DEBITO.ORG READERS’ ISSUES OF CONCERN, JANUARY 2026

Posted on by Debito Arudou, Ph.D.

mytest

Books, eBooks, and more from Debito Arudou, Ph.D. (click on icon):
Guidebookcover.jpgjapaneseonlyebookcovertextHandbook for Newcomers, Migrants, and Immigrants to Japan「ジャパニーズ・オンリー　小樽入浴拒否問題と人種差別」（明石書店）sourstrawberriesavatardebitopodcastthumbFodorsJapan2014cover
UPDATES ON TWITTER: arudoudebito
DEBITO.ORG PODCASTS on iTunes, subscribe free
“LIKE” US on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/debitoorg
https://www.facebook.com/embeddedrcsmJapan
http://www.facebook.com/handbookimmigrants
https://www.facebook.com/JapaneseOnlyTheBook
https://www.facebook.com/BookInAppropriate
If you like what you read and discuss on Debito.org, please consider helping us stop hackers and defray maintenance costs with a little donation via my webhoster:
Donate towards my web hosting bill!
All donations go towards website costs only. Thanks for your support!

Hi Blog.  I write Debito.org SNA “Visible Minorities” columns once a month (SNA website here) and send Debito.org Newsletters to subscribers sporadically.  After sending, I archive them here, and below, Debito.org Readers have been adding recent issues and articles that concern them regardless of the content of the post over the past several years.  It’s been a good way to allow Readers to be heard and engaged.

I still put out Debito.org Newsletters, but since I’m only posting on Debito.org approximately once a month, there’s only one article to repost (my SNA column), and I have it here as Debito.org post anyway.  So it’d only be a repeat if I dedicated another post to the Newsletter.

But I don’t want to deprive Readers of a forum, so let me continue this “Issues of Concern” section (still categorized under “Newsletters”) and let it be a free space for articles and comments germane to the mission of Debito.org.

Past “Issues of Concern” pages are getting filled with comments that are running farther afield than the original title, so let’s create a new one now.

Thanks as always for reading and contributing to Debito.org.  Debito Arudou, Ph.D.
======================
Do you like what you read on Debito.org?  Want to help keep the archive active and support Debito.org’s activities?  Please consider donating a little something.  More details here. Or if you prefer something less complicated, just click on an advertisement below.

62 comments on “DEBITO.ORG READERS’ ISSUES OF CONCERN, JANUARY 2026”

    • JK says:

      @Niklas, look what Santa brought JK for Christmas — GPT-5.1!:

      Logical Fallacies in the Mie Governor’s Argument

      1. Hasty Generalization / Overgeneralization

      Facts in the content:

      • Since fiscal 2005, Mie has hired only nine foreign national staff, mainly doctors, nurses, and other specialists.
      • Currently, only one foreign national is employed in a medical position, and their employment will continue.
      • No actual information leak incidents involving foreign staff are cited.

      Policy leap: From this very small, incident-free record, the governor moves to broadly reconsider hiring foreign nationals in general administrative posts due to “concerns” about leaks of highly confidential information.

      Why this is fallacious: A sweeping policy reversal is built on almost no data. Hypothetical concerns are treated as if they were evidence of a recurring, demonstrated problem.

      2. Non Sequitur (Conclusion Does Not Logically Follow)

      Premise used: China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law obligates Chinese companies and individuals to cooperate with national intelligence activities.

      Conclusion drawn: Therefore, foreign nationals in general and across multiple job categories should face stricter nationality requirements or be excluded from certain positions.

      Logical gap:

      • The specific concern pertains to Chinese law and Chinese nationals, yet it is used to justify tightening rules for all foreign nationals.
      • Even regarding Chinese nationals, the content does not show how this law has actually caused or is likely to cause leaks from Japanese local governments.

      Result: The breadth of the policy conclusion (many posts, many nationalities) is not supported by the narrower legal premise.

      3. Guilt by Association / Group-Based Suspicion

      Reasoning pattern:

      • China has an intelligence law that can require cooperation.
      • Chinese nationals could be pressured to leak information.
      • Therefore, foreign nationals (especially Chinese) in certain prefectural posts are a national security problem.

      Why this is fallacious: Suspicion is attached not to specific individuals or evidence of misconduct but to nationality and the actions of a foreign government. Membership in a national group is treated as sufficient grounds for assuming higher security risk.

      4. Slippery Slope and Appeal to Fear

      Stated fears:

      • Residents’ personal data and confidential agricultural research (e.g., seed development) “could” be leaked overseas.
      • Movements of dignitaries visiting Ise Jingu “could” be leaked abroad, posing a “national security” issue.

      Logical issue: The argument runs from access to information → potential leak → national security threat, without:

      • Any examples of leaks or attempted leaks.
      • Evidence that existing confidentiality rules, oversight, or sanctions are inadequate.

      Fallacy: Fear of espionage and worst-case scenarios is used to justify nationality-based restrictions, despite the lack of demonstrated causal links or incidents.

      5. False Dichotomy (Oversimplified Choice)

      Implied framing: Either reinstate nationality requirements for many posts, or accept serious risks of information leaks and security threats.

      Ignored alternatives:

      • Stronger background checks and security vetting for all staff, regardless of nationality.
      • Role-based access controls and compartmentalization of especially sensitive data.
      • Targeted restrictions limited to clearly defined, high-risk roles where conflicts of law are concretely shown.

      Why this is fallacious: It presents nationality-based exclusion as the only effective option, ignoring neutral, risk-focused measures that apply equally to Japanese and foreign staff.

      6. Inconsistency / Self-Contradiction

      Security narrative: Foreign nationals in general administrative posts are portrayed as potential risks to:

      • Protection of residents’ personal data.
      • Confidential agricultural and seed research.
      • Security of visiting dignitaries’ movements.

      Simultaneous messaging:

      • Mie’s manufacturing sector relies heavily on foreign workers.
      • The prefecture is enhancing coexistence policies and Japanese language support for foreign residents.
      • A senior official says, “Without foreign nationals, neither Mie nor Japan can function.”

      Contradiction: Foreign nationals are described as both indispensable partners in the region’s functioning and as inherently risky in a broad set of public-sector roles that do not exercise public authority and have produced no known incidents.

      7. Cherry-Picking and One-Sided Risk Assessment

      What is emphasized:

      • China’s National Intelligence Law and its supposed “conflict” with local public servants’ confidentiality obligations.
      • Hypothetical leaks overseas, especially to China.

      What is downplayed or omitted:

      • Japanese nationals can also leak or abuse confidential information; nationality alone does not guarantee loyalty.
      • The prefecture’s own record: only nine foreign hires since 2005, with no cited leaks or security incidents.
      • The fact that 12 prefectures, including Mie, have abolished nationality requirements for some general administrative recruitment, which could be used to study best practices and actual risk data.

      Fallacy: Evidence is selectively presented to support tightening nationality requirements while inconvenient facts (small numbers, no incidents, alternative controls) are not integrated into the risk assessment.

      8. Weak Causal Inference (Possibility Treated as Proven Risk)

      Claim: Because some foreign nationals, especially those under Chinese law, might be subject to external pressure, hiring them into posts with access to confidential information leads to a meaningful risk that such information will be leaked.

      Missing elements:

      • No analysis of how often such pressure is applied in practice to local officials abroad.
      • No comparative data showing foreign nationals are more likely to leak than Japanese nationals.

      Why this is fallacious: A theoretical possibility is treated as a concrete, policy-justifying probability, without empirical support or comparative analysis.

      9. Appeal to Popularity / Responsibility Shifting via Opinion Survey

      Planned step: Mie will survey 10,000 residents and use the results, along with other factors, to make a final decision on reinstating nationality requirements.

      Logical concern:

      • Public opinion about security and foreign nationals does not establish whether the risk is objectively high, low, or manageable.
      • Public sentiment can be shaped by fear-based political messaging, including the very security narratives advanced by officials.

      Fallacy: Leaning on an opinion survey risks turning a technical security and rights issue into an appeal to popularity (“citizens are worried, so the restriction is justified”), and allows decision makers to shift responsibility onto “public opinion” rather than on their own evidence-based assessment.

      Reply
  • JK says:

    Hey Debito.org readers, look what Santa brought JK for Christmas — GPT-5.1!:

    Logical Fallacies in Japan Electronic System for Travel Authorization (JESTA)

    • Appeal to popularity / bandwagon (“others do it”)
    Text basis: “Similar programs adopted in the United States and Canada charge fees of roughly 1,000 to 6,000 yen.”
    Issue: The fact that other countries charge such fees is treated as implicit justification that Japan should do the same. This appeals to common practice instead of showing that the fee level or the system itself is fair, necessary, or effective for Japan’s specific needs.

    • Hasty generalization / unwarranted suspicion of a broad group
    Text basis: “The JESTA, aimed at preventing terrorism and illegal employment of foreign visitors to Japan, applies to countries and regions whose people are exempt from obtaining short-term stay visas.”
    Issue: All visa-exempt travelers are treated as a potential terrorism or illegal-employment risk, even though most are law-abiding and the passage provides no evidence that this group, as a whole, drives those problems. This overgeneralizes from an unspecified minority of problematic cases to an entire broad population.

    • Non sequitur / goal shifting between security and revenue
    Text basis:
    – “The JESTA, aimed at preventing terrorism and illegal employment…”
    – “There are hopes it will generate a steady source of revenue.”
    – “Japan is considering using the revenue for emergency support for foreign visitors during disasters…”
    Issue: The stated purposes shift among security (terrorism, illegal employment), stable revenue, and disaster support without a clear logical link. Preventing terrorism does not by itself require a paid authorization, and disaster-response funding is a separate policy goal. Using a security rationale to justify what is also a revenue-raising mechanism is a non sequitur and can act as a red herring, diverting attention from the core issue of whether the fee and system are themselves justified.

    • Implied slippery association between visa exemption and security risk
    Text basis: The system “applies to countries and regions whose people are exempt from obtaining short-term stay visas,” and is “aimed at preventing terrorism and illegal employment.”
    Issue: The wording implies that visa-exempt status itself is a significant security gap strongly linked to terrorism and illegal employment, and that a paid online screening is therefore needed. The passage offers no evidence that current visa-exempt entry is meaningfully causing these problems, so the suggested causal connection is speculative and weak, creating an unjustified association between ordinary visa-exempt visitors and serious security threats.

    Reply
  • JK says:

    OK, enough GPT-5.1 for now — it’s time for some good ole fashioned ‘NI’ (Natural Intelligence)!

    The following article recently appeared over at Mainichi Shimbun:

    Editorial: Discriminatory practices need probes as Japan statistics excluded disabled students / 障害生徒の統計除外　差別的対応の検証が必要

    It has emerged that graduates of special needs schools were excluded from the population of 18-year-olds used to calculate the college advancement rate in Japan in the education ministry’s Basic School Survey.

    Hmmm….where have we seen an entire group excluded from official statistics by the J-Gov?

    It has also emerged that students at special needs schools were excluded from data in multiple statistics involving the education ministry, such as the number of violent acts and suicide cases in the survey on problem behavior and school refusal, as well as from the ratio of students applying for the Common Test for University Admissions among those scheduled to graduate from high school or other institutions in March.

    Back in January of 2014, the J-Gov ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Yet in 2025, despite there being a law on the books (i.e., the Act for Eliminating Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (障害者差別解消法), the J-Gov can’t even prevent itself from discriminating against wajin.

    Back in December of 1995, the J-Gov ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Yet in 2025, it still hasn’t managed to enact a comprehensive anti-discrimination statute covering race/ethnicity across employment, housing, services, etc (i.e., 人種的差別解消法).

    Question: What’s the difference between Persons with Disabilities and Visible Minorities?
    Answer: The former suffers from physical and/or cognitive impairments which hinder full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. The latter suffers from skin and/or facial ‘deformities’ and possibly cognitive ‘impairments’ which hinder full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.

    My point? There’s not much to choose between the two groups; the J-Gov discriminating against its own in 2025 augers ill for those who don’t look the part in 2026 (and beyond).

    Reply
  • Niklas says:

    I‘m surprised this went viral and that most people are criticizing it.

    https://x.com/mrdecent000/status/2004538310178505180?s=46&t=IzAIE8zz8O3iUXFc2Hpuew

    Twitter: “A restaurant caused public outrage after putting up a sign stating that only Japanese people were allowed to enter. The sign sparked immediate backlash online, with many calling it discriminatory and unfair. Locals and tourists alike expressed disappointment, calling the move shocking and unacceptable in today’s world. Some users on social media demanded an apology and called for action against the business. The incident has reignited conversations around racism and exclusion in public spaces.”

    Reply
    • Baud says:

      Someone needs to call it what it is and felt-tip in those reverse “Buddhist symbols” under cover of darkness.

      Where I used to live the exclusionary sign at the local restaurant (Kawasaki, as usual) regularly got torn down during heavy rain at night- must’ve got blown away or something, as an NJ was passing coincidentally.

      Reply
    • JK says:

      Translation courtesy of GPT-5.1:

      “It’s the first time anyone’s told me, ‘I’ll kill you’”: What a Canadian reporter felt covering an anti-immigration rally

      At the end of October, anti–immigration policy rallies were held across Japan. When I, the author—a Japanese-Chinese “half”—went to observe one in Tokyo, I met Avery Fane (44), a Canadian reporter living in Tokyo. I walked the scene with him and listened to what he had to say.

      (By Asahi Shimbun reporter Takahiro Ogawa)

      Avery Fane

      Born 1981 in Montreal, Canada. Became interested in Japanese culture through kendo and other activities, and first came to Japan alone at 16 as an exchange student. Spent his high school and college years in Japan. After attending the University of Victoria in Canada, enrolled at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University in Ōita. After graduation, worked for about ten years in Vancouver as a film actor and producer on numerous projects. Lived between Canada and Japan for roughly a decade before switching careers in 2025 to become a reporter for the English-language online outlet JAPAN TODAY, based in Tokyo.

      “From just a glance, they were shouting at me: ‘What do they even know about me?’”

      The rally was held on Sunday, October 26, a little after 2 p.m., in front of the Liberal Democratic Party headquarters in Nagatachō. In a light drizzle, several hundred people lined the sidewalk, chanting slogans such as “We don’t need immigrants!” and “Japan is being destroyed!”

      As Avery tried to walk through along the sidewalk, the crowd’s eyes locked onto him. Some people pointed at him and began shouting things like “Go back to your own country!” and “I’ll kill you!”

      Avery:
      This was my first time going to see one of these anti–immigration policy rallies in Japan. I was walking and filming video. When I went back and checked the footage, I could see the participants glaring, eyes wide in anger, all looking at me with this “There he is!” kind of expression.

      My feeling went past fear and straight to anger. I’ve followed anti-immigrant rallies in Canada and France and elsewhere, but I’ve never heard abuse like this. It’s the first time I’ve ever actually felt angry at a demonstration. These people had never met me before—we had never even spoken. To have them yell at me based on a split-second glance made me think, “What do they even know about me?”

      Foreign media often praise demonstrations in Japan, saying they are orderly, rule-abiding, polite, and safe. But when you listen to the rhetoric at these recent xenophobic rallies, they are absolutely not “safe.” My foreign friends living in Japan and I are all worried that “the atmosphere in Japan is changing.”

      All told, I’ve lived in Japan for about ten years. I’ve been on the receiving end of discriminatory remarks before, but this is the first time anyone has said something so direct as “I’ll kill you” or “Go home.” In the past, I feel like that kind of language appeared mostly on social media or anonymous forums. Lately, though, it feels like the language people use in real life is getting more extreme.

      “I want to believe they aren’t all bad people”

      As I was talking with Avery, a young rally participant came over to us. When we asked, “Why did you decide to join today?” he answered, “Because foreign crime is increasing.”

      But that is not true. According to the Ministry of Justice’s White Paper on Crime, crime rates among foreign residents in Japan have been declining over the long term. When we showed him the data, he fell silent for a moment, then finally said only, “It’s not about the numbers. It’s that I’m scared,” before walking away.

      Avery:
      People are believing misinformation. On the one hand, I feel angry at some of the extreme things that are being said. But at the same time, there’s a part of me that wants to think, “It’s not that everyone who joins these rallies is a bad person.” What they’re saying isn’t okay, but some of them are also being misled by what they see online, on social media, and so on.

      For example, if you’re shouting “No to immigration policy,” how much do you actually know about Japan’s immigration policy? I spoke with around five rally participants this time. I asked them, “Which parts of Japan’s immigration policy do you think are bad?” and none of them gave a clear answer.

      A lot of people also told me it was their first time ever speaking with a foreigner. There were even people who shut me out from the start, saying they didn’t want to talk. It’s hard to accept being told “I hate you” when there’s been almost no communication at all.

      I know Japanese people are going through all kinds of hardships in their lives. But when I was in high school, I also struggled to adapt to life here. After sharing that kind of personal background, I want to ask them: “You’re telling me to get out, to go back to my country—do you really hate me that much?”

      The English-language site JAPAN TODAY, where I work, is trying to support that kind of exchange. We’ve interviewed foreign residents in Japan about their impressions of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, and we’ve gone around regions affected by bear attacks to hear the unvarnished views of local Japanese residents. I hope that as mutual understanding deepens, we can reach a point where we no longer have to hear exclusionary language out on the street.

      What could I possibly say to him?

      “Go back to your country.”
      “I’ll kill you.”

      As a Japanese-Chinese “half,” I was so shocked walking down that sidewalk filled with abuse that I found myself questioning whether this was really happening.

      Avery came to Japan because he loves traditional Japanese culture such as kendo, and he has spent many years living here. I had no idea what words I could offer him.

      Even as he told me he “felt angry,” he kept approaching rally participants and trying to talk with them. He didn’t give up on dialogue. In many of his interview videos, he doesn’t just shove a mic in someone’s face; he stands side by side with them and has a conversation.

      Those of us who are Japanese—the “majority side”—surely have something to learn from his approach. What exactly is it that we feel uncomfortable about right now? Why is it that anger wells up in us? I’m reminded again that hope lies not in trading hatred and anger, but in taking the time to weave our words together and really listen to one another.

      (We also cover issues such as xenophobic trends toward foreigners in our newsletter. You can register for free here: https://asahi-writers.theletter.jp/)

      Reply
    • JK says:

      Indeed!

      I vote for calling the “good gaijin” argument the “Karen Hill Anton logical fallacy”: “In the places I’ve called home in Japan, if you follow the rules for putting out your garbage, and participate in community obligations like cutting roadside weeds, it could be said your outward appearance causes no particular problems.

      Reply
  • Niklas says:

    Japan’s Birth Rate Set to Break Even the Bleakest Forecasts.

    https://slguardian.org/japans-birth-rate-set-to-break-even-the-bleakest-forecasts/

    „According to analysis reported by the Financial Times, preliminary data suggest the total number of Japanese babies born in 2025 is likely to drop below 670,000, a level never previously recorded since national statistics began in 1899. Demographics experts say such an outcome would come 16 years earlier than official forecasts anticipated and far below the assumptions used for fiscal and economic planning.“

    So what happened to good old Abenomics and magically raising women‘s fertility to over 2.0?

    „Economists and opposition politicians are increasingly urging the government to revise its long-term assumptions and plan for a future closer to the most pessimistic demographic scenarios. But acknowledging that shift would be politically costly. Masatoshi Kikuchi, chief equity strategist at Mizuho Securities, said it would amount to admitting that years of policies to raise the birth rate have failed, with unavoidable consequences such as higher taxes and reduced pension benefits.“

    Ah yes, typical LDP logic, don‘t acknowledge the data, because it doesn‘t fit our ideology/shows that we‘re wrong.

    Reply
    • Baud says:

      Immediately saw its Donna Burke, the owner of Dag Music that insists on “not having written contracts because its not the Japanese way”-leading to err, “vast discrepancies” between pay promised and payment actually made! And then gets snarky when NJs challenge it because “This is Japan”.
      Sources (emails) available on request.
      So, an Australian ripping off fellow NJs by claiming to “know Japanese culture” better than the rest of them- classic pulling up the ladder for later (or just, other) NJs.
      ““I am the best-behaved foreign resident right now because I don’t want to irritate anyone,” says Donna Burke”

      The sheer blow-hard arrogance, the self awarded superlative, yep, all par the course. Isn’t great how someone can reinvent themselves in Tokyo post Straya? That’s fine, but when it leads to exploitation of other NJs using “Japanese Culture” as a smokescreen I have zero sympathy and they can lie in the bed they have made for themselves.

      Reply
    • Baud says:

      There’s a subset of Aussies who came here in the 80s and 90s when Japanese was taught in schools there and completely felt they were in a privileged class because they were already better at Japanese than the average FOB NJ or Brit?American who could not get a working holiday visa at the time, and pushed the whole Asian-Pacific “Lucky Country” narrative when it dovetailed with “Genki Surfer J- Narratives and a “No Worries, mate” mentality vs “whingeing Yanks and Poms”, (dismissing USD and GBP as “not real money”). It is hard to label this trend or phenomenon, but it was real.

      Anyway, they are now stranded and as they cannot bring themselves to “whinge” i.e. agitate to affect change or improvements, they will have to stop wearing their red coats and instead massage the shoulders of their J-clients (actually literally- truly bizarre but I have seen the woman quoted in the article actually do this on more than one occasion, giving me bizarre “Paradise Road” (1997) flashbacks, but I digress https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/11/movies/it-takes-a-saint-to-keep-a-prison-camp-humming.html )

      Reply
    • JK says:

      @JDG this is a great find; thanks for sharing.

      I asked Claude Sonnet 4.5 for some brief commentary; here’s its response:

      The Paradox of “Belonging Through Conformity”

      What’s striking about the foreign residents’ commentary is the psychological burden of hypervigilance:

      • Melanie Brock choosing a black coat over red—she’s trying to erase visible difference• The “dog as proof of residency” comment reveals how arbitrary the markers of belonging have become• Greg Story’s anxiety about being “painted with the same brush” as misbehaving tourists shows how individual identity gets erased by group perception

      The Deeper Irony

      The commentary also reveals Japan’s ongoing tension with visible difference. Brock’s reference to the Bondi attack being used as a “reminder of what can happen with multiculturalism” shows how isolated incidents can be weaponized to justify xenophobia, even when long-term foreign residents have been peaceful, contributing members of society for decades.

      A Troubling Trend

      What makes this particularly concerning is that these aren’t newcomers—these are people who’ve lived in Japan for decades, some in prominent professional roles. The fact that they now feel compelled to perform extra conformity suggests a narrowing of acceptable difference in Japanese society, driven by anxieties about overtourism, economic pressures, and cultural change that have little to do with long-term residents themselves.

      Karen Hill Anton,“if you follow the rules for putting out your garbage, and participate in community obligations like cutting roadside weeds, it could be said your outward appearance causes no particular problems.” — I’m afraid this statement hasn’t aged particularly well!!!

      Reply
    • Baud says:

      Doesn’t that violate the Kyoto Protocol? Hardly necessary. And it made no difference; tourists kept coming.

      -” left the area after about 10 minutes”
      They cannot even stand tourists in a field for ten minutes, methinks these Japanese locals are the ones with the problem

      Reply
    • JK says:

      @JDG care to play a game of Seinfeld Soup Nazi poker with Japanese characteristics?

      If so, I’ll see your cut-down trees and raise you a ‘cut-down’ cherry blossom festival!:

      Mt. Fuji cherry blossom festival canceled over fears of visitors behaving badly

      From the website:

      TOKYO, Japan Wire - Authorities in Fujiyoshida in central Japan have canceled a spring cherry blossom festival at a popular Mt. Fuji viewing spot, citing residents’ concerns over congestion and nuisance behavior.

      The city in Yamanashi Prefecture on Tuesday announced its decision not to go ahead with the Arakurayama Sengen Park Cherry Blossom Festival, an event it has held for the past 10 years, attracting around 200,000 visitors each year with its views to Mt. Fuji.

      With the weak Japanese yen and social media content driving a rapid increase in the number of foreign tourists visiting Japan, however, the city is struggling to handle an influx of more than 10,000 visitors a day during the peak cherry blossom season.

      Incidents of bad behavior, the city said, have become commonplace and pose a threat to the livelihoods of residents.

      The city cited sanitary issues among the concerns behind its decision. Incidents include visitors letting themselves into private homes to use restrooms, as well as cases of people relieving themselves in private yards and causing a disturbance when confronted by residents.

      Parents and residents also raised concerns over the safety of children using school routes who are being pushed aside by visitors crowding the sidewalks, according to the city.

      While Fujiyoshida will not hold the festival as an official event or use the festival name on its tourism website, it is readying itself for an increase in visitors during the cherry blossom season in April.

      The city plans to enhance security in the area and set up temporary parking lots and portable toilets, among other measures to control congestion and alleviate the burden on residents.

      Arakurayama Sengen Park is a popular Mt. Fuji viewing spot, particularly in spring, when visitors can take pictures of cherry blossoms in bloom around a five-story pagoda with the mountain in the background. Visitors queue for up to three hours to reach the photo spot during the season’s peak.

      Fujiyoshida Mayor Shigeru Horiuchi, however, said that Mt. Fuji is not just a tourist attraction.  “I feel a deep sense of crisis as I witness the reality that, behind this beautiful scenery, the quiet lives of our citizens are being threatened,” he said. 

      This article was submitted by a contributing writer for publication on Japan Wire.

      Reply
  • JK says:

    I saw this article about Japan’s GDP falling behind India in 2026 and got to thinking two things:

    1. What country / countries will pass Japan next?

    2. When will this happen?

    So as is usual for me, I posed these questions to GPT-5.1; below is what it came back with:

    Likely future overtakers of Japan’s nominal GDP (USD basis)

    Interpreting your context as:

    • India overtakes Japan in 2026 (per the Oct‑2025 WEO).

    • Japan falls to 5th in 2026.
    The question is: who passes Japan next, and when, in nominal USD terms?

    Given typical IMF and private-sector projections as of late-2025, plus plausible ranges for growth, inflation and FX, the most realistic sequence is:

    • Rank transition vs Japan: Japan → 6th

    – Most likely country to overtake: United Kingdom
    – Indicative timing (calendar year, nominal USD): Around 2029–2031
    – Key drivers / conditions: UK grows ~1½–2% real, moderate inflation; Japan ~½–1% real, low inflation; yen remains relatively weak vs USD while GBP is stable/strong.

    • Rank transition vs Japan: Japan → 7th

    – Most likely country to overtake: France
    – Indicative timing (calendar year, nominal USD): Around 2031–2033
    – Key drivers / conditions: France’s nominal growth (real + inflation) outpaces Japan’s; euro not persistently weaker than yen on a trade-weighted basis.

    • Rank transition vs Japan: Japan → 8th

    – Most likely country to overtake: Brazil (or possibly Indonesia)
    – Indicative timing (calendar year, nominal USD): Mid-2030s (roughly 2034–2038)
    – Key drivers / conditions: Requires continued commodity-supported nominal expansion for Brazil or sustained high real growth and gradual FX appreciation for Indonesia.

    • Rank transition vs Japan: Beyond 8th

    – Most likely country to overtake: Indonesia, Mexico, possibly South Korea
    – Indicative timing (calendar year, nominal USD): Late-2030s onward
    – Key drivers / conditions: Only under optimistic convergence scenarios and/or pronounced yen weakness; wide uncertainty band.

    How confident can we be?

    • High confidence (directionally):

    – India’s overtaking in 2026.
    – The UK and France eventually surpassing Japan in nominal USD terms, absent a structural growth or FX regime shift in Japan.

    • Medium confidence (timing):

    – UK: late-2020s to around 2030.
    – France: early-2030s.

    • Low confidence (candidates and timing after France):

    – Brazil vs Indonesia vs Mexico depends heavily on terms of trade and FX: the ranking in the 2030s is very sensitive to commodity prices and dollar cycles.

    Intuition in brief

    1. Japan’s nominal USD GDP is constrained by:

    • Very low trend real growth and inflation.
    • Downside risk to the yen if rate differentials with the US/EU persist.

    2. The UK and France sit just below Japan already, with:

    • Higher trend nominal growth,
    • Currencies that, while volatile, are less structurally weak than the yen in most baseline scenarios.

    3. Large emerging markets (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico)

    • Have much higher real growth, but whether they leap Japan in USD depends on whether that growth translates into sustained FX appreciation and higher nominal USD aggregates, not just PPP gains.

    I then asked it to reference data from the following articles and determine what meaningful impact (if any) NJ can exert on slowing / reversing the GDP slide:

    FEATURE: Japan nears 10% foreign population years ahead of official forecasts

    Foreign residents make up 9.5% of people in 20s in Japan

    Here’s the response:

    In substance, no: this strengthens Japan’s level of GDP relative to a pure “shrinking Japan” narrative, but it only marginally shifts timing, and it does not change the set of countries likely to pass Japan in nominal USD.

    1. How big is the macro effect of faster foreign inflows?

    Key points from your data:

    • Foreign share of population: 3.0% in 2025, rising much faster than NIPSSR’s baseline.

    • Flow: ~300–350k net per year since 2022 vs. the NIPSSR assumption of 160k/year up to ~2040. → Roughly +150–200k extra net inflow per year vs the baseline.

    • Strong youth bias: foreign 20s +0.68m (to 1.22m) over 10 years; Japanese 20s –1.03m (to 11.64m).

    • Implication: foreign residents are:

    – Disproportionately in prime working ages,
    – Filling labor gaps and contributing to social security,
    – Partly offsetting Japan’s working-age shrinkage.

    Back-of-the-envelope impact on growth

    Very stylized:

    • Suppose Japan’s long‑run real growth absent migration is ~0.3–0.5%.

    • A sustained additional 0.15–0.20m working-age migrants per year could plausibly add on the order of 0.1–0.2 percentage points to annual real GDP growth (depending on participation, skills, and hours).

    • Add a small effect via less downward pressure on potential output and wages, which helps the BoJ maintain positive inflation.

    So instead of, say, 0.5% real + 1.0% inflation = 1.5% nominal in yen, you might think in terms of 0.7% real + 1.1–1.2% inflation ≈ 1.8–2.0% nominal in yen as a feasible “migration-aware” baseline.

    That is meaningful domestically, but in global ranking terms:

    • The UK, France, India and large EMs are on 3–6%+ nominal trajectories (in local currency) in most scenarios.

    • FX swings in JPY/USD, GBP/USD, EUR/USD typically dominate differences of 0.3–0.5pp in nominal growth.

    2. Does faster immigration change who will pass Japan?

    No. The GDP ladder is still driven by:

    1. India (already in the IMF’s 2026 projection).

    2. UK and France as the next major advanced economies just below Japan.

    3. The big EMs (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico) further out.

    Higher foreign-resident contributions:

    • Raise Japan’s absolute GDP vs a no-immigration counterfactual.

    • Do not change the fact that:

    – India’s scale and growth ensure it stays ahead.

    – The UK and France start from only slightly lower nominal GDP, have modestly higher nominal growth, and do not face Japan’s demographic drag to the same degree.

    • For Brazil/Indonesia/Mexico, the binding constraints remain their own growth and FX paths, not marginal changes in Japan’s.

    So the ordering I gave before (India → UK → France → large EMs) is intact.

    3. Does it shift the timing?

    It can, but only by a few years, not decades, and FX will still dominate.

    • UK and France vs Japan
    If migration keeps Japan closer to ~2% nominal (yen) instead of ~1½%, then:

    – In a neutral FX scenario, Japan’s overtaking by the UK might move from, say, “around 2029–31” to “early 2030s”, and France’s from “early 2030s” to “mid-2030s”.
    – Under continued yen weakness, even the extra migration probably does not prevent overtaking in roughly the original windows.
    – Under a significant yen appreciation (e.g., policy normalization, narrowing rate differentials), the combination of:

    ¤ Slightly higher real growth from migration and
    ¤ Stronger JPY
    could push the UK/France crossing points back several years. But here the FX story is doing most of the work; migration makes Japan more resilient but is not the decisive factor.

    • EMs (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico)

    Their catching-up horizon is mid-2030s onward in many optimistic scenarios.

    If Japan’s potential improves via migration:

    – You compress Japan’s decline in ranking speed somewhat,
    – But relative to the uncertainty in those EM growth/FX paths, a +0.1–0.2pp to Japan’s growth is small.
    Net: timing bands (mid- to late-2030s) barely move; the variance around EM outcomes (commodities, policy, dollar cycle) is much larger.

    4. Policy-relevant takeaway

    • The foreign-resident surge is macro-relevant: it supports labor supply, potential output and the social security base.

    • It improves Japan’s GDP level path relative to low-migration baselines and can slightly delay when the UK and France overtake in nominal USD terms, especially if paired with:

    – Productivity-oriented integration (language, credentialing, mobility), and
    – A shift away from structurally ultra-loose monetary/FX conditions.

    • But given:

    – The starting gaps in nominal GDP,
    – Higher trend nominal growth abroad, and
    – The outsized importance of FX in nominal USD rankings,
    the basic conclusion stands:

    Japan is still likely to be overtaken next by the UK and then France; stronger foreign-resident contributions can slow but not reverse that process, barring an accompanying major change in Japan’s macro/FX regime.

    Reply
    • Baud says:

      More to the point perhaps https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15349927

      I know its about Engrish teachers, but some of us are or were, and its just indicative of how mighty Japan has fallen, how hard it is for people to get by, and how that might lead to a lot of embittered folks lashing out at convenient scapegoats.

      It also leads to even more isolationism in Japan, and in a downward spiral of lack of interest in foreign travel or culture-less people speaking English-more misunderstandings

      Reply
  • Niklas says:

    2026 raises question of how to resist spread of xenophobic sentiment in Japan

    https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20260105/p2a/00m/0op/009000c

    And National Museum of Modern Art is planning to implement „foreigner fees“.

    https://x.com/seiryukai/status/2007343052923514925?s=46&t=IzAIE8zz8O3iUXFc2Hpuew

    Yet the official consumer hotline for foreign tourists on their website still claims that all differences in prices are due to „cultural misunderstandings“. Go figure.

    Reply
    • JDG says:

      Walking around carrying an open binder with a photo of a dead guy who is not your relative is just plain weird. Especially as she’s doing that rictus grin thing as well.
      And from the same feed, Kimi Onoda wearing a morning suit to the shrine visit instead of ladies clothes (and a morning suit she’s had tailored to be extra form flattering) is super weird too. And she (still!) has to go in last behind all the men in the cabinet!
      The pair of them look super creepy and weird.
      And the fact that they have any time at all to focus on cosplay when they should be focusing on ‘work, work, work and work’ is just 🙄

      Reply
      • Brooks says:

        The real issue is Onoda is so far right as a half-Japanese person. This was covered by a podcast on YouTube. It is at Japan Media Review and called Japan Far Right Divided.

        Reply
    • JK says:

      @Niklas:

      And National Museum of Modern Art is planning to implement „foreigner fees“.

      https://x.com/seiryukai/status/2007343052923514925?s=46&t=IzAIE8zz8O3iUXFc2Hpuew

      Ramen restaurant bans all Chinese and charges double if you select any language other than Japanese.

      https://x.com/mrjeffu/status/2008336296222032128?s=46&t=IzAIE8zz8O3iUXFc2Hpuew

      Oh lovely, multi-tiered pricing is back in the news!

      HTB Hokkaido News recently delved into these topics. GPT-5.1 is handling translation duties; I offer my two-yen at the end:

      Why do “dual prices” for tourists and locals cause trouble? Experts weigh in on how fees should be set.

      A bowl of ramen for foreign tourists costs twice as much as the one for Japanese customers. A ramen shop in Osaka has introduced this so‑called “dual pricing,” and it’s turned into a flashpoint.

      It turns out there are places in Hokkaido using dual pricing as well. What are they trying to achieve?

      Yusuke Arai, Gadoya Ramen:

      “We’re taking on a risk by using a dual pricing system.”

      At this Osaka ramen shop, the regular price for a bowl is around ¥1,000 (about $6), but for foreign customers it’s roughly ¥2,000 (about $13). In exchange, the version served to foreign visitors has special seasoning and toppings.

      However, on the 4th of this month, a dispute broke out.

      Twitter/X post:

      “Right now, some Chinese customers are causing a disturbance in the shop, and we’ve called the police. I’m thinking of banning Chinese customers from entering from now on.”

      Yusuke Arai, Gadoya Ramen:“They first ordered the special inbound-only ramen. While they were eating, everything seemed normal, but once they finished, they suddenly said, ‘This isn’t the same as what’s on the menu, is it?’”

      The Chinese tourists demanded a refund. When the shop told them it would call the police, their attitude changed completely and they apologized.

      Charging different prices to local residents and tourists is actually being done in Hokkaido too. At the Daiwa House Premist Dome in Toyohira Ward, Sapporo, an event called “DOME Snow Zone” started on the 6th. Visitors can enjoy playing in the snow and winter sports. The event uses a three-tier pricing system: Hokkaido residents junior high school age and up pay ¥1,000 (about $6), other Japanese visitors junior high and up pay ¥2,000 (about $13), and foreign visitors elementary school age and up also pay ¥2,000.

      Akihito Abe, President, Sapporo Dome:“People traveling here can’t come every day; they only stop by while they’re on a trip. So when you factor in how often they can visit and compare it with admission fees at other tourist attractions, we felt it was acceptable to set their price a bit higher.”

      With the recent controversy over dual pricing, what should operators keep in mind when setting such fees?

      Tourism expert Takashi Kiso:“First, instead of framing it as a surcharge, set your base price higher and then offer discounts. Raise the overall price, and then, whether it’s for local residents or for people with Japanese nationality, structure your pricing as ‘you get a discount’ rather than ‘others pay extra.’”

      Re-framing multi-tiered pricing as a “discount” a) is tantamount to gas-lighting and b) still doesn’t address the matter of enforcement — how is staff going to determine if someone is a “local resident” or a “Japanese nationality”? Passport checks? Visual inspection of facial features?

      Reply
    • Niklas says:

      And instead of apologizing, the owner went on to claim that foreigners get a “special” kind of ramen that uses more meat and takes longer to prepare (which is not true to according to a lot of Chinese posters on X, unfortunately I didn’t save the links).

      But even if true, how about giving people a choice that’s not based on which language they select? And also, why is staff actively blocking visible minorities from ordering in Japanese according to the article?

      https://unseen-japan.com/ramen-shop-osaka-two-tier-pricing/?utm_content=buffer7a2cc

      Also funny how they cite the Consumer Affairs Agency, which still claims that there is no dual pricing based on nationality. I especially like this part: “Amid rising disputes, the Consumer Affairs Agency has released guidance on two-tier pricing. The agency publishes rules on price displays, which fall under the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.”

      So again, we have “guidances” and “rules”, but no laws. What does surprise me in a positive way though is that it seems like even the average tourist is finally fed up with giving Japan a free pass on this. Good. I hope people continue to speak up and even sue. Especially with an owner like that who has 0 integrity and self-awarness and tries to spin the whole thing as if he’s actually doing a service for NJ.

      Reply
  • Niklas says:

    Another interesting case of Japanese injustice.

    https://www.fccj.or.jp/number-1-shimbun-article/miscarriage-justice

    I would advise to read the whole thing, because it‘s excellently written, but I‘ll just quote the racially motivated parts.

    „ She told investigators that his perfect, unaccented speech convinced her he was Japanese.“

    „ she went from saying her attacker was Japanese to he was a foreigner. Then that he wore the kind of cologne that foreigners wear. I never wear cologne and when they searched my apartment and found none, that changed to him having a ‘foreign smell’. At trial, his Japanese had changed from being perfect to sounding like a foreigner’s.”

    What is a „foreign smell“ btw?

    „ Yamada said he always worked to the best of his abilities without preconceptions. “In this case [Payne’s] as well, I haven’t heard the details … All I know is that there was a foreign male suspect and a female victim, and the sample taken from the victim’s mouth … I didn’t collect it myself. The forensic science laboratory conducted the initial testing. I received the remaining sample from the court, analyzed it, and issued the result. So, I don’t know whether the foreign gentleman is the perpetrator or not.”

    So he‘s not biased according to his own opinion (big surprise), but he has to mention that the suspect is „foreign“ in literally every sentence he speaks? In my experience this is a big red flag. People who usually speak that way are not really big fans of NJ (again, in my experience).

    But this is the crux of the issue right here:

    „Judges don’t try to make proper scientific judgments,” he said. “They just want to rubber stamp the prosecution’s position. There’s no culture of judges thinking independently and calmly. If they rule in line with the prosecution, their careers advance. It’s effectively one side versus two – the judge and prosecutor together. The prosecution gets a free pass, while everything the defense says is dismissed, even when it’s correct. Japan’s system is completely out of step with international standards. And it doesn’t just affect Japanese people. Foreigners in Japan are subjected to the same treatment, just like in this case.”

    Well I would personally argue that foreign suspects are subjected to even worse treatment than Japanese ones (as seen in Embedded Racism), but sure, I agree that the whole system is just torture and no justice.

    This guy has spent 4 years in solidary btw and as of recent, collapsed.

    Ghosn: „Get out of Japan while you still can.“

    Reply
  • JK says:

    I’m going to try something different with this post — I’ve asked GPT-5.1 to synthesize a single, unified news report in English about the recent NJ staff hiring controversy unfolding in Mie prefecture.

    The source material are these Japanese-language news reports from Mainichi Shimbun:

    「外国人採用を廃止しない」　三重県内の市長、相次ぎ表明

    なぜ外国人職員の採用やめる？　三重県の検討に撤回求める声広がる

    三重県、外国人の職員採用取りやめを検討　「国際情勢」理由に

    ＜1分で解説＞三重県の外国人採用取りやめ検討　県内外から反対の声

    「そもそも守秘義務ある」　伊勢市長、外国人採用見直し「考えず」

    For reference, here’s the single English-language article covering this topic (also from Mainichi Shimbun):

    Mayors push back against central Japan prefecture’s plan to end foreign staff hires

    OK, that’s the setup. What follows is the AI-generated news article:

    Mayors Push Back as Mie Prefecture Weighs Ending Hiring of Foreign Civil Servants

    Yokkaichi, Mie — A growing number of municipal leaders, labor unions, and legal experts are urging Mie Prefecture to back away from plans to effectively stop hiring foreign nationals as prefectural civil servants, warning the move sends a discriminatory and backward-looking message in a region that has long touted multicultural coexistence.

    Gov. Katsuyuki Ichimi revealed late last year that the prefecture is considering reintroducing nationality requirements for most prefectural jobs, which would in practice end the hiring of non-Japanese staff. The prefecture says it is acting out of concern for leaks of sensitive data on residents, agriculture, and disaster preparedness amid worsening “international conditions.”

    Since then, mayors across Mie — many of them governing cities with large foreign populations — have lined up to say they will not follow suit.

    Suzuka: “We will not abolish foreign hiring”

    At a New Year’s press conference on January 6, Suzuka Mayor Noriko Suematsu said the city has no intention of revising its hiring rules.

    “To secure a diverse workforce going forward, we are not considering abolishing the hiring of foreign nationals,” she said, adding that she would not comment directly on the prefecture’s proposal.

    Suzuka limited hiring to Japanese citizens through the 2000 intake, citing the exercise of public authority. But in line with a nationwide trend toward opening local government jobs, it began in 2001 to allow permanent residents and special permanent residents to sit for exams in five categories—clerical, technical, nursery teachers, public health nurses, and laborers—excluding firefighters. As of January 6, foreign nationals are in fact on the city payroll.

    Suzuka, with a population of 192,865 at the end of December, is one of Japan’s leading “foreign-concentrated” municipalities: 10,641 residents are foreign nationals from 68 countries and regions.

    “Suzuka is one of the country’s major hubs of foreign residents,” Suematsu said. “We believe it’s important to keep the door open for foreign students who aspire to become public servants.”

    Kuwana: “Whatever the prefecture does, we won’t change course”

    Kuwana Mayor Narutaka Ito took a similar stance at his January 6 regular press briefing, pledging that the city’s approach to multicultural coexistence and its hiring of foreign nationals will “not change in any way.”

    Kuwana employs foreign nationals as concierges to assist non-Japanese visitors at city hall service counters. Ito stressed that he would not publicly criticize the prefecture — “Each organization has its own way of thinking, so it’s not my place to comment on the prefecture’s policy” — but was blunt about Kuwana’s direction.

    “In Kuwana, where manufacturing is thriving, we simply don’t have enough workers, and many foreign nationals are supporting our industries. Nearly 6,000 foreign nationals live here,” he said. “We are trying to build a city open to the world. Whatever the prefecture decides to do, we have no intention of changing our hiring policy.”

    Other mayors warn of “message of exclusion”

    The backlash isn’t limited to industrial hubs.

    Iga Mayor Toshihisa Inamori, in his New Year’s address on January 5, said he felt “a sense of crisis” that the prefecture’s move “could be taken as a message that people of foreign nationality are being excluded.”

    On January 9, Inamori went further, formally asking Governor Ichimi to delete from an upcoming “Mie Prefectural 10,000-Resident Survey” a question on whether municipalities should continue hiring foreign nationals for non-authority-bearing posts such as clerical positions.

    “Just asking the question damages multicultural coexistence,” he argued, warning in writing that it risks (1) rolling back progress toward a multicultural society and (2) fueling hate speech and discrimination. The questionnaire is scheduled to go out from January 26.

    “The very existence of current foreign-national staff is being discounted, and their dignity deeply wounded,” he said, calling the plan “irresponsible” and accusing the prefecture of taking a “cowardly” route by outsourcing the decision to an opinion survey instead of owning it politically.

    In Ise, where Ise Jingu Grand Shrine is located, Mayor Kenichi Suzuki also broke with the prefecture on January 9.

    “We are not considering revising our hiring of foreign nationals,” he said at his New Year’s press conference. The prefecture has cited concerns about leaks involving security arrangements for imperial and prime ministerial visits to Ise Jingu as one reason for tightening nationality rules, but Suzuki pushed back on the logic.

    “The city doesn’t hold the authority to secure routes for VIPs in the first place—that’s up to the prefecture,” he noted, while emphasizing that public employees, regardless of nationality, are already bound by strict confidentiality obligations.

    Matsusaka Mayor Masato Takegami likewise told reporters on January 8 that his city sees “no reason whatsoever” to change its current policy, which sets explicit criteria for hiring foreign nationals and has caused “no problems in practice.”

    More than 5,000 foreign nationals live in Matsusaka, paying taxes and using public services. The city employs 20 foreign-national staff in total, including four regular employees in clerical and medical training posts.

    “It would be impossible to sustain Matsusaka’s society without foreign residents,” Takegami said. “Respecting and coexisting with them is simply common sense.”

    In Tsu, which employs two regular foreign-national staffers and about 30 non-regular (fiscal-year) workers, Mayor Yasuyuki Maeba said on January 7 he has “no intention of changing” the city’s policy and sees “no particular problems” with the current arrangement.

    In Nabari, Mayor Hiroyuki Kitagawa disclosed at a New Year’s press conference that he had conveyed his concerns via the vice governor, arguing the prefecture’s move “runs counter” to a multicultural coexistence declaration previously adopted by the National Governors’ Association.

    Referring to the planned opinion survey, he warned that poorly worded questions could end up “implanting the idea that ‘foreign-national staff are dangerous,’” and promised Nabari would continue to hire as before. “This is an issue that can be handled through internal management,” he added. “I wish they had shown more sensitivity to how their own staff feel.”

    Prefecture cites “international conditions,” security laws abroad

    Mie eliminated most nationality requirements for prefectural employees in the 1999 fiscal year to promote diversity in hiring. Today, 44 of 49 job categories have no nationality conditions; five—veterinarians, navigators, engineers on ships, child welfare officers, and architects—still require Japanese citizenship. As of December 24, one foreign national was employed in a medical post.

    There is no explicit nationality clause in Japan’s Local Public Service Act. Based on a 1953 Cabinet Legislation Bureau view, however, foreign nationals have typically been barred from posts involving the exercise of public authority, such as issuing permits or collecting taxes, and from managerial roles, while being allowed into other positions.

    Mie now says it is considering reinstating nationality requirements for some or many of those open categories after canvassing public opinion through its large-scale survey.

    Officials stress they are responding to “international conditions,” not engaging in foreigner-bashing. They point to China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, which obliges organizations and individuals to cooperate with Chinese state intelligence activities, and say they are worried that hiring foreign nationals could increase the risk of leaks of sensitive information, including on agriculture and disaster preparedness. The fact that Ise Jingu regularly hosts imperial family and prime ministerial visits has also “been taken into account,” they say.

    The prefecture acknowledges there has never been a case of a foreign-national prefectural employee leaking information. It instead cites a 2023 incident in which a former Chinese-national employee at a private contractor for the Tokyo Metropolitan Government was arrested for illegally taking personal data on 1,920 passport applicants from a passport center in Ikebukuro.

    Mie is also publicly committed to multicultural policies: as of January 1, 2025, it had 66,933 foreign residents, or 3.84% of its population, the fourth-highest ratio among Japan’s prefectures. The prefectural government has invested in Japanese-language education and other support measures and is considering strengthening such programs in the fiscal 2026 budget.

    “With population decline, securing labor—including foreign workers—is a necessity,” a prefectural official said. “We want to listen to residents’ views and then decide how to proceed.”

    According to the prefecture, 12 prefectural governments, including Mie, currently impose no nationality requirement for hires in the governor’s departments: Iwate, Ibaraki, Kanagawa, Aichi, Shiga, Osaka, Nara, Tottori, Kochi, Oita, and Okinawa. In contrast, the national civil service generally requires Japanese citizenship for recruitment.

    Unions and lawyers: “Plain discrimination” and “not rational”

    Organized labor and legal professionals have reacted sharply.

    On January 6, Central Executive Secretary Isao Ito of Jichiro, the national federation of public-sector labor unions, posted a statement on its website demanding the plan be “immediately withdrawn.”

    Citing the seriousness of discrimination and hate speech based on nationality or origin, he wrote that it is “extremely inappropriate and regrettable” for the head of a local government to cater to such sentiments. The proposal, he argued, contradicts Mie’s own multicultural coexistence promotion plan and risks signaling to foreign residents that they “are not equal members of the community.”

    On January 9, three legal groups—the Tokai Labor Lawyers’ Association, the Mie branch of the Japan Lawyers Association for Freedom, and the Mie branch of the Young Lawyers Association—submitted a joint statement to the prefecture calling for the plan’s immediate scrapping.

    The statement argues that refusing to hire foreign nationals as prefectural employees “solely because they do not have Japanese nationality” is discriminatory and “encourages exclusionary and xenophobic attitudes.” It also says the issue is not one that should be decided by a resident opinion survey.

    “This has become a major national issue,” said attorney Yosuke Onuki, a Tokai Labor Lawyers’ Association secretary, at a press conference in the prefectural government building. “We are extremely concerned this will trigger a broader trend toward restoring nationality requirements, and we cannot simply stand by.”

    Experts have also criticized the move. Toshihiro Menju, a visiting professor at Kansai University of International Studies, said foreign-national hiring is essential to meet the needs of growing foreign resident communities and that Mie’s actions run directly counter to this national and local trend.

    “The central government, too, has drawn a clear line between its position and overt exclusionism,” he noted. “Given that Mie has been seen as a success story in coexistence—its rate of foreign residents going on to high school is high—the current development is both surprising and disappointing.”

    Yuki Enari, a professor of international sociology at Mie University, called on the prefecture to revisit and explain the thinking behind its 1999 decision to ease nationality requirements.

    “That step was groundbreaking in that it opened a path for long-term foreign residents,” he said. “If the prefecture now reverses course, it will drag down Mie’s image. Shutting the door again on the grounds of ‘foreign threats’ and using nationality as a dividing line is not rational. Careful debate and thorough explanation to residents are essential.”

    Residents split, governor noncommittal

    Between December 25, when Governor Ichimi first announced the review, and 5 p.m. on January 7, the prefecture received 72 comments via its website, with opinions roughly split for and against.

    Supporters cited “the obvious need” to prevent leaks of personal and classified information and fears that “Japanese people’s jobs will be taken away.” Opponents countered that imposing hiring restrictions without evidence that foreign nationals are more likely to commit wrongdoing amounts to racial discrimination, and that simply putting the question on a survey risks inflaming prejudice.

    The prefecture’s personnel division has also fielded about 50 phone calls during the same period, again divided about evenly.

    At his January 8 New Year’s press conference, Governor Ichimi acknowledged the mounting criticism but offered no clear timeline or direction.

    “I am aware that many organizations have submitted opinions,” he said. “I intend to listen to those voices and make a decision at some point in the future.”

    For now, while the prefecture weighs its options, many of Mie’s cities are drawing their own line: whatever happens at the prefectural level, they say, foreign-national residents will continue to be welcomed as colleagues inside city hall.

    Reply
    • JK says:

      I’m continuing the AI-generated news experiment; below are 4 new Mainichi Shimbun articles (2 in English; 2 in Japanese) that I asked GPT-5.1 to ingest and synthesize into a single, unified news report in English:

      Human rights groups demand Japan prefecture scrap plan to end hiring foreigners / 国籍要件は排外主義　解放同盟など3団体、県に撤回要請　／三重

      Japan’s Mie Pref. survey on foreign staff hiring sparks outcry over possible discrimination / 質問自体が「差別助長」指摘も　外国籍職員採用の是非問う県民アンケ

      Here’s the AI-generated news article:

      Human rights groups and local leaders in Mie Prefecture are stepping up opposition to a plan that could end the hiring of foreign nationals as prefectural employees, warning it would legitimize discrimination and undermine multicultural coexistence.

      Yokkaichi, Mie — On Jan. 13, a network of three human rights organizations held a news conference at the Mie prefectural government building to demand that the prefecture withdraw its proposal to reinstate a Japanese nationality requirement for staff. The network is made up of the Buraku Liberation League’s Mie Prefecture federation, the Mie Prefecture Association for Research on Education of Foreign Nationals, and the Human Rights Research Institute Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism–Mie.

      The move follows Gov. Katsuyuki Ichimi’s Dec. 25 announcement that the prefecture is considering reviving nationality criteria, effectively ending the hiring of foreign nationals it has brought on mainly in specialist positions. In response, the network drafted a statement calling for the plan’s retraction and mailed it to the prefectural government on Dec. 30.

      The statement criticizes the proposal as sending residents a “misleading message that unjust treatment based on nationality is acceptable, which could significantly impact the community,” describing the plan as “mild xenophobia.” The group also warns that tying employment eligibility to nationality constitutes “an unjust distinction and discrimination,” and urges Ichimi to reverse course. At the Jan. 13 news conference, Nobuko Usukine, chair of the association for research on education of foreign nationals, said, “I believe it is an unjust distinction and discrimination based on nationality. I strongly hope the governor will retract it.”

      The network is also challenging the process by which the prefecture intends to reach a final decision. Ichimi has said he will base his conclusion on the results of the prefecture’s annual “survey of 10,000 Mie residents,” which this year will ask whether foreign nationals should continue to be hired as prefectural employees. As of Jan. 13, 51 human rights and other organizations inside and outside Mie had endorsed a joint statement the network is preparing, calling for the contentious question to be removed from the survey.

      Controversial survey question

      The annual survey targets 10,000 randomly selected registered voters via mail or online. It is intended to gauge residents’ views on prefectural policies, and past findings on issues such as Nankai Trough earthquake preparedness have been used to shape disaster-response measures. This year’s survey runs from Jan. 26 to Feb. 16, with results to be released in May or later.

      The questionnaire contains 22 multiple-choice or yes-or-no questions on topics such as depopulation, gender inequality and disaster prevention. Question No. 16 addresses the hiring of foreign nationals as prefectural staff.

      It begins by explaining that Mie previously lifted its nationality requirement and has since employed foreigners, mainly in expert roles. It then notes that “some countries legally require their citizens to cooperate with their own governments’ information-gathering,” warning that “the confidentiality obligations of public servants could be violated.” Respondents are asked to choose whether employing foreign nationals should “continue,” “not continue,” or whether they “don’t know.”

      Unlike most other items, which are only a few lines long, this question is unusually detailed. It reflects concern that, amid “changes in the international situation,” foreign staff might leak sensitive information related to fields such as agriculture or disaster management. It also cites preventing leaks involving security for dignitaries — including members of the Imperial Family or the prime minister — during visits to local sites such as Ise Jingu shrine.

      Critics argue that by explicitly linking foreign nationality to risks of espionage or information leaks, the question frames foreign employees as potential security threats and risks encouraging prejudice.

      Local mayors warn of discrimination and damage to trust

      Several municipal leaders in Mie have publicly condemned the survey item and the broader move to end foreign-national hiring.

      At a Jan. 9 news conference, Ise Mayor Kenichi Suzuki stressed that public servants are already subject to strict confidentiality rules. Japan’s Local Public Service Act prohibits officials from revealing personal or administrative secrets learned in the course of their duties, even after they leave their posts. Suzuki questioned the need to single out foreign nationals in this context.

      Iga Mayor Toshinao Inamori went further, saying the question itself is problematic. He warned it “undermines multicultural coexistence and could encourage discrimination or hate speech.” Inamori submitted a written request to Gov. Ichimi demanding the question’s removal, arguing that it “belittles foreign employees already working for the prefecture and deeply injures their dignity.”

      Nabari Mayor Hiroyuki Kitagawa, a former prefectural assembly member who chairs a committee studying anti-discrimination ordinances, also called for the question to be scrapped. “You can’t adequately explain the challenges of multicultural coexistence or hiring policy in this question,” he said, adding that it could foster an “internalization of the notion that ‘foreign staff are dangerous.’”

      Skepticism is also growing over the survey’s representativeness. Last year’s “10,000 residents” survey drew responses from only 4,592 people, or 45.9%, and the rate has been declining in recent years. Critics are questioning how the opinions of less than half of one percent of Mie’s roughly 1.7 million residents can be used to justify major policy shifts on employment and minority rights, and say the prefectural government will need to offer far more careful and transparent explanations.

      Yokkaichi vows to keep hiring foreign nationals

      Amid the prefecture’s review, some municipalities are distancing themselves from the governor’s approach. At his Jan. 14 regular news conference, Yokkaichi Mayor Tomohiro Mori said the city has no plans to change its policy on hiring foreign nationals.

      “We will continue as we have. There will be no change,” Mori told reporters.

      Yokkaichi abolished its nationality requirement for new hires for fiscal 2002. At present, four foreign nationals work as full-time employees in the mayor’s affairs bureau and the municipal hospital. Under city regulations, they cannot be assigned to positions involving personnel management, finance, licensing, or other roles tied to the exercise of public authority or key decision-making, and none serve at or above section chief level.

      While Mori remarked that “prefectural and municipal duties differ” and that “it’s up to the prefecture to decide its policy,” he emphasized that operational safeguards can address any legitimate concerns. “We believe operational rules can address any concerns. We are committed to promoting multicultural coexistence and understand the need for ensuring fair treatment for all,” he said.

      Human rights advocates warn that if Mie Prefecture proceeds with reviving nationality requirements based on the survey’s outcome, it risks not only curtailing employment opportunities for foreign residents but also sending a broader signal that discrimination on the basis of nationality is tolerable — a message they say would run directly counter to efforts to build an inclusive, multicultural society.

      Reply
  • Tim says:

    The grim forecast of Japans future has been retold so many times in the media, blogs etc. Anybody thats been here 5+ years could tell you that, its a hopeless cause. The attached xenophobia is predictable also, and the reasons for it (more control). The only drastic change I have seen is an exponential increase in tourism. I still dont know why that occurred. As you know, there are minders and gate keepers in Japan; nothing happens without cause. some point to the exchange rate, but thats not enough to explain the numbers. Im all for it, but I know oyaji grumblings influence gate keepers decisions. Not only people but also pets, products, etc. Help me get it figured out.

    — The increase in tourism was a government program. Yokoso Japan and Cool Japan and all that.

    Reply
    • JDG says:

      Basically, the rabbit’s out of the hat (or whatever the metaphor is). Sanseito and Takaichi have moved the Overton Window so far to the right in Japan, that just like Trump, you have to give him no-excuses, free-reign to act out his vilest impulses so that the voters can see him FAFO in real time with no one else to blame for giving him constraints or guardrails.
      Like Farage in the UK, denied unfettered power, they will always avoid absolute responsibility for their epic failures.
      Japan is now at the point where racists and ethnonationalists are poisoning any attempt at ‘sensible’ political discourse by claiming that any imperfections in the status quo are because their popularist ambitions haven’t been 100% embraced. Whilst this continues, they will forever offer voters *free unicorns*. Only when they hold total and unconstricted power will there be no more scapegoats and voters will have to face the truth.
      People won’t heed the warnings, they have to be dragged to the bottom of the barrel themselves before they believe it.
      The next decade or so is going to be a nightmare of racism, discrimination, marginalization in Japan as NJ are feared and resented by the majority AND encouraged to do so by politicians and the media.

      Reply
      • Baud says:

        HI JDG, I think Japan is worse/more racist than the UK, I mean the Tories have Olukemi as thier leader and that is celebrated while Japan grudgingly allows a woman to be the scapegoat/Liz Truss figure as you say.

        Jenrick’s acceptance into Reform shows Farage is just making a new Tory party because he always wanted to be in the Tories, but was excluded, so its just more of the same. I say this to denigrate him.

        I personally doubt Farage is going to win a majority in any case, there are several years to go before the next election so anything could happen.

        My main point is Japan is far more “Embedded Racism” than most Western countries, its decades behind. They ensure even Miss Japan at a mere beauty contest cannot be white. Ethno nationalists in the extreme.

        Reply
        • JDG says:

          Not for the first time, you are a bad faith actor posting with an agenda beside the opposition of discrimination in Japan.
          Kemi Badenoch has made a choice to not use her full Yoruba name and her distancing from a Nigerian identity is rooted in her personal, political, and cultural views.
          I don’t like her and I disagree with her on many issues, but it is her choice to define her own sense of ‘Britishness’ and it is a tactic of the far right to continually refer to her by her Nigerian name that she rejects. Much like Trump/MAGA calling Obama ‘Barack *Hussein* Obama’ to capitalize on the negative connotations of ‘Hussein’ in the eyes of many.
          Are you MAGA? Russian troll? Reform?
          Stick to the Japanese discrimination, I politely suggest.

          Reply
          • Baud says:

            I do not like being called a “bad actor” just because I have an unconventional opinion. Maybe I just despise the tories and use every weapon I can to belittle them and their spineless “leaders”??? I see the LDP as their Japanese counterparts, without any of the redeeming features i.e. a more racist. less diverse version.

            (I do not want to further go down the rabbit hole of Badenoch’s NIgerian roots or I will be forced to go off on a tangent about cultural appropriation, tribal rivalries and Ngosi Fulani. Let’s get it back to Japan).

            “I hate the Tory Party, their men and their methods,”- W. Churchill, (1903) lol. This perhaps best sums up my attitude. This, plus “My mind is not for rent, to any god or government’.

            Sadly, Japan arguably was modelled in their image post-war (until Nobusuke nobbled it with his 1955 system, nipping true Japanese democracy in the bud-thanks Abe family), and the LDP would probably like to use he comparison to give them a veneer of western acceptance and respectability. If that means a cronyistic, corrupt self styled “natural party of government” but also derided for its support from rotten borough farmers as the “stupid’ party, then I suppose the comparison is well made.

          • Baud says:

            I told you on Septe 18 2024 who I am “More to who I am is simply a free spirit, a Churchillian Liberal who takes from both left and right, but finds far too much wrong with Japan and Japanese society which is utterly dysfunctional and ridiculous in its tiny, narcissistic attention to small differences in a myopic Postmodern Theatre of the Absurd.”

            You did not reply then, because you said you were leaving.

            I am still glad you have returned. Is this the attitude of a “bad faith actor”?

            — If this debate continues, I will allow one response from JDG if so desired, and then Baud the last word.

          • JDG says:

            Thank you Dr. Debito.
            It’s not the first time that this poster has attempted to innocuously slip a comment into a post of the type that former Conservative PM of the UK David Cameron would describe as coming from ‘fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists”.
            And then deny it.
            I SEE HIM.

        • Baud says:

          Ditto, disgraced/corrupt/inept tory Nadeem Zahawi accepted into Reform- looking for like a splinter part of the LDP.

          The UK taking a leaf ouf of Japan’s parliamentary politics, a corrupt Uniparty, the 1955 system, who’d have thought?

          Reply
          • Baudrillard Rodriguez says:

            You could not let it go, could you?

            This is not a debate, its a character assassination and I do not have time anymore for such play. Debito, I am surprised and disappointed you allowed it to go on.

            I expected more of the poster JDG and am sadly disappointed.

            The debate /analysis has utterly degenerated into name calling.

            The left (and right) will eat themselves.

            Someone once asked me, “Doctor, why do you study politics and yet reject politics?”

            It makes no difference to the “problem of the human condition’ (P. Murphy, 1985).

            The paradox of human nature. Send the asteroid, already.

            “So long, meat-bags!” – Bender B. Rodriguez.

            — I said one reply each, and if it descended into name-calling, that’s a pity and sadly a waste of pixels from two long-term Readers. (I wouldn’t have offered these terms for anyone but.) But that’s that. Closing this debate now. No more posts on this topic will be approved.

  • JK says:

    I asked GPT-5.1 to list all the logical fallacies present in the YouTuber’s response during his interview per the article below:

    Pakistani community in Hokkaido confused as baseless slander spreads online / 「パキスタン村」レッテル張り、花火打ち込み　「排斥」の理屈とは

    Here’s what it came back with:

    Below are key fallacies and reasoning problems in the YouTuber’s defense of his video.

    1. Contradiction + Straw Reframing (Self‑Contradiction about Target)

    • Video title/description: “Illegal foreigners’ village! The city and police can’t intervene!” and “I was surrounded by Pakistanis and suddenly told ‘Go home, Japanese.’ I felt my life was in danger.”
    • Later claim: “I wanted to address the issue of illegal development and construction, not foreigner issues.”

    Problems:
    • The title explicitly frames it as a foreigner problem (“illegal foreigners’ village”), not a zoning problem.
    • By insisting “it’s about illegal construction,” he is reframing his own content in a way that ignores how he actually presented it to viewers. That functions like a straw reframe: he defends a milder version (“just an admin issue”) instead of the harsher, real version (xenophobia‑bait title and narrative focused on Pakistanis).

    2. Appeal to (Irrelevant) Character: “I like foreign countries, so I’m not xenophobic”

    • Claim: “I like foreign countries and have many foreign friends. It’s frustrating to be labeled as a xenophobe.”

    Fallacy: Appeal to character / tokenism / “some of my best friends are…”

    • Whether his actions and wording are xenophobic is about what he did and said, not his stated preferences or his social circle.
    • This is an attempt to invalidate criticism by pointing to his personal traits/relationships instead of addressing the concrete harms (e.g., spreading terms like “illegal foreigners’ village,” feeding discrimination described by Hirata).

    3. Red Herring: Shifting Focus from Harm to Bureaucratic Critique

    • He says the core issue is:
    “the administration is not adequately addressing illegal construction.”
    • He presents his motive as: “I wanted more people to be aware of [illegal construction]” and “Society significantly lacks interest in local administration.”

    Fallacy: Red herring

    • The criticism from Hirata concerns private justice, incitement, and spread of discriminatory labels (e.g., “Pakistan village,” “illegal foreigners”), which contributed to real-world harassment (fireworks attack, xenophobic calls to City Hall).
    • His response changes the subject to a general complaint about slow administrative response (mega solar project in Kushiro, overall bureaucratic indifference), which does not address:
    – why he used ethnic labels;
    – why he framed Pakistanis as a threatening group;
    – why his exaggerations/claims of personal danger were justified.

    4. Hasty Generalization / Faulty Analogy from Another Case

    • Justification: “In Hokkaido, the administrative response regarding the mega solar project in Kushiro has been slow, and I thought it was wrong. The illegal construction in Ebetsu is not well known, and I wanted more people to be aware of it.”

    Problems:
    • He treats one instance of slow response (Kushiro mega solar) as evidence of a generalized pattern of failure that supposedly justifies his highly sensationalist intervention in Ebetsu.
    • That’s a hasty generalization (limited evidence → broad claim about systemic failure) and then a faulty analogy (equating his xenophobia‑tinged exposé of Pakistanis with ordinary administrative criticism of a solar project).

    5. Minimization of Impact / Downplaying (“Some aspects lacked maturity”)

    • He concedes: “I admit that some aspects of how I conveyed the message lacked maturity, but I believe the core issue is that the administration is not adequately addressing illegal construction.”

    Reasoning issue:
    • This is a minimization tactic: labeling xenophobic framing and fear‑mongering as merely “immature” communication.
    • It avoids the moral and social weight of what Hirata points out: his and related videos “contain both facts and false information” and are a form of “private justice” that helped normalize terms like “Pakistan village” and “illegal foreigners,” which likely incited physical actions (fireworks attack).
    • By calling it just a style issue, he dodges the substance of the criticism.

    6. Implicit Appeal to Authority / Experience

    • She notes: “The man, who studied in Britain and France for two years…”

    Reasoning issue:
    • The implied message is: because I studied abroad and like foreign countries, I understand foreigners and cannot be xenophobic.
    • This is an appeal to (irrelevant) authority/experience: international study does not exempt a person from xenophobic framing nor does it refute concrete evidence of it in his content.

    7. Sensationalism vs. Claimed Intent (Deceptive Framing)

    • Title: “Illegal foreigners’ village! The city and police can’t intervene!”
    • Description: “I felt my life was in danger.”
    • Later framing: “The title and content highlight the problems with Ebetsu’s response.”

    Problems:
    • “The city and police can’t intervene” suggests a lawless enclave and effectively positions Pakistanis as beyond the reach of law, a common xenophobic trope.
    • “I felt my life was in danger” (presented without verification, in a context Hirata calls “containing false information”) inflates the threat level around Pakistanis.
    • Calling that mere “highlighting problems with Ebetsu’s response” is misleading; it pretends the framing is neutrally administrative when it is clearly sensational and ethnicized. That’s a form of deceptive framing.

    8. False Implication of Official Backing

    • He says: “It was created based on the city government’s explanation…”

    Reasoning problem:
    • By invoking the city’s explanation, he implies that:
    – the ethnicized title (“illegal foreigners’ village”) and
    – the sweeping implication of impunity (“city and police can’t intervene”)
    are grounded in official information.
    • This is misleading: at most, the city confirmed illegal structures; the leap to “illegal foreigners’ village” and existential threat is his own spin.
    • It functions like a pseudo‑appeal to authority: using partial official facts to legitimize an exaggerated, xenophobic framing that the authority did not endorse.

    9. Ignoring Evident Causal Link (Selective Reasoning)

    Hirata notes:
    • The videos “contain both facts and false information.”
    • Terms like “Pakistan village” and “illegal foreigners” spread.
    • These likely incited physical actions like the fireworks attack.

    The YouTuber:
    • Focuses on his intent (“raise awareness,” “profit is secondary”) and administrative critique, but never meaningfully acknowledges:
    – how his language and narrative could reasonably be expected to fuel xenophobia and vigilantism.

    Reasoning issue:
    • This is selective reasoning: he only considers parts of the causal chain (illegal buildings → weak admin response → public needs awareness) and ignores the part where his chosen rhetoric predictably leads to harassment and violence.

    10. Equating “Criticism of Administration” with “Freedom to Use Xenophobic Frames”

    Underlying move:
    • He positions himself as someone doing civic good: “I’m sending out information to raise awareness… Society significantly lacks interest in local administration.”
    • From this, he implicitly suggests that because his goal is public awareness, the way he does it is defensible.

    Reasoning issue:
    • That’s a form of false equivalence:
    – legitimate critique of zoning enforcement ≠
    – publicly branding a specific ethnic group’s area as an “illegal foreigners’ village” and portraying them as life‑threatening.
    • He treats any criticism of his content as if it were criticism of civic engagement itself, which is a mischaracterization of the objection.

    In sum, the YouTuber’s response relies on:
    • self‑contradiction between claimed intent and actual framing;
    • appeals to his own character and background instead of his words’ effects;
    • redirection to administrative issues while ignoring xenophobic impact;
    • and misleading invocation of official information and personal experience.

    Reply
  • JK says:

    For this post, I am trying something even more experimental — I asked GPT-5.1 to a) synthesize a single, unified news report, then b) analyze the synthesized report for logical fallacies in the expert panel’s opinion paper.

    Sources:

    • Expert panel proposes mandatory Japanese programs for foreign residents
    • Experts propose societal norms courses for foreign residents
    • 外国人政策の総合策、23日取りまとめへ　衆院選で「実績」アピール

    Synthesized news report:

    Japan is moving toward stricter, more structured policies for foreign residents, with an expert panel urging mandatory programs on Japanese language and social norms and tighter oversight of land purchases by non‑Japanese.
    In an opinion paper delivered to Kimi Onoda, the minister in charge of policy on foreign nationals, the panel said the government should take formal responsibility for ensuring that medium‑ to long‑term residents can “continuously study the Japanese language and the norms and conventions of Japanese society.” It argued that current opportunities for foreign residents to learn about Japan’s legal systems, culture, and everyday rules—both before arrival and after entry—are limited, making it harder for some to adapt and, in the panel’s view, potentially affecting public order.
    The experts called for the creation of systematic programs, to be offered either before entry or immediately after arrival, that would cover language, culture, social customs, and basic institutional knowledge. The paper says the government should consider making participation in such programs a requirement for foreign nationals staying in Japan on a mid‑ to long‑term basis. While similar structured integration programs exist in some other countries, the panel noted that Japan currently has no equivalent nationwide framework.
    The same panel also recommended that Japan reassess how it regulates land acquisition and management by foreign nationals, approaching the issue from two angles: everyday economic life and national security.
    On the economic side, the experts said more data are needed before drawing conclusions about the impact of foreign buyers on real estate prices, pointing to claims that short‑term transactions by overseas investors may be contributing to surging apartment costs. They suggested collecting more detailed information on property purchases by non‑Japanese.
    From a security perspective, the panel noted that there have so far been no confirmed cases in which land owned or used by foreign nationals has interfered with the operations of Self‑Defense Forces bases or similar sensitive facilities. Even so, it argued that, given what it described as a worsening security environment, the time has come to rethink how land‑related rules should be structured.
    Any new regulations, the paper stressed, should be based on clearly defined security concerns, with their legal basis carefully scrutinized. It warned that policymakers must balance proposed controls against the freedom of economic activity, avoid overreaching restrictions on private property, and ensure consistency with international norms.
    The expert group, formally tasked with promoting “a well‑ordered and harmonious coexistence” between Japanese society and foreign nationals, was established late last year and has so far met twice.
    The panel’s recommendations are feeding directly into a broader push by the government to tighten foreign‑resident policy. According to officials, the administration plans to convene a meeting of relevant ministers on January 23 to finalize a comprehensive package on foreign nationals, including stricter screening and management of residence status and new rules on land transactions. Coordination to compile this package is already under way, and the measures could be adopted as early as January.
    The timing is politically significant. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is expected to dissolve the lower house at the opening of the regular Diet session on January 23, triggering a snap general election. By locking in a tougher foreign‑resident policy before dissolution, the administration aims to showcase the package as a flagship achievement to appeal particularly to conservative voters.
    The government first convened the cross‑ministerial meeting on foreign‑resident policy in November of last year, bringing together agencies including the Justice Ministry and the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry. Since then, discussions have focused on aligning policies that cut across immigration control, labor, social services, and security.
    Takaichi has repeatedly emphasized that, in light of labor shortages driven by population decline, foreign workers are “necessary” for Japan and that the government intends to distinguish its approach from outright exclusionism. At the same time, she has vowed to respond “firmly” to illegal acts and rule violations by foreign nationals.
    The upcoming comprehensive package is expected to include several major changes:
    • Stricter residency management: The government is considering requiring permanent residents to demonstrate a certain level of Japanese‑language proficiency as a new condition for that status.
    • Tougher path to citizenship: Naturalization rules would effectively be tightened by lengthening the de facto required period of residence from “five years or more” to “ten years or more.”
    • More oversight of land deals: For real estate purchases by foreign nationals, the government plans to mandate the declaration of nationality at the time of property registration, with the aim of improving transparency around ownership.
    • Formalized integration programs: The new, structured programs to learn about Japan’s legal system, culture, and customs are expected to be written into the package, in line with the panel’s recommendations.
    While the panel backs stronger oversight, it repeatedly cautions that any new measures on land or foreign residents must avoid disproportionate restrictions and remain compatible with Japan’s international commitments and economic openness.

    List of logical fallacies in the expert panel’s opinion paper:

    1. Hasty generalization about foreign residents and “public order”

    • Text: “…current opportunities for foreign residents to learn…are limited, making it harder for some to adapt and, in the panel’s view, potentially affecting public order.”
    • Problem:
    – Jumps from “some find it harder to adapt” to “this may affect public order” without evidence of a real or significant link.
    – Suggests that insufficient language/cultural study by foreigners is a meaningful risk to public order, but provides no data: no crime stats, no examples, no trends.
    • Fallacy type: Hasty generalization / weak causal inference.

    2. Non sequitur: language and norms → threat to order

    • Text: Government should ensure foreigners can “continuously study” Japanese language and norms because lack of such study “potentially” affects public order.
    • Problem:
    – It does not follow that mandatory, continuous study is needed (or even helpful) solely from the claim that some opportunities are “limited.”
    – The conclusion (mandatory, continuous programs) is much stronger than the premises (some people have limited access, may find it harder to adapt).
    • Fallacy type: Non sequitur (conclusion stronger than premises justify); unwarranted policy leap.

    3. Appeal to fear / security alarmism without evidence

    • Text: “From a security perspective, the panel noted that there have so far been no confirmed cases in which land owned or used by foreign nationals has interfered with…sensitive facilities. Even so, it argued that… the time has come to rethink how land‑related rules should be structured.”
    • Problem:
    – Explicit admission: no known security incidents.
    – Despite that, uses a vague “worsening security environment” to justify tightening controls on land owned by foreigners.
    – Implies a risk without demonstrating any concrete threat, especially not one specifically tied to foreign ownership.
    • Fallacy type: Appeal to fear / precautionary rhetoric without a specified, evidenced risk.

    4. Inconsistent evidentiary standards on land and real estate

    • Text (economic side): “More data are needed before drawing conclusions about the impact of foreign buyers on real estate prices…”
    • Text (security side): No cases of interference, yet recommends “rethink” of rules anyway.
    • Problem:
    – For economic impact, they say they cannot conclude anything without more data.
    – For security impact, they also have no adverse cases but still move toward regulatory tightening.
    – The standard of proof is applied selectively: high bar for “benefit or neutrality,” low bar for “risk tied to foreigners.”
    • Fallacy type: Special pleading / double standard in evidentiary requirements.

    5. Questionable causal link between foreign investors and housing prices

    • Text: “…pointing to claims that short‑term transactions by overseas investors may be contributing to surging apartment costs.”
    • Problem:
    – Uses unspecified “claims” instead of evidence.
    – Correlation is assumed or implied as causation: soaring prices are partly blamed on foreign investors without controlling for domestic speculation, low interest rates, zoning, etc.
    • Fallacy type: Appeal to unsubstantiated claims; post hoc/causal oversimplification.

    6. Appeal to popularity / “other countries do it” justification

    • Text: “While similar structured integration programs exist in some other countries, the panel noted that Japan currently has no equivalent…”
    • Problem:
    – Implies that because other countries have mandatory integration programs, Japan should too.
    – Offers no evaluation of whether those programs are actually effective, rights‑compatible, or appropriate for Japan’s context.
    • Fallacy type: Appeal to popularity / bandwagon (“others do it, so it’s good”).

    7. Slippery but vague linkage between “harmonious coexistence” and stricter controls

    • Text: The panel is tasked with promoting “a well‑ordered and harmonious coexistence,” and its output is stricter oversight, mandatory programs, tighter status control, and land monitoring.
    • Problem:
    – “Well‑ordered and harmonious coexistence” is vague, and the claim that this goal requires or is best served by expanded state control and surveillance of foreigners is not argued, just assumed.
    – It implicitly suggests that without such controls, harmony/order are at risk, but provides no concrete mechanism or evidence.
    • Fallacy type: Non sequitur / vague goal used to justify unrelated or stronger‑than‑necessary measures.

    8. Guilt‑by‑association / group‑based suspicion

    • Text pattern:
    – Foreign land ownership is singled out for security scrutiny despite no known harmful cases.
    – Foreign residents as a class are targeted for mandatory language/norm training linked to “public order” concerns.
    • Problem:
    – Treats all foreign nationals (or foreign owners) as potential risks based on their group identity, not on behavior or evidence.
    – This is not a classic fallacy label in standard lists, but as reasoning it approximates: treating membership in a category as evidence of risk in the absence of incident data.
    • Fallacy type: Overgeneralization / stereotyping / guilt‑by‑association.

    9. Burden‑of‑proof shift for foreigners

    • Text:
    – Foreign landowners must newly declare nationality “with the aim of improving transparency around ownership.”
    – Foreign residents are to be required to demonstrate language proficiency or program completion; naturalization period doubled.
    • Problem:
    – Implicitly: foreigners must prove they are assimilated, non‑threatening, and transparent, even though no specific harms are documented.
    – The burden of proof is shifted from the state (to show concrete risk or necessity) to foreigners (to show compliance and harmlessness).
    • Fallacy type: Burden of proof shift (demanding justification from the side that is presumed risky without evidence of actual harm).

    10. Policy motivated by electoral strategy rather than policy evidence

    • Text: “By locking in a tougher foreign‑resident policy before dissolution, the administration aims to showcase the package as a flagship achievement to appeal particularly to conservative voters.”
    • Problem:
    – Admits that the timing and framing are explicitly about electoral appeal, not policy effectiveness.
    – While this is a political strategy issue more than a textbook fallacy, it undercuts the purported rational/security/assimilation justification and reveals a motive fallacy in how the policies are being sold (presented as technical necessity when they are also—or primarily—political signaling).
    • Fallacy type: Motivated reasoning / appeal to political gain rather than policy evidence (not a canonical named fallacy, but a reasoning flaw).

    11. Ambiguity and vagueness in key terms

    • Terms: “public order,” “norms and conventions,” “worsening security environment,” “well‑ordered and harmonious coexistence,” “illegal acts and rule violations,” “necessary” foreign workers.
    • Problem:
    – These terms are left undefined; they can be interpreted elastically to justify a wide range of controls.
    – Vague phrasing blurs different issues (e.g., minor administrative violations vs. serious crimes; general regional tensions vs. documented foreign‑owner incidents).
    • Fallacy type: Fallacy of ambiguity / equivocation (using vague, emotionally loaded terms that allow the conclusion to seem justified without precise support).

    12. Overreach from “language helpful” to “mandatory condition for rights”

    • Text: Considering “requiring permanent residents to demonstrate a certain level of Japanese‑language proficiency” and effectively doubling the residency period for naturalization.
    • Problem:
    – It’s reasonable to say language helps integration; it’s a further, much stronger step to make language proficiency and much longer residence into legal gates for stable status and citizenship.
    – The argument doesn’t show why such stringent thresholds are needed rather than milder support measures.
    • Fallacy type: Non sequitur / unwarranted extension from a plausible premise (“language helps”) to an extreme policy (“or you don’t get stable rights”).

    13. Implicit double message: “not exclusionist” while tightening across the board

    • Text: PM says foreign workers are “necessary” and that the approach is distinct from “outright exclusionism,” while simultaneously:
    – tightening residence and naturalization;
    – increasing surveillance of land deals;
    – making integration programs potentially mandatory.
    • Problem:
    – There is a tension between rhetoric (we are not exclusionist) and substance (across‑the‑board tightening). – This is a rhetorical inconsistency more than a formal fallacy, but it obscures the real nature of the policies and may mislead about their exclusionary character.
    • Fallacy type: Inconsistency / self‑contradiction in the narrative about goals vs. means.

    Reply
  • Niklas says:

    All three big convinience store companies release statements supporting foreign workers and criticize the government for putting restrictions on foreigners.

    https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20260119/p2a/00m/0bu/025000c

    This one‘s interesting. I can‘t fully support them, because they‘re the ones profiting from cheap foreign labor that pays minimum wage, but it‘s still a good sign when erai hito speak out against government racism, because these are the only people the government will listen to.

    The reality is that Japan can‘t survive without foreign labor. Sure, nationalistc slogans like „Japan for Japanese“ and „kick out all the gaijin“ are a nice way to easily win votes, but in the end people still can‘t afford their rice. This statement is reality catching up with Takaichi and I‘m wondering if other companies will follow suit.

    Reply
  • Niklas says:

    Update on the planned building that would have housed mostly foreigners and got canceled by public outcry.

    https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20260119/p2a/00m/0na/020000c

    „What the hell are you thinking with these foreigner-only condos?” yelled a person on the other end of the line when an official of the Asakura Municipal Government’s urban development division picked up the phone on Sept. 16 last year.“

    Oh, the irony. It‘s fine as long as it‘s „Japanese Only“ of course, but turn things around and people start to protest all of a sudden.

    It also wouldn‘t even be foreigners only, according to the developers 20% would still be Japanese, it would‘ve just been mainly for foreig tenants.

    Reply
    • JK says:

      According to the prefecture, the developer has since taken no action, but if their application complies with the law and meets requirements, it is basically difficult to suspend the development as the prefecture cannot reject the project just because the condos are for foreigners.

      There are limits to what a local government alone can do in maintaining order or regulating when foreign companies enter the Japanese market. This is an issue that can arise in any municipality. In Japan, a nation ruled by law, national leadership and concrete legal frameworks are necessary to deal with these issues.”

      Here’s how I interpret this: If the J-Gov were to enact “concrete legal frameworks” to “deal with these issues” then the prefecture could reject the project on purely on the basis that some of condos’ owners would be NJ.

      Reply
  • JK says:

    Japan’s policy response to foreign nationals missing key piece

    My two-yen: this is a feature, not a bug.

    — Hi JK. You’ve gone from very long to very short entries. Sorry I’ve taken so much time to get to reading them. But I would prefer that for the sake of archiving and avoiding future paywalls that we have excerpts if not the whole article. Thanks.

    Japan’s policy response to foreign nationals missing key piece
    By SIMON HENDERSON/ Special to The Asahi Shimbun
    January 29, 2026 at 12:27 JST
    Share
    Tweet
    list
    Print
    Photo/Illutration
    Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi receives a proposal from the Liberal Democratic Party’s Foreign Resident Policy Headquarters on Jan. 22. (Minako Yoshimoto)
    Over the last year, Japan’s approach toward foreign nationals has been a constant source of debate. It was driven by intensified public scrutiny due to an increasing number of foreign nationals, media attention, misinformation and disinformation, geopolitical tensions, overtourism, as well as growing political pressure.

    Yet, the issue of how to better protect the rights of foreign nationals remains a missing piece in Japan’s policy response to be addressed during the Feb. 8 Lower House election.

    Sanseito’s rhetoric during the July 2025 Upper House election propelled the topic of foreign nationals onto the national and international stage.

    The Liberal Democratic Party responded to public concerns and political pressure by announcing a raft of new policies. A new government panel of experts was also established to consider rule compliance, and ministries were tasked with considering ways to ensure stricter compliance with rules by foreign nationals.

    Meanwhile, just last week, on Jan. 23, a new policy package toward foreigners was approved by the Cabinet.

    With Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi having called a snap election for Feb. 8, attention will be on whether the political gamble was worth it.

    Takaichi is considered comparatively popular in her own right, being Japan’s first female prime minister, adopting a decisive leadership style, and having withstood a pressure campaign from China. However, cost of living challenges, taxes, national security, and political party machinations are likely to dominate headlines.

    The outcome of the election is far from clear, yet the debate surrounding foreign nationals will continue.

    According to data from the Justice Ministry, the proportion of foreign residents in Japan could surpass 10 percent of the population as early as 2040. This is faster than initial projections, which had suggested that the 10-percent figure would not be reached until 2070.

    Much has been said of the widespread labor shortages across Japan and the need for more migrants. To date, much of the focus has been on topics such as visa conditions, dissemination of information, land acquisition, driving licenses, employment support, and Japanese language skills.

    Attracting and retaining skilled migrants will require Japan to become a more appealing place so that they continue to come.

    Even though Takaichi has said that the Japanese government draws “a clear line against xenophobia,” the policy actions and proposals so far have failed to directly address the issue of discrimination against foreign nationals.

    Two actions should be undertaken.

    Firstly, the establishment of an independent national human rights institution.

    A national human rights institution in Japan could play a central role in developing human rights education programs and resources for schools, workplaces and the community, investigating complaints of discrimination and breaches of human rights.

    Past attempts at establishing a national human rights institution in 2011 and 2012 failed due to the proposals failing to meet international standards and a lack of support. It is time for the Japanese government to restart that process.

    In the 15 years since the foreign population has doubled, some of the institutional frameworks that could better protect foreign nationals have failed to keep pace.

    The lack of a national human rights institution in Japan has been the subject of consistent concern by the international community.

    In 2023, 29 countries, such as France, Ukraine and Australia, called for Japan to establish a national human rights institution at the U.N. Human Rights Council. The U.N. Human Rights Committee has also called for the Japanese government to establish a national human rights institution on several occasions.

    Japan stands apart from other mature democracies and even many other Asian countries, such as South Korea, Nepal and Mongolia. An independent national human rights institution would go a long way to better protecting the rights of everyone in Japan, including foreign nationals.

    Secondly, the passage of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation.

    Japan lacks overarching anti-discrimination laws prohibiting racial, ethnic or religious discrimination, discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, or discrimination based on age.

    While Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality, its application against private discrimination remains limited, and issues persist with its implementation. Foreign nationals consistently highlight discrimination when attempting to rent a property, challenges in accessing services, workplace discrimination, and racial profiling by police.

    Racial profiling has received a growing amount of attention in recent years. It stigmatizes individuals and communities, making them feel no longer welcome in Japan.

    About 70 percent of foreign nationals in Japan have been subjected to police questioning on the streets in the past five years, nearly six times more than Japanese nationals. This has led to civil legal action by Japanese residents of overseas ancestry challenging persistent police discrimination.

    The rising number of foreign nationals in Japan has led to a series of many necessary policy and legislative measures. Yet, if the Japanese government truly aspires to create a society in which Japanese and foreign nationals mutually respect each other and can live safely and comfortably, then more needs to be done.

    A national human rights institution and comprehensive anti-discrimination laws should be prioritized as policy measures by all parties during the Feb. 8 election.

    * * *

    Simon Henderson is an international human rights lawyer, foreign policy analyst, and academic based in Tokyo. He is a visiting lecturer at Japanese universities where he teaches human rights. ENDS

    Reply
    • JK says:

      @Dr. Debito, regarding long/short posts, like the CDP + Komeito, I guess I’m trying to find the ‘Middle Road‘ myself! OK, bad political joke, but I couldn’t help myself!

      In all seriousness though, I’m glad you brought up the topic of dealing with paywalls — just this month Kyodo News posted this:

      We’re excited to announce that, starting today Jan. 16, 2026, Japan Wire by Kyodo News is introducing free membership.

      Sign up at no cost to get real-time access to English-language coverage from Kyodo World Service (KWS) — articles and photos that appear on Japan Wire — along with an archive going back three months.

      You can also receive a weekly newsletter from the KWS newsroom in Tokyo. It features a recap of the week’s Japan-related news, a preview of what’s coming up and our recommended reads.

      We’ll keep working to make your experience on Japan Wire even better. Thanks for reading and staying with us.

      Anytime I see something advertised as ‘free’, I shudder to think what the *actual* cost is going to end up being (e.g., privacy invasion, monitoring/tracking, future introduction of paid tiers, change of terms/service/Darth Vader’s “I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further.”)

      Since I don’t share Kyodo News’ enthusiasm about this announcement, going forward I will be sure to include select snippets / whole-article excerpts as you suggested.

      P.S., I wonder if after 3 months *the ‘free membership’ article* will end up being paywalled? Somebody remind me to check back in mid-April!

      Reply
      • JK says:

        Update: A ‘free membership’ at Kyodo News is now required in order to access content less than a week old — I just tried reading the following article…

        FOCUS: Foreigner issue under focus as parties rush to ease worries of Japanese voters

        …but no dice:

        Log in or create a Free Membership Account

        Log in

        or

        Create account

        Free Membership Provides

        Newsletter from Editorial Team and access to archive articles from past three months.

        By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy

        Fortunately I saved a copy of the text beforehand:

        TOKYO -- Foreign nationals have increasingly become an issue of focus in Sunday's House of Representatives election, with parties rushing to ease voters' growing concerns by discussing policies about how to manage the diverse group, which is reaching record numbers nationwide.
        Observers and analysts have warned against categorizing foreigners as a single group while emphasizing the importance of maintaining "order" in a traditionally homogeneous society. They believe that grouping issues facing non-Japanese nationals from various backgrounds together would prevent thorough discussions.
        According to Japan's Immigration Services Agency, the number of foreign residents totaled a record 3,956,619 by the end of June 2025, accounting for 3.2 percent of the population -- an increase of 5 percent from the end of 2024. A national research institute has estimated that by 2070, they will make up 10.8 percent of the population.
        In the face of increased public attention and criticism in recent years regarding reports of foreigners misusing public systems or engaging in problematic behavior, the populist Sanseito party has advocated for tighter controls on foreign residents under its "Japanese first" mantra -- a stance that won it votes in the House of Councillors election in July 2025.
        This has prompted other political parties to address the issue of foreigners more consciously. However, analysts pointed out that uniform policies would be unrealistic, given that foreign nationals range from skilled workers and students to investors and tourists.
        "Just because there is a case of rule-breaking by a foreign resident or tourist does not mean that foreigners as a whole are acting that way. Yet the Japanese public has become emotionally concerned about their growing presence, particularly since last year," said Eriko Suzuki, a professor at Kokushikan University specializing in immigration policy.
        She added that politicians tend to side with Japanese nationals, opting to speak of strengthening oversight instead of taking steps that would benefit both local and foreign residents.
        Masamichi Ida, a Meiji University professor and election analysis expert, said, "Sanseito's focus on policies regarding foreigners caused a stir when some voters began to feel vaguely anxious about Japan's future," fearing it would transform into a "multiracial, multiethnic country like other nations."
        Ida added that reports of friction with local communities due to the surge in inbound tourism following the pandemic have raised concerns, as have reports of speculative purchases by foreigners driving up condominium prices and spikes in hotel fees.
        During the election campaign, the Japan Innovation Party -- the junior coalition partner of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party -- has proposed strict caps on immigration and foreign resident ratios. In contrast, the opposition Centrist Reform Alliance has called such restrictions "too hasty" and is pushing for a multicultural society.
        The LDP has pledged to discuss establishing regulations for foreign nationals' acquisition of land and real estate, as well as tightening immigration controls and oversight of tax and social security systems.
        Sanseito is calling for a new government agency that would uniformly manage policies related to foreigners, including setting standards for accepting them, and for tougher action against illegal stays and purchases of real estates by foreign nationals.
        Even before the election, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's government finalized a policy package to promote "well-ordered and harmonious coexistence" and a "zero illegal overstayers" plan, intended to address people's feelings of unease and injustice regarding illegal activities or rule violations by "a subset" of foreign nationals in Japan.
        Motoki Yuzuriha, the president of Mynavi Global Corp., a registered support organization that assists over 4,000 foreign skilled workers at more than 690 companies, said he welcomes the issue of foreigners becoming a key topic in the election.
        "Discussions and implementation of proper management of foreigners will in the end lessen the unfair and unfavorable assessment of foreign laborers," said Yuzuriha, while warning against discussing the situation of foreign workers in general when there are different residence statuses.
        Government data showed the number of foreign workers in Japan reached a new high of over 2.57 million as of the end of October, marking an 11.7 percent rise from the previous year and breaking the record for the 13th consecutive year.
        "Japan has been accepting foreign workers to offset an aging and declining population and the demographics has made it clear for many that their presence is expected to be solidified for a lengthy period," said Meiji University's Ida.
        Last year, Justice Minister Keisuke Suzuki said that Japan should expect its foreign population to exceed 10 percent by around 2040. How to manage this influx is a crucial issue that needs to be addressed without stoking fears among Japanese residents, he said.
        According to analysts, the parties have yet to discuss in depth the measures that companies and groups are taking to minimize the inevitable friction arising from differences in social norms and cultures.
        "I think it is a significant challenge for Japanese businesses to enhance their knowledge and experience about accepting foreign skilled workers, more so for those hiring them for the first time," Yuzuriha said.
        He called on businesses to change their mindset in assuming that foreign workers should "act the same as Japanese," which results in "miscommunication and frustration" when they fail to do so.
        Looking ahead, Kokushikan University's Suzuki emphasized the need for stakeholders to create a more inclusive society for foreigners, addressing issues such as the isolation of children with foreign roots in schools.
        "I am afraid that the emphasis on keeping order and ensuring that foreigners follow rules -- as seen in the current election campaigning -- would impede measures to create an environment for them to live in Japanese society," she said.
        (By Junko Horiuchi)

        Reply
  • Niklas says:

    Another day, another fascist policy.

    https://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/16267062

    That will surely fix the failing economy.

    Coalition pushes revival of ranks from imperial military days
    THE ASAHI SHIMBUN
    January 31, 2026 at 07:00 JST

    The ruling coalition aims to restore Japanese military ranks used in World War II for members of the Self-Defense Forces, a plan that has drawn concern and bewilderment in the Defense Ministry.

    The Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner, Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party), are pushing for the revival of imperial Japanese military ranks under the banner of “adjusting to international standards.”

    The coalition agreement stated that the measure would be implemented by the end of fiscal 2026.

    Since its foundation in 1954, the SDF has used rank names that are different from those used by the imperial Japanese military to represent a clean break from the wartime past. The SDF was not meant to be military in the conventional sense.

    For example, the SDF rank equivalent to “colonel” in other countries is “issa” in Japanese, literally meaning “first field officer.” It replaced “taisa,” the imperial military term.

    For English translations of the ranks, the SDF has consistently used corresponding overseas terms, meaning it has been following the international norm for decades.

    The move to seek a return of imperial ranks is apparently designed to appeal to a domestic audience.

    The suggested change was added at the last minute to the LDP-Nippon Ishin policy agreement, according to sources in the government and the ruling coalition.

    Former defense ministers, in fact, said the topic has never come up for talks among LDP legislators well-versed in national security issues.

    According to senior coalition officials, the initiative was adopted when Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara met with Keishi Abe, a Lower House member of Nippon Ishin, a few days before the two parties reached the coalition agreement.

    Abe, a former bureaucrat who studied national security issues at Georgetown University’s graduate school, has been influential in shaping his party’s security policy, sources said.

    Nippon Ishin calls for removing the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Constitution, which stipulates “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained” by Japan as means of settling international disputes.

    The party also calls for specifying that Japan can retain “national defense forces.”

    In an interview with The Asahi Shimbun, Abe noted the SDF has been broadly recognized as a “military” in the international community.

    “The SDF should be treated as the national defense force by eventually revising the Constitution,” he said. “It is our responsibility to address SDF-related issues by renaming rank names and other terms to adjust to international standards through legal revisions and the issuance of a ministerial ordinance so as to boost the pride of SDF members.”

    The subject of reinstating the old rank names dominated a meeting between Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi and Abe and other Nippon Ishin legislators on Nov. 20, according to people who attended the gathering.

    The following day, Koizumi, appearing in an online program, expressed support for Nippon Ishin’s proposal.

    “I am saying this in a private capacity, but clearly there is a need to specify the SDF’s status by amending the Constitution,” he said.

    On the effort to reinstate imperial rank names, he said, “It is one of the things we can get started on while pursuing the revision of the Constitution.”

    Since rank names are stipulated under the SDF Law, changing them would require a legal revision passed by the Diet.

    The initiative is not sitting well with the Defense Ministry and the SDF.

    “It is not what SDF members are asking for,” a senior SDF officer said.

    The government and the ruling parties once floated a possible review of rank names.

    But it was dismissed as “unnecessary” by most of the SDF members interviewed by a senior official at the Defense Ministry’s Bureau of Personnel and Education, according to an official familiar with the matter.

    Another ministry official said the change is not a priority for the troops and could even prove damaging.

    “Active-duty members are not very interested in the change,” the official said. “Some have expressed concern that reinstating the rank names from the time of the imperial military could adversely affect recruitment efforts.”

    Of all the proposed revivals, “ittohei” (private 1st class) and “nitohei” (private) are particularly unpopular in the ministry and the SDF. Some opposed the terms because they include “hei” (soldier). Others said they carry a lowly connotation.

    Koizumi, taking note of the critical opinion, said there is room for discussions on these terms.

    Although current SDF members appear unenthusiastic about the proposed changes, Taikyu-kai, an association of former SDF members, pushed for review of rank names in its policy proposal for fiscal 2025.

    The current rank names “amount to inward-looking deception that is confusing the essential significance of the SDF and its members,” the association said.

    Ryo Tsunoda, a senior researcher of historical sociology at the Asia-Japan Research Institute of Ritsumeikan University, said, “After World War II, the Ground SDF has had a strong sense of awareness that it must break away from the Imperial Japanese Army from the standpoint of Japan’s war responsibility.”

    But he noted that a new generation has shown affinity toward the imperial troops.

    On the effort to reinstate the old rank names, Tsunoda said, “It is part of a broader campaign to change the status of the SDF by trying to evoke respect to the SDF among the general public, but I am skeptical of whether society will receive it as such.”

    (This article was written by Mizuki Sato and Ryo Kiyomiya.)

    Reply
  • JK says:

    In other news, the roaches over at Sanseitō are doing what they do best — spreading FUD:

    Sanseito’s Kudo claims that immigrants fill Swedish prisons:

    A Sanseito party candidate is spreading falsehoods about the high number of immigrants packing Swedish prisons ahead of the Feb. 8 Lower House election in apparent anti-immigration rhetoric. 
    “I heard that 98 percent of inmates in Sweden’s prisons are immigrants," Seiko Kudo, who is running in Chiba’s No. 4 district, posted on X, formerly Twitter, on Jan. 25. "The country is falling apart. …”
    By Feb. 3, the post had spread widely, garnering about 190,000 views.
    The Chiba prefectural chapter of Sanseito also posted similar rhetoric, saying, “In Sweden, it seems that 98 percent of the prisoners are immigrants. There is much we can learn from Europe, and this is something we should take note of.”
    This post was deleted by Jan. 29, but no reason for the deletion has been disclosed.
    The Asahi Shimbun sent an inquiry to the Chiba prefectural chapter asking for the basis of the post, but no response has been received.
    NOT 98%, BUT ONLY ABOUT 20%
    When The Asahi Shimbun contacted the Swedish Embassy in Japan for comment, the embassy provided relevant incarceration data in Sweden.
    According to the data, compiled by the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, which oversees prisons, detention centers and related institutions, 2,837 of the 11,812 inmates who began serving prison sentences in 2024 were non‑Swedish nationals.
    These individuals accounted for 24 percent of the total.  
    As of Oct. 1, 2024, of the 8,206 detainees who were serving prison sentences, 1,728—or 21 percent—were non‑Swedish nationals.
    Those statistics contradicted the claim that 98 percent of inmates in Sweden's prisons were immigrants.
    In addition, the same set of data included statements such as “the occupancy rate relative to the total capacity of prisons is 98 percent,” but no data indicating that “98 percent are immigrants” was found.
    The embassy replied, saying that it “regrets that misinformation regarding Sweden is being circulated online.”
    The Asahi Shimbun’s fact-checking found that the post’s claim that “98 percent are immigrants” diverges significantly from official statistical figures and is rated as false.

    Too bad for them that the ‘Takaichi wind’ is siphoning off voters from their base:

    SENDAI—In just three months, the political landscape has shifted dramatically for the upstart Sanseito party, with the ruling Liberal Democratic Party co-opting the conservative platform that fueled its initial success.>
    After making its mark in last autumn’s Miyagi gubernatorial election, Sanseito is now struggling to gain traction in the Lower House election, even in its Sendai strongholds.
    HITTING THE STREETS IN SENDAI
    In Sendai’s Miyagi No. 1 and No. 2 electoral districts, where Sanseito’s candidate outpolled the incumbent governor last fall, party leader Sohei Kamiya is focusing his campaigning, calling the districts “crucial.”
    On Feb. 3, the eighth day of the official campaign for the Feb. 8 election, a raspy-sounding Kamiya rallied a crowd of about 700 supporters in the city.
    “This time, it all depends on Miyagi,” he said. “We want the people of Miyagi Prefecture, who showed us such passionate unity during the gubernatorial election, to lead this Tohoku region.”
    The crowd, with many wearing Sanseito orange hats, scarves and jackets, showed their enthusiasm, responding with shouts of “Go for it!”
    Standing with Kamiya was Masamune Wada, 51, a former Upper House member running in the Miyagi No. 2 district. Wada ran in last autumn's gubernatorial election as a member of the Liberal Democratic Party.
    Wada signed a policy memorandum with Sanseito opposing a controversial prefectural plan for a cemetery that would permit traditional Muslim burials—a project that Governor Yoshihiro Murai scrapped just before the election.
    Wada’s platform also included “opposition to immigration policy.”
    During that campaign, Kamiya’s four stump speeches for Wada each drew crowds of around a thousand onlookers.
    Capitalizing on anti-Murai votes fueled by criticism of his long tenure, Wada surpassed the incumbent by more than 30,000 votes in the No. 1 and No. 2 districts, primarily among younger voters.
    Although Murai ultimately secured his sixth term, Wada lost by a slim margin of only 1.83 percentage points.
    “By making the issue of foreign nationals a point of contention, we were able to unearth support from non-affiliated voters and those who hadn't been votin”g," a senior Sanseito official recalled.
    Three months later, Wada, now a Sanseito member, was campaigning at dusk at JR Sendai Station.
    “Isn't that the guy who ran against Murai?” one young passerby remarked.
    Wada, who joined Sanseito in December, is the party’s only candidate in the Tohoku region with experience as a lawmaker and holds the top spot on its proportional representation list.
    However, the hurdle for a breakthrough is high.
    LDP STEALS SANSEITO'S THUNDER
    Even during its national surge in last summer’s Upper House election, Sanseito secured only about 59,000 proportional representation votes in Sendai—roughly half the LDP’s total and trailing both the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan and the Democratic Party for the People.
    Sanseito has set a goal of winning 30 seats in the Lower House election, and Kamiya said the party hopes “to take about five seats in the single-seat districts.”
    But the party faces a tough uphill battle, and the Miyagi No. 1 and No. 2 districts are no exception.
    The stricter policies on foreign nationals that Sanseito has advocated for are now also being championed by the conservative administration of popular Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi.
    A Sanseito official lamented, “We aren’t able to make it a point of contention.”
    In the fight against the Takaichi administration, the official said, “I feel that conservative votes are returning to the LDP.”
    Kamiya himself expressed a sense of crisis at the Feb. 3 rally.
    “In the last (Upper House) election, we had an ‘Ishiba bonus’ and a tailwind blew for us without us doing anything,” he said, referring to former Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who was beset by low approval ratings. “This time, a ‘Takaichi wind’ is blowing, so creating a tailwind (for Sanseito) is even tougher than it was during the gubernatorial election.”
    (This article was written by Ikuko Abe, Ryo Oyama and Amane Sugawara.)

    Reply
  • JK says:

    Looks like we’re going to need a DEBITO.ORG READERS’ ISSUES OF CONCERN, FEBRUARY 2026  for all of the election-related commentary this month!

    Here’s a potential first post for said blog entry courtesy of Claude Sonnet 4.5 doing translation duties on this Youtube video:

    「外国人はもういらない」川口市長選で飛び交う“外国人排斥” クルド人が経営する店にはYoutuberが押し寄せ…異例の選挙戦で市民の選択は？【news23】｜TBS NEWS DIG

    “We Don’t Need Foreigners Anymore”: Anti-Foreigner Rhetoric Dominates Kawaguchi Mayoral Race as YouTubers Swarm Kurdish-Owned Shops — What Did Voters Decide in This Unprecedented Election?

    Yesterday, Okamura Yusaku won his first term as mayor of Kawaguchi City in Saitama Prefecture. Looking back at the campaign, with riot police on hand, the atmosphere was undeniably strange. The reason? Two candidates campaigned on platforms of foreign-resident exclusion.
    “A town where Japanese people live most comfortably and foreigners find it hardest to live. We’ll end all preferential policies for foreigners. Forced deportation. I promise you. We don’t need foreigners anymore.”

    In response, protesters holding signs reading “Stop the Discrimination” clashed with supporters, and tensions nearly boiled over. In the end, the two candidates who pushed extreme anti-foreigner rhetoric each won more than 17,000 votes.

    Furukawa has received endorsement from a political organization led by Kawai Kousuke, a Saitama resident who has been vocal about excluding foreign nationals. Their primary target: “We will completely drive out the Kurds living in Kawaguchi City. Let me be clear. I absolutely will not tolerate them.”

    Social media has been flooded with posts like this from the mayor for years. Could these online messages have influenced public opinion? In a survey conducted by Kawaguchi City last year, when asked what they disliked most about the city, 54.1% of residents said “poor public safety”—the highest figure on record. However, according to interviews with the Saitama Prefectural Police and others, while the foreign population in Kawaguchi increased by more than 4,300 over the past five years, the number of crimes committed by foreigners has actually decreased.

    Furukawa also made this claim: “The current mayor, Mr. Oku, has been threatened by Kurds. He admits it himself. So this time too, he’s unable to act—he can’t deal with foreigners anymore.”

    When we checked with Kawaguchi City, they flatly denied that the mayor had been threatened by Kurds—there is no such fact.

    When asked, “If Mr. Furukawa has done something wrong, I apologize. But don’t you think this campaign amounts to hate speech?” he replied, “Yes, I suppose so. What do you think?”

    As baseless rumors spread, Waqas Chaudhary, who leads the Kurdish community in the city, says he receives defamatory emails every single day. “Get out of Japan. If you don’t leave, we’ll kill all the Kurds. That’s the kind of thing I’m getting.”

    In December last year, a group of YouTubers suddenly descended on a kebab shop run by a Kurdish friend. “Out of nowhere, about six people showed up and started filming the shop, shouting things, doing interviews.” The YouTubers pointed their cameras at the shop. At the center of the group was Kawai.

    “Are Kurds coming? When Kurds come, it becomes a problem.”

    But there are also people speaking out against the spreading discrimination and xenophobia. “Stop the hate speech.” Last month, a demonstration opposing hate speech and similar rhetoric was held in Kawaguchi, with many participants marching through the city with police escort. Some residents waved as they passed.

    As xenophobic rhetoric escalates with each election, Waqas says: “There are issues that come from daily life and cultural differences, so the key is dialogue. Rather than excluding them, I think we should be thinking together about how we can make this work.”

    Two candidates who ran on xenophobic platforms lost, but each still captured around 17,000 votes. What do you make of these results?

    “Well, what we should really focus on here is the voter turnout. It nearly doubled from 21% four years ago. I think many voters concluded that electing a xenophobic mayor would be a bad thing, and that’s what brought them to the polls.

    “Of course, it’s only natural that foreign residents follow Japanese laws and rules. But at the same time, many people understand that without the cooperation of foreign workers, our economy and social services simply can’t function. In that sense, most people believe that coexistence is the only path forward. And I think this election shows that voters—in their own quiet way—made the choice to reject xenophobia. That’s a very positive lesson as we think about how to address these issues going forward.”

    ASR (automatic speech recognition) source text here:

    昨日埼玉県の川口市長で初当選を果たした岡村ゆ越戦を振り返り起動隊も来てですね、やっぱり異様な雰囲気だなと。その理由は2人の候補者による外国人廃斥の訴えです。日本人が1番住みやすく外国人が住みにくい町外国人の優遇政策。これ全部やめます。強制でうなんですよ。約束します。外国人がもういらない。これに対し差別をやめろなどのプラカードを掲げる人々が仕掛け一速発になる場面も。結果として外国人に対する過激な主張を展開した2人はそれぞれ1万7000以上の表を集めました。古川市は外国人廃を訴える埼玉の川井介氏が代表を務める政治団体から認を受けています。そのターゲットは川口市に住むクルド人は一掃します。はっきり言ます。絶対許しません。SNSでも数年前からこうした市長の投稿が多く見られるようになっています。こうしたSNSなどが影響しているのでしょうか?川口市が去年行った調査では市の良くないところという問に対し治安が悪いと答えた市民が54.1%に登り過去最多となりました。しかし、埼玉県警などへの取材によると、ここ5年間で川口市に住む外国人は4300人余り増えた一方、外国人の警報の謙虚は減少しています。古川市はこんな発言も今の師匠ね、奥木さんもクルシから共惑されたりしてるんですよ。本人は得てます。と、だから今回省も無理だとこれ以上もう外国人関わってないと少な川口市に確認したところ市長がクルド人から脅迫されたという事実はないと明確に否定古川にすとが何かしてましたら申し訳ないですねさせて選挙に足りたヘイドスピーチなんじゃないかっていう発電もそういはい、どう考えました?事実に基づかない視聴が拡散する中、市内でクルド人コミュニティを引きるワッカス長落さんの元には毎日のように誹謗中傷のメールが届くと言います。あの、日本から出ていけ、出て、出ていかなながら黒人がみんな殺すと、あの、ま、こういう風に、え、抱えていますね。去年12月にはクルド人の友人が経営するケバ店に突然YouTuberの集団が押しかけてきました。あの、何も強化なくていきなり6人ぐらいで行ってこっちでお店に向けて、あの、動画撮ったり、あの、わ言ったり、インタビューし、店手にカメラを向けるYouTuberたち。その中心には川師がました。来るの?来ると人間広がる差別や災害主義に声をあげる人々もいます。ヘイトスピーチだ。先月川ムしてヘイトスピーチなどに反対するデモが行われ、多くの人が警戒共に内を練り歩きました。手を振る住民の姿もみ選挙の旅にエスカレートする外主義的な主張にワッカスさんは日常生活だったり文化の違うという問いのがあるのでそれのキーも対話なんです。彼らが排除するじゃなくて、あの、ま、一緒にどういう風に、あの、すればうまくいけるか、それを考えるべきだと私は思っています。災害主義を掲げた候補が楽戦、ただそれぞれ1万7000秒ほど獲得しているという、ま、この結果ですけれども、こさん、どう考えます?そうですね。今回注目すべきはこの投票率なんですね。はい。4年前の21%から今回倍近くになってるんですけど、おそらく多くの有権者がですね、海外主義の市長が誕生するのはよろしくないと判断して投票所に向かったんだと思いますね。はい。ま、あの、外人の人が日本の法律とかルールに従っていだくの、これ当然のことなんですが、やっぱり一方でその経済活動とかね、福祉の現場でその外国人の協力がないともう立ち行かないっていうのはもう多くの人々が知っているわけで、そういう点ではやっぱり強制の道を探っていくしかないというのはとんどの人たちが思っているわけで、そういう有権者が今回そのあるある意味ではその静かに判断して、え、肺主義ではない法を選んだというのは1つこうこの問題を考える解決策の1つとして出てくる非常にあのいい経験かなと思いますね。

    — I have just created a new post as you suggested here. https://www.debito.org/?p=17688. Please feel free to repost this there.

    Reply
  • JK says:

    Let the Winter Olympic games Election Semantic Games begin!:

    Japan election debate stalls over definition of “immigration”

    Here’s the whole article:

    TOKYO -- Japan's growing intake of foreign workers has emerged as a key issue taken up by some opposition parties against the ruling Liberal Democratic Party in the upcoming general election, but the two sides appear to be talking past each other amid clashing definitions of "immigration."

    The ultraconservative populist Sanseito party and the minor right-wing Conservative Party of Japan have repeatedly criticized the inflow of foreign workers as immigration, while the LDP insists it is not pursuing an immigration policy because it defines immigrants as those with permanent residency.

    Experts say meaningful policy debate will remain difficult unless the parties get on the same page and reach a shared understanding of what immigration means. The LDP has long excluded work visas from the term, while U.N. and OECD statistics often count people who stay for a year or more as immigrants.

    During a stump speech on Jan. 30 in Yamaguchi Prefecture, which includes the constituency of the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Sanseito leader Sohei Kamiya said, "I don't think everything the Abe administration did was right. It expanded the intake of foreign workers, and that has grown to more than 1 million immigrants coming in."

    Similarly, Naoki Hyakuta, head of the Conservative Party of Japan, claimed, "If society is transformed by immigration, we can't go back to how things were."

    Meanwhile, the LDP rebutted the criticism on social media, posting on X that it is "not pursuing a so-called immigration policy." Attached to the post was a video of Kimi Onoda, minister responsible for policies related to foreigners, explaining, "To address the Japanese public's anxiety, we will tighten residence status screening (for foreigners)."

    The misalignment in the parties' arguments centers on whether labor migrants count as immigrants.

    Under the Abe administration, the LDP said in a 2016 proposal on creating the specified skilled worker program that immigrants are "those who have so-called permanent residency at the time of entry" into Japan, and it argued that those with work-related residence statuses "do not count as immigrants."

    In 2024, then Prime Minister Fumio Kishida made a similar point in parliament about a new training and employment program for foreign workers to replace the often-criticized technical intern system. Kishida said Japan would only accept foreign workers in sectors short of labor with caps and would not allow families to accompany them, so "it would not fall under a so-called immigration policy."

    Tomoya Suzuki, a researcher at the NLI Research Institute, said the United States and Canada also use a narrow definition that defines immigrants as those who have obtained permanent residency. At the same time, statistics from the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development apply a broader view that counts people who live in a country for at least one year.

    Also behind the heated debate is the fact that "the LDP's claim that 'Japan is not accepting immigrants' has become increasingly detached from the reality felt by the public as the intake of foreigners expands," Suzuki said.

    Reply
  • JK says:

    You know you’ve gone too far with the xenophobic rhetoric when wajin come out against your campaign!

    Anti-mosque rhetoric sparks counterprotests near Tokyo ahead of election

    From the website:

    YOKOHAMA - A fringe camp in an electoral district near Tokyo has sought to make a planned mosque a key issue in Sunday's general election, drawing criticism from citizens who say the rhetoric is fueling xenophobia and prompting them to campaign to vote out the candidate.

    On Jan. 29, independent newcomer Susumu Kikutake, 53, called for blocking the mosque planned in Fujisawa, Kanagawa Prefecture, in a speech outside JR Fujisawa Station.

    Nobuyuki Suzuki, an assembly member in Tokyo's Katsushika Ward who backed Kikutake, told the crowd, "It's fine if inbound tourists visit, but it's a problem if they stay."

    Activists against hate speech have also taken to the streets daily.

    On the evening of the same day, several people outside Shonandai Station in Fujisawa called out to passersby, saying claims that a mosque would worsen public safety were "disinformation" and urging people not to vote for candidates fanning discrimination.

    A 72-year-old woman, who joined the movement from Yokohama, said, "For foreigners, it must be truly frightening to hear xenophobia openly promoted in election campaigning, and I want to oppose it as a Japanese person."

    Other candidates running in the race at the Kanagawa 12th district are Tomoko Abe, 77, backed by the Centrist Reform Alliance, Tsuneo Numakami, 67, a newcomer supported by the Japanese Communist Party, and Tsuyoshi Hoshino, 62, with the backing of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, but they have not made the mosque a main campaign issue.

    Reply
  • JK says:

    Here’s another article about the aforementioned ‘mosque-blocker’:


    Candidate opposing mosque spreads unfounded ‘burial’ claims ahead of Japan election / ファクトチェック：神奈川県藤沢市のモスク建設計画　衆院選候補者が根拠不明の主張拡散

    From the websites:

    FUJISAWA, Kanagawa -- A House of Representatives election candidate opposing the construction of mosque in this east Japan city has repeatedly made unfounded claims during stump speeches that "burials will be conducted" there. But according to the city, burials cannot be conducted at the planned construction site under current legal stipulations. The mosque's planned operator also states, "There are no plans for burials." Nevertheless, speeches that could mislead voters about the facts have been repeated and spread on social media.

    Candidate campaigning against mosque

    The candidate, Susumu Kikutake, 53, a YouTuber running in the Feb. 8 election as an independent in the Kanagawa 12th district covering the city of Fujisawa and the town of Samukawa, has organized a campaign around the Miyabara district of Fujisawa opposing plans to construct a mosque there.

    In a stump speech streamed on YouTube on Feb. 2, he stated, "A burial ground could be built here in Fujisawa," and "Construction (of the mosque) is progressing, along with burial ground plans."

    As supposed evidence, Kikutake cited the corporate registry of Fujisawa Masjid, the general incorporated association behind the project, which lists "ownership of a cemetery" among its stated objectives.

    'Absolutely no plans' for burial site

    When approached by the Mainichi Shimbun, a representative of Fujisawa Masjid stated that this part of the corporate registry "could be deleted if it becomes an issue," and responded that there are "absolutely no plans to conduct burials in Fujisawa in the future." They explained, "We simply wish to build a mosque in cooperation with local residents."

    Fujisawa Masjid's website similarly states, "There are absolutely no plans to build burial grounds at or near this location," and "We are addressing the issue through the use of existing cemeteries in Japan."

    Furthermore, according to the Fujisawa Municipal Government, a city ordinance on cemetery management stipulates that burial grounds must be located at least 110 meters from residences and be on land that poses no risk of contaminating drinking water. The planned site currently does not meet these requirements, effectively making it impossible to establish a burial ground there.

    Kikutake has also claimed that "public safety has deteriorated" around mosques, citing the example of a mosque built earlier in Ebina, Kanagawa Prefecture. In response to this, Ebina Police Station, which has jurisdiction over the area around the mosque stated, "Crime is not increasing near the mosque, nor is there a particularly high incidence of crime limited to foreigners or Muslims."

    (Japanese original by Daiki Yano and Sumire Kunieda, Yokohama Bureau)

    　8日投開票の衆院選で、神奈川県藤沢市のモスク（イスラム教礼拝所）建設計画に反対する候補者が、街頭演説で「土葬が行われるようになる」と根拠が不明確な主張を続けている。市によると、当該の建設予定地では現在、法令の規定で土葬ができない。モスクの運営予定者も「土葬の計画はない」と断言するが、有権者に実態を誤認させるような演説が繰り返され、SNSでも拡散している。

    候補者はモスク建設に反対

    　この候補者は、神奈川12区（藤沢市、寒川町）から出馬している、無所属新人のユーチューバー、菊竹進氏（53）。モスク建設が予定されている藤沢市宮原地区の周辺で反対運動を展開している。

    　菊竹氏は2日、街頭演説の様子をユーチューブで配信した。その中では「今、土葬墓地がこの藤沢に造られようとしているかもしれない」「（モスクの）建設が着々と進み、土葬墓地の計画も進んでいる」と述べている。

    　菊竹氏は計画の「証拠」として、モスクの建設を進める一般社団法人「藤沢マスジド」の法人登記簿に、目的の一つとして「墓地の保有」が掲げられていると指摘する。

    土葬墓地計画「一切ない」

    　藤沢マスジドの担当者は取材に対し、この記載について「問題となれば削除も可能」とした上で、将来にわたって「藤沢で土葬するつもりは一切ない」と回答。「あくまでも住民の協力の下でモスクを建設したいだけ」と説明している。

    　藤沢マスジドはホームページでも「当地およびその周辺に、土葬墓地を建設する計画は一切ありません」「国内の既存霊園を利用する形で対応しております」と記している。

    　さらに藤沢市によると、市の墓地の経営許可に関する条例では、土葬墓地を設置する場合は民家などから110メートル以上離れ、飲用水を汚染する恐れのない土地でなくてはならないなどと規定がある。予定地は現状、これらの規定に抵触するため、土葬墓地の設置は事実上できない。

    　また菊竹氏は、先に県内で建設された海老名市のモスクなどを挙げ「治安の悪化」が起きていると主張している。

    　これに対し、海老名市のモスク周辺を管轄する海老名署は「モスクの付近で犯罪が多くなっていることはない。外国人やイスラム教徒に限って犯罪が特段多いこともない」としている。【矢野大輝、國枝すみれ】

    Reply
  • JK says:

    Oh joy, more SNS NJ-related election FUD:

    「外国人働かせると補助金」SNSの偽情報、政党の訴えにも影響

    From the website with translation courtesy of GPT-5.1:

    False Claim That “You Get Subsidies for Hiring Foreigners” Spreads on Social Media, Influencing Party Campaigns

    As tighter controls on immigration emerge as one of the key issues in the Lower House election, criticism of government programs that support foreign residents is flaring up again on social media. Mixed into that criticism is a growing amount of fake or misleading information. Inaccurate claims are starting to shape public opinion and may end up affecting what parties say on the campaign trail and what policies they propose.

    One widely shared claim on social media is that “you get subsidies if you hire foreign workers,” a talking point that some political parties have now picked up in their street speeches. What they are attacking is a subsidy offered by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare to help foreign workers settle into their workplaces by supporting things like translating work rules into multiple languages. It’s a program that helps cover costs borne by employers, such as preparing internal manuals in foreign languages. Regardless of how many people they employ, each business can receive at most ¥800,000 (about $5,000). A ministry official flatly denies the online claims, saying, “You do not get money just for hiring foreigners.”

    On X (formerly Twitter), other posts criticizing the government have also gone viral, claiming, for example, that “you get subsidies if you rent cars to foreigners.”

    According to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism, “There is no program that pays subsidies just for renting cars to foreigners.” What the ministry does provide is partial support to rental car companies for costs such as making their websites multilingual and installing translation devices.

    Content suggesting that “foreigners are given special treatment” easily stirs anger and resentment, and thus tends to attract attention on social media. During last year’s Upper House election this tendency was particularly noticeable, and some candidates even repeated social-media-based claims in their stump speeches. Election periods make it easier for such posts to spread, and the proliferation of false information has become striking.

    In August of last year, a Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) program that designated four Japanese cities as “hometowns” for African countries, with the aim of strengthening exchange, was withdrawn after false claims such as “a flood of immigrants is coming” spread online. Now, posts calling for “JICA to be dismantled” are circulating as well. A senior Foreign Ministry official notes, “Now that the Lower House race is under way, posts attacking international cooperation are on the rise,” and says the ministry is keeping a close eye on the situation.

    On January 27 this year, a post like the following appeared on X and spread widely: “JICA is giving about ¥100 million (about $630,000) per company just for getting ready to bring African workers to Japan! And all they have to do is have two people research things for a year! If they’ve got that kind of money, they should give it to the employment ice-age generation instead!” As of February 4, it had been viewed more than 1.7 million times.

    According to JICA, this particular project is a survey effort aimed at understanding the realities of African workers taking jobs overseas and the level of demand on the Japanese side, with the goal of having Africans work in Japan for a set period, acquire specialized knowledge, and then contribute to their home countries’ development after returning. It is not a case of “many companies getting paid.” JICA signed a contract worth about ¥80 million (about $500,000) with only a single joint venture made up of two companies.

    Exchange rate used: ¥1 = about $0.0063 (roughly ¥160 = $1).

    Reply

Leave a Reply to JDG Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>