By Yeah this is pretty low sending someone a check for 99 cents after laboring for two years with no pay:
The Japanese government fanned anger among Koreans after news came this week that it sent 99 yen ($1.08), or 1,280 won, in welfare pension refunds to Koreans who were used as forced laborers during the Japanese colonial occupation of the Korean Peninsula.
The workers and their advocates at an association of victims of the Japanese colonial period harshly criticized the Japanese decision.
The atmosphere at a press conference in front of the Japanese Embassy quickly turned emotional when Yang Geum-deok, 78, and Kim Seong-ju, 81, two of the forced laborers, cried out on Christmas Eve.
“Give me back my youth, you thieves!” said Yang angrily.
As Yang knelt and cried, some 20 other victims and activists said they reject taking the pensions.
Yang, who was taken to Japan to work for over a year, said she cannot help but feel infuriated by the Japanese government’s decision.
“I want Japanese government’s apology and I want my pension fund back,” Yang said.
“I was told that if I worked in Japan I could study in middle and high schools and earn money,” Kim said. “I worked at a factory without sleep but never received a penny. I demanded my salary and they said the money would be wired when I went back to my country. But I never heard from them for 64 years.” [Joong Ang Ilbo]
Read the rest at the link, but the Japanese government is claiming that the Korean government should pay these workers. If that is the case then why send a check at all, especially one that is only 99 cents?
10:04 am on December 28th, 2009 1
Twisting the knife?
10:21 am on December 28th, 2009 2
A reasonable explanation.
11:10 am on December 28th, 2009 3
It's Japanese way of saying "F-you" silently. Then they can claim "we gave them the checks already, but they are still complaining – Koreans…
"
11:29 am on December 28th, 2009 4
How is it Japan can say it is not responsible? Is it because they are now a different form of government? I don't get it.
12:03 pm on December 28th, 2009 5
The argument is that they don't owe them anything because they've already paid compensation to the Korean government in the 60's.
That would explain why they are paying a token amount.
12:20 pm on December 28th, 2009 6
Maybe they should have sued Mitsubishi rather than the Japanese government.
12:30 pm on December 28th, 2009 7
Interesting. What was the amount of compensation and who recieved it? Not a critisizm, just need a place to start.
12:32 pm on December 28th, 2009 8
If they paid into the Japanese government run pension fund, then they are owed the money from the Japanese government.
12:39 pm on December 28th, 2009 9
1964 Normalization Treaty between Japan and Korea, negotiated by Park Chung Hee. Korea got $300 million grant and $200 million long term loan. Park used the money to build the nation's first highway and started POSCO steel. The 220,000 people who are suing for their back wages and pensions due, never got a penny from anyone.
12:41 pm on December 28th, 2009 10
1965, not 1964.
12:58 pm on December 28th, 2009 11
Here is a lengthy scholarly work which answers a lot of questions on this topic.
The 1965 Treaty seems to be a big culprit, for it apparently waived the rights of individuals to claim compensation from the Japanese state or corporations.
1:18 pm on December 28th, 2009 12
Yep. It seems these folks should be going after the Korean government. They are the ones who negotiated their compensation rights away. I would submit however that these people still benefited from the growth Korea was able to kick in with the Japanese money.
Sucks but it seems the Japanese fulfilled their part of the (government to government) negotiated settlement.
2:11 pm on December 28th, 2009 13
I will be shameless and quote myself:
Link to the post
2:44 pm on December 28th, 2009 14
So the greivence is misdirected? And should be against the South Korean government for back wages and pensions?
2:55 pm on December 28th, 2009 15
Technically, you're right. Korean government signed away the victims' rights by accepting pittance when Korea was desperate for aid. You can basically equate that with White men giving the Indians what they wanted – liquor, guns, and blankets for their lands. That was legal and binding too. But that doesn't mean you are morally absolved.
Notice the Korean government has never asked the Japanese government for any financial compensation after the 1965 treaty. So they are holding on to their part of their bargain.
3:02 pm on December 28th, 2009 16
"So the greivence is misdirected? And should be against the South Korean government for back wages and pensions?"
Not necessarily so. Korean victims position is that the 1965 treaty covers war reparations, but does not cover the back wages and pensions that were honorably earned. Those are not "compensation", those are wages that should have been paid out during the war, but didn't, so therefore different. The Japanese court essentially agreed to this with the victims. But then they awarded the victims their pensions – $1 each. Now the dispute is with the amount of the money.
3:11 pm on December 28th, 2009 17
It would seem after 50 years that the South Korean government would pick up the slack and pay the 'Indians' what they are due. The morality of not forwarding the compensation to those with claims falls directly on the SK government who spent the money elseware.
Your analogy to American Indians is not valid if the Korean back wages and pensioneers recieved zero. It means the Korean government treated their own people 'less' than the US treated its indiginous people.
The US has never 'morally absolved itself' from its indiginous people and continues to support and provide for their future.
3:16 pm on December 28th, 2009 18
Good point.
3:20 pm on December 28th, 2009 19
Oops, it seems the SK government waived away the rights of the pensioneers and those owed back wages. So it again falls back to the SK government.
3:25 pm on December 28th, 2009 20
Not if the South Korean government waived those rights of pensioneers of Mitsubishi when South Korea got its 300 million in reparations. The argument should be with the South Korean government for reimbursement from the funds paid.
3:42 pm on December 28th, 2009 21
"Oops, it seems the SK government waived away the rights of the pensioneers and those owed back wages. So it again falls back to the SK government."
Ooops. not according to the Japanese court which itself has said that Koreans are owed the money because the 1965 does not cover them. Those Korean victims have won in the court. It's just that the Japanese court decided slap them with an insulting $1.00 amount.
3:47 pm on December 28th, 2009 22
"The US has never ‘morally absolved itself’ from its indiginous people and continues to support and provide for their future."
Why is that so? The treaty has ended, money paid out to Indians. Their Indian leaders signed away the deeds to the land legally. Why does the US have the obligation to support and provide for their future? Your logic has double standards which you need to explain. I know I know, this is Korea, Koreans are savages that need to be slapped into their places. Go Japan.
5:41 pm on December 28th, 2009 23
I wouldn't mind my pension from the Korean govt. for that matter. North Americans and Aussies get theirs now, NZers don't. I have about 6M just sitting there since 2007.
10:58 pm on December 28th, 2009 24
When it comes to compensation for its war crimes, Japan is very tightfisted. Allied survivors of Japanese POW camps got a dollar or two per day shortly after the war. It's much less than what the soldiers own insurance would have paid them. It's the equivalent of 10$ to 60$ per day nowadays (depending on how you calculate it).
My father told me stories he was by friends who were POW in Japanese camps. Based on what I heard, a compensation of 10$ per day, or even 60$, is a crime in itself.
11:01 pm on December 28th, 2009 25
As if the government (Canadian and American) hasn't broken almost every single treaty it has signed with them.
11:03 pm on December 28th, 2009 26
Let's also not forget whose side Park Jung Hee was on during the occupation.
12:35 am on December 29th, 2009 27
"You can basically equate that with White men giving the Indians what they wanted – liquor, guns, and blankets for their lands."
Here is another problem with this analogy. American Indians had no concept of land ownership. If anything, the various tribes who cut these deals were the ones being underhanded by selling something not theirs. I am no expert on mid 20th Century Korean or Japanese property law, but I think it a safe assumption both cultures expected some sort of payment for work performed.
One other note. Tom says the Indian treaties have ended. There were lots of these treaties and I am sure many have lapsed. However, not all. Every year the state of New York has a ceremony where they hand over some blankets and fake jewelry to the tribe which "sold" them New York.
2:24 am on December 29th, 2009 28
interesting Koreans complaining about not being compensated properly fow worked performed. Now where have I heard that before?
2:28 am on December 29th, 2009 29
Right, because hagwon owners colonized U.S. and Canada and kidnapped NSETs to teach English 18 hours a day.
Have some perspective.
2:43 am on December 29th, 2009 30
You know, Emperor Akihito could personally deliver each of these former slave laborers $10,000.00 in gold while wearing a schoolgirl uniform and they would be bitching it wasn't enough, he should have been naked, the PM chould have been there in a sailor fuku and HE DIDN'T SAY SORRY!!!!
In all seriousness, no level of compensation is going to end this. And perhaps it shouldn't. I suspect this issue will end only after all these poor souls walk off into the history books. Might take the generation after them passing away too.
3:33 am on December 29th, 2009 31
And that there were massive protests against the Basic Treaty and the Park regime had to declare martial law to quell them.
4:55 am on December 29th, 2009 32
Maybe they should go to Tokyo on a friday night and firebomb some subway cars.