Read the news or issues below
and write a one-paragraph essay on the following questions using some of the
points given.
1.
NEWS: Prime Minister Shinzo Abe
confirmed Tuesday that the government will raise the consumption tax rate from
the current 5 percent to 8 percent from April 2014.
QUESTIONS
a.
Do you think this tax raise proper?
POINTS: tax rates in other countries, no tax on foods in the countries with
high consumption tax rates, progressive taxation, public welfare, economic
slowdown, corporate tax cuts
SAMPLE ANSWER: There still seem to be areas from which financial resources can be
drawn without raising consumption tax. First, cutting corporation taxes would
worsen our economy. The reason for the cut is to prevent corporations from
leaving this country, but the US government, which has kept cutting corporate
taxes to almost zero, has also had very high unemployment rate, it would be possible
for our government to lose a huge part of the revenue without improvement of
the whole economy. Next, the progressive taxation, the highest tax rate of the
progressive taxation in Japan now is less than half of that of the 70’s. Since
the system is now working to syphon money from the bottom to the upper scale at
a great degree, sending back an appropriate ratio of the rich to the bottom,
meaning raising the highest income tax rate at least for a while, would make
the economy livelier. Lastly, leaving the tax rate on food untouched would help
the poor make ends meet and would get this country revitalized in the long run,
since this would lessen precariousness in the life of the young.
b.
What are the problems of the
capitalist democracy?
POINTS: plutocracy, bailouts, deregulations, short-term interest pursuit, reduction
of research and development, income inequality, neglect on the protection of
the environment
SAMPLE ANSWER: Those who have the money own huge corporations, including the media,
and the government in the capitalist democracy. They take advantage of the
system to gather more money. They pay to lobby and direct politicians to
promote deregulations of the laws protecting public good and the environment.
Many of those who are not super rich but smart tend to pursue short-term
profits by virtually criminal means to make their life comfortable and retire
early ignoring those who will be affected, not to speak of the impact on the long-term
profit for the whole system. In this system, the ordinary citizens, and of
course the poor, are powerless except in elections and referendums, which can
be easily manipulated by the media. As a result, the gap between the haves and
have-nots keeps widening and nature exhausted.
2.
NEWS: The Nobel Prize Committee has
officially nominated war-renouncing Article 9 of the Constitution as a
candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.
QUESTIONS
a. Do you think this nomination proper?
POINTS: soft power, today’s political climate, terrorism, development aid, domestic
issues
Unfortunately, Article 9 did not
get the Nobel Peace Prize but I strongly think the nomination was proper. It is
the only article in the world declaring that this country will never resort to
force to solve problems with other countries and for this it has long been
praised all over the world. It presents a good vision of the world free from
conflicts and wars. Also, giving the article the prize at this time would be
significant because the Japanese government is getting ready for more active
involvement in the use of weapons in foreign affairs. The nomination attracted
some attention to the decision of the wider interpretation of the collective
self-defense and the debate over the amendment of Article 9. Sadly, the
nomination seems to have put little pressure on the government.
b.
Is this award technically
meaningful?
POINTS: questionable laureates and nominees in the past, public appeal
Although I am not qualified to
say who should be chosen to be the one that contributed to the building of the
better world, I remember questions on this prize expressed in some cases
especially those of politicians. The most recent two examples are Russian
president Vladimir Putin and the US President Barak Obama. Putin was nominated
for the prize this year for facilitating the prevention of the US attack on
Syria with regard to its use of chemical weapons, but the country is well-known
for human rights abuse and violations of sovereignty of other counties. Obama
got the prize for declaring the realization of the world without nuclear
weapons when he had just won the presidency, but disarmament has not been in
progress and America’s wars have become bigger and uglier. Some even say he
should return the prize for too many “collateral death” of innocent people in
Afghanistan and Iraq. In the past, a Vietnamese laureate rejected the prize
arguing that the peace has not yet come to the country while Henry Kissinger, a
co-recipient of his, got the prize despite the flaws in his political life. These
facts tempt me to regard Nobel Peace Prize as the Peace-of-Mind-of-the-Rich-World
Prize.
3.
NEWS: The historic change in
security policy that will let the Japanese military use force under the right
to collective self-defense has been approved by the cabinet.
QUESTIONS
a. Do you think it proper for
the cabinet having approved the change?
POINTS: democracy, involvement in wars not directly related to Japanese
affairs especially American issues, conscription, reduction of Japanese soft
power, terrorism, development aid, domestic issues
I do not think the approval
proper. Deciding the controversial issue on the use of the force without asking
the will of the citizens is undemocratic first of all. The decision was made in
an exceptionally quick move without much discussion. We are now an active ally
of Americans in the eye of terrorists. By this new interpretation, Japan could
be directly involved in the wars or operations against terrorists which are related
to the interest of the rich countries. This means that it is possible for our
tax money to be used to directly kill those who are fighting for what is not directly
or hardly related to us and innocent civilians in poor countries. In the eye of
the neighboring countries, Japan is a small but violent country which is again
trying to flex its muscles. Some countries have expressed concern over Japanese
militarization, which is understandable considering our warlike past. We are
following the steps of the US, which has lost its soft power by waging wars
without enough civil efforts.
b.
In what way do you think Japan
should play a role in today’s world?
POINTS: development aid, humanitarian aid, domestic issues, nuclear disarmament,
cultural exchanges, the environment
Although minding our own
business in a good way to recover from the blows in terms of economy and
disaster in recent years seems to be the best policy before minding other
countries’ business, but we have to be obliged to help the disadvantaged as the
situation in Japan is still relatively better compared to those of poor
countries. Japan can still pay and dispatch specialists for development or
humanitarian aids. Also, as the only country on which the atomic bombs were
dropped, we should keep working for the nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, with
the tradition of prioritizing the harmony between the civilization and the
environment, this country can take initiative to protect the environment and
mitigate the impact of the global warming.
4.
NEWS: In July, the UN’s
human-rights committee demanded that Japan add hate speech to legislation
banning racial discrimination.
QUESTIONS:
a.
Do you think this is a fair
demand or not. Why?
POINTS: long history of
discrimination against non-naturalized Koreans, xenophobia, globalization,
bullying, war-time sex slaves (comfort women) issue, violence, freedom of
expression
1) I
think the demand fair, even overdue because Japan has a long history of
discrimination and abuse against some minorities. Above all, non-naturalized
Koreans have seen the darkest side of Japanese society and its individuals. Hate
speech related to them, including comments on the Internet, graffiti and
literatures, do not go without noticed every day. Harassment and violence,
including those inflicted to innocent school girls, are also often reported.
Unreported heinous activities could be countless. Some might think that hate
speech is different from other acts of discrimination, but words are as painful
as physical harm and words also nurture in those who use, hear, see, or read
them prejudice, aggression, and sadism against the targeted people. This
problem should be monitored and addressed on a daily basis.
2) It
is strange that we Japanese are relatively tolerant to some minorities like
gays and those who have abortions while cold to foreigners like Koreans or
Chinese as well as aboriginal people like Ainu people or Okinawans. Some might
say that gays and those with pro-choice idea have been in our tradition, but
Koreans and Chinese have existed throughout our history too and many of them
have contributed to our society and culture. They are not given proper respect
no matter how long they have lived with us. Naturalization is not the key factor
as is clear in the case of the Ainu and Okinawan. Also, many Japanese know that
they themselves would not naturalize were they to be in the same situation in a
foreign country. Giving up one’s nationality is largely a matter of identity. It
is different from having a membership of a society, and each member of a
society should be paid the same respect to that the other members are paid to.
The issue of coexistence with people with different backgrounds should be dealt
with in view of building a peaceful and productive living environment for each
member. A society whose members hate each other calls for its own demise. Our
deep-rooted xenophobia needs some intervention. The demand from the biggest
international organization to ban hate-speech would therefore help change the
situation for the better.
b.
Are people in Japan losing
their moral values?
POINTS: education, competition, corruption, breakdown of the community, family
relations, materialism, public manners, religion, the Internet
Seeing long-belated ban on the possession
of child pornography was realized, quoting “finally after repeated demand from
other G7 countries as globalization in progress”, in October this year almost ten
years after its ban on the production of it, I doubt whether we still have room
to be more evil. We might still have a heart, as we sympathize for those
unfortunate and cheer for those trying to overcome difficulties like any other
people, but when it comes to moral values, it is not clear if we had them
before we lost much of them. Indeed we seem to follow the Confucius philosophy,
respecting our parents, but relations in families and communities seem to be
weaker while everyone is focused on surviving in the competition, where the
survival means promise in materialistic success. Many even do not seem to feel
any qualms about taking a morally wrong means to win the race. Using the rule
of the survival of the fittest as an excuse to do whatever we want to do,
taking advantage of the weak like helpless children and teenagers or those
neglected or exploited in poor countries, we might be forgetting that we are
human, not animals.
5.
NEWS: Heirs to the Rockefeller
family, which made its vast fortune from oil, are to sell investments in fossil
fuels and reinvest in clean energy.
QUESTIONS:
a.
Do you think this move is
significant?
POINTS: the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fifth assessment report, obligation of rich
countries, Kyoto protocol
I think the news is fairly
significant in terms of softening the impact of global warming. The latest IPCC
report seems to indicate that it is too late to stop devastating changes in our
lives from happening in the next three decades and yet governments and
corporations plan to keep digging fossil fuels. The competition in world
economy prevents governments from working together to tackle the problem. Ordinary
people are concerned but can do little other than saving and recycling
resources in their lives. In this circumstance, powerful people like the
Rockefellers deciding to say farewell to the fossil fuels will directly help
reduce CO2 emissions and may affect the policy of other entities with potential
influence on global warming mitigation.
b.
What else is necessary to help
impact the mitigation of the global warming other than huge funds directed to
sustainable energies?
POINTS: international cooperation,
ongoing oil mining projects, emerging economies, population growth, consumerism,
recycling
Inter-governmental cooperation
is necessary to solve such a huge and complex problem as global warming. The
developing countries should make efforts to reduce emissions while developed
countries should assist them using their money and technology. It would be a
great improvement if the slated oil productions are cancelled and the money is
used to increase sustainable energy sources. More efforts should be made on
public education on this issue. As well as promoting reduction, reuse and
recycling, it is important to focus on the problem of consumerism, where a lot
of oil is used to produce needless products. People cannot change production
but can change their consumption. Without demand, companies cannot sell
oil-based products.
6.
NEWS: Farmers from across
Japan staged a protest in Tokyo on Tuesday over signs that the
Japanese government will soon sign on to join negotiations for the
Trans-Pacific Partnership "free-trade" agreement with the U.S. and
other nations.
POINTS: democracy, free trade, protectionism,
Korean FTA and NAFTA, domestic producers, self-sufficiency, regulations, financial
meltdown, social welfare, environment, copy-rights, investor-state disputes
(ISD)
QUESTIONS:
a. Who do you think would
benefit most from TPP?
Huge international corporations
would be the ones that benefit most from TPP. Since the US is the country most
of those corporations exist, we could also say the rich people in the US would
get the lion’s share. Free trade has been going on between the US and Japan
since Admiral Perry ended our national isolation with warships about 150 years
ago, but we have been allowed to protect some of our industries and to run our
economy in our own patriarchal way, protecting the public good fairly well. TPP
can disrupt this system. It could make American insurance companies sue our
government for having the universal healthcare system or allowing the same kind
of mutual helping funds, taking tax money as compensations and ending good
welfare programs. It can force strict piracy laws to protect corporate
interests. All in all, corporations with power to sue what are in their way to
make profits will benefit at the expense of those without resources under TPP.
b. Would Japanese society
drastically change due to the TPP?
The way the TPP negotiation goes
seems to symbolize the society after the TPP in place. The TPP has been
prepared behind closed doors by the government officials and corporate lawyers,
showing that the government and corporations openly ignore democracy. If this
attitude is reflected in this so-called agreement, ordinary people in the
signatories around the Pacific, including those in the US, would be shamelessly
taken advantage of. Mexico has become much poorer and more violent under the
same kind of agreement, NAFTA. South Korea call their FTA (Free Trade
Agreement) slave trade agreement. Not only farmers who would lose their jobs
when cheap imports get rid of their produce from the market but also many
people would have the substantial part of their lives changed due to the TPP.