China: Proposal to use more Mandarin in TV provokes Guangzhou citizens
Written by
Andy
Languages Chinese, English
A recent proposal to use Mandarin instead of Cantonese in the TV news programs of Guangzhou, the capital city of China’s Guangdong province, has been strongly opposed by local residents. The proposal, brought up at the city committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference on July 5, advised Guangzhou TV to use Mandarin more in its news programs or launch a new Mandarin channel. Ji Keguang, a member of the committee, said the proposal is to help visitors who cannot understand Cantonese during the Asian Games, which will be held in Guangzhou from November 12 to 27.
An online survey on the committee’s website, which attracted over 30,000 respondents among whom two-thirds were Guangzhou natives, showed that 80% opposed the proposal. Many opponents worry that the move would threaten Cantonese and related local cultures. Since 1988, local TV stations in Guangzhou are allowed to broadcast in Cantonese in order to compete with TV programs from Hong Kong, which uses Cantonese predominately. While programs in other parts of China have to be broadcasted in Mandarin, this ‘special right’ enjoyed by Guangzhou has strengthened its local identity, as BBC journalist Shen Ping comments.
An editorial in Nanfang Daily, a broadsheet based in Guangzhou, emphasizes the importance of Cantonese as a cultural heritage:
在反对政协建议的过程中，粤语被当作文化保护的对象加以强调。这是正解，应该被理解。况且，粤语不仅是文化，还是广州居民的生活本身，有资格在最通俗的大众媒体——— 电视上占据与之相称的重要地位。假若把粤语从主屏幕上排斥出去，这绝非淘汰语种那么简单，实质是剥除广州人共有、共享的生活方式。如果尊重广州，敬重广式生活，就不该轻率对粤语节目动刑。
While opposing to the committee’s proposal, we should emphasize the protection of Cantonese as a cultural heritage. This should be understood. Moreover, Cantonese is not only cultural, but also a part of local residents’ daily life. Cantonese should therefore play an important role in TV, the most important channel of mass media. Excluding Cantonese from TV programs is not only eliminating a local dialect; it is also stripping Guangzhou citizens of their common way of life. If we respect Guangzhou and its way of life, we should not make the move rashly.
粤语和普语并非天然冲突，两者目前的共存关系历经时间锤炼，是广州文化、民间社会、政府举动、大众意志相互磨合、融通的结果。广州电视台粤语和普语的节目比例，既有赖于媒体的专业操作，也可看作是此种融洽的表现，不应轻易改变。事实上，无论是新移民融入广州，还是广州宣介自身的魅力，粤语从来都不是普通话的敌人。人为制造粤语和普语的对立，恐怕只会两败俱伤。
Cantonese and Mandarin are not natural enemies. Their co-existence is the result of a long period of interactions between local cultures, civil society, government actions and public will. The current ratio between Mandarin and Cantonese broadcast is not only based on operations by the media profession, but also the result of the above-mentioned interactions, and should not be changed easily. In various situations, such as the influx of migrants into Guangzhou, or Guangzhou publicizing its own charm, Cantonese is never Mandarin’s enemy. Artificially creating this opposition would only hurt both sides.
广州声名在外，为人称颂的是其活泼的市民社会，是自由、包容的公共生活，以及它一脉相承、完整保存的岭南文化。不夸张地讲，粤语是广州的历史和现实，是特征也是灵魂。在遏制粤语的情况下，很难想象广州还可以夸耀自己。而丢掉语言和灵魂的广州也走不出去，更不用说走远。驱除不必要的干扰，粤语广州与普语广州和谐相处，不用担心迷失方向。
Guangzhou is reputed for its lively, liberal and inclusive public life. It is also known for its wholly preserved Lingnan culture. We should not underestimate the role of Cantonese as the characteristic and soul of Guangzhou’s history and reality. It is difficult to imagine how Guangzhou can still be proud of itself when Cantonese is being suppressed. Guangzhou cannot get far if it abandons its soul and language. We should get rid of unnecessary interferences, and have confidence that Cantonese and Mandarin can co-exist in Guangzhou.
Many famous media professionals from Guangdong have also expressed worries about the decline of Cantonese. For example,
Chen Yang, media professional:
广州TV将出现天坑！被消失的方言后面必定是被弱势化的文化。
A hole will soon appear at Guangzhou TV! Behind every suppressed dialect lies a marginalized culture.
Wang Yan, news anchor at Guangdong TV:
一种语言代表一种文化，是广州人都要撑粤语。
A dialect represents a culture. Every Guangzhou citizen should defend Cantonese.
Commentators from other parts of China, however, argue that Guangzhou citizens have over-exaggerated the matter. To them, the intention of the proposal is not to marginalize Cantonese, but just to facilitate communications and the development of Guangzhou, where over two-fifths of citizens are from other parts of China.
Rong Guoqiang writes in Qian Jiang Evening News:
广州电视台有综合、新闻、影视、经济、英语、竞赛、少儿等9个频道，但其中以普通话为基本语言的较少。该建议提议说，也可在综合频道或新闻频道的主时段用普通话播出——广州市政协的建议提得很具体：如综合频道和主要频道的中午12时至下午2时、晚上7时—10时，除此之外的粤语播音可一如既往。如此说来，粤语何“沦陷”之有？何来“捍卫”的必要？
Guangzhou TV has nine channels including composite, news, movies, economics, English, sports and kids. Most programs are broadcasted in Cantonese. The proposal suggests that Mandarin could be used in prime time broadcast for the composite and news channels. It is very concrete: apart from the periods 12 – 2pm and 7 – 10pm, Cantonese can still be used in other times as before. Is this really the ‘fall’ of Cantonese? Is there really a need to ‘defend’ it?
即使电视粤语播音真的全部被取消，粤语也未必会“沦陷”，因为粤语仍然是广州市民的日常用语。而且不会有人傻到要取消某种方言，因为方言的消失只有一种可能：在漫长的经济、文化、人口的交互变动中逐渐自然消亡。
Even if all Cantonese broadcasts are cancelled, the dialect will not disappear. This is because Cantonese is still used in daily life. A local dialect will only disappear through gradual and natural economic, cultural and demographic changes.
In Renmin Net, netizen Zhang Junyu thinks that, as other regions in China catch up Guangdong’s economic developments, Guangzhou citizens must change their ‘special right’ mentality, echoing the point made by BBC journalist Shen Ping mentioned above.
正因为在80年代，广州经济风光全国，直接决定了粤语的坚守；到现在，全国经济在平均水平上都赶了上来，人才也出现大流动，广州作为一个地方，要是再排斥普通话，或者在实际生活中拒绝推广普通话，也只能是心理上的一种本能选择，但却已经失去了粤语坚守的最重要的经济基础。
Guangzhou’s economic vibrancy in the 1980s provided confidence for them to defend Cantonese. Now, other parts of China have caught up with Guangzhou, and mass migration within the country is also commonplace. Losing the aura of economic achievement, Guangzhou’s refusal to promote Mandarin can only be interpreted as a psychological choice.
推广普通话也并不是要消除方言，而是方便交流。很多地方的方言都保护得比较好，比如上海、四川、陕西这些地方，这和当地电视台用普通话播新闻并不矛盾，在广东也没必要就起悍然大波。在广东，你会发现收音机，电视，大部分都是粤语播放，就连公交车上的播音都是粤语。外地人可能一下子成了耳盲，彷佛身处外国，这也阻碍了广东成为一个真正的国家大都市。
The purpose of promoting Mandarin is not to destroy a dialect, but to facilitate communications. In many places like Shanghai, Sichuan and Shanxi, the local dialects are well preserved and not in conflict with Mandarin broadcast. There is no need for Guangzhou to stir up such a debate. In Guangdong, Cantonese is widely used in radio, television and even public transportation broadcasts. This creates many difficulties for people from other parts of China, and obstructs Guangzhou from developing into a major metropolitan city.
Commentator Cao Jingxing from Xinmin Net also advises Guangzhou citizens to be more pragmatic:
广东要不要讲广东话，还是讲普通话，他们自己可以做出抉择，总的来说应该平衡，既要考虑发展，也要考虑到保护自己传统的特色。如果过于偏重一方面，比如说，强调发展，大家都讲普通话，结果广东话没人讲了，那当然对广东话不利，有人提出要捍卫广东话，我也可以理解。但是另一方面，过于地去捍卫自己本土的语言，结果妨碍了自己的竞争优势，那对你自己也不利。
Whether Cantonese or Mandarin is used should be decided by Guangzhou citizens themselves. They should strike a balance between facilitating development and preservation of local culture and not bias toward either side. If they emphasize development to the point that no one speaks Cantonese, this would of course be detrimental to the local dialect. On the other hand, if they defend Cantonese to an extent that their competitiveness is reduced, they would just hurt themselves.
However, not everyone subscribes to the view that facilitating communications means that Mandarin has to be used. Blogger Han Yimin writes:
工业化、全球化时代，是否就是方言消灭的时代？许多人坚信普通话对于经济和交流的作用的重要性，甚至把经济发展与方言对立起来，本身就是盲目相信宣传或者肤浅的理解的结果。人们交流的确是需要有共同的语言工具，但在同一文字的中国，不同方言对于经济交流会有怎样的影响？似乎并没有人做过实证研究。我以为，人们之间的交流是通过很多方式和方法的，只要需要交流，人们会想尽办法去相互理解的，而这些办法中，普通话只是其中一种，而且并非最重要的。历史上以千年计算的时间里，不同的方言并没有阻碍中国文化的成长，就是一个明证。至于，是不是大家都要说一口标准的普通话，就更是现代权力意志极为扯淡的混帐决定。想想近现代中国影响巨大的政治人物，孙中山、蒋介石、毛泽东、邓小平，这些人谁会说很标准的普通话？
Do globalization and industrialization imply the destruction of local dialect? Many people emphasize the importance of Mandarin in economic interactions and exchanges. They even think that economic development and local dialects are mutually exclusive. This is the result of credulous belief in propaganda. A common language is important in people-to-people exchanges. But what’s the effect of using different dialects in economic interactions in China where a uniform written script is used? It seems that no one has conducted detailed research in this area. I believe that people can use many ways to communicate with each other. As long as people need to interact, they will strive for ways to understand each other. Mandarin is only one of them, and is not the most important one. The fact that the existence of different dialects has not obstructed the flourishing of Chinese culture for thousands of years is a proof. Promoting standard Mandarin seems to me a draconian decision made by the contemporary Chinese government not supported by sufficient evidence. Think about important figures in modern Chinese history – Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping – which one of them can speak standard Mandarin?
我以为对待方言应该用放任、自由的态度，让市场和人们的交流实践来决定。需要检讨的，反而是政府不遗余力推行普通话的政策，是否存在打压、破坏多元性的地方文化的一面？
I think that we should adopt a laissez-faire and free attitude toward local dialect. Letting people to decide from actual experiences should be the way forward. What requires examination is whether official policy to promote Mandarin has the intention to suppress local culture.
Ananda was the disciple of the Buddha. Even so, his opinion did not surpass that of outsiders. I want to ask you monks: How much difference is there between disciples and outsiders? To tread the sharp edge of a sword, To run on smooth-frozen ice, One needs no footsteps to follow. Walk over the cliffs with hands free.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Why do Prime Ministers Change Before Upper House Elections?
— The political dynamics behind prime ministers changes
Airo Hino
Associate Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University
Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama announced his resignation right before the Upper House elections. Looking back, it was a short-lived administration which lasted only eight months. Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said, “Including the next prime minister, there will have been 16 prime ministers since entering the Heisei Era 22 years ago. Although people call for change, isn't changing prime ministers this often a bit too much?” Except for Koizumi, who held office for five years and five months, each prime minister during the Heisei Era was only in power for an average of approximately one year. Even in the UK, which is said to be a model country in terms of political reform, prime ministers hold office for an average of over five years. So why do prime ministers change so frequently in Japan—after remarkably short terms, when compared with other developed countries?
The reason that prime ministers have been holding shorter terms in recent years might be because the politicians of Nagata-cho, Japan's political center, have begun responding sensitively to opinion polls, which are being carried out more frequently than in the past. It is a fact that even the media has been repeating the message that the cabinet's approval rating will be in the danger zone if it drops below than 30%. However, opinion poll reports are conducted not only in Japan but in other developed countries as well. Opinion polls are regularly conducted in the UK and the US by research and media organizations.
Public opinion poll reports have most likely encouraged the shortening of prime ministers' terms in office. However, I would like to point out that the Upper House elections set the stage for changing prime ministers. In Japan, half of the Upper House members will be re-elected once every three years. As would be expected, except for double elections, this schedule differs from that of the elections of Lower House members who hold terms of four years. This means that national elections are held at least six times in 12 years (including one double election) even if the Lower House is not dissolved.
Actually, the fact that the election schedules for both houses are not synchronized has hardly drawn any attention as something very unusual up to now even in developed nations. First of all, there is no difference in election schedules in Northern European nations that have adopted unicameral systems such as Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland. Furthermore, citizens do not directly elect lawmakers in many countries which have adopted bicameral systems. Citizens cannot vote directly for lawmakers because the UK's House of Lords is fundamentally a hereditary system, and due to the fact that the Dutch Senate, French Senate, and the German Bundesrat have each adopted an indirect system of voting handled by each state or other regional level government. The only other countries with Upper Houses where citizens can vote directly for members as in Japan are nations such as Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Switzerland. Additionally, Japan is the only one of these countries where the elections of both houses are held separately. The fact that Japan's bicameral system utilizes a unique election schedule is worthy of attention.
The separate voting days for both houses have an important implication in the political dynamics behind the change of prime ministers. Even if they temporarily earn the trust of citizens in the general elections, prime ministers will definitely be exposed to public examination—the Upper House elections that take place over their four year terms. In US mid-term elections, which are held two years after presidential elections, it is well known that there is a trend for political parties in power to be defeated. Since Japan's Upper House elections are also positioned as mid-term elections, the Hashimoto cabinet stepped down after taking the blame for the loss of the 1998 Upper House elections. This is a classic example of the ruling party losing in a mid-term election. In order for a prime minister to remain in power, they must first jump over the hurdle of the Upper House elections which is considered to be more difficult than the Lower House elections.
The party in power at the time must do everything possible in order to make it over the mid-term election hurdle. The Democratic Party of Japan's so-called replacement this time was a normal measure of the Liberal Democratic Party that was taken in the past. For example, the Takeshita Cabinet stepped down on June 3rd, 1989 amid mounting criticism of the Recruit Scandal and the introduction of the consumption tax. Similarly, the Mori Cabinet stepped down on April 26th, 2001 amid mounting criticism of Prime Minister Mori's behavior. Both resignations occurred with a focus on the upcoming Upper House elections in July of each of those years.
On the other hand, the outcomes of these resignations played out differently. According to a Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper opinion poll, approval ratings for the Takeshita Cabinet in April 1989 sank down into the single digits to 8%. Quickly taking the helm, the Uno Cabinet could not recover approval ratings after its inauguration with an approval rating of just less than 23%. As a result, the party suffered a crucial setback losing 36 seats, around half of the seats up for re-election during the Upper House election that July. In contrast, although the approval rating for the Mori Cabinet had hovered around a low of 8% in February 2001, the Koizumi Cabinet came in and took Japan by storm with its record-high approval rating of 85% in May 2001. And in the following July elections, the LDP was able to make a comeback by successfully gaining 64 seats.
What was the difference between these two incoming cabinets? The difference was how deeply they were able to instill the image into the minds of the citizens that the previous cabinet had been reformed. Sosuke Uno, who served as Foreign Minister of the Takeshita Cabinet, took over the administration because he had upcoming summits at the time. Despite aiming for legitimate politics, such as selecting cabinet ministers that were not involved with the Recruit Scandal, Uno's geisha scandal was catastrophic. This led citizens to believe that the cabinet had not been reformed. In contrast, Koizumi, who once said that he would “crush the LDP” and won the LDP's presidential election, successfully instilled the image in citizens that the LDP, as they knew it, had been reformed. With the inauguration of the new cabinet, citizens felt as if a regime change had occurred. It is safe to say that whether this pseudo regime change can play out or not will determine the outcome of the new cabinet.
I wonder to what extent the newly inaugurated Kan Cabinet will be able to allow this pseudo regime change to play out. Opinion polls after the inauguration of the new cabinet show a v-shaped turn around across the board in approval ratings. It is most likely citizens reacting to the appeal of Prime Minister Kan diluting the influence of former DPJ Secretary General Ozawa in appointing party executives and selecting cabinet ministers. The original members of the former DPJ, who have been around since its founding in 1996, are taking important posts such as secretary general and chief cabinet secretary. Since merging the Liberal Party with the DPJ in 2003, it seems like Ozawa has taken over the house. However, I wonder if Prime Minister Kan will strive to reform this image by returning to the DPJ's initial objectives. Although the LDP is ridiculed for merely promoting vice presidents to be presidents, to what extent can Prime Minister Kan differentiate himself from the Hatoyama Cabinet? I wonder if this can be predicted from the results of the upcoming Upper House elections.
Airo Hino
Associate Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University
Profile
Professor Airo Hino was born in 1974. He graduated from the School of Political Science and Economics at Waseda University—completing the Master's Program in the Graduate School of Political Science there—and then received a Ph.D in Political Science from the University of Essex in the UK. He was a research fellow in the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, received a government sponsored foreign study scholarship from the Region of Flanders, Belgium (Institute of Social and Political Opinion Research, Catholic University of Leuven), and served as a fellow at the Center of Comparative Politics, Catholic University of New Louvain [Belgium]). After holding the position of Associate Professor at Tokyo Metropolitan University, he took up his current position as Associate Professor on the Faculty of Political Science and Economics at Waseda University in 2010.
Professor Hino's major publications include the following:
Censored and hurdle regression models in TSCS data (Japanese Journal of Electoral Studies, Volume 26, No. 1, 2010)
The 2009 General Elections and New Opinion Poll Challenges [2009 Nen Sosenkyo to Atarashi Yoron Chosa no Kokoromi] (Yoron, No. 105, 2010)
Perspectives of Political Change [Seiji Henyo no Pasupekutibu], Second Edition (Kensuke Kaku, Hitoshi Maruyama, coauthors) (Minerva Shobo, 2010)
Why did the 2009 Government Change Occur?- Close Analysis of the Japanese Political Transformation Through Joint Research with Yomiuri Shimbun and Waseda University [2009 Nen, Naze Seijikokan Datta no ka- Yomiuri Waseda no Kyodo Chosa de Yomitoku Nihon Seiji no Tenkan] (Aiji Tanaka, Masaru Kohno, Airo Hino, Takeshi Iida, Yomiuri Shimbun Opinion Poll Department) (Keiso Shobo, 2009)
EU and European Integration Study [EU Oshu Togo Kenkyu] (Koji Fukuda, editor and coauthor) (Seibundo, 2009)
Democracy in Europe— [Yoroppa no Demokurashi] (Ryosuke Amiya, Takeshi Ito, Takashi Narihiro, editors and coauthors) (Nakanishiya Shupan, 2009)
Frontier of Voting Behavior Research [Tohyo Kodo Kenkyu no Furontia] (Masahiro Yamada, Takeshi Iida, Editors and Coauthors) (Ohfu, 2009)
Time-Series QCA: Studying Temporal Change through Boolean Analysis (Sociological Theory and Methods, Volume 24, No. 2, 2009)
New Parties in Government (Kris Deschouwer, Editor and Coauthor) (Routledge, 2008)
Elections: Le reflux? (Andre-Paul Frognier, Lieven De Winter, and Pierre Baudewyn, Editors and Coauthors) (De Boeck, 2007)
De Kiezer Onderzocht (Marc Swyngedouw, Jaak Billiet, and Bart Goeminne, Editors and Coauthors) (Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2007)
— The political dynamics behind prime ministers changes
Airo Hino
Associate Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University
Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama announced his resignation right before the Upper House elections. Looking back, it was a short-lived administration which lasted only eight months. Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said, “Including the next prime minister, there will have been 16 prime ministers since entering the Heisei Era 22 years ago. Although people call for change, isn't changing prime ministers this often a bit too much?” Except for Koizumi, who held office for five years and five months, each prime minister during the Heisei Era was only in power for an average of approximately one year. Even in the UK, which is said to be a model country in terms of political reform, prime ministers hold office for an average of over five years. So why do prime ministers change so frequently in Japan—after remarkably short terms, when compared with other developed countries?
The reason that prime ministers have been holding shorter terms in recent years might be because the politicians of Nagata-cho, Japan's political center, have begun responding sensitively to opinion polls, which are being carried out more frequently than in the past. It is a fact that even the media has been repeating the message that the cabinet's approval rating will be in the danger zone if it drops below than 30%. However, opinion poll reports are conducted not only in Japan but in other developed countries as well. Opinion polls are regularly conducted in the UK and the US by research and media organizations.
Public opinion poll reports have most likely encouraged the shortening of prime ministers' terms in office. However, I would like to point out that the Upper House elections set the stage for changing prime ministers. In Japan, half of the Upper House members will be re-elected once every three years. As would be expected, except for double elections, this schedule differs from that of the elections of Lower House members who hold terms of four years. This means that national elections are held at least six times in 12 years (including one double election) even if the Lower House is not dissolved.
Actually, the fact that the election schedules for both houses are not synchronized has hardly drawn any attention as something very unusual up to now even in developed nations. First of all, there is no difference in election schedules in Northern European nations that have adopted unicameral systems such as Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland. Furthermore, citizens do not directly elect lawmakers in many countries which have adopted bicameral systems. Citizens cannot vote directly for lawmakers because the UK's House of Lords is fundamentally a hereditary system, and due to the fact that the Dutch Senate, French Senate, and the German Bundesrat have each adopted an indirect system of voting handled by each state or other regional level government. The only other countries with Upper Houses where citizens can vote directly for members as in Japan are nations such as Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Switzerland. Additionally, Japan is the only one of these countries where the elections of both houses are held separately. The fact that Japan's bicameral system utilizes a unique election schedule is worthy of attention.
The separate voting days for both houses have an important implication in the political dynamics behind the change of prime ministers. Even if they temporarily earn the trust of citizens in the general elections, prime ministers will definitely be exposed to public examination—the Upper House elections that take place over their four year terms. In US mid-term elections, which are held two years after presidential elections, it is well known that there is a trend for political parties in power to be defeated. Since Japan's Upper House elections are also positioned as mid-term elections, the Hashimoto cabinet stepped down after taking the blame for the loss of the 1998 Upper House elections. This is a classic example of the ruling party losing in a mid-term election. In order for a prime minister to remain in power, they must first jump over the hurdle of the Upper House elections which is considered to be more difficult than the Lower House elections.
The party in power at the time must do everything possible in order to make it over the mid-term election hurdle. The Democratic Party of Japan's so-called replacement this time was a normal measure of the Liberal Democratic Party that was taken in the past. For example, the Takeshita Cabinet stepped down on June 3rd, 1989 amid mounting criticism of the Recruit Scandal and the introduction of the consumption tax. Similarly, the Mori Cabinet stepped down on April 26th, 2001 amid mounting criticism of Prime Minister Mori's behavior. Both resignations occurred with a focus on the upcoming Upper House elections in July of each of those years.
On the other hand, the outcomes of these resignations played out differently. According to a Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper opinion poll, approval ratings for the Takeshita Cabinet in April 1989 sank down into the single digits to 8%. Quickly taking the helm, the Uno Cabinet could not recover approval ratings after its inauguration with an approval rating of just less than 23%. As a result, the party suffered a crucial setback losing 36 seats, around half of the seats up for re-election during the Upper House election that July. In contrast, although the approval rating for the Mori Cabinet had hovered around a low of 8% in February 2001, the Koizumi Cabinet came in and took Japan by storm with its record-high approval rating of 85% in May 2001. And in the following July elections, the LDP was able to make a comeback by successfully gaining 64 seats.
What was the difference between these two incoming cabinets? The difference was how deeply they were able to instill the image into the minds of the citizens that the previous cabinet had been reformed. Sosuke Uno, who served as Foreign Minister of the Takeshita Cabinet, took over the administration because he had upcoming summits at the time. Despite aiming for legitimate politics, such as selecting cabinet ministers that were not involved with the Recruit Scandal, Uno's geisha scandal was catastrophic. This led citizens to believe that the cabinet had not been reformed. In contrast, Koizumi, who once said that he would “crush the LDP” and won the LDP's presidential election, successfully instilled the image in citizens that the LDP, as they knew it, had been reformed. With the inauguration of the new cabinet, citizens felt as if a regime change had occurred. It is safe to say that whether this pseudo regime change can play out or not will determine the outcome of the new cabinet.
I wonder to what extent the newly inaugurated Kan Cabinet will be able to allow this pseudo regime change to play out. Opinion polls after the inauguration of the new cabinet show a v-shaped turn around across the board in approval ratings. It is most likely citizens reacting to the appeal of Prime Minister Kan diluting the influence of former DPJ Secretary General Ozawa in appointing party executives and selecting cabinet ministers. The original members of the former DPJ, who have been around since its founding in 1996, are taking important posts such as secretary general and chief cabinet secretary. Since merging the Liberal Party with the DPJ in 2003, it seems like Ozawa has taken over the house. However, I wonder if Prime Minister Kan will strive to reform this image by returning to the DPJ's initial objectives. Although the LDP is ridiculed for merely promoting vice presidents to be presidents, to what extent can Prime Minister Kan differentiate himself from the Hatoyama Cabinet? I wonder if this can be predicted from the results of the upcoming Upper House elections.
Airo Hino
Associate Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University
Profile
Professor Airo Hino was born in 1974. He graduated from the School of Political Science and Economics at Waseda University—completing the Master's Program in the Graduate School of Political Science there—and then received a Ph.D in Political Science from the University of Essex in the UK. He was a research fellow in the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, received a government sponsored foreign study scholarship from the Region of Flanders, Belgium (Institute of Social and Political Opinion Research, Catholic University of Leuven), and served as a fellow at the Center of Comparative Politics, Catholic University of New Louvain [Belgium]). After holding the position of Associate Professor at Tokyo Metropolitan University, he took up his current position as Associate Professor on the Faculty of Political Science and Economics at Waseda University in 2010.
Professor Hino's major publications include the following:
Censored and hurdle regression models in TSCS data (Japanese Journal of Electoral Studies, Volume 26, No. 1, 2010)
The 2009 General Elections and New Opinion Poll Challenges [2009 Nen Sosenkyo to Atarashi Yoron Chosa no Kokoromi] (Yoron, No. 105, 2010)
Perspectives of Political Change [Seiji Henyo no Pasupekutibu], Second Edition (Kensuke Kaku, Hitoshi Maruyama, coauthors) (Minerva Shobo, 2010)
Why did the 2009 Government Change Occur?- Close Analysis of the Japanese Political Transformation Through Joint Research with Yomiuri Shimbun and Waseda University [2009 Nen, Naze Seijikokan Datta no ka- Yomiuri Waseda no Kyodo Chosa de Yomitoku Nihon Seiji no Tenkan] (Aiji Tanaka, Masaru Kohno, Airo Hino, Takeshi Iida, Yomiuri Shimbun Opinion Poll Department) (Keiso Shobo, 2009)
EU and European Integration Study [EU Oshu Togo Kenkyu] (Koji Fukuda, editor and coauthor) (Seibundo, 2009)
Democracy in Europe— [Yoroppa no Demokurashi] (Ryosuke Amiya, Takeshi Ito, Takashi Narihiro, editors and coauthors) (Nakanishiya Shupan, 2009)
Frontier of Voting Behavior Research [Tohyo Kodo Kenkyu no Furontia] (Masahiro Yamada, Takeshi Iida, Editors and Coauthors) (Ohfu, 2009)
Time-Series QCA: Studying Temporal Change through Boolean Analysis (Sociological Theory and Methods, Volume 24, No. 2, 2009)
New Parties in Government (Kris Deschouwer, Editor and Coauthor) (Routledge, 2008)
Elections: Le reflux? (Andre-Paul Frognier, Lieven De Winter, and Pierre Baudewyn, Editors and Coauthors) (De Boeck, 2007)
De Kiezer Onderzocht (Marc Swyngedouw, Jaak Billiet, and Bart Goeminne, Editors and Coauthors) (Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2007)
iGoogle
The Horizon of Historical Research
Japanese-Chinese Historical Perception and Oral History
Ryuji Hattori
Professor of International Policy History, East Asia International Political History,Faculty of Policy Studies, Chuo University
Past and PresentAlmost 20 years have passed since I began my research in the history of international politics and foreign policy. In academic circles, my area of specialty is referred to as international political history or foreign policy history. Many people are unfamiliar with such fields.
Generally speaking, my research focuses on modern history. My first written work was Japanese Diplomacy and East Asian International Politics, 1918-1931 (Yukihaku Publishing, 2001).
What kinds of possibilities exist in historical research? What is the meaning of emphasizing a historical approach? Even extremely modern phenomena contain a confluence of past events, and today is the result of an accumulating of history. It is essential to deepen one's understanding of history in order to understand the present.
Even in the case of seemingly dry and boring history, a surprising number of interpretations become possible when you increase your knowledge. Study the past in order to understand the present. The present becomes clear through knowledge of the past.
Portraying peopleBiographical research is an antithetical approach to international political history. International political history takes a bird's eye view of the world. In contrast, prosopography, or the research of individuals, focuses on specific individuals and portrays people from within.
I have researched individuals such as the diplomats Kijuro Shidehara and Koki Hirota. Both of these men have served as Minister of Foreign Affairs and as Prime Minister, thus making them important when discussing Japan's external relations. At some point in the future, I would also like to write biographies about other individuals.
Critical reflection upon my own research was one of the reasons that led me to begin biographical research. Until that time, I had performed research in international political history using a method known as the multi-archival approach. This method uses materials such as the foreign policy documents of various countries. When taking this bird's eye view of history, it seems easy to lose the ground-level perspective of politicians and diplomats who were active in making such history.
However, international politics is nothing other than the ceaseless mutual interaction of deeds performed by individuals. In this respect, it seems that the ideal research would involve both international political history and a biographical approach. However, I feel that performing such research is more time-consuming and difficult than ever.
Historical PerceptionIn recent years, my research also includes the subject of historical perception. In particular, I have researched the Tanaka Memorial as a document that symbolizes the discrepancy of historical perception between Japan and China.
The Tanaka Memorial is a document that is alleged to have been presented to Emperor Hirohito by Prime Minister Giichi Tanaka at the beginning of the Showa Period. It is perhaps the most famous disputed document in the history of Japan-China relations. The Tanaka Memorial describes a plan for the invasion of China. Although the document is viewed as a forgery in Japan, there is a growing trend in China to view the document as authentic.
History buffs may be familiar with an eerie passage from the Tanaka Memorial: “In order to take over the world, you need to take over China. In order to take over China, you need to take over Manchuria and Mongolia.”
After the Manchurian Incident, the Tanaka Memorial was the subject of debate by the United Nations. One particularly well-known incident is the verbal battle which took place at the United Nations between Yosuke Matsuoka and Gu Weijin, a famous Chinese diplomat. During the period from the Sino-Japanese War until the Pacific War, the Tanaka Memorial was used by both China and America to advertise against Japan. The document also appears in the wartime propaganda films of director Frank Capra.
The Tanaka Memorial was also placed on trial at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), and the document has been quoted as if it were true in publications such as the People's Daily newspaper. It is also exhibited as a genuine article at museums in China.
International politics as an information warIf there is a lesson to be learned from the Tanaka Memorial, it is the importance of information wars in international politics. The Tanaka Memorial hints at the enormous role played by advertising and media in modern politics. It must be said that Japan not only lost the Pacific War, but also lost the advertising battle regarding Japan's image.
When remembering both the information war conducted during war time and the long-term influence after the war, the circulation of the Tanaka Memorial throughout the war cannot be dismissed as simply a strange twist of fate. Even though it may appear as such, the presence of advertising and media exist in the background of the affair.
Even in the case of forged documents and mistaken facts, it is difficult to deny a material once it has been circulated overseas. Even an obvious forgery has the possibility of being used to from anti-Japanese sentiment. Furthermore, the U.S. State Department at that time had almost no Japanese experts who were capable of determining that the Tanaka Memorial was a forger.
When arguing about the authenticity of historical issues without discretion, it can be manipulated to be used for advertising even it is a valid assertion. In international politics, the dimension of information wars exists separately from facts. This can influence the view of Japan held by foreign countries.
At the very least, it must be admitted that an information war existed behind the historical perception regarding the Tanaka Memorial. This document has been circulated since more than 80 years ago, and, even today, it continues to exemplify the importance of advertising and media in international politics.
Joint research in Japanese-Chinese history
Image of Japanese-Chinese Historical Perception
Japanese relations with China and Korea had become complicated during the time of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's cabinet, and joint research in Japanese-Chinese history was held beginning from 2006. I participated in the research as an external writer, and I composed a section which includes a discussion of the Tanaka Memorial. The report of the joint research was presented in January 2010.
In Japan, the matter of the Tanaka Memorial is often dismissed with a laugh. However, from the perspective of historical research, we must ask ourselves why an obvious forgery like the Tanaka Memorial is readily accepted as an authentic document in other countries, and why other countries are distancing themselves from Japan.
When considering the long-term influence of the Tanaka Memorial, I thought it would be appropriate for me to publish at least one work regarding the document. With this in mind, I wrote a book entitled Understanding Sino-Japanese History: Conflict over the Tanaka Memorial, 1927-2010 (University of Tokyo Press, 2010).
Oral history
Image of Illuminations
The past few years, I have been focusing on the topic of oral history in addition to historical perception. Oral history is a systematic discussion held directly with politicians, diplomats and other individuals involved in politics. Such discussion provides insight on political processes, human relationships and foreign perspectives that are difficult to ascertain from historical documents.
As a result of such discussions, I published the book Illuminations and Retrospectives on Masayoshi Ohira—The Man and His Foreign Policy (Daiichi-Hoki Publishing, 2010). The work was written with cooperation from Hajime Morita and edited by Ryuji Hattori, Amiko Nobori and Takuma Nakajima. The book contains an oral history of Hajime Morita, former Minister of Transport and also known as the son-in-law and private secretary to Masayoshi Ohira.
Although Morita originally held the position of bureaucrat, he served as the private secretary of Ohira for many years. In 1980, Ohira suddenly died during his term as Prime Minister, and Morita switched to politics by inheriting Ohira's support base in Kagawa Prefecture. In general, my discussions with Morita examined Ohira in great detail from the perspective of foreign policy, and my work Illuminations follows this trend. This year marks both the 30th anniversary of Ohira's death and the 100th anniversary of his birth.
Illuminations examines the foreign policy and structuring of regional order by Ohira from the two perspectives of his time as Minister of Foreign Affairs and as Prime Minister. The book also covers the secret agreement made between Japan and America. All of these topics are discussed at great length by Morita, who was one of Ohira's closest and most trusted confidants. The secret agreement between Japan and America refers to the nuclear secret agreement made when revising the Japan-U.S. Security Agreement and to the financial security agreement associated with the return of Okinawa.
Ohira was persuaded to accept the nuclear secret agreement by Reischauer, the American ambassador to Japan. Ohira worried for a long time whether he should announce the existence of the nuclear secret agreement to Japanese citizens. During his term as Prime Minister, he proposed a disclosure of the agreement to his aides. Regarding the financial secret agreement, Japan transferred 4 million dollars to America in exchange for the return of Okinawa. Morita candidly discusses his involvement in the agreement as a bureaucrat.
Even in the field of domestic politics, Morita held a lively discussion regarding the national image created by Ohira, exchanges with influential politicians such as Kakuei Tanaka, a lineage of the Kouchikai (a political faction of the Japanese LDP), and the dissension of the politician Koichi Kato.
The horizon of historical researchTogether with fields such as biographical research and historical perception, I hope to continue my research in oral history for a bit longer, although I am currently examining the extent of possibilities. I would like to leave research hints for future generations.
Just the other day, I finished discussions with a former Prime Minister and a former Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am currently preparing to publish another book. Generally speaking, research in oral history is conducted by several individuals, so I am learning a great amount from other researchers.
I also hope to conduct more extensive research regarding the stabilization of Japan-China relationships that Ohira worked to realize during his term as Minister of Foreign Affairs. I would like to traverse the horizon of historical research while holding multiple interviews and filing requests for disclosure of information.
Ryuji Hattori
Professor of International Policy History, East Asia International Political History, Faculty of Policy Studies, Chuo University
Born in Tokyo. Graduated from the Kyoto University School of Law in 1992. Completed his graduate studies at the Kobe University Graduate School of Law in 1997. In the same year, assumed the position of Research Associate at Chiba University. Served as Associate Professor at Takushoku University and as Assistant Professor at Chuo University before assuming his current position in 2010. Holds a PhD in political science. His major written works include Japanese Diplomacy and East Asian International Politics, 1918-1931 (Yukihaku Publishing, 2001), Shidehara Kijuro and Japan in the 20th Century: Diplomacy and Democracy (Yukihaku Publishing, 2006), Koki Hirota (Chuo Koron Shinsha Publishing , 2008), and Understanding Sino-Japanese History: Conflict over the Tanaka Memorial, 1927-2010 (University of Tokyo Press, 2010).
Japanese-Chinese Historical Perception and Oral History
Ryuji Hattori
Professor of International Policy History, East Asia International Political History,Faculty of Policy Studies, Chuo University
Past and PresentAlmost 20 years have passed since I began my research in the history of international politics and foreign policy. In academic circles, my area of specialty is referred to as international political history or foreign policy history. Many people are unfamiliar with such fields.
Generally speaking, my research focuses on modern history. My first written work was Japanese Diplomacy and East Asian International Politics, 1918-1931 (Yukihaku Publishing, 2001).
What kinds of possibilities exist in historical research? What is the meaning of emphasizing a historical approach? Even extremely modern phenomena contain a confluence of past events, and today is the result of an accumulating of history. It is essential to deepen one's understanding of history in order to understand the present.
Even in the case of seemingly dry and boring history, a surprising number of interpretations become possible when you increase your knowledge. Study the past in order to understand the present. The present becomes clear through knowledge of the past.
Portraying peopleBiographical research is an antithetical approach to international political history. International political history takes a bird's eye view of the world. In contrast, prosopography, or the research of individuals, focuses on specific individuals and portrays people from within.
I have researched individuals such as the diplomats Kijuro Shidehara and Koki Hirota. Both of these men have served as Minister of Foreign Affairs and as Prime Minister, thus making them important when discussing Japan's external relations. At some point in the future, I would also like to write biographies about other individuals.
Critical reflection upon my own research was one of the reasons that led me to begin biographical research. Until that time, I had performed research in international political history using a method known as the multi-archival approach. This method uses materials such as the foreign policy documents of various countries. When taking this bird's eye view of history, it seems easy to lose the ground-level perspective of politicians and diplomats who were active in making such history.
However, international politics is nothing other than the ceaseless mutual interaction of deeds performed by individuals. In this respect, it seems that the ideal research would involve both international political history and a biographical approach. However, I feel that performing such research is more time-consuming and difficult than ever.
Historical PerceptionIn recent years, my research also includes the subject of historical perception. In particular, I have researched the Tanaka Memorial as a document that symbolizes the discrepancy of historical perception between Japan and China.
The Tanaka Memorial is a document that is alleged to have been presented to Emperor Hirohito by Prime Minister Giichi Tanaka at the beginning of the Showa Period. It is perhaps the most famous disputed document in the history of Japan-China relations. The Tanaka Memorial describes a plan for the invasion of China. Although the document is viewed as a forgery in Japan, there is a growing trend in China to view the document as authentic.
History buffs may be familiar with an eerie passage from the Tanaka Memorial: “In order to take over the world, you need to take over China. In order to take over China, you need to take over Manchuria and Mongolia.”
After the Manchurian Incident, the Tanaka Memorial was the subject of debate by the United Nations. One particularly well-known incident is the verbal battle which took place at the United Nations between Yosuke Matsuoka and Gu Weijin, a famous Chinese diplomat. During the period from the Sino-Japanese War until the Pacific War, the Tanaka Memorial was used by both China and America to advertise against Japan. The document also appears in the wartime propaganda films of director Frank Capra.
The Tanaka Memorial was also placed on trial at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), and the document has been quoted as if it were true in publications such as the People's Daily newspaper. It is also exhibited as a genuine article at museums in China.
International politics as an information warIf there is a lesson to be learned from the Tanaka Memorial, it is the importance of information wars in international politics. The Tanaka Memorial hints at the enormous role played by advertising and media in modern politics. It must be said that Japan not only lost the Pacific War, but also lost the advertising battle regarding Japan's image.
When remembering both the information war conducted during war time and the long-term influence after the war, the circulation of the Tanaka Memorial throughout the war cannot be dismissed as simply a strange twist of fate. Even though it may appear as such, the presence of advertising and media exist in the background of the affair.
Even in the case of forged documents and mistaken facts, it is difficult to deny a material once it has been circulated overseas. Even an obvious forgery has the possibility of being used to from anti-Japanese sentiment. Furthermore, the U.S. State Department at that time had almost no Japanese experts who were capable of determining that the Tanaka Memorial was a forger.
When arguing about the authenticity of historical issues without discretion, it can be manipulated to be used for advertising even it is a valid assertion. In international politics, the dimension of information wars exists separately from facts. This can influence the view of Japan held by foreign countries.
At the very least, it must be admitted that an information war existed behind the historical perception regarding the Tanaka Memorial. This document has been circulated since more than 80 years ago, and, even today, it continues to exemplify the importance of advertising and media in international politics.
Joint research in Japanese-Chinese history
Image of Japanese-Chinese Historical Perception
Japanese relations with China and Korea had become complicated during the time of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's cabinet, and joint research in Japanese-Chinese history was held beginning from 2006. I participated in the research as an external writer, and I composed a section which includes a discussion of the Tanaka Memorial. The report of the joint research was presented in January 2010.
In Japan, the matter of the Tanaka Memorial is often dismissed with a laugh. However, from the perspective of historical research, we must ask ourselves why an obvious forgery like the Tanaka Memorial is readily accepted as an authentic document in other countries, and why other countries are distancing themselves from Japan.
When considering the long-term influence of the Tanaka Memorial, I thought it would be appropriate for me to publish at least one work regarding the document. With this in mind, I wrote a book entitled Understanding Sino-Japanese History: Conflict over the Tanaka Memorial, 1927-2010 (University of Tokyo Press, 2010).
Oral history
Image of Illuminations
The past few years, I have been focusing on the topic of oral history in addition to historical perception. Oral history is a systematic discussion held directly with politicians, diplomats and other individuals involved in politics. Such discussion provides insight on political processes, human relationships and foreign perspectives that are difficult to ascertain from historical documents.
As a result of such discussions, I published the book Illuminations and Retrospectives on Masayoshi Ohira—The Man and His Foreign Policy (Daiichi-Hoki Publishing, 2010). The work was written with cooperation from Hajime Morita and edited by Ryuji Hattori, Amiko Nobori and Takuma Nakajima. The book contains an oral history of Hajime Morita, former Minister of Transport and also known as the son-in-law and private secretary to Masayoshi Ohira.
Although Morita originally held the position of bureaucrat, he served as the private secretary of Ohira for many years. In 1980, Ohira suddenly died during his term as Prime Minister, and Morita switched to politics by inheriting Ohira's support base in Kagawa Prefecture. In general, my discussions with Morita examined Ohira in great detail from the perspective of foreign policy, and my work Illuminations follows this trend. This year marks both the 30th anniversary of Ohira's death and the 100th anniversary of his birth.
Illuminations examines the foreign policy and structuring of regional order by Ohira from the two perspectives of his time as Minister of Foreign Affairs and as Prime Minister. The book also covers the secret agreement made between Japan and America. All of these topics are discussed at great length by Morita, who was one of Ohira's closest and most trusted confidants. The secret agreement between Japan and America refers to the nuclear secret agreement made when revising the Japan-U.S. Security Agreement and to the financial security agreement associated with the return of Okinawa.
Ohira was persuaded to accept the nuclear secret agreement by Reischauer, the American ambassador to Japan. Ohira worried for a long time whether he should announce the existence of the nuclear secret agreement to Japanese citizens. During his term as Prime Minister, he proposed a disclosure of the agreement to his aides. Regarding the financial secret agreement, Japan transferred 4 million dollars to America in exchange for the return of Okinawa. Morita candidly discusses his involvement in the agreement as a bureaucrat.
Even in the field of domestic politics, Morita held a lively discussion regarding the national image created by Ohira, exchanges with influential politicians such as Kakuei Tanaka, a lineage of the Kouchikai (a political faction of the Japanese LDP), and the dissension of the politician Koichi Kato.
The horizon of historical researchTogether with fields such as biographical research and historical perception, I hope to continue my research in oral history for a bit longer, although I am currently examining the extent of possibilities. I would like to leave research hints for future generations.
Just the other day, I finished discussions with a former Prime Minister and a former Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am currently preparing to publish another book. Generally speaking, research in oral history is conducted by several individuals, so I am learning a great amount from other researchers.
I also hope to conduct more extensive research regarding the stabilization of Japan-China relationships that Ohira worked to realize during his term as Minister of Foreign Affairs. I would like to traverse the horizon of historical research while holding multiple interviews and filing requests for disclosure of information.
Ryuji Hattori
Professor of International Policy History, East Asia International Political History, Faculty of Policy Studies, Chuo University
Born in Tokyo. Graduated from the Kyoto University School of Law in 1992. Completed his graduate studies at the Kobe University Graduate School of Law in 1997. In the same year, assumed the position of Research Associate at Chiba University. Served as Associate Professor at Takushoku University and as Assistant Professor at Chuo University before assuming his current position in 2010. Holds a PhD in political science. His major written works include Japanese Diplomacy and East Asian International Politics, 1918-1931 (Yukihaku Publishing, 2001), Shidehara Kijuro and Japan in the 20th Century: Diplomacy and Democracy (Yukihaku Publishing, 2006), Koki Hirota (Chuo Koron Shinsha Publishing , 2008), and Understanding Sino-Japanese History: Conflict over the Tanaka Memorial, 1927-2010 (University of Tokyo Press, 2010).