It's him again -- Taro Aso

[Quest]

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060205a8.html

Taiwan colonization was 'good': Aso

FUKUOKA (Kyodo) Foreign Minister Taro Aso said Saturday that Taiwan's present high educational standards resulted from compulsory education implemented during Japan's colonization of the island and that he believes Japan "did a good thing."

"Thanks to the significant improvement in educational standards and literacy (during colonization), Taiwan is now a country with a very high education level and keeps up with the current era," Aso said in remarks that risk sparking criticism from Taiwan and other Asian countries that suffered from Japanese wartime aggression.

"This is something I was told by an important figure in Taiwan and all the elderly people knew about it," Aso told an audience in Fukuoka. "That was a time when I felt that, as expected, our predecessors did a good thing."

China ceded Taiwan to Japan in 1895 and the island remained under Japanese rule until the end of World War II.

The Japan Times: Feb. 5, 2006

Is he on a mission? This guy seems to be enjoying much publicity lately.

China's response: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-02/06/content_4144914.htm

[gato]

His name doesn't over too well in English.

[roddy]

Was he wrong? This comes from Wikipedia (and is therefore not to be swallowed whole)

Initial infrastructural development took place quickly. The Bank of Taiwan was established in 1899 to encourage Japanese private sectors, including Mitsubishi and the Mitsui Group, to invest in Taiwan. In 1900, the third Taiwan Governor-General passed a budget which initiated the building of Taiwan's railroad system from Keelung to Kaohsiung. By 1905 the island had electric power supplied by water power in Sun-Moon Lake, and in subsequent years Taiwan was considered the second-most developed region of East Asia (after Japan). By 1905

How much of Taiwan's current affluence can be traced back to Japanese development? The 'good thing' quote is obviously inflammatory, but are the facts right or wrong?

Before Xinhua starts writing articles about me, I'm genuinely asking the question here. I know very little about Taiwan.

[gato]

Foreign Minister Taro Aso said Saturday that Taiwan's present high educational standards resulted from compulsory education implemented during Japan's colonization of the island and that he believes Japan "did a good thing."

The problem is the use of "results from." He's giving credit solely to Japan's colonization and slighting everything that's happened since World War II with that comment.

[bhchao]

The Japanese did implement compulsory education in Taiwan, and literacy was quite high (in the Japanese language) during the colonial period.

The Japanese also developed infrastructure such as railroads and the postal network. They also implemented rent control.

However that is only part of the equation. Much of Taiwan's economic success today owes to the capitalistic environment fostered by the KMT during 1950-1985, such as the land reform program during the 1950's when large landowners had to sell a portion of their land to the government in return for stock compensation.

The government redistributed this land at affordable prices to small farmers, who were also eligible for zero-interest loans to be paid back within 10 years, to purchase excess land. In contrast to the Japanese colonial period where much of the agricultural production was shipped to Japan, these farmers were allowed to keep a large portion of their crop for their own use, such as selling them on the open market.

This created a market-oriented real estate market that saw land prices rise over time. During the land reform program the tax on small farmers was reduced to 37.5%.

Many large landowners who were given stock compensation were able to sell their stock holdings as they appreciated over time, using the net proceeds to build their own industrial enterprises.

Both the Japanese colonial administration and the pre-1987 KMT were politically authoritative governments in Taiwan. Both made positive contributions to Taiwan's development. However the big difference between the two was that much of Taiwan's output was shipped to Japan during the colonial period, while the economic environment during the KMT era was much more capitalistic. No matter how politically authoritative the KMT government was, it did not interfere with the business decisions that Taiwanese or WSR businessmen made.

[Ian_Lee]

Actually Aso's comment has infuriated Taipei more than he does to Beijing. Here is how the pro-Independence Taipei Times editorial fiercely criticized Aso:

Editorial: Trading one nationalism for another

Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso needs a history lesson.

His remarks yesterday that Japan is responsible for Taiwan's high level of education are a perfect example of why the Koizumi administration has such difficulties in dealing with its neighbors.

"Thanks to the significant improvement in educational standards and literacy, Taiwan is now a country with a very high education level and keeps up with the current era," Aso said.

Now, it is a matter of record that Japan established and developed much of Taiwan's infrastructure during the 50 years that it ruled the island as a colony. But the colonial legacy of Imperial Japan in Taiwan goes far beyond the construction of schools, factories and railroads.

The complex colonial relationship is easily illustrated. The Treaty of Shimonoseki's cession of Taiwan to Japan in 1895 was not universally welcomed anywhere. Few in Japan or Taiwan are likely aware that during the initial years of imperial occupation, the bulk of the Japanese public was in favor of abandoning Taiwan as a colonial project. This was because of the huge economic and military cost of occupying and pacifying the island, as the Japanese statesman Goto Shimpei noted in 1921. Some even considered selling it back to China. Taiwan was eventually turned into a self-sufficient and profitable colony, but it was not through the dint of hard work by the Japanese alone.

Taiwanese people who lived during the Japanese colonial days often have mixed feelings of nostalgia and bitterness. This is natural. Undoubtedly there were many good things that the Japanese contributed to Taiwan's development as a nation.

But there was also, of course, the dark side of imperialism: the seizure of lands and properties by the authorities; the slaughter of Aborigines and others who resisted Japanese rule; the attempts to impose an alien culture and values on a populace that was not always willing to be brainwashed; and the host of problems and conflicts that are the inheritance of conquest.

In the end, the Japanese did not embark on their colonial adventure because of some idealistic mission civilisatrice -- although there were certainly ideologues who came to Taiwan with the desire to help. Simply put, the record of Japanese colonialism in Taiwan, as on the Korean Peninsula, is complex and does not yield to facile interpretation. And this is why Aso does a disservice to himself and his country when he arrogantly proclaims that Taiwan's relatively advanced economy, education system and society are beholden to Japan's munificence.

This newspaper has in the past decried the xenophobic ultra-nationalists in China and elsewhere who seek to exploit the historic crimes of Imperial Japan for their own ends. Tokyo deserves respect and support as the capital of a liberal democratic state whose people enjoy substantial wealth and a degree of individual liberty far beyond that in most countries.

Still, like any other country, Japan is not perfect. Although it should not be blamed for the choices its leaders and people made decades ago, neither should Tokyo have the temerity to ignore the awful lessons of the past.

Aso's comments were nothing to protest in the streets about. But they exhibit a lack of historical awareness -- or even worse, blatant revisionism -- that no thinking person can defend. What Tokyo ought to consider is the fact that such callous and unthinking comments made by its politicians break down the goodwill of those who are otherwise its friends.

There is a lot of commentary about the rise of Chinese nationalism and the danger it poses to peace and stability in East Asia. Japan, Taiwan and other countries with a stake in the region are right to be concerned about how to answer this disturbing trend.

But the correct answer is not for these countries to embark on nationalistic crusades of their own.

I don't understand why Taipei Times editorial would applaud TSU legislators worshipping at Yasukuni Shrine while denouncing Aso's (partially true) statement!

Anyway, Japan's colonial era has been over for 61 years. The regime that should be credited for Taiwan's higher education development should be KMT.

[ala]

Was he wrong?

How much of Taiwan's current affluence can be traced back to Japanese development? The 'good thing' quote is obviously inflammatory' date=' but are the facts right or wrong?[/quote']Taro Aso is wrong. For a contrary example of Japan's actions, see Manchuria. Manchuria/Dongbei today is really poor, but it had the most infrastructure built by the Japanese, including railways, factories and schools/academies.

Most of Taiwan's wealth today is due to capitalistic development from the 1970s to now, mainly in exports (lately in high-tech exports). As it should be very obvious now, a country can become very wealthy within 2 generations. You can also ask a 70 year old Taiwanese how hard life was before the 1970s.

[bhchao]

Notice that there are very few giant-sized companies in Taiwan similar to South Korea's chaebol (no companies on the scale of Samsung, DaeWoo, Hyundai). That is because Taiwan's economy is more entrepreneurial as a result of the economic policies the KMT implemented during the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

During the 60's and 70's there was a high degree of interdependency between business and the KMT. While South Korea's Park Chung Hee supported big companies like the chaebol, the KMT supported small enterprises or businesses in Taiwan by giving them tax incentives. As a result, many Taiwanese businesses during the 60's and 70's supported the KMT since no other party had the ability or means to support these enterprises.

Supporting small to medium-sized enterprises was also a shrewd political move that the KMT made. If the party fails in the political arena, then these businesses would less likely thrive since they would have no one else to turn to. This had the effect of linking the economic fortunes of these enterprises with the political success of the KMT.

This could partially explain why Taiwan's economy today under the DPP administration is lackluster.

There was also the import-substitution policies during the 60's and 70's when raw materials were imported, and then used to manufacture products made ready for export.

The success of the land reform program in the 50's also helped to narrow the income gap between the wealthy and the poor. The value of land that small farmers accumulated during and after the program rose dramatically over two decades, while the gradual appreciation of stock shares made large landowners wealthy as well.

Therefore the Japanese colonial period has little relevance to current Taiwanese affluence.

[Outofin]

Supporting small to medium-sized enterprises was also a shrewd political move that the KMT made. If the party fails in the political arena, then these businesses would less likely thrive since they would have no one else to turn to. This had the effect of linking the economic fortunes of these enterprises with the political success of the KMT.

I don't quite follow the argument about the linkage.

1. How could KMT foresee that a prospective rival party would not support small businesses like they did, so that "If the party fails in the political arena, then these businesses would less likely thrive since they would have no one else to turn to."

2. Why supporting small businesses could win more votes than supporting big corporations, which could hire an equal number of employees?

[bhchao]

1. How could KMT foresee that a prospective rival party would not support small businesses like they did, so that "If the party fails in the political arena, then these businesses would less likely thrive since they would have no one else to turn to."

KMT was the sole dominant party at the time. Offering support and encouragement to small and medium-sized busineses was a means of politically legimitizing the party in the eyes of the Taiwanese. Basically the thinking is "If I make you rich, hopefully you will support me."

KMT wasn't really looking towards the future for the sake of expecting a prospective rival party to not support small businesses. It was just a way of gaining support in legitimizing their standing at the time.

Eventually this had the inadvertent effect of people thinking "KMT = good for business"

Even today with an opposition DPP party in power, many Taiwanese business elite openly support KMT rather than DPP. The question of which party is better for cross-strait relations combined with the opportunities presented by the mainland economy further adds to the equation today.

Why supporting small businesses could win more votes than supporting big corporations, which could hire an equal number of employees?

Good question I think supporting small businesses goes beyond politics. Small to medium-sized local companies are more flexible, adaptable, or resistant to changes in world economic conditions than giant-sized companies that are dependent on foreign customers.

And when giant-sized companies falter whenever there is a change in world economic condition, their profits go down and there is less tax revenue coming into the government. Small to medium-sized businesses are more able to adapt, and therefore less likely to adversely affect the flow of tax revenue for the government. Of course I may be wrong on this. In the KMT's situation at the time, especially when they wanted to look good compared to Mao, it was probably a little risky to put your entire lifeline on a cluster of conglomerates.

[gato]

2. Why supporting small businesses could win more votes than supporting big corporations, which could hire an equal number of employees?

Politicians support businesses to get the support of the business owners more than the employees, for if the balloting is anonymous and fair, the two groups are likely to vote differently. You would be better off if you have tens of thousands of millionaire business owners supporting you rather than just a handful of billionaires. You are getting not just their own votes, but also their influence in the community.

[Ian_Lee]

New York Times openly sided with China against Japan.

Its editorial called Aso offensive and blasted him for making appalling remark and inflammatory statement regarding Taiwan's education:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/13/opinion/13mon3.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials

[novemberfog]

Well, I think the international community needs to put Aso in his place. He is not even PM yet, but he goes around saying as he pleases. I think the old guard in the Japanese parliament is in trouble now. For a long time everyone outside of Asia saw Japan as the leader of the continent. Thus Japan was free to act as it wished, because they were the sole market leader. But the failure of the country to rebound from the economic bubble, as well as the growing influence of China in the world...I certainly think the parliament is in for a surprise. They will receive for criticism from the international community as time passes.

[Quest]

Ian_Lee, Japanese officials fight back in response to NYT editorial: http://www.crisscross.com/jp/news/364948

Some visitors comments:

Dump This Clown.jerseyboy 0 Goals 0 Favorites (Feb 22 2006 - 08:59) Rate Post

How can anyone defend this clown, Aso?

First he offends the Taiwanese with his silly and pointless remarks. Then he accuses China of blackmailing the Japanese consulate member there who committed suicide, but then has to later admit that that was just something he made up.

I don't care who is father or granfather was, or what big-name university he graduated from -- the guy is dangerous, and they need to put a muzzle on him.

Japanese official disputes New York Times' report on Aso's history remarksroland00 0 Goals 0 Favorites (Feb 22 2006 - 09:20) Rate Post

I just love when Japan asks other countries to 'understand Japan'.

I'm just glad that some Americans are waking up to the situation rather than just asking Japan, China and South Korea to 'deal with it'.

[Quest]

It's him, again..........

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20060311p2a00m0na028000c.html

Aso, who has riled China in recent months with a series of critical comments, told a Diet committee that Japan and Taiwan shared democracy and a market economy.

"Its democracy is considerably matured and liberal economics is deeply ingrained, so it is a law-abiding country," Aso said Thursday in reference to Taiwan. "In various ways it is a country that shares a sense of values with Japan."

Aso's comments "are a brutal interference in China's internal affairs and territorial sovereignty," said a statement issued Saturday by the Information Office of the State Council, China's Cabinet.

[Quest]

This time it's Shinzo Abe:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/03/03/japan.sexslaves.ap/

Denials after denials..

[HashiriKata]

Denials after denials..

If there are accusations, there must naturally be denials; and this is the way life has always been. What do you expect?