Tokyo Ward Revamps Foreign Residents Section

[Mulboyne]

[floatr][/floatr]Asahi: Culture shock
Tokyo's Minato Ward, home to nearly 22,000 foreign residents and the most embassies in Japan, is making a move that seems belated for such a cosmopolitan city: It is setting up its first administrative office to deal with the needs of foreign residents. It's not that the ward has failed to help foreign residents live comfortably; that work has been outsourced to an auxiliary group...But last year, the ward said it would stop providing subsidies to the association after fiscal 2008 as a cost-cutting measure...The ward initially considered divvying up the association's work among existing sections. However, staff and some assembly members warned that work sharing would be impossible. Yoko Watanabe, an official with Minato Ward's industry and regional promotion department, expressed concerns that the absence of a specialized entity could "send the wrong message that this ward is not committed to international affairs"...Watanabe noted that foreign residents "contribute roughly 20 percent of (the ward's) tax income," another reason to make the ward more accommodating to the international community...more...

[GomiGirl]

Ah - when there is cash involved there is love from the government. But I suspect it is also due to the fact that Minato-ku has a high population of the "right kind" of foreigners - the rich, white-bread kind. *sigh*

[TennoChinko]

Ah - when there is cash involved there is love from the government. But I suspect it is also due to the fact that Minato-ku has a high population of the "right kind" of foreigners - the rich, white-bread kind. *sigh*

It works both ways - and hard on the ones in the middle (that are living it up in a Homat or in Roppongi Hills). Minato-ku is probably the most zealous ward office in all of Japan for hounding foreign residents to enlist in their social welfare programs. To get yourself off of National Health Insurance, they "demand" you provide proof by showing a one-way ticket etc..

[Samurai_Jerk]

It works both ways - and hard on the ones in the middle (that are living it up in a Homat or in Roppongi Hills). Minato-ku is probably the most zealous ward office in all of Japan for hounding foreign residents to enlist in their social welfare programs. To get yourself off of National Health Insurance, they "demand" you provide proof by showing a one-way ticket etc..

I'm no fan of paying into the system, but I don't know why so many gaijin get pissy about the government expecting them to do what they are legally obligated to do.

[TennoChinko]

I'm no fan of paying into the system, but I don't know why so many gaijin get pissy about the government expecting them to do what they are legally obligated to do.

I should have been more clear. If you are not full-time employee of a corporation that automatically enrolls/provides you with matching payments for health insurance and pension plan premiums, then you have a situation that is similar to the NHK law. On one hand, one can find laws that indicate everyone eligible is obliged to enroll. However, there aren't any penalties or clear binding laws in the case of non-compliance. And, with both NHK and national pension not being in the economic self-interest of most everyone I know - it makes sense not to enroll.

People have also been fooled by unscrupulous ward officials. At least a few people - when simply inquiring about national health insurance - were told to fill out a form before any questions could be asked. Afterward, they were informed that regardless of their decision, they had just contracted to enroll in the NHI.

[GomiGirl]

Sadly though, your ward tax does go up slightly if you are not in NH, but still not enough to make it cheaper for me to take care of my own health insurance with a private company.

So while they do not force you to join if you can prove you have private cover, but they do give you a slight penalty.

At least it ensures that I can stay out of the pension debacle.

(Brain turned to mush from translation of mobile content user terms and conditions contracts)

[Samurai_Jerk]

I should have been more clear. If you are not full-time employee of a corporation that automatically enrolls/provides you with matching payments for health insurance and pension plan premiums, then you have a situation that is similar to the NHK law. On one hand, one can find laws that indicate everyone eligible is obliged to enroll. However, there aren't any penalties or clear binding laws in the case of non-compliance. And, with both NHK and national pension not being in the economic self-interest of most everyone I know - it makes sense not to enroll.

People have also been fooled by unscrupulous ward officials. At least a few people - when simply inquiring about national health insurance - were told to fill out a form before any questions could be asked. Afterward, they were informed that regardless of their decision, they had just contracted to enroll in the NHI.

You're still obligated to pay, so if you don't, you can't blame you're Kuyakusho for trying to make you do it.

[TennoChinko]

You're still obligated to pay, so if you don't, you can't blame you're Kuyakusho for trying to make you do it.

No, actually - it's not crystal clear that one is legally obliged to enroll themselves into national pension plan. And, it's not unlike the grey-area situation with NHK. That why, it's not at all unusual to find numerous Japanese who have failed to make pension payments including former PM Koizumi.

[Captain Japan]

I'm no fan of paying into the system, but I don't know why so many gaijin get pissy about the government expecting them to do what they are legally obligated to do.

I think a lot of it is because some Japanese do their best to avoid it. The lady in this thread is actually bragging about not paying.

[ttjereth]

[TennoChinko]

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B9%B4%E9%87%91#.E5.8A.A0.E5.85.A5.E3.81.A8.E5.8F.97.E7.B5.A6

Roughly:
Enrollment in the national pension plan is compulsory for all persons resident in Japan aged from 20 to 60 years old.

Wikipedia for some reason uses the word "kokumin" which is most often "citizens" rather than "residents", but the social insurance agency (http://www.nenkin.go.jp/) makes no distinction, unfortunately all their documentation is in PDF for some stupid reason. You can find information on forced collection of pension fees here:
http://www.sia.go.jp/~mie/kyousei/kyousei.html

In any event, it is clear that you are REQUIRED to pay it. It says it plainly and there are even means for them to forcefully collect from non-payers. The fact that there is no particular punishment set out in the law does not remove the obligation that is clearly specified.

One could and can make the same argument regarding payment of NHK fees:

http://www.nhk.or.jp/pr/english/fee/fee.html

Article 32 of the Broadcast Law
Any person who has installed receiving equipment capable of receiving the broadcasting provided by NHK shall conclude a contract with NHK with regard to the reception of its broadcasting. However, this shall not apply to those who have installed receiving equipment not intended for the reception of broadcasting, or receiving equipment solely for the reception of radio broadcasting or multiplex broadcasting (broadcasting of voice and other sound transmissions not coming under television broadcasting and multiplex broadcasting classifications).

http://www.soumu.go.jp/joho_tsusin/eng/Resources/laws/cabinet/020412_1.html
[quote]
The Cabinet Order for Enforcement of the Broadcast Law

(Cabinet Order No. 163 of May 25, 1950)

The Cabinet Order for Enforcement of the Broadcast Law hereby shall be promulgated.

The Cabinet Order for Enforcement of the Broadcast Law
The Cabinet enacts the Cabinet Order for Enforcement of the Broadcast Law in accordance with the provisions set forth in Article 12 Paragraph (1) and Article 42 Paragraph (7) as well as Supplementary Provisions 11 and 14 of the Broadcast Law (Law No. 132 of 1950).

....

Article 5.
Matters which the Minister of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications may request a broadcaster falling under any of the following classifications to submit reference materials thereon pursuant to Article 53-8 of the Law shall be as follows:

...

g) Matters related to the receiver's contracts with NHK as defined in Article 32 of the Law]

And, for many conscientious Japanese citizens and residents, they see this as enough proof positive that they are legally obliged to enter in a contract with NHK (and pay their monthly premiums). However, there are a significant number of otherwise law-abiding citizens and residents who do not accept the legal argument that they are required to enter in a contract with NHK. And, I believe you have shown a similar case lies with the SIA.

Furthermore, the kokumin and citizen distinction is not trivial. Some local governments have effectively utilized it to legally discriminate against some of our economically less fortunate yeller/browner gaijin brethren. Some areas with a high concentration of South Americans of Japanese-descent - with complete legal residency - are being denied coverage by National Health Insurance (and as it would follow - entry into the National Pension administered by SIA) - based on their interpretation that kokumin only applies to Japanese citizens, not residents. In this case, unlike the good denizens of Minato-ku, these hot-blooded slant-eyed brothers with their bottom of the barrel working-classes wages (and on average, larger families) are seen as an unwelcome burden to the system.

[ttjereth]

One could and can make the same argument regarding payment of NHK fees:

http://www.nhk.or.jp/pr/english/fee/fee.html


http://www.soumu.go.jp/joho_tsusin/eng/Resources/laws/cabinet/020412_1.html


And, for many conscientious Japanese citizens and residents, they see this as enough proof positive that they are legally obliged to enter in a contract with NHK (and pay their monthly premiums). However, there are a significant number of otherwise law-abiding citizens and residents who do not accept the legal argument that they are required to enter in a contract with NHK. And, I believe you have shown a similar case lies with the SIA.

Yes it is similar. You are legally obligated to enroll in both. I'm not discussing whether it's a good idea or a waste of money (I don't pay nhk and they can kiss my rosy red ass if they think I ever will), but the fact of the matter is, it is the law.

You said it was "unclear" and it's not, it is perfectly clear that you are supposed to, and obligated to enroll. There is no grey area. If you do not enroll, you are in violation of the law. The fact that (until recently) there was no penalty for that in no way makes the law itself any less binding, just less enforceable. If you look at the link I posted, those who are in violation can be penalized for the entire period they are in violation because it has always been the law. If you choose not to enroll, that doesn't in any way, shape or form change that fact. Not living up to an obligation does not mean that obligation ceases to exist.

Furthermore, the kokumin and citizen distinction is not trivial. Some local governments have effectively utilized it to legally discriminate against some of our economically less fortunate yeller/browner gaijin brethren. Some areas with a high concentration of South Americans of Japanese-descent - with complete legal residency - are being denied coverage by National Health Insurance (and as it would follow - entry into the National Pension administered by SIA) - based on their interpretation that kokumin only applies to Japanese citizens, not residents. In this case, unlike the good denizens of Minato-ku, these hot-blooded slant-eyed brothers with their bottom of the barrel working-classes wages (and on average, larger families) are seen as an unwelcome burden to the system.

It is trivial when it's simply stated that way by some random editor in wikipedia. Like I said, if you read the SIA site they don't make the distinction that wikipedia does (they only say residents), I imagine it is just an undiscovered error on wikipedia.

As for you assertions that there is a distinction being made, please point me to a source stating it, because I think you just pulled that out of your ass. Like I said, the SIA DOES NOT SAY KOKUMIN, ONLY WIKIPEDIA DOES.

[TennoChinko]

Yes it is similar. You are legally obligated to enroll in both. I'm not discussing whether it's a good idea or a waste of money (I don't pay nhk and they can kiss my rosy red ass if they think I ever will), but the fact of the matter is, it is the law.

You said it was "unclear" and it's not, it is perfectly clear that you are supposed to, and obligated to enroll. There is no grey area. If you do not enroll, you are in violation of the law. The fact that (until recently) there was no penalty for that in no way makes the law itself any less binding, just less enforceable. If you look at the link I posted, those who are in violation can be penalized for the entire period they are in violation because it has always been the law. If you choose not to enroll, that doesn't in any way, shape or form change that fact. Not living up to an obligation does not mean that obligation ceases to exist.



It is trivial when it's simply stated that way by some random editor in wikipedia. Like I said, if you read the SIA site they don't make the distinction that wikipedia does (they only say residents), I imagine it is just an undiscovered error on wikipedia.

As for you assertions that there is a distinction being made, please point me to a source stating it, because I think you just pulled that out of your ass. Like I said, the SIA DOES NOT SAY KOKUMIN, ONLY WIKIPEDIA DOES.

I was not relying upon the wiki entry at all. A reference in Immigration, Ethnicity and Globalization in Japan by Betsy Brody provides a reference to practical interpretation of the kokumin vs. resident "rule" w/r social insurance services administered by certain local Japanese governments. Similarly, everyone's favorite (or pariah), Debito makes similar reference to this situation in this report/presentation .

I am making a distinction between simply "legally-obliged":

- Entering into a contract with NHK
- Enrolling into SIA
- Surrendering a second nationality (if you happen to be Japanese - naturalized or otherwise) (excluding the practice of "officially surrendering it" and then re-claiming as the British Embassy apparently encourages).

and "legally-obliged" and "legally-enforceable":

- Payment of national income taxes.
- Payment of consumption taxes
- Payment of local/municipal taxes


I don't group them in the same category. And, given your comment regarding NHK, it looks like you do the same.

[Samurai_Jerk]

TennoChinko,

Your point is still different from the one I made. I don't pay NHK and I used to not pay for national health insurance or social insurance, but you are supposed to pay whether they effectively enforce it or not

I still don't know why so many gaijin here get worked up about paying it, because most of us whould have to pay if we were in our home countries or working abroad in another country. Personally, I've never understood why the Japanese government doesn't try harder to get citizens or foreign residents to pay. Maybe the did the calculations and realized enforcement was more expensive then letting people slide.

I didn't like paying Social Security back in the US, but I did. Of course, Uncle Sam will go a lot further to try to make you do so.

[GomiGirl]

Personally, I don't like the idea of throwing good money after bad. I take care of my own health insurance and pension funds. I would rather not contribute to the Japanese system that wouldn't benefit me in the short or long terms.

I do pay a hell of a lot in ward taxes though.

[TennoChinko]

TennoChinko,

Your point is still different from the one I made. I don't pay NHK and I used to not pay for national health insurance or social insurance, but you are supposed to pay whether they effectively enforce it or not

I still don't know why so many gaijin here get worked up about paying it, because most of us whould have to pay if we were in our home countries or working abroad in another country. Personally, I've never understood why the Japanese government doesn't try harder to get citizens or foreign residents to pay. Maybe the did the calculations and realized enforcement was more expensive then letting people slide.

I didn't like paying Social Security back in the US, but I did. Of course, Uncle Sam will go a lot further to try to make you do so.

Our home countries often do not have multiple examples where the lack of any enforcement attached to the law creates an effective grey area of compliance. The NHK Broadcast Law is a good example. In the UK, it is quite different and sometimes people have to really go out of their way to prove that they don't have a TV.

One reason which might explain the NHK and SIA situation though is compulsory enforcement would probably violate some other over-riding legal principle that protects people from being forced into a contract against their will. Call a spade a spade and re-define it as a "tax" --- then the enforcement issue becomes much more clearer.

Another reason why enforcement is sometimes left out of the equation - is that there are many cases especially in the past (early Showa-era) where the privileged higher classes could safely ignore the law as it was meant for the hoi polloi. Immediately post-war, many of the Japanese employees of the US Embassy and SCAP were drawn from the aristocracy. And, although there was no written policy, there was said to have been a tacit understanding that due to the relatively modest wages provided, they were exempt from Japanese national income taxes. Many passed this advice on to successive generations until the 1990's -when the staff were now largely and clearly commoners- a minor scandal broke out. The National Tax Agency audited all the Japanese employees of the US Government in Japan and found that some owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes from a far back as three decades ago. It appeared this 'informal understanding' had expired and some ended up declaring bankruptcy as a result.

In a similar vein, until recently there seems to have been a 'wink & nod' approach to enforcing the dual nationality rule.

I will pay taxes and the like if I have to, but if there is some annoying gay ambiguity about it (like NHK, SIA), I won't be kowtowing to arguments like 'custom', 'because a bureaucrat said so', etc. ... And, it's not just gaijin. There are a significant percentage of Japanese who understand the same hypocricy about it.

[Samurai_Jerk]

I take care of my own health insurance.

I was using Global Health for awhile. That's what convinced me to get back on the National System. The service was fucking awful.

[sublight]

I was using Global Health for awhile. That's what convinced me to get back on the National System. The service was fucking awful.

Were they upping your premiums by 60% every year? That's what got me to dump them finally. I switched over to another private provider rather than the NHI.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Were they upping your premiums by 60% every year? That's what got me to dump them finally. I switched over to another private provider rather than the NHI.

What got me is they wouldn't bill me for months on end and then suddenly bill me for everything all at once maxing out my J credit card (since they have such low limits). When I complained they said it wouldn't happen again and then they did with the next bill.

[sublight]

Ah, I see. The second time they jacked my premium up I emailed them under another name to ask what their rates were, to see if I was getting charged more for having the audacity to actually use my insurance (had a big medical event about 5 years back and was hospitalized for about 3 weeks). They told me they weren't accepting any new customers from Japan.

At that point I figured they were deliberately trying to lose me as a customer, so I obliged and found a new provider.