It might be hard to believe that the National Flag (often called “Hinomaru” because it symbolizes the rising sun) and the National Anthem (whose title “Kimigayo” and words glorify the reign of Tenno and implicate justify the continuation of pre-World War II regime) have placed many conscientious teachers into a very difficult situation. Various local boards of education, with strong support from the Ministry of Education and Scientific Technology, have been threatening those teachers who are unwilling to educate children into docile and submissive subjects with the exercise of the disciplinary power. The National Flag and Anthem Act of 1999 is at the center of and provides the basis for such disciplinary power. By defining what is the national flag and anthem, the Act, with out explicitly stating that the people will be forced to respect those symbols on any occasion, has made it possible to coerce the observance thereof, particularly at matriculation and commencement ceremonies of public primary and secondary educational institutions. The issue here is not matter of “taste” but of respecting Japanese people as autonomous and independent individuals capable of self-governance or of depriving them of any decision-making power because they should be treated as subjects under monarchy.
In theory, the Ministry of Education and Scientific Technology has been pushing elementary and junior high schools to bring children up to be independently minded and confident in themselves, so that the children will grow up to be able to live fully. Those teachers, who have taken the idea seriously and have endeavor to develop children's capacity to think and decide by themselves, have encountered the compulsory observance of the Flag and Anthem as an affront to the freedom of conscience and of expression. As the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child provides, the aim of educating children is to develop their personhood, abilities, and mental and physical capacity to the utmost. State should be especially careful when it might interfere with the belief and conscience of children.
As the situation appears very alarming, the JCLU invited teachers from various areas to participate in our month session on March 16th, 2002 to learn more about what is really happening at public schools with regards to compulsory observance of the Flag and Anthem.
As mentioned briefly in the preceding paragraph, “Hinomaru” and “Kimigayo” are often understood to signify the continuation of pre-World War II regime: that they have been utilized to mobilize people's absolute obedience to the Emperor, not as a person but as a system up to the Surrender of 1945; that “Kimigayo: indicates that the reign of Tenno shall continue forever, ignoring the fact that the present Constitution has placed the sovereignty among the people; that “Hinomaru” was designated to show nationality, particularly of sea-going vessels in 1870; that the adoption of both “Hinomaru” and “Kimigayo” had split the public opinion, there was a strong opposition domestically as well as within the Asian continent because the flag and anthem inevitably reminded the militant Japan of the past, and because their adoption signaled the growing insensitivity among the Japanese populace of that past. Apart from the political ramification of the 199 Act, there is serious constitutional issue relating to the freedom of religion. The flag and anthem, to any people, are part of the Shinto belief system which was the State religion up to 1945. Although there were citizens who practiced Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and other faiths during that period, every single person was forced to observe State Shinto on official occasions which meant singing “Kimigayo” and saluting “Hinomaru”. The compulsory observation was prohibited since October 1945 and the present Constitution explicitly provides for the freedom of religion and free exercise thereof as well as the separation of State and religion. Were the Constitution taken seriously enough, many feel that forcing people to observe the flag and anthem would no doubt be violation of one of the fundamental human rights as defined by the Constitution. Thus the enforcement of 1999 Act has far more implication than the politically incorrectness it seems to imply. The following are the situations that those conscientious teachers are facing at their own school as told by those teachers themselves.
In 1999, the Principal ordered A, one of the teachers teaching at Minamidaira Elementary School, to play piano to accompany the singing of the anthem for the commencement in March and the matriculation in April. When A did not comply, the Metropolitan Board of Education reprimanded A because her refusal violated articles 32 and 33 of the Local Public Employees Act. A filed complaint claiming that the board's decision to reprimand violated article 19 of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of thought and conscience. The complaint was rejected on the ground that the principal's order was legal and not in violation of the Constitution. January 25th, 2002. A filed case to litigate at the Tokyo District Court demanding the cancellation of the decision to reprimand. Due to the fact that the headmaster who ordered to play has already retired (which had nothing to do with the incident), A was blamed for not resigning from her position or not applying to be relocated elsewhere. Among her colleagues, she feels ostracized. The pressure was becoming particularly oppressive as the commencement date for the academic year 2001-2002 drew closer. She was also ordered to teach “Kimigayo” chorus during music class which was done in attendance of other teachers. Her subject supervisor asked her to conduct special class session pertaining to “Kimigayo”. It is extremely rare for elementary school teachers to attend a colleague's class or to be asked to conduct a special class session except to report on an experimental project. The new principal has been actively pressuring her to comply with the order to play the anthem, referring to the possible exercise of disciplinary power and indicating that her behavior would inevitably affect her performance assessment. The level of harassment is such that A is under extreme pressure and is suffering from severe symptom of mental stress.
A has been trying to explain the grounds for her refusal to play at staff meetings and on other occasions but the principal has been adamant that he has the power to discipline non-compliance and that teachers as individuals do not have the right to refuse the principal's order.
Before the 1999 Act was passed, none of the public elementary and junior high schools sang the anthem nor displayed the flag during official ceremonies. The principal Kunitachi Daini Elementary School displayed “Hinomaru” at the commencement in March 2000 and tried to perform the anthem as well, without any explanation. The children, particularly those who were graduating that year, asked that their opinion be reflected in the ceremony, and the principal to explain why he was ignoring pupils' wishes. After the matriculation in April, a right-wing newspaper wrote up the incident as “a turmoil at the elementary school,” “pupils demanding the principal to apologize in the most humiliating way.” “Teachers as the puppets-masters, inciting to revolt.” This was accompanied by many right-wing handouts attacking rank-and-file teachers at the school.
On August 2000, 13 teachers were disciplined for wearing ribbons wishing for the world peace at the commencement. The adornment was regarded as non-compliance with the order not to be involved in other activities during working hours. Tokyo Metropolitan Government established a committee to improve the educational situation at Kunitachi City, and one of their aims, as stated in their papers, was to enforce the 1999 Act properly. The principal made clear that his policy was to conduct the March 2001 commencement properly with “Kimigayo” singing accompanied by piano. B, who was asked to play the refused. She asked for reasons why the 1999 Act, which does not provide for compulsory observance at official ceremonies and leave the choice to the individuals concerned, was constructed to allow coercive measures according to the principal’s reading. The principal refused to answer satisfactorily. In the end, “Kimigayo” was played on a tape, without pupils actually singing the song. The principal then forced teachers to spend many class hours to teach “Kimigayo” to the pupils because the tape-playing was taken not as a refusal to coerced singing but mere lack of training.
B, who was again asked to play piano at the 2002 commencement, refused and explained her reasons for not participating in the intrusion into the freedom of thought and conscience. The principal, within the precincts of the school, stated that he was requesting and asking B a favor, not demanding and ordering her to play, went on to explain to the outside world that the situation at Kunitachi Daini is abnormal. This invited some teachers from other schools to relocate to Kunitachi Daini to “normalized the situation”. In the end, the principal asked one of the new teachers to play the piano and to teach the song. The fact that this new teacher wrote an article in “Seiron”, one of the better-known, widely distributed right-wing journals, to the effect that he moved to Kunitachi Daini to normalize the situation, proves that his relocation was not based on merits but because of his political connections, according to B. B is saddened by the fact that the principal has accepted this political appointment without a word. Kunitachi Daini is often the target of the right-wing demonstration which has placed much pressure and unease upon those teachers willing to stand up against any politically motivated moves. B also feels that pupils are used as pawns by politicians and is much disgusted by it.
Mr. Sekiguchi, a Kunitachi council member, reported the situation at Kunitachi City Council. He has been active in emphasizing the importance of peace and education at the local authority. During 2000, he was successful in extracting the statement “the freedom of thought and conscience is guaranteed by the Constitution, and should naturally be guaranteed in any educational environment” from the local board of education. With this statement, it was possible for two elementary schools not to display “Hinomaru” and to play “Kimigayo”. In 2001, the board refused to stand by its statement of the previous year. Mr. Sekiguchi believes that the situation has worsened and that it will be unlikely that even one school will manage to refuse forced display and singing. Before the 1999 Act, Kunitachi City, along with Hiroshima City and Sapporo City, displayed no “Hinomaru” and did not sing “Kimigayo”. Thus, after the enactment of the 1999 Act, Kunitachi City became a high-profile target for the right-wing and the conservative government in power. Their collaboration is apparent by the way incidents are reported in media and in the timing and contents of right-wing handouts. The Kunitachi Board of Education is very much in accordance with the Metropolitan Board of Education and has been promoted to the principalship. The debates at the city council revealed the fact that these new principals have been managing the school by avoiding any deliberation or consultation with the teachers, parents or local residents. The Kunitachi Board of Education finally agreed to talk with the Kunitachi Committee of Elementary School Principals.
According to C who teaches at Kunitachi Daiyon Elementary School, the principal has taken a hard-line position: in April 2001, he announced that there will be “Kimigayo” singing by all participants accompanied by piano at the commencement in March and that there should be music class designated specially for the singing of “Kimigayo” during the school year. When the principal asked C to play the piano last October, she pointed out that singing the “Kimigayo” is part of the guideline from the Ministry of Education and Scientific Technology, is has not indicated that the singing has to be accompanied by piano, and asked for the ground to order piano accompaniment. The principal has not answered the question yet. In February 2002, the principal named C to play the piano at the commencement. According to C, the intent of the principal is to place those who are not obedient to the principal in a tight spot so that he would have more chance to discipline those recalcitrant teachers.
Another dilemma emerging at Kunitachi's elementary schools is the denial of egalitarian format for commencement: it used to be that the graduating pupils and 5th graders as well as parents and teachers were all facing each other on the same floor. Now the policy is to position the principals and other important people on the stage where the other participants look up. This plan was rigorously opposed by teachers and pupils but to no avail.
Professor Akira Tsunogae of Tokyo Gakugei University spoke on the constitutional issues relating to these reports as the final speaker of the meeting. There is no denying that these incidents are fundamentally part of the problems arising from the Tenno system, and the conflicts that Tenno system causes under the popular sovereignty. There is another aspect to these incidents as well which is that we have to look for better ways to effectively guarantee fundamental human rights. It is important to deal with each case, taking into account specific differences in the facts as well as different claims which can be asserted under the different circumstances. One argument is the reasonableness of the order to play piano to accompany the singing of “Kimigayo”, particularly for those whose expertise happens to be music. There is a good chance to persuade the courts that the content of the order cannot be understood as reasonable under the circumstances. The second argument is that the constitutional provision guaranteeing the fundamental human rights gives immunity to those who ask to be exempted from the order. It was Professor Tsunogae's opinion that each case should be treated separately so that the teachers concerned can effectively state their own case, and the lawyers would be asked to develop arguments and theories reflecting the facts of each case.
After Professor Tsunogae concluded the speech, the floor was opened for discussion. The participants were all sincerely concerned, creating an active and lively question and comment period to which the panelists eagerly answered. The organizers believe that the meeting was a success because the topic was timely, all the presentations were focused and vividly told, and the strategic suggestions to help and support those who are suffering are effectively outlined.