Confusion in Job Application

Japan Business Federation, or Keidanren, announced on Monday that its member companies would start job application for graduating college students on June next year. Its policy of delaying job interview until August to preserve the seniors enough time to complete study in college will be changed in a year. Inflexible application system in Japanese labor market is bringing confusion in job searching of students.

In the period of post-war high economic growth, major corporations in Japan were enthusiastic in hiring brilliant human resource. In 1953, colleges and business federations agreed on starting job application for students, who would graduate next year, in every October. After long period of competition over young labor, Japan Federation of Employer’s Association abolished the agreement and started job application in April. In 2011, after merging with JFEA, Keidanren determined that job seminars would be allowed in every December for the juniors and interviewing would be starting in April, the very beginning of the year of senior.

But, the fourth year in college is the time for concluding study. Students might not be concentrated in making bachelor thesis, if he had to be busy in searching post-graduation job. Seeing the system to cause deterioration of academic achievement of Japanese students, Keidanren made a guideline to delay the job seminars to March and interviews to August, starting in 2014.

It did not work, because non-Keidanren companies continued early application in April. Some of the member companies also defied the guideline. In the moderate recovery of Japanese economy, employers are becoming positive in obtaining hopeful young labor.

Students are confused by quick change of the policy. If job application starts in June, it will affect examination in June and students cannot attend classes from April.

All those problems stem from long-time employment system in Japan. In this country, a typical successful life is brought by getting job immediately after college graduation, continuing the job until he gets old and retiring with congratulation of his colleagues. Every newly graduated employee is recognized as hopeful for being the president. Job market in Japan has very low liquidity, which may cause lack of adjustability when labor mismatch occurred.

To revitalize Japanese economy, flexible job market is indispensable. Business entities need to refrain from picking young labor too early. They also need to be open for exchanging human resource between companies. Devoting one’s life to one job is a concept of bureaucrats, who are proud of being servants of a state, not people.

Warning on Intervention in Broadcasting

One TV program is focused on as an example of governmental intervention in freedom of expression. Broadcasting Ethics & Program Improvement Organization (BPO), an independent panel for examining TV programs and reflecting opinions of the viewers, criticized Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications, Sanae Takaichi, and Liberal Democratic Party of their excessive pressure on Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK). This is an effusion of public concern on current oppressive administration.

BPO examined an NHK program called Close Up Gendai, which has been a thirty-minute reporting program with journalistic viewpoints. In May last year, the program reported fraud cases by a monk who escaped individual financial debt by changing official name into religious name. Criticisms rose up on some scenes of the documentary that might be fabrication of the story and one man stepped forward, revealing that he was asked to play a role as a conspirator.

BPO embarked on the investigation this May. It concluded that there was a crucial violation against broadcasting ethics in the program in terms of appearance of the man without sufficient research on his identity. But, BPO denied fabrication by the reporter to the extent of ordering the man to pretend to be a conspirator. BPO fundamentally dismissed the criticisms on fabrication.

The focusing point was another facts related to the case. Takaichi rebuked NHK of its attitude for reporting this April. In June, lawmakers of LDP denounced NHK in a meeting, in which one man proposed reducing income of advertising to punish mass communication. BPO recognized those facts as pressure on broadcasting and criticized Takaichi and LDP of its intervention in TV programs based on Broadcasting Act that required neutrality. Realizing the provisions as ethical standards for broadcasters, BPO urged NHK to preserve fortitude against pressures.

Oppressive tendency has been seen in Shinzo Abe administration. Last November, LDP summoned private broadcasters to maintain “neutrality” in the programs. For Abe administration, neutrality is not criticizing the administration. In this April, one lawmaker of LDP referred to a possibility of exercising political decision to stop broadcasting. Conclusion of BPO was apparent opposition to those oppressive activities.

Close Up Gendai is supposed to replace its main caster in next spring. It has been ordinary action for the government to expect changing personality of a program. NHK also changed the main caster of night news program this spring. To show resilience against political pressure, not only the broadcasters but viewers need to be acknowledged to the interventions in the programs they watch.

Smile for Separate Ways

Resulting in a simple reconfirmation of old principle, though, it was undoubtedly a historical meeting. President of People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping and President of Republic of China, Ma Yingjeou met in Singapore on Saturday. It was the fist time for both leaders to have a meeting, since China had been separated in 1949. Xi and Ma reconfirmed the Consensus 1992, which recognized that both Taiwan and continental China belonged to “one China.” They knew, however, that they were going separate ways.

At the beginning of the meeting, both leaders exchanged message for peace between the coasts. “We opened new historical page. History will register today,” told Xi, stressing historical significance of the meeting. “Both coasts declared message for our determination to concrete peace in Taiwan Strait and promoting regional peace to the world,” replied Ma. Both leaders called each other with title of honor.

After decades of adversary, Ma embarked on improving relationship with PRC. Xi recognized that the key element was maintaining of the Consensus 1992 by Ma and common political basis of opposing the independence of Taiwan. Some understood that this abrupt summit meeting was Ma’s legacy making before expiration of his term next May. There remains a strong opinion against one China principle in Taiwan, anyway.

Xi knew well about those public sentiments. “We are willing to make relationship with any political party or organization, regardless assertions in the past, if it keeps meaning of the Consensus 1992,” told Xi, keeping new possible leader of ROC, Tsai Ingwen, in his mind. But, it is obvious that one China means integration of Taiwan within continental China, which is hardly acceptable for ROC.

With embracing different goals, both leaders worked for practical achievement of the historical meeting. Ma required Xi removing missiles deployed on the coast facing Taiwan. Xi answered that the missiles were not aiming the Taiwanese people. Both leaders agreed on establishing a hotline at the minister level.

Xi must have believed that establishing moderate relationship with ROC could work for denying access of United States to continental Chinese coast. Based on the policy of reconstruction of the great China, Xi wants to contain Taiwan within the influential power of PRC. Cooperating with Japan or other allies, U.S. will oppose any action of annexation of Taiwan. In a distant structure between two approaching governments of China and Japan-U.S. alliance, it is possible that problems in the relationship of Japan and China will be more deteriorated, possibly in a manner that PRC and ROC joins in the claim for Senkaku Islands.

Southeast Asian Quarrel

Defense Ministers of Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the eight neighbor countries failed in delivering a joint declaration after the meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Wednesday. It was a disappointing consequence of sharp opposition between United States and People’s Republic of China. Ten ASEAN nations are being divided in two groups.

The framework is called Asian Defense Ministers Meeting, or ADMM, Plus. In the first meeting in Hanoi, Vietnam, in 2010, the Defense Ministers agreed on five areas: maritime security, counter-terrorism, humanitarian assistance and disaster management, peacekeeping operations and military medicine. The Joint Declaration, agreed on the second meeting in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam, in 2013, reaffirmed the strategic importance of ADMM Plus and required the relations to be guided “by the fundamental principles enshrined in the TAC (Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in ASEAN), especially the renunciation of the threat or use of force and exercise of self-restraint.” The third meeting could not deliver a Joint Declaration for the first time.

Asahi Shimbun reported that the draft of Joint Declaration, prepared by the chair country, Malaysia, included “emphasizing the importance of freedom of navigation and aviation or communication in sea lanes based on international laws.” But, China opposed the draft, claiming that it was inappropriate for multi-lateral conference with outer nations to deal with territorial issue. The expression was dropped from the revised draft.

According a report of Mainichi Shimbun, China was agreeing to Malaysia’s draft with words of “freedom of navigation,” but not referring to “South China Sea.” However, United States demanded to include “South China Sea.” China turned down its support for Joint Declaration as long as any expression of “South China Sea” was described.

Now, ten ASEAN nations are categorized into one of the four groups. Laos and Cambodia are the closest to China with great amount of economic support and without territorial dispute. While Myanmar, Indonesia, Thailand and Singapore are maintaining moderate relation with China without territorial issue, Brunei and Malaysia has dispute over territory with China. Vietnam and Philippine are frustrated with China’s unilateral claim for islands in South China Sea.

In this volatile situation in Southeast Asia, skeptical views are cast on Japan, which has been ambivalent in what kind of role it is going to play in the region. Asahi reported an interview to U.S. Senator John McCain who urged Japan to take the same action as a destroyer of U.S. Navy passed the sea area within twelve maritime miles of Spratly Islands, where China was continuing landfill. Japan is drawn into the conflict in far southern sea.

Unusual Distrust on Nuclear Recycle

Nuclear Regulation Authority decided on Wednesday to recommend Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Hiroshi Hase, to replace the organization for operating a fast-breeder reactor, Monju, in Fukui, Japan. NRA dismissed ability of current operator, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, which kept on failing in establishing safety measures. If Hase cannot pick an appropriate operator, the attempt of nuclear fuel recycle in Japan will be seriously damaged.

Monju, sodium-cooled loop type reactor, was built as one of the major facilities for nuclear fuel recycle system. A year after the reactor reached a critical point in 1994, an accident of sodium leak occurred. The government of Japan ordered halting operation for a year. Before the reactor resumed its operation in 2010, the operator made two restructurings. Nevertheless, Monju stopped again in an accident of dropping a relaying device into the reactor three months after the resumption. Making matters worse, JAEA reported insufficiency of inspection for ten thousands of equipments in 2012. NRA ordered JAEA to stop the preparation for restarting the reactor.

Crucial inferiority of JAEA is that its staffs do not realize the problem they have. After the recovery measures from inappropriate operation three years ago, the organization reported that they had finished all inspection on the equipments. In spite of that, JAEA reiterated violations against security regulation for eight times. “They could not answer my question that what was the problem,” told an officer of NRA after he found mistake in the setting of indicators.

NRA required Hase propose an appropriate alternative operator. If he cannot, Hase will have to make complete plan for preserving safety in the reactor. That has to be done within a half year. Chairman of NRA, Shun-ichi Tanaka, does not exclude an option of suspending approval for Monju.

The project of nuclear recycling in Japan is extremely expensive without any achievement so far. The government has been paying for maintenance and safety measures in Monju ¥50 million everyday. The main actor in the recycling is replaced by pluthermal generation, using MOX fuel made by mixing plutonium and uranium produced in nuclear power generation. Monju is already obsolete in the experimental project.

One thing clear is that the people in nuclear village in Japan are too enthusiastic in justifying themselves to show the way Japanese nation should go. As long as they do not stop deceiving the public, Japan keeps on drifting in want of stable energy.

Struggle against Legal Discrimination on Women

Grand Bench of the Supreme Court concluded the argument on the case in which female plaintiffs required compensation for their damage caused by discriminative articles in Civil Codes on Wednesday. Although the first and second courts dismissed their appeals, it is obvious that the provisions are obsolete. The Supreme Court will make decisions on those cases for the first time in its history as soon as the end of this year.

Article 750 of Civil Code determines that “a husband and wife shall adopt the surname of the husband or wife in accordance with that which is decided at the time of marriage. Against the provision, five women in Tokyo filed a lawsuit demanding Japanese government ¥6 million for their mental pains. They argued the provision, coercing change of surname, was violating the Constitution of Japan, which guaranteed the people respect for individuals or gender equality.

One of the plaintiffs, Kaori Oguni, made an argument in the Grand Bench. “When I called my married name, it seemed to be calling someone else,” told Oguni. When she supported writing her client’s living will as an administrative scrivener, her client required her signing with her legal name. But, the client could not identify her, because her husband had very rare surname. “I want the Judges to understand that it is painful to lose one’s existence with marriage,” told Oguni in the press conference about her belief in identity between surname and personality.

The defendant argues that maintaining surname is not an indispensable right for an individual and the article does not harm gender equality as long as it allows choosing one of the two names of the couple. Behind that reasoning, there is a conservative recognition that choosing one name maintains integration of family.

But, Civil Code has further discriminative provision. Article 733 says “a woman may not remarry unless six months have passed since the day of dissolution or rescission of the previous marriage.” While its purpose is to determine the father of baby, if a pregnancy was recognized after her divorce, the article has been criticized as discrimination to all women.

In an argument to the Supreme Court, a representative lawyer for a woman plaintiff emphasized unconstitutionality of the article. The woman was pregnant just before the divorce with her ex-husband, who had been repeating domestic violence on her. Her children could not have any family register, which meant no existence in Japanese society.

Since it may affect fundamental value of the Japanese, the Supreme Court will have to make a difficult judge. But, it is sure that modern Japanese think surname to be nothing guarantees family integration. Technology can determine a child’s father. Traditional disadvantage of woman has to be eliminated.

Nuclear Elimination in Trouble

It must have been a routine resolution in a committee of United Nations. But, Japan, as the main sponsor of it, was fundamentally disappointed with the conclusion, because the minority opposing or defying the resolution were too major to make the concept against nuclear weapon prevalent. The effort of Japan to eliminate nuclear weapon, which severely devastated the island nation seventy years ago, is facing serious trouble.

Japan has been submitting resolutions to declare complete elimination of nuclear weapon and they passed the First Committee of General assembly, which dealt with disarmament and security, for the each of consecutive twenty-two years. This year, the resolution was supported by 156 countries out of the 176. However, United States and United Kingdom, which had been co-sponsors of the resolution until last year, and France, which had been supporting it, abstained from voting.

In the year of seventieth anniversary from atomic devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japanese delegation to U.N. went one step forward in details of the resolution. Using an expression of “Hibakusha,” sufferers from nuclear bombs, the resolution required world leaders to visit Hiroshima or Nagasaki to realize inhumanity of nuclear weapon. On the other hand, it attempted to include nuclear possessing countries into supporters of the resolution by avoiding describing concrete time limit for total elimination of nuclear weapons.

Japanese government was shocked by defiance of U.S., which had been co-sponsoring the resolution from 2009, when U.S. President Barack Obama proposed “the world without nuclear weapon” in Prague. It is likely that U.S. changed the attitude, because the resolution this year included an expression of inhumanity of nuclear weapon. But, U.S. must be worrying about the trend after bitter breaking off in Reviewing Convention of Non-proliferation Treaty this May, which has been moving toward Nuclear Banning Treaty.

Further insulting, China denounced Japan of its insistence on nuclear elimination. “It was a direct consequence of the aggressive war,” told Chinese delegation in the committee. It is rarely heard that war can be settled by using nuclear weapons, if the opponent were aggressive. Sincere reflection of relying on the immoral weapons could not see in this pragmatic nation.

Japan has been appealing the inhumanity of nuclear weapon, which can instantly kill a huge number of innocent people. Upholding a concept of “human security,” Japan has been trying to lead the discussion toward nuclear disarmament. One can think that current shift of Japanese security policy to unleash its military capability caused skepticism on traditional pacifism of Japan.