The Monday Read

17 Responses

1. Most exciting for me was definitely no. 14. I’m surprised Ben didn’t make more mention of this. A chance for online banking in Japan, all done in English. That seems like something many of us had been looking for, and I would dearly like to hear from anyone with experience of Sony Bank.

   1. I’m planning to open an account and write a post about the experience. Stay tuned 🙂

      1. Excellent, thanks…

2. Regarding 9, you mean, “will not be allowed to return until the restriction is lifted.”

   This is one of the differences between being a citizen and a resident. They would probably be quite happy to prevent (for the time being) any Japanese who had traveled to the mentioned countries from returning, but they cannot constitutionally.

   If you want the full protections of citizenship, become a citizen. Not that hard.

   In choosing to keep your option to return to your passport country as a citizen, if you ever wanted or needed to, you choose to pass on the full benefits of citizenship here. Can’t have both when local citizens do not.

   1. That is true, but it appears most countries have not chosen to prevent residents from returning to their homes (even the US is treating long-term residents and spouse visa holders the same as citizens). I am disappointed that Japan chose to, and find it a worrying precedent to set.

      1. With respect, some other countries have been treating residents the same as citizens, but since/up to when? It might be simpler to see this for what it is, a ban of leaving, not a ban on returning. Given the scenes in the U.K. of police patrolling the ‘non-essential’ aisles of supermarkets and so forth, I bet the restrictions on even citizens leaving since April with intent to return soon are pretty strict. To reiterate, Japan would gladly have all citizens restricted to the country for now, but they just cannot so do legally.

         All of the worrying precedents being set during these times, I see far far more in the U.K. than in Japan.

         More notable from the announcement you posted is the fact that Japan continues to treat the Special Permanent Residents better than it treats its own citizens, despite claims from some Europeans and North Americans that such people are still discriminated against. (You don’t actually ever hear this from the SPRs themselves, as they know they have it good and are wise enough not to draw undue attention to it.)

         1. In what way are SPRs treated better than Japanese citizens in terms of re-entry?

            1. Read the document. The restrictions do not apply to them, as they do to regular PRs. Hence, they are getting the benefits of citzenship (in this case) without having to give up their PR status and thus their effective dual-citzenship.

            2. Hmmm. I find that a bit of a stretch. They are not being treated better here, just in a similar manner to citizens (which is how PRs and long-term residents should also be treated, in my opinion). But the government has chosen not to do that, so it is on us to adapt to reality as it is, not complain about how we would like it to be 🙂

            3. I didn’t come here to be deliberately argumentative, but it is important to keep things in perspective, and for that perspective to be grounded in reality. Let’s take a look at the U.K. since March 26th. Whether there are restrictions or not on citizens/residents travelling overseas, is besides the point as it is illegal even to be traveling to the airport. Even worse than that, check out how the law is to be enforced, quote:

               “Restriction on movement and gatherings

               Under Regulation 6 it is an offence (during the emergency period – see further below) for any person to leave the place where they are living “without reasonable excuse”.

               Regulation 6(2) then sets out a non-exhaustive list of exceptions to the prohibition. These include, leaving the place where a person is living:

               to obtain basic necessities;
               to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;
               to seek or give medical assistance;
               to travel for the purposes of work where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work from the place where they are living; and
               to avoid injury or illness or to escape harm.
               It should be noted that it is permissible to travel for the purposes of work, even though the work itself is not essential (provided it is not reasonably possible to do the work from home). This seems to be at odds with previous guidance to the effect that travelling to and from work was only permissible “where this is absolutely necessary”.

               Regulation 7 makes it an offence for any person to participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people (subject to very limited exceptions).

               Where a “relevant person” (a police officer, police community support officer or person designated by a local authority) consider that a person is in breach of Regulation 7, they may issue “any reasonable instruction they consider necessary”.

               It is an offence to fail to comply with any such instruction.

               The Regulations provide no right of appeal against any such instruction.”

               So, you can’t even go to the airport for the purposes of going overseas to be with family……..unless you can prove that you need to go to help them in procuring medical assistance. And no right of appeal in any circumstance………..really…………..

               (Back to the SPR bit, I don’t want to go on about it, but if citizens get all the benefits of citizenship but are not allowed the benefits of dual-citizenship, and PRs get benefits similar to dual-citizenship but not full rights as citizens, then SPRs swho get both the full benefits of full citizenship and the benefits of effective dual-citizenship are being treated better than citizens.)

            4. I understand where you are coming from, and in practical terms there is no way do I intend to leave my house/car/private office at this point, let alone the country 😉

               But as a PR with property, work, and basically my entire life here, I am unpleasantly surprised that the Japanese government has chosen to do this. Precedent is important in Japan, and this one challenges my assumptions towards my status here.

               I don’t know enough about SPRs to talk about their situation. I can see your point from a technical point of view but don’t see much advantage in having a North Korean passport and fewer rights than citizens (in terms of employment, mainly). I’m wary of claims that SPRs have special rights as they are used by right-wing groups online to incite hatred.

            5. Many civil service jobs are restricted to citizens.

               I’ve been thinking about naturalizing since 2009. I’ve had the paperwork in my drawer since 2010. Maybe we’ll have a post on the site about it one of these days (after I go through the process).

            6. In what ways do SPRs have fewer rights than citizens ‘in terms of employment.’ From the unbiased experts I listen to (no, not Japanese, mostly) I hear of none.

               Anyway, I hear you regarding having your entire life here, as do I. Also, given that this is an investment column and the topic of political risk is highly relevant, I reiterate my point: if you had all your life in the U.K. now, you would be in a far worse position, unable even to go out, having to comply with the orders not only of police but ‘community police’ and any other person designated by local authorities. Really? Think that through very carefully. Here in Japan, we have a strong reluctance to bring in any kind of ‘state of emergency’ (I don’t care what anyone thinks about Abe, look at what is actually happening) followed by the fact that it is constitutionally unenforceable anyway. Even if Koike goes to level three in her ‘orders’, it cannot be enforced by law authorities.

               I know this may not be the fashionable view, but if one looks at the hard facts, then one can only conclude that Japan has much lower political risk for any business than the U.K., not to mention no fighting in supermarkets nor attacks on medical service providers travelling to work. (This can be exaggerated, for sure, but still happened.) Not to mention an almost instinctual rationing and acceptance of rationing at retail outlets from the very off.

               I hear all kinds of ‘Yes,, but what if they…..’ to which my answer is:

               1. They haven’t yet
               2. They already have, much more, elsewhere

               The only way one can justify feelings of dread about what they might do, given the actual facts so far about what has actually happened, is the fact that one simply doesn’t trust them because………..

               There’s a word for that.

               Finally, if you really are concerned about having your whole future hear treated as if you were a citizen, then the answer is simple.

               I haven’t really considered it before, myself. But when this has passed, I may well.

            7. You wrote:
               “Precedent is important in Japan…..”

               I’ve heard others level this charge before, usually as an
               complaint, but I would like to see some evidence. (And, “everyone knows this!” doesn’t count.)

               Among those who have made this comment before, it is usually that they are complaining about bureaucrats or business people who wouldn’t bend the rules or accept some new proposal. Being conservative, a preference to sticking to what has worked before over a possible new (risky) approach, is not the same as precedent being important. Indeed, the recent actions of the cabinet in granting Abe the ability to declare an emergency is a big break from precedent. (I also note that many of those who claim the Japanese are unable or unwilling to change also go on to complain about Abe wanting to change the constitution to international norms re the SDF.)

               To reiterate, where is the evidence that precedent is particularly important on Japan? (Especially re the U.K., where the whole legal system depends on it.)

            8. Merely an observation based on my experience of working in local government here. If there was precedent, or an example where it had happened before could be found we could do things: if not, superiors were generally unwilling to sign off on things.

               I’m sorry, but I am probably not going to continue this conversation at the moment. Life has been very stressful for the last couple of months and I don’t have much spare capacity right now 😉

      2. The Gold standard of info:

         https://www.turning-japanese.info/p/intro.html

3. Hence being treated better than citizens…..if that wasn’t clear.