January 2010、My Opinion of this week
My opinion of this week(662):
GNH:Gross National Happiness
On Wednesday morning of this week, I was watching "Super Morning", news show
of Asahi TV. At the begging of the show, the show talked about the long range
economic growth strategy announced by Hatoyama cabinet last year end. Motohisa
Furukawa, vice minister of National Strategy Planning Room was invited to the
show to join the discussion on the long range plan.
Syuntarou Torigoe, a chief commentator of the show started commenting a key
point the growth strategy. He pointed out that the difficulties to make a long
range economic growth plan are concerned with the fact that people already
have some abundant goods and materials in their home. Trorigoe questioned
vice minister Motohisa Frukawa and other commentators how can government
attain higher economic growth in a long run under this social and economic
environment.
Motohisa Furukawa agreed with the point suggested by Torigoe and said: "That's
the key issue to be considered when our cabinet staffs worked out the strategic
growth plan. We only talk about the growth of GDP when it comes to a growth
plan. But growth of GDP is only a part of means to maximize happiness of
people. The purpose of growth plan is to maximize happiness of people and not
to maximize GDP.
Yes, that's the whole point we should argue when it comes to economic growth
plan. Growth of GDP is not the whole issues we should talk about, When Hatoyama
Cabinet announced their economic growth plan, there were a lot of criticism
from mass media concerning the lack of strategic phase as economic growth rate.
Some said 3% growth rate is not enough to maintain healthy national economy.
Some said the plan lacks some concrete measures to attain such growth rate.
All talked growth only in terms of GDP or material or economic growth and not
in terms of happiness of people. People are not necessarily happy even they
are rich in economic term. Some poorer people may often be happier than rich
people.
I happened to remember a economic research report issued by Sumitomo Trust
Bank in August 2009. It was very interesting and instructive report to answer
the question I mentioned the above. The title of the report is "GNH (Gross
National Happiness is a new measure to evaluate richness of people." They
proposed to use this GNH rather than GDP to evaluate total happiness of people.
They explain that the concept of GNP is not their original idea by itself, They
said they basically learned the idea from the country of Bhutan, a royal
family of which is said to proposed to use such criteria to measure growth of
satisfaction of people in each countries.
Sumitomo Trust Bank report proposed to use nine criteria to measure happiness
of people. They are, level of basic living standard, cultural diversity,
emotional well being, health, education, time use, eco-system, community
vitality, and good governance. Those nine criteria are drawn in radar chart
and the level of happiness is measured by the largeness of total area drawn by
radar chart after level of each criteria are evaluated.
It is obvious that evaluation of each criteria is very difficult. The
evaluation is not possible by any objective measure but possible only by
subjective means. That involves a difficulty on quantification of each criteria.
Although the concept of GNH is very interesting and informative, it is not to be
any objective and quantitative measure to evaluate richness and happiness of
people after all.
At the same time, we should realize some important phase of concept of measure
such as GNH when we talk about long range economic strategy. GDP is not the
whole number we concerned with.
2010/1/9
Tadashi HAYASE
My opinion of this week(663):
Free speech censorship in China
China government authority ordered recently several US net companies to
cooperate more to limit users accessing various sites that promote
democratization of China, independence of Uighur Autonomous Region, Tibet
and so on, if those US firms want to continue their operation in China.
So far several US firms have followed such censorship policy of Chinese
government and let government authorities allow to check contents of their
service to some extent. US congress denounced Google and other net firms
for they followed such censorship policy of Chinese government which is
against the principle of free speech, the one most important principle
of democracy in US and free world.
In connection with such demand from Chinese government, Google announced
the fact that they started receiving a number of cyber attack from a
certain site trying to get mail list of men who are engaged in civil
right activities in China. The same kind of cyber attack have been
observed at several US net firms, media, banks and chemical firms
operating in China. Those firms that suffered such cyber attacks did not
confirm the source of attackers but it is obvious that those cyber
attackers are related with China government authorities in one way or the
other.
Facing to this situation, Google has announced that their company will
withdraw their operation in China if such cyber attack continue from
now on. They also demanded Chinese government to stop any of those
censorship concerning their net business in China in the future.
It is the first time that Google has reacted the criticism from US
congress denouncing US net firms including Google for they compromise
to accept such unreasonable censorship by China government on their
activities.
Google's announcement is really a big move by itself. Once Google
withdraw their operation from China, several others will follow. That
will be a big blow for China government as a mater of fact.
Once this happens, Chinese government cannot make any control on
all sort of information distributed in internet in the future. All
US net firms basically have no restriction on the distribution of
their news contents from anywhere in the world. How can China
government authorities make any control on any contents distributed
by US and other net firms in the world? They may start restricting
people to use internet itself. Is it really possible for China
government to do it? I don't think so.
I remember the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989. That happened
due to flow of TV broadcasting wave from west side to east side
of the wall. No one could stop the wave which destroyed one-party
dictatorship in the east. The same thing will possibly happen in
China by a stronger wave of internet sooner or later.
One day after the announcement of Google on possible withdrawal of
their operation in China, there came a news saying Chinese government
had already withdrawn several censorship put on operation of foreign
net companies. It seems that Google and other net firms have been
given now more freedom on their operation in China.
The whole worlds are anxious to observe what will happen next in
China. How can China government make some control on free movement
of information by internet? I don't think they can do it in the
short run and long run. What will happen then to the one-party
dictatorship political system in China in the long run?
This is one most interesting political and diplomatic theme in the
world today.
2010/1/16
Tadashi HAYASE
My opinion of this week(664):
Clarification of information source
The purpose of this opinion is not to support Ichiro Ozawa, Secretary
General of Democratic Party of Japan, who is now under the investigation
by Tokyo Prosecutor's Office concerning illegal use of money to buy
land owned by Rikuzankai of Ozawa's political activity office. This
opinion is to criticize various unfair reports made by newspaper and
TV stations these days recently. They presented various critical reports
on Rikuzankai case by referring a number of information the source of
which is not necessarily clear at all by themselves.
It is said many of those information were leaked by prosecutors who are
in charge of the case. This is not the first time that such information
leak caused some concern among general public. I have had some serious
concern on this issue for long time. But the case at time seems to be
really serious indeed. It is obviously very illegal if prosecutors office
leaks such information which are under the investigation of cases in
question.
Many mass media denied the fact that they get many of such information
from prosecutors in charge. But many information include some statements
said by a suspected person by himself. How can those mass media get such
words said by a man who is under control of prosecutor's office? It is
obvious that there exists a number of leaked information among those
presented by mass media.
On January 21, Kazuhiro Haraguchi, Minister of Internal Affairs, whose
jurisdiction includes broadcast industry, has complained the frequent use
of phrase "according to parties concerned" in mass media news report
about investigation. He claimed: "the phrase is not clear whether they
are people related to the prosecutors office or the other parties
concerned. Lack of clarity on this point is inappropriate as long as
those mass media using such very public tool like broadcast or newspapers.
Haraguchi's statement was criticized immediately by mass media in many ways.
Most of them said the statement is possibly an infringement of press freedom.
I never accept such criticism made by mass media. I strongly agreed with
what Minister Haraguchi said on this issue. There is no doubt about the
principle that any mass media should clarify the source of information
they get when they refer them in their news reports. This is especially
true when source of information comes from public place such as prosecutor
offices or any other public sectors. It is a common sense that any prosecutor
offices should never disclose any information of the fact that they get in
their official activities. They are to be fined if they disclose any of such
information which should be kept in secret before the time of trial at
the court.
Both mass media and prosecutor office have never admitted such possible
cases of information leak from prosecutors offices, of course. But
many people start distrusting mass media now on how they get many of those
facts like information around men in suspect. I have a great concern about
such opaque relation between mass media and prosecutors offices.
I was watching NHK's live coverage of Budget Committee at the diet Friday
afternoon. A lawmaker of Komei Party questioned Haraguchi if he would
withdraw his statement he issued previous day as stated above. The lawmaker
said that many mass media took his Haraguchi's word is possible infringement
on freedom of speech. Haraguch definitely denied such request and confirmed
that clarification of source of information is a basic principle for any
mass media in any world including in this country.
I think there exists freedom of speech without any doubt in this country.
But on the other hand, there exists some unfair reports from time to time
based on some information, source of which are never clarified. Many people
have suffered some damages from such process in the past.
It is now the time to improve this situation.
2010/1/23
Tadashi HAYASE
My opinion of this week(665):
How can government select a new air base on zero basis?
In the mayor election of Nago city made on Sunday last week, Susumu Inamine
who opposed to accept moving of U.S. Marine Corps Air station Futenma to
U.S. Camp Schwab of Nago beat Mayor Yoshikazu Shimabukuro who had expressed
his willingness to accept the relocation. The government official said
moving to from Futenma to Camp Schwab in Nago in line with the existing plan
is absolutely impossible now under the current circumstances.
Meanwhile, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirofumi Hirano said Wednesday that as
a general argument, there is the possibility of taking forcible action, such
as compulsory appropriation of land. His word was hardly criticized by two
coalition parties which oppose to move to Camp Schwab and citizens of Nago
city. Hirano was obliged to add comment that he did not mean to say Camp
Schwab is to be only one candidate.
Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama reiterated that the government will reach a
conclusion by the end of May that will be acceptable to the public in
general, residents of Okinawa and the United State. He said, ''While I
don't mean to deny all sort of possibilities that will be considered ,
everything will be examined on a zero basis." He has kept using this
word, zero basis, so often recently. But I really don't understand what he
really means to say by that. I wonder if Prime Minister Hatoyama really can
decide the new site in such short period of time on zero basis. I don't
think so.
What zero basis means is that all sort of past conditions and environments
which related to proceedings to the selection of new base site between
U.S government and Japanese government will be disregarded at this time.
The new candidate site, Camp Schwab has been selected by U.S. and Japanese
officials after all sorts of considerations had been made in thirteen
years. How can a new government deny such important diplomatic agreement
made with U.S., the most important alliance for Japan. The agreement is
not a treaty or any of that kind, but a very important agreement concerned
with securities of two allied nations. The agreement must be fulfilled
without fail. That is a diplomatic common sense after all.
I never think that Prime Minister Hatoyama can consider this matter on zero
basis. There exists a lot of conditions and internal and external environments
to be considered when he decide this matter. The selection of new site of
airbase is not only a small issue as such. That is a big issues which relate
to all sort of Japan U.S. diplomatic, political, economic and security which
is the most important one for both countries, especially for Japan.
It is the issue of Japan U.S. Security Treaty. It is the issue of Japan
U.S. allied relation itself. The matter is not only such a small issue of
selection of new camp site. How can Prime Minister consider this issue on zero
basis? The issue should be considered based on all sort of conditions which
relate to security and other important allied relation between two countries.
How can he decide such very important and complicated issue in such short
period of time by getting agreement of U.S. and interest groups in this country?
I think it impossible.
When Prime Minister Hatoyama met President Obama last December, he should have
told this matter more frankly that he need more time, a year or so to decide
this issue for the change of power happened in last August. The selection of
new site is a manifest for DPJ and he must appeal Obama that he will make a
new proposal to U.S. after all sort of consideration has been made to decide
the issue on zero basis. I believe President Obama must have agreed on it if
Prime Minister Hatoyama approached that way. But he did not make such approach.
He said Obama, ''Trust me." That was a serious mistake he made as a matter of
fact.
It is obvious that all Prime Minister can decide by the end May is to select
the original plan, the move to Camp Schwab after all. I don't know what would
happen to Hatoyama cabinet at that time.
2010/1/30
Tadashi HAYASE
Home Page