensitive subject that Japanese and Americans have long avoided.

      The book is reviewed by Mr. Tadashi Hama and is also accompanied by a comment on the review by, Professor Seishiro Sugihara, the book’s author.

     Mr. Wray wrote that his wish was to “have a dialogue about the atomic bombs...,” a “balanced dialogue”, and a dialogue which “must not be like the Tokyo Trials conducted during the Occupation...a one-sided affair imposed by the victorious nations on the losing side...” However, the book starts off by berating the Japanese for their “litany of clear-cut crimes against humanity”, and mentions, among other things, forcing Korean women to be “prostitutes”, or so-called “comfort women”, and the “rape of Nanking”, assuming that these were established historical facts.

     Mr. Hama’s criticism is that this line of thinking will not bring about a “balanced dialogue” of historical perception at all. He further details Wray’s slanted, one-sided thinking.

    In his comment, Mr. Sugihara, while acknowledging Mr. Hama’s view, emphasizes that FDR ultimately shoulders responsibility for the atomic bombings and his actions have determined the context of the dialogue on this important issue. It is recommended that his comments be also read.

Reviewer Hama newly included, among the reference literature, the books Lone Eagle—The Wartime Journal of Charles A. Lindbergh (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970) and Summer, 1945: Germany, Japan and the Harvest of Hate, written by Thomas Goodrich (The Palm Press, 2018) and stated that in the Japan-US War, many atrocities were committed by the U.S. side. Based on this fact, regarding the atomic bombings, he denies Harry Wray’s accounts of the US side and emphasizes that there was no rightful cause for the United States to drop atomic bombs.

Since reviewer Hama has based his statements on historical facts, there is no exaggeration nor fiction in his accounts. In this respect, his review should be read by many Americans.

On the other hand, Harry Wray’s assertions are popularly cited in the United States, such as that the dropping of the atomic bombs was meant to end the war sooner and reduce the number of victims on both sides and that in fact the atomic bombings spared many potential victims. And if Japan had readily accepted the Potsdam Declaration when it was issued, no atomic bombs would have been used and therefore, Japan should be held responsible for the result to a relative extent.

Certainly, the later estimate of the number of victims saved by the atomic bombings may have been somewhat exaggerated, but it is true that many lives were spared. It is also true that there would have been no atomic bombing if only Japan had promptly accepted the Potsdam Declaration when it was issued.

How, then, is Sugihara, representing Japan, to refute the American assertions? The point to argue is that chances for the United States to make Japan surrender before the Potsdam Declaration was issued, rendering it useless to drop atomic bombs were many, many times more than the chance for Japan to accept the Potsdam Declaration.

What made it difficult for the United States under the then President Truman to carry out the policy of making Japan surrender before dropping atomic bombs was that the predecessor President Roosevelt had forced Japan into unconditional surrender. On the opening of the war between Japan and the United States, President Roosevelt blamed Japan for attacking Pearl Harbor “without declaring war”, instigating the Americans to fight the war against Japan and stirring up hate against Japan. In fact, the war between Japan and the United States was staged, without the knowledge of the peoples of both countries with the United States provoking Japan into the war. The alleged delay in handing the “declaration of war” on the part of Japan was not intentional but a mere blunder in clerical work. Although he knew this fact, Roosevelt instigated hostilities against Japan and forced Japan to unconditionally accept the Potsdam Declaration. By doing so, he manipulated his people to gain their strong support. Consequently, the US-Japan war obliged the United States to deploy the ground battle on the soil of mainland Japan and the United States had to continue fighting even after the defeat of Japan became evident, causing more casualties on both sides, to no avail.

Thus, coauthor Sugihara asserts that Roosevelt forced the American people to unnecessarily suffer an enormous number of casualties and in this regard, Roosevelt betrayed the American people as well. Sugihara adds emphatically that he wants the Americans to know this fact.

This review should be read widely by Americans to understand better the issue of atomic bombings.

Review : Japanese / English

Published on

Miyamoto Fujiko
Guest Fellow

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

The similarity between the Japanese and the Korean languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Educational problem arising from the non-use of kanji

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

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

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

Thinking problems due to the non-use of kanji

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resume the use of kanji in writing

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

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