Welcome to a new episode in my series “Inhae reads the news (in Japanese!)”.
This month’s topic:
- Abe’s press conference of the Coronavirus
- Three aides to the couple Kawai arrested
- State of emergency pros and cons: Sankei vs Mainichi
- Satoshi Uematsu sentenced to death
(I wished I had the time to study editorials about the postponement of the Olympics, but the news came out yesterday, which was too late for me to include in this post.)
Abe’s press conference on the Coronavirus
On February 29th, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe gave his first press conference since the outbreak of coronavirus. People are particularly concerned with the decision to close the schools. Abe promised financial supports to parents who had to take time off from work.
|感染症||かんせんしょう||an infectious disease|
|感染症対策||かんせんしょうたいさく||measures to control infectious diseases|
|感染者||かんせんしゃ||an infected person|
|忙殺される||ぼうさつされる||be very busily occupied|
|矢継ぎ早に||やつぎばやに||rapidly, in rapid succession|
|自粛||じしゅく||voluntary restraint (from going out, travelling, etc.)|
|緊急事態||きんきゅうじたい||a state of emergency|
A lot of people criticise Abe’s handling of the situation and ask for more explanations concerning the measures taken by the government. One of the recent issues is the decision to close all the schools in Japan and the fact that families and institutions had but little time to make arrangements. The decision to close the schools has severe and direct repercussions on families, and the government now needs to obtain the understanding of the people.
Our four newspapers have a different attitude about Abe’s call for understanding and collaboration.
Sankei sides with the government and relay Abe’s message: people must cooperate.
We cannot let Abe or the government handle the fight against the New Coronavirus alone. Every local government, every company and every citizen must do all they can.
Yomiuri has a slightly different tone. It says that in order to gain the people’s understanding, Abe should be more active and publicly involved:
The Prime Minister is the head of the country. As such, shouldn’t he increase the occasions where he can talk directly to the people and ask for understanding?
Mainichi doubts whether Abe could ever get the people’s understanding if he does not take the time to explain his policy. It opens its editorial with:
Can [Abe] really gain the understanding and collaboration he is asking of the people with [this kind of press conference]? (Mainichi considers that Abe has not responded to the concerns about the current measures to control the spread of the virus.)
And closes it with:
Abe appealed to the people saying “I profoundly wish your collaboration” for (the purpose of) the cessation of the infection. If he seriously wishes it, he must answer the questions more directly.
Asahi opens it editorial in a very similar way:
Both the explanations and the measures are still insufficient to dispel the anxiety of the nation and gain understanding.
Concerning the decision to close the schools, we also have different approaches depending on the newspapers.
Sankei says that in a time of crisis, decisions must be taken fast. The newspaper supports the government’s decision, praising Abe for his quick decision. There are several expressions in the editorial that insists on the necessity to act quickly.
Also worth noting is that Sankei acknowledges that people criticise this decision, but eventually insists on the necessity of the measure. On the contrary, Yomiuri acknowledges the positive impact of the measure but underlines that it created a lot of confusion among families and institutions.
But the confusion among the families and schools extended with this sudden switch of policies.
Mainichi also mentions that the decision caused a lot of confusion because it was taken so suddenly:
The sudden request for closing schools (primary, middle and high schools) in the whole country created confusion among the families and the places of education.
It is interesting to note that both Yomiuri and Mainichi use the same words: 唐突 (sudden) and 混乱 (confusion). What Sankei praises as a quick response, Yomiuri and Mainichi see as a “sudden” and “abrupt” decision.
Asahi is more precise and says that families only had one day to prepare themselves:
As the period of preparation was only of one day, the confusion and chaos spread among persons in the education, the families and even the workplace of the parents.
Finally, another interesting point in our comparison of these 4 editorials is that Sankei is the only newspaper who does not imply that this press conference was long overdue.
Yomiuri mentions that this press conference by Abe is the first one since the beginning of the outbreak: 新型肺炎に関して初めて記者会見. Mainichi also writes that this is the first time that the Prime Minister talks directly to the people on this problem: 首相がこの問題で、国民に直接説明する場を設けたのは初めてだ。
Asahi states more plainly that Abe’s explanations were long awaited, using the word ようやく (at long last, finally):
This is a decision that has a big impact on people’s life. The Prime Minister finally gave a press conference last weekend, after being pressed by people asking for a direct explanation.
But Asahi deplores that the press conference only lasted 35 minutes with Abe mainly repeating what he had prepared in advance.
It is very interesting to note that the Yomiuri Shimbun, which always tends to side with the government, criticises Abe’s handling of the situation. On the contrary, Sankei supports the government’s decision and relays Abe’s message. This surprises me because last month, the Sankei editorials I studied were criticising the government. I was not surprised however, to read that both Mainichi and Asahi were disappointed by Abe’s lack of explanations.
Three aides to the couple Kawai arrested
Last year in October, Katsuyuki Kawai had to resign from his post of Justice Minister over allegations of election law violations during his wife’s (Anri Kawai) campaign for the Upper House.
Early in March, three aides to the couple have been arrested. According to the election law, the daily allowance to campaign staff members is limited to 15.000 yen. The three aides are suspected of paying double this sum to staff members of Anri Kawai’s campaign. This paiement concerns the staff of the sound trucks, who were given two receipts of 15.000 yen each. Only one of them was registered as campaign fee.
Katsuyuki Kawai is also suspected of having orchestrated his wife’s campaign.
It is interesting to see that all the titles are very similar. Note how the word 責任 is used by almost all newspapers, but Yomiuri and Sankei talk about the 責任 of the Kawai, while Asahi talks about the 責任 of the party and the Prime Minister.
Useful Vocabulary and persons involved
|公職選挙法||こうしょくせんきょほう||the Public Offices Election Law, also: 公選法|
|参院選||さんいんせん||House of Councillors Election|
|選挙カー||せんきょかー||Sound trucks (used for political campaign)|
|陣営||じんえい||the camp, the ranks (ex: the LDP camp)|
|連座制||れんざせい||the guilt-by-complicity system*|
|公設秘書||こうせつひしょ||a Diet member’s secretary whose salary is paid for out of public funds|
|買収||ばいしゅう||bribery, buying off|
|遊説||ゆうぜい||canvassing tour, canvassing for votes|
*Guilt-by-complicity system: The provision, under the Public Office Election Law, that a candidate is disqualified from taking office if his campaign manager or finance officer has violated the Law to help him win.
|河井 案里 Anri Kawai|
|Member of the House of Councillors (LDP)|
|河井 克行 Katsuyuki Kawai|
|Former Minister of Justice|
|Member of the House of Representatives (LDP)|
The key word for this topic is 連座制, the guilt-by-complicity system. According to this system, Anri Kawai will have to resign from her post at the House of the Councillors, if her campaign manager is found guilty of violating the Election Law. This will apply even though Anri Kawai did not know about it. Even if she still denies all implication or knowledge of the paiements, she still could lose her post.
All newspapers underline the same points:
- The couple has always refused to give a public explanation
- This looks even worse because Kawai was Justice Minister
While the Yomiuri, Sankei and Tokyo only states that the couple has the duty to explain themselves publicly (説明する責任がある), both Asahi and Mainichi use the stronger expression 許せない (can’t tolerate):
Even with this turn of events, they don’t show the intention to give explanations. We cannot tolerate this attitude.
From start to finish, they have turned their back on their duty to explain themselves. This attitude is not something we can tolerate from members of the Diet.
Yomiuri notes that the explanation is all the more overdue because Kawai was Justice Minister:
When a member of the Diet is the subject of suspicion, they have the duty to explain themselves to the nation. Even more so when Katsuyuki Kawai was assuming the post of Justice Minister, who has the responsibility to maintain the legal order.
I don’t know how to emphasise the “…だけに、なおさらではないか。” without sounding too redundant in English. Especially given that the ましてや already conveys the intended meaning.
Sankei goes further and uses the word 恥ずべき (shameful):
Isn’t it a shameful instance for a politician who had the important duty to be Justice Minister, the guardian of the law?
Shouldn’t there be a で after ところ? Also, I do not know how to translate ところ here. I tried “instance”, but maybe we can drop it entirely and say “isn’t it shameful…?”.
The only difference between our right and left wing newspapers is the mention of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. While Yomiuri and Sankei only talk about the Kawai couple, Asahi, Mainichi and Tokyo all mention that the Kawai are close to Abe.
Asahi mentions that Abe has a part of responsibility too:
Prime Minister Abe and the administration have taken the initiative of putting forward Anri Kawai as candidate and support her entirely. We have to say that their responsibility is heavy.
Mainichi also underlines that the couple is close to Abe:
Katsuyuki Kawai worked as an assistant to the Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and he is also close to Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga. The Liberal Democratic Party who supported Anri Kawai must respond to this affair seriously.
Even though all newspapers adopt a similar position in their criticism of the couple’s lack of public explanation, it is interesting to note how the left-wing newspapers go further and involve Abe in the scandal while the conservative ones don’t.
State of Emergency pros and cons: Sankei vs Mainichi
For this topic, we will only look at two editorials, one by Mainichi, one by Sankei. They both talk about the possibility for Abe to declare the State of Emergency, Mainichi advising against it, and Sankei supporting it.
|新型インフルエンザ等対策特別措置法||しんがたインフルエンザとうたいさくとくべつそちほう||Act on the prevention of infectious diseases*|
*The 新型インフルエンザ等対策特別措置法, also shortened as 新型インフル特措法 is an act on special measures for the prevention of infectious diseases (this is not an official translation). It was enacted in 2012. A part of this act has been amended in March 2020 to adapt to the prevention of the Coronavirus. This version is called 新型コロナウイルス特措法. (Cf. Wikipedia)
Referring to this amended act, Sankei uses the long version 改正新型インフルエンザ等対策特別措置法 and the short version 改正特措法, while Mainichi uses the short version 改正特別措置法 and the mini version 改正法 (as far as I am concerned, the less eight-kanji-in-a-row words, the better).
The two newspapers have clearly opposite positions concerning the Emergency State: Sankei insists on the necessity to implement it, while Mainichi insists on the importance to avoid it if possible.
If signs of aggravation appear or if the pace of expansion of the contagious disease increases, the Prime Minister must actively think of declaring the state of emergency.
We must judge the necessity [of the state of emergency] calmly and objectively.
A state of emergency basically gives the government the power and means to perform actions and impose policies in order to deal with the emergency in question. The state can thus perform actions that it is normally not permitted to perform, and these actions can affect individual rights and freedom.
When explaining what the state of emergency is, Sankei remains vague, only saying that it would give the government and local authorities a lot of means of response (多くの対応手段). On the contrary, Mainichi goes straight to the point saying that it would allow the government to close public places and ask for people to remain at home, thus limiting the rights of the people (国民の権利制限を伴う).
Mainichi’s main concern is that the state of emergency would limit individual rights, and that there is no clear mention of when the state of emergency can be declared. One of the conditions to call the situation a situation of “emergency” is the risk of spreading (まん延のおそれ), a vague notion that is in turn defined as “when clusters of patients have been confirmed in a large number of prefectures” (相当数の都道府県で患者クラスターが確認される).
Sankei concedes that several people call to caution, but it discredits this attitude, calling it “unrealistic” (非現実的な). The newspaper insists on the necessity to put individual rights aside to protect the people, simultaneously underlining the necessity of the state of emergency if the situation worsens, and the priority to protect the life of the people and to maintain the economy. With all this, it will be difficult to guarantee the rights of the people (国民の私権を守ることは難しい).
It is interesting to note that Sankei insists on the temporary nature of the state of emergency while Mainichi sees it as a last resort measure.
[The state of emergency] is a temporary measure to save the people and the society.
Laws on special measures are provided to respond to uncontrollable and critical situations.
Satoshi Uematsu sentenced to death
In 2016, Satoshi Uematsu (植松 聖) stabbed disabled people in an institution, killing 19 and wounded 26 persons. The case is referred to as the Sagamihara stabbings (相模原事件), Sagamihara being the city in which the events occurred.
The name of the care center in which the stabbings took place is Tsukui Lily Garden (津久井やまゆり園).
On March 16th, Satoshi Uematsu was sentenced to death by the Yokohama District Court.
(Sankei published its editorial a day after the others, and therefore after I had written this part of the blog. I read it, but I did not study it in this post.)
|相模原障害者施設殺傷事件||さがみはら しょうがいしゃしせつ さっしょうじけん||Sagamihara stabbings|
|障害者||しょうがいしゃ||a person with a handicap|
|福祉施設||ふくししせつ||a welfare facility|
|審理||しんり||trial, examination, inquiry|
|匿名||とくめい||anonymity, using a pseudonym|
|植松 聖 Satoshi Uematsu|
|Perpetrator of the Sagamihara stabbings. Sentenced to death on March 16th, 2020|
*I think that the reading おおあさ is used when talking about the plant “hemp”, while the reading たいま is used to talk about the drug…? I am not sure though…
All four newspapers have written very similar editorials. Our conservative newspapers are the only ones who actually comment on the decision of the court. Yomiuri says that due to the number of victims, there was no other choice than to hand down the capital punishment (極刑以外の選択肢はなかったのだろう), and Sankei also says that the death penalty was inevitable (死刑の判断は不可避だった).
What all newspapers mention is that the ruling did not allow us to understand how such an act was possible, and why the defendant acted like he did. Given the repercussions of this case, the trial should have been more thorough.
It is a case that gave a great shock to our society. They should have taken the time to make a more through inquiry.
The newspapers deplore that the focus of the trial was to determine whether Uematsu was in full possession of his faculties or, as the defense stated, under the influence of marijuana. But the reasons and background (原因、背景、なぜ) of his act were not sufficiently studied.
What is regrettable is that the background of the case has not been sufficiently clarified through the trial.
But what were the background and reasons that led [Uematsu] to keep repeating that there is a disparity in human lives, and eventually commit such a violent act? It is hard to say that it was made clear during the trial.
We were expecting that the background and the reasons that led to the creation and growth of this perverted point of view [in Uematsu’s mind] would emerge during the trial, if only partially. But this expectation was not fulfilled.
Tokyo: それでも「なぜ」の問いが今なお残る。(…) ゆがんだ差別意識はどうして生まれたのか。だが裁判では深掘りされなかった。
But the question “why” still remains. (…) How did this perverted, discriminatory consciousness came into being [in Uematsu’s mind]? But [these questions] were not looked deeper into during the trial.
This trial’s purpose should not have been to hand down a sentence on Uematsu only, but to understand how he came to develop the convictions that led him to commit one of the most shocking mass murders of the country. This would have helped to prevent that such cases occur again. As Yomiuri mentions, we cannot forget that a lot of people had shown sympathy for Uematsu after the killing.
And as Mainichi says, we cannot just handle this case as the doing of a violent person. Even if Uematsu’s trial is over, “the case is not over”, as Sankei puts it in its title. We should still keep in mind the meaning of this case: it revealed how strong discriminations can be, and how urgent it is to work towards a society without discriminations.
I found this month’s topics very interesting, and though I still have a lot of difficulties to translate sentences and paragraphs, I feel that it becomes easier to read news articles!
Thank you for reading.
Stay safe everyone!