Gov't to consider Japanese language ability as requirement for long-stay foreigners

[Glenski]

So far, nobody has made any response to what I said about driver's licenses above. I am curious to hear what people have to say to that.

I think it's a bit bizzare that it's possible to obtain a Japanese driver's license without being able to read even hiragana or katakana. Road signs convey important information that is relevant to everyone on the road, not just the nihonjin.

Getting your license may actually involve some knowledge of the written language. Depends on the license bureau.
1) You may have to get your license translated. That could involve finding JAF.
2) At the license station, you will have to know which line to stand in. Do all stations have signs in English?
3) Do all test examiners speak English when they give you the drive around the course, or when they explain why you failed (or missed points)?
4) As for road signs, my subjective feeling is that there is more in the way of kanji than hiragana/katakana that helps people.
But, it is incredible that with only a smidgeon of Japanese ability, one can actually get a license here. Then again, what does it take to get a license in your home country? Any language tests needed?

 

[Glenski]

If we talk about difficulty of spoken Japanese, do you really think it's a very difficult language? IMHO, it's not harder than many European languages, especially taking into account the huge influx of English words. People usually learn Japanese by also learning the complex script but there are shortcuts, if you're only interested or have to learn only the spoken language (without Kanji). Japanese is considered very complex because of its writing, everything else is either the same or easier.

One difficulty is in the honorifics vs. polite forms vs. casual forms. Another lies in how certain things are spoken, depending on who is the target. (Talk about yourself, the person you are with, or someone not around, and you might have to use different grammar, for example.)

What "shortcuts" are you referring to?

We don't know but if the test is only for spoken Japanese, then one can get from the basic to the intermediate level just by using heaps of romanised or supplied with Furigana materials. Would you agree?

No.

Even JLPT tests usually don't really on good knowledge of Kanji, would government tests be more complex?

Who can say? It's all too preliminary to know.

Anyway, I know that anyone who attends conversational classes gets a good grounding in spoken Japanese, even if they don't live in Japan. Doing it in Japan only makes it much easier.

I'd like to introduce you to the teacher provided by city hall in my town recently. You'd have a totally different opinion. Pretty much every one of the 15 other students who attended felt the same as me. Many quit out of frustration with her methods. There was no "grounding" at all.

 

[Glenski]

I don't see what the big deal is. If you're worried about more rights and freedoms being taken away from foreigners living in Japan as you usally are then what freedom is being threatened here? The right to ignorance?

I don't think people are talking about anyone's rights being taken away.

Look at it from this perspective, though.

You are a work visa holder who may have been here 5 years (to use Elizabeth's proposal as a "long-term resident"). You didn't learn a lot of Japanese for whatever reason, and suddenly the government says, "Hold on, buddy boy. You can't renew your visa until you show us you can read/speak/write (whatever) Japanese to our satisfaction."

Now impose that same policy on someone with a family here.

Or on a refugee.

Are you beginning to see what the big deal is now?

People can talk until they are blue in the face about what the policy might actually be. Fine. Do that. Until I see a clearer explanation, it is all up in the air, though, and it is equally fair to look at things from the darkest extreme.

And to link this sort of thing with combatting terrorism is ludicrous, yet the MOJ has done precisely that. No grounds for it, yet it's there. If you can't understand the implications of that, look at the fingerprinting threads.

 

[mr.sumo.snr]

All of a sudden casual, 'tongue-in-cheek' posts suggesting an unqualified work visa-seeker find themselves a nice Japanese girl/boy, get hitched, get a spouse visa and thereby free themselves of any qualification requirements in order to remain in the country sound like thoroughly sound advice.

Maybe this is a new government incentive to counter the declining birthrate.

--

 

[thatsme]

thatsme,
I would like to have Elizabeth explain much better what sort of "extra burden" she feels exists with people who have stayed here a long time yet not learned a great deal of Japanese. I'm not disagreeing that people should learn the language, but her previous use of the term "freeloader" seems to equate with your use of "burden". Perhaps you could also explain what you mean...? What I object to in the article is twofold:
1) the poor reasons they give for doing this, and
2) the huge vagueness in what they intend and for whom.

Maybe I used the wrong terminology (extra burden?)
I made few examples of how realistically some one that has decided to reside in Japan would come to a realization to learn few words without relying toomuch on other people kindness, I am sure that you will find billions of human in any galaxy that would not mind to help someone who can't speak the lingo to direct them to the right place or even take them to the right department store, nevertheless, you rather want to be able to do the basics by your self.

What ever the agenda is for the government to implement this new law it does'nt matter, it is good to argue about it, but you can't or don't have the power to change what you don't agree about.

So basically either you agree and go with the flow or moan, both are ok, moaning is good to relieave us from the stress!!!

 

[Elizabeth]

I don't think people are talking about anyone's rights being taken away.
Look at it from this perspective, though.
You are a work visa holder who may have been here 5 years (to use Elizabeth's proposal as a "long-term resident"). You didn't learn a lot of Japanese for whatever reason, and suddenly the government says, "Hold on, buddy boy. You can't renew your visa until you show us you can read/speak/write (whatever) Japanese to our satisfaction."
Now impose that same policy on someone with a family here.
Or on a refugee.
Are you beginning to see what the big deal is now?
People can talk until they are blue in the face about what the policy might actually be. Fine. Do that. Until I see a clearer explanation, it is all up in the air, though, and it is equally fair to look at things from the darkest extreme.

If that is how you are determined to react, I'm not interested in thanklessly expending further effort on translations. However, if read carefully and in their entirety, the Japanese version does give the best available preliminary indication of MOJ's dilemma in heightening social integration among workers & other long term residents without losing valuable human assets in the process. It's a super sensitive juggling act that quite obviously doesn't lend itself to extremities.

But before preceeding to lose any more support in this group deeper down that dark and isolated road of spinning extreme scenarios please re-read what epigenesan and I have already excerpted from the original and explain to me how the procedure of a landing exam followed by a re-test at visa renewal

1).
squares with requiring refugees, or anyone initially coming into the country, to have the least knowledge whatsoever of the language.

As stated, the policy wouldn't even cover current NJ residents.

It is for long term residents but not only at the time they apply for residency. As it's being considered by the MOJ, language ability would apparently be part of a "landing examination" at the time of entrance into a country for those people. That score would serve as a baseline measure which would be reassessed for improvement upon visa renewal or other change in residency status. Those "improvements" would then be taken into consideration by immigration for approval or not.

In the article Elizabeth posted, I can read that the government came up with the idea "but with hesistance and absence of consensus within."

It isn't reasonable to make language proficiency a requirement at "landing," and I think they are considering proficiency (probably rudimentary) as requirement in visa extension. The reference to Canada's requirement by MOFA says "for permanent residents planning to work." Probably that's what the Japanese government has in mind.

The closing remark suggests hesistance to implement it for fear of losing talented people who hope to come to Japan and work here. (The concluding sentence is usually the gist of the article.)

 

[Elizabeth]

Another lies in how certain things are spoken, depending on who is the target. (Talk about yourself, the person you are with, or someone not around, and you might have to use different grammar, for example.)

"Might" I suppose being the operative word. In actuality, there are no significant grammatical differences depending on the target.

I went to the park.
He went to the park.
You (standing next to me) went to the park.

Just as in English, the only difference comes in the pronouns "I" "He" or "you."

 

[Kyoto Returnee]

A little bit silly I thought seen as though Japan is "trying" to internationalize.

What Japan needs is people to learn more English for when it does become international.

 

[kireikoori]

Just how good does my Japanese have to be for a "long stay"?

 

[Glenski]

What ever the agenda is for the government to implement this new law it does'nt matter

I can't honestly see the logic at all in that statement. Moreover, your profile is very confusing. It states you are Italian and have never been to Japan, yet you are listed as being IN Japan. What gives?

"Doesn't matter"????????? How on earth do you figure? One doesn't have to look on the Dark Side to see that there are potentially negative issues here.

 

[orochi]

"Might" I suppose being the operative word. In actuality, there are no significant grammatical differences depending on the target.

There are quite a few differences, I think. I'm with Glenski on this one. For example, the way you can only use 窶堙吮?堋ｵ窶堋｢ related to what you or the listener wants. If you want to talk about a third party, you need to use 窶堙吮?堋ｵ窶堋ｪ窶堙ｩ, 窶堙吮?堋ｵ窶堋｢窶堙昶?堋ｽ窶堋｢, 窶堙吮?堋ｵ窶堋｢窶堙??堋｢窶堙≫?堙??堋ｽ, etc etc.

A lot of Japanese is based on only being able to speak from your own perspective and not being able to make "factual" statements based on suppositions of what a third party might be thinking, feeling, or doing.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

I don't think people are talking about anyone's rights being taken away.

Look at it from this perspective, though.

You are a work visa holder who may have been here 5 years (to use Elizabeth's proposal as a "long-term resident"). You didn't learn a lot of Japanese for whatever reason, and suddenly the government says, "Hold on, buddy boy. You can't renew your visa until you show us you can read/speak/write (whatever) Japanese to our satisfaction."

Now impose that same policy on someone with a family here.

Or on a refugee.

Are you beginning to see what the big deal is now?

People can talk until they are blue in the face about what the policy might actually be. Fine. Do that. Until I see a clearer explanation, it is all up in the air, though, and it is equally fair to look at things from the darkest extreme.

And to link this sort of thing with combatting terrorism is ludicrous, yet the MOJ has done precisely that. No grounds for it, yet it's there. If you can't understand the implications of that, look at the fingerprinting threads.

Fair enough but I don't think they'd throw you in a burlap sack and ship you out just because you failed the test. Furthermore there would have to be some kind of grace period and there would be accessibility issues for foreigners living in areas where lessons are not as widely available (although they'd be the rarer cases). People with families would obviously be considered differently than a 20 year old from the West who's here to teach English and party and just forgot to go home.

What I mean is that I think if this rule was applied with the same amount of consideration that most other rules are applied to foreigners (that is, the Japanese bureaucracy as far as I've dealt with it is usually vehicled by at least one live human being who speaks a little bit of English, instead of voice jail or form 2B which is increasingly prevalent in Western governments) the process will not be as painful as you seem to think it is.

Linking things to terrorism is fairly comon in allied countries. If I had to guess at why it's even mentioned I'd say linking it to terrorism probably satisfies some mundane stipulation being imposed by the US or related post 9/11 mandates.

 

[orochi]

> Linking things to terrorism is fairly comon in allied countries.

I didn't see terrorism pop up in any of the Japanese language articles on this issue.
I only saw it in the English language press coverage.
Make your own assumptions. hmmmm....

 

[Elizabeth]

There are quite a few differences, I think. I'm with Glenski on this one. For example, the way you can only use ほしい related to what you or the listener wants. If you want to talk about a third party, you need to use ほしがる, ほしいみたい, ほしいといってた, etc etc.

Actually I believe you can use ほしい for a third party (from another thread) and I've certainly seen it but you're right there are many cases it may be best to find a way around it.

A lot of Japanese is based on only being able to speak from your own perspective and not being able to make "factual" statements based on suppositions of what a third party might be thinking, feeling, or doing.

Yes, that's true. You certainly cannot use "probably" "seems like" "appears" etc for ones own feelings, although I wouldn't in English either. Sorry for being misleading. I was only thinking of basic grammar like verb conjugations when I wrote that.

 

[orochi]

> Actually I believe you can use ほしい for a third party (from another thread)

Got a link by chance?

 

[Glenski]

Fair enough but I don't think they'd throw you in a burlap sack and ship you out just because you failed the test. Furthermore there would have to be some kind of grace period and there would be accessibility issues for foreigners living in areas where lessons are not as widely available (although they'd be the rarer cases). People with families would obviously be considered differently than a 20 year old from the West who's here to teach English and party and just forgot to go home.

What I mean is that I think if this rule was applied with the same amount of consideration that most other rules are applied to foreigners (that is, the Japanese bureaucracy as far as I've dealt with it is usually vehicled by at least one live human being who speaks a little bit of English, instead of voice jail or form 2B which is increasingly prevalent in Western governments) the process will not be as painful as you seem to think it is.

The fact is...there is no facts yet. You and others can make the above suppositions. I can make mine. Nobody knows how many burlap bags will be needed. Why people think the government, with its bad history towards foreigners, will be any more respectful this time is beyond me.

The fact that the original and the English version are different should make people sit up and take notice. This is indeed common practice, but it begs the question why.

Why should there be information deleted from one version?
Why should there be two interpretations?

I wouldn't want to be the foreigner who goes in for whatever reason, thinking he believes the truth from the English version of the news, only to find out he is wrong, penalized, kicked out, whatever when the MOJ official across the desk says, "So sorry. The Japanese version is the correct one. You should have read that one in order to understand the language test." Catch-22, game, set and match.

 

[Elizabeth]

> Actually I believe you can use ほしい for a third party (from another thread)

Got a link by chance?

Yeah, it was talked about here. There may be regional differences or whatever but I've also asked a couple friends at various times and got essentially that same response (not ungrammatical but not used a lot).

What other people want

 

[orochi]

> that response

Which response?
The thread pretty much seems to state that you typically shouldn't use ほしい with third parties.

 

[Elizabeth]

> that response

Which response?
The thread pretty much seems to state that you typically shouldn't use ほしい with third parties.

Nekocats response. Typically is what I said also. No one else reading this thread is too interested (can you make that assumption in English ? , but you are in Japan -- inquire of someone there.

 

[orochi]

???

I don't need to inquire with anybody.

 

[thatsme]

I can't honestly see the logic at all in that statement. Moreover, your profile is very confusing. It states you are Italian and have never been to Japan, yet you are listed as being IN Japan. What gives?
"Doesn't matter"????????? How on earth do you figure? One doesn't have to look on the Dark Side to see that there are potentially negative issues here.

You are right it is confusing.
I have been living with the japanese comunity for about 20 years.
I purposely wrote on my profile that I never been in japan, my sarcastic nature sometime makes me be weird.
I do agree that there is not logic in your eyes on my above statment, but not to my eyes.
If Japan decide to go ahead with implmenting that, can you do anything to revert it?
that is why I stated that it does'nt matter what we think about the policy, the only freedom we have left is to argue about it.
And if Japan will decide to the the U turn it will be decided by the Japanese and not by us "ALIENS"

 

[Glenski]

You are right it is confusing.
I have been living with the japanese comunity for about 20 years.
I purposely wrote on my profile that I never been in japan, my sarcastic nature sometime makes me be weird.

I have a different word for it.

I do agree that there is not logic in your eyes on my above statment, but not to my eyes.
If Japan decide to go ahead with implmenting that, can you do anything to revert it?

Implementing what? As I have been saying, there are no specifics in the article about a proposed policy. If you want to create some hypothetical ones, I'd be happy to give you an answer.

In a general sense, though, if a policy is created that goes against human rights or is in some other way unfair, then yes, ther eis something people can do about it. Protest. It has already made some changes in Japan. Sadly, they are slow ones.

nd if Japan will decide to the the U turn it will be decided by the Japanese and not by us "ALIENS"

That doesn't mean we aliens have zero say in the matter.

 

[thatsme]

I have a different word for it.
Implementing what? As I have been saying, there are no specifics in the article about a proposed policy. If you want to create some hypothetical ones, I'd be happy to give you an answer.
In a general sense, though, if a policy is created that goes against human rights or is in some other way unfair, then yes, ther eis something people can do about it. Protest. It has already made some changes in Japan. Sadly, they are slow ones.
That doesn't mean we aliens have zero say in the matter.

I did use the word of "IF" so it should imply an hypothetical argument.
And yes we do have a say, that does'nt mean we have the power to do anything in a country where human right is only a word in many cases.
But if you ask me I would'nt go against to motivate people to learn the language

 

[Glenski]

Your "if" still has no meaning. What is the policy that you allude to? Be specific, or there is no hypothesis. If you say "the policy in the article(s), then you have not been reading. There IS no policy defined.

 

[thatsme]

Your "if" still has no meaning. What is the policy that you allude to? Be specific, or there is no hypothesis. If you say "the policy in the article(s), then you have not been reading. There IS no policy defined.

OK OK,
I got you, Hypothetically speaking then, If the policy, low, whatever term I should use, is/will be implemented/defined/finilized, we would have had this discussion, since nothing has been defined, we should forget that this conversation has ever taken place.

I hope I have been specific enough.
Have a great day/night
Peace to you and all