South African ambassador evokes apartheid memories in Japan protest

A conservative writer has angered Ambassador Mohau Pheko, who disparages the writer's opinion that foreigners should live separately.

Thomas Peter/Reuters
Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (R) talks to Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso at the lower house parliamentary session in Tokyo February 12, 2015. Abe and his economic ministers piled pressure on companies on Thursday to raise wages to sustain growth as the economy climbs out of a recession triggered by a sales tax increase last year.

South Africa's ambassador to Japan has sent a letter of protest to a conservative Japanese newspaper about a recent column that seemed to advocate separate residential districts for foreign workers, based on the post-apartheid experience.

Ambassador Mohau Pheko called apartheid a crime against humanity that should not be justified in the 21st century, the Sankei newspaper said in an article published over the weekend.

A Feb. 11 column in Sankei by regular columnist and well-known conservative writer Ayako Sono said Japan needs foreign workers to offset its shrinking population, but that different races should live apart.

"Ever since I learned of the situation in South Africa 20 to 30 years ago, I have come to think that living in residential areas divided into whites, Asians and blacks is better," she wrote.

People can do many things together, including business, research and sports, she concluded, "but when it comes to residences, we had better keep ourselves separate."

Sono, who has served on an advisory panel for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on education, is quoted saying in the weekend Sankei article that her column did not call for an apartheid policy for Japan. "I only wrote, from my personal observation, that it is difficult for people with different customs to live together."

A statement at the end of the article by senior Sankei editor Takeshi Kobayashi said Sono's regular column reflects her opinion, and that the newspaper believes that apartheid and racial discrimination should not be permitted.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.