Japanization

Soon my friend, soon enough ...

An article I found on Japan; despite all of its accumulated wealth, the country still lacks maturity, and unwillingness to "grow up". A bit confusing, but still interesting nonetheless.

Is Japan Changing?

But didn't the Americans already do that in WW2?

This morning, I suddenly recalled this article which I read on Choosun Ilbo - which pretty much explains on what we can learn from Japan from South Korea's perspective. Out of all the things being discussed and elaborated in the article, I found one to be most agreeable - Japan's inability to change and adapt to modern times, in essence, failure to ride the wave of globalization. Now yes, I know, how can say such a thing for a country whose manufacturing goods are all over the place? If you look closely, they're not anymore. You want to talk about TVs? Samsung is now the world's largest TV maker, and Hyundai overtook Toyota in America's market. They're still up there, but they're not as dominant as they were during the 1980s and 1990s. South Korea has started to take up their fair shair of the world, even their music industry is starting to shine brighter than Japan's J-Pop.

Now I can give hundreds of reasons why (too nationalistic, their attitude being less inclined to learn English compared to South Korea, and there's also the factor where they have such an advanced robotics industry, losing ground in the automotive and electronics industry may not seem to be such a big deal) they are falling behind against their Korean rivals - maybe I'll do another post on that later. But for now the question is, are they changing? Are they reacting positively to these signs? Seems like like they are.

Ex-CEO of Olympus - Michael Woodford

Let's start of with the Woodford Olympus Controversy - the first Non-Japanese to become the CEO of a Japanese corporation, only to be fired 6 months into the job for investigating what seemed to be a potential (okay, maybe the appropriate word would be apparent) coverup by the directors. For being a whistleblower, he was fired. But now since the issue went to headlines, and after much pressure from the public, he was invited to attend a Board Meeting this week, which he accepted. This is definitely fresh and different to how the old-school hard headed Japanese would normally handle things - cover up with your superiority in rank and lobby the media and politicians.

Hiroshi Mikitani - CEO of Rakuten

In another two cases, Yamada Denki, Japan's largest electronic retail chain decided that they will now sell more foreign brands in their stores in a response to an increasing demand and interest for Samsung and LG products. They recently opened a procurement office in China - something which Japanese companies would not normally do. The CEO of Rakuten, one of Japan's largest online retailer, shocked the media by giving a press conference in English - and in response to fears in losing their Jobs, more and more Japanese are taking English lessons to justify / exert their importance in their respective companies.

This is, without a doubt, signs of change - from their inclinedness to learn English, to the way they run companies. However, one key area which still requires improvements is their political system; they need a strong and visionary leader to take them out of this trap. These are good signs - they're probably 10 years behind South Korea now, but that does not mean that they won't be able to catch up. Knowing the level of rivalry between them, and the advantage that Japan has in certain industries, I'm very confident that Japan can pick themselves up again - maybe not to a point as high as where they were, but to the least, high enough to ride the tide of total globalization.

The only question is - how long will it take?

Diasporas; Benefits on Having Immigrants

I used to work as a Hooker - as in a person who hooks things.

I love how they titled the topic of the article which I was reading - magic indeed. Based on the article I was reading, migrants to a foreign country can actually be beneficial based on several key reasons ( map source can be seen here ) ;

1. The "diaspora network" - where one could actually benefit in terms of the networks in which the migrant has to his/her country of origin. In other words, companies/institutions hiring them may not be limited to local networks alone but also be given the opportunity to expand its operations outwards.
2. Spreading money - it is a fact that in general the migrants will be earning more than they would compared to working back home; repatriation of their monies to their homeland therefore would benefit both the domestic and foreign country.
3. Innovation carriage - upon returning to their country of origin, apparently many would set up companies carrying with them the knowledge and experience in which they have gained overseas; allowing their countries to develop.

If we were to exclude Hong Kong (although they have that two government one country thing) from the map; Malaysia would have the second highest number of Chinese emigrants overseas. Although technically speaking, this is entirely wrong - its too apparent that these figures take into account Malaysian-born Chinese (but in reality, as a result of having a large number of dumb Malay politicians they're still treated as China-born Chinese).

But to be fair bringing immigrants into a country is not all that well - if you examine the article earlier, it talks mostly about high skilled immigrants, and by right they would benefit any country they go to. What I believe is meant to be of much more concern is low-skilled immigrants (particularly evident for Malaysia) and how it depresses local wages for works in similiar category, carrying market distortion effects. How would labors of this category be beneficial overall for a country? Repatriation of wages back to their home country is applicable, but what about carrying valuable contacts, innovation or creativity? Even if there were to be any, the amount would be minimal.

High tide for change?