| 
       
	  Narratives of the 
	  Singapore Massacre in Postwar Japan 
	  
	  
	  Negative Campaign against War Crimes Trials in the 1950s 
	  
	  Although the Singapore 
	  Massacre has not generated much interest among the Japanese people in the 
	  postwar period, there has been some discussion of what took place. In this 
	  section, I will discuss the evolving narratives of the Singapore Massacre 
	  in postwar Japan . 
	  
	  Singapore Garrison 
	  Commander Kawamura Saburo published his reminiscences in 1952, at a time 
	  when Japan was recovering its independence.[25]
	  This book contains his diaries, personal letters, and 
	  other materials. In one letter to his family, he expressed his condolences 
	  to the victims of Singapore and prayed for the repose of their souls. The 
	  foreword to the book was written by Tsuji, who managed to escape 
	  punishment after the war, and Tsuji showed no regrets and offered no 
	  apology to the victims. Although I do not know who asked Tsuji to 
	  contribute the foreword, I believe his text accurately reflects the 
	  atmosphere in Japan at the time as described below. 
	  
	   During the 
	  1950s, the Japanese government, members of parliament, and private 
	  organisations waged a nationwide campaign for the release of war criminals 
	  held in custody at Sugamo Prison inTokyo .[26]
	  Both conservatives and progressives took part in the 
	  campaign, arguing that minor war criminals were victims of the war, not 
	  true criminals. A Japanese government committee was in charge of 
	  recommending the parole and release of war criminals to the Allied 
	  Nations. The committee’s recommendations are still closed to public in 
	  Japan , but can be read in the national archives of the UK and USA . 
	  
	  As an example of this 
	  committee’s recommendations in 1952, the British government was asked to 
	  consider parole for Onishi Satoru, who took part in the Singapore Massacre 
	  as a Kempeitai officer and was sentenced to life imprisonment by a British 
	  war crimes trial.[27]
	  The recommendation says that the figure of 5,000 
	  victims of the Singapore Massacre was untrue and that his war crimes trial 
	  had been an act of reprisal. Although this recommendation was not approved 
	  by the British government, it reflects the Japanese government’s failure 
	  to admit that mass murder occurred in Singapore
	  
	  [28]. Among the Japanese 
	  people, the war crimes trials were, and still are, regarded as mock trials 
	  of little value. 
	  
	    
	  
	  
	  Japanese Response to Accusations by Singaporeans in the 1960s 
	  
	  Beginning in 1962, 
	  numerous human remains dating from the Occupation were found in various 
	  locations around Singapore . Prolonged discussions between the Singapore 
	  and Japanese governments relating to these deaths led to a settlement in 
	  1967, a matter that was reported in the Japanese newspapers, but only as 
	  minor news. For example, the Nihon Keizai 
	  Shimbun stated that a Japanese official involved in the 
	  negotiations as saying that no executions by shooting happened in 
	  Malaysia.[29]
	  The Asahi Shimbun 
	  reported that it was hardly conceivable the Japanese military committed 
	  atrocities inIndonesia and Thailand .[30]
	  Another Asahi report 
	  criticized the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Singapore , saying it should 
	  not stoke hatred by propagating stories of barbarity by the Japanese 
	  military during the war.[31] 
	  
	  
	    In 2003, the Japanese 
	  Ministry of Foreign Affairs released documents relating to the 
	  negotiations between Singapore and Japan during this period.[32]
	  The 
	  Japanese government had made use of a report prepared in 1946 by an army 
	  committee chaired by Sugita Ichiji, a staff officer with the 25th Army. 
	  To counter the war crimes prosecutions, the report admitted that 
	  about 5,000 people had been executed, but excused the killings on several 
	  counts.[33] 
	  
	  This figure, according 
	  to a written opinion by an official at the Ministry of Justice who was in 
	  charge of detained war criminals, was an exaggeration, the correct figure 
	  might be about 800. The Asahi Shimbun 
	  reported this number with apparent approval.[34]
	  Additional figures come from the Ministry of Foreign 
	  Affairs, which accepted that the Japanese military had committed mass 
	  murder in Singapore , but some Japanese foreign ministry documents state 
	  that the number of victims was 3,000, while others use 5,000. One 
	  ex-foreign ministry official sent a letter to the Foreign Minister saying 
	  that Japan should repent and apologize in all sincerity, but this attitude 
	  was exceptional among officials. 
	  
	  On the negotiations 
	  with Singapore , the Japanese government rejected demands for reparations 
	  but agreed to make a “gesture of atonement” by providing funds in other 
	  ways. What the Japanese government feared most was economic damage as a 
	  result of a boycott or sabotage by the local Chinese should Singapore ’s 
	  demands be rejected. The agreement with Singapore was signed on the same 
	  day as a similar agreement with Malaysia . Singapore was to receive 25 
	  million Singapore dollars as a free gift and another 25 million Singapore 
	  dollars in credit, while Malaysia was to receive 25 million 
	  Malaysiadollars as a free gift.[35] 
	  
	  To the last, the 
	  Japanese government refused to admit legal responsibility for the massacre 
	  or to carry out a survey. The mass media in Japan did not examine what had 
	  happened in Singapore and Malaya during the war. It is no exaggeration to 
	  say that the Japanese media at that time showed no inclination whatsoever 
	  to confront Japan ’s war crimes or war responsibility. 
	  
	    
	  
	  
	  Publications in the 1970s 
	  
	  There were, however, 
	  some honest responses in the years that followed. In 1967 Professor Ienaga 
	  Saburo, famous for his history textbook lawsuit against the Japanese 
	  government, published a book entitled The 
	  Pacific War that dealt with the Singapore Massacre.[36]
	  In 1970, the monthly journal 
	  Chugoku [ China ] published a feature called, “Blood Debt: Chinese 
	  Massacre in Singapore ”, the first extended treatment in Japan of the 
	  Singapore Massacre.[37]
	  The piece was mostly written by Professor Tanaka 
	  Hiroshi. 
	  
	  The 1970s also saw 
	  publication of reminiscences by some of those directly involved in the 
	  Massacre, and by people who witnessed or heard about it, including
	  Nihon Kempei Seishi [The Official History 
	  of the Japanese Kempeitai] by the Zenkoku Kenyukai Rengokai [Joint 
	  Association of National Kempei Veterans],[38]
	  Kempei by 
	  Otani Keijiro, and Hiroku Shonan Kakyo Shukusei 
	  Jiken [Secret Memoir of Singapore Overseas Chinese Purification] by 
	  Onishi Satoru. Onishi Satoru was a Kempeitai section commander who took 
	  part in the Massacre. In his book he admitted that the “purification” was 
	  a serious crime against humanity, but he claimed that number of victims 
	  was actually around 1,000.[39]
	  Otani’s book severely criticizes the Japanese military, 
	  stating that the “purification” was an act of tyranny and claiming that 
	  the action should be criticized from a human perspective.[40] 
	  
	  Although veterans’ 
	  associations usually justify or deny that inhuman acts had taken place, 
	  the Joint Association of National Kempei Veterans has admitted that the 
	  massacre was an inhuman act.[41]
	  A few writers who were stationed or visited Singapore 
	  during the war have also published memoirs in which they record what they 
	  had heard about the Singapore Massacre.[42]
	  On the whole, nobody denied that the Japanese purge in 
	  Singapore was an atrocity against humanity and historians began to pay 
	  attention to the episode. However, it failed to catch the attention of the 
	  Japanese people. 
	  
	    
	  
	  
	  Development of Research in the 1980s and 1990s 
	  
	  The situation changed 
	  in 1982, when the Ministry of Education ordered the deletion of passages 
	  relating to Japanese atrocities in Asia from school textbooks, and 
	  instructed textbook writers to replace the term “aggression” with less 
	  emotive terms, such as “advance”.[43]
	  This decision was severely criticized both domestically 
	  and abroad, and the issue generated interest in Japan regarding the 
	  behavior of the Japanese military in other Asian countries during the war. 
	  A growing number of historians began to conduct research into Japanese 
	  atrocities, including the Nanjing Massacre.[44] 
	  
	  In 1984, while the 
	  textbook controversy continued, a bulky book called
	  Malayan Chinese Resistance to Japan 1937-1945: 
	  Selected Source Materials was published in Singapore . Sections of 
	  this volume were translated into Japanese in 1986 under the title
	  Nihongun Senryoka no Singapore [ 
	  Singapore under Japanese Occupation], allowing Japanese to read in their 
	  own language the testimony of Singaporeans concerning wartime events.[45]
	  The main translator was Professor Tanaka Hiroshi, 
	  mentioned earlier as the author of a magazine feature about the Singapore 
	  Massacre. 
	  
	  Another significant 
	  publication was a 1987 booklet by Takashima Nobuyoshi, then a high school 
	  teacher and now a professor at Ryukyu University, entitled
	  Tabi Shiyo Tonan-Ajia E [Let’s travel to 
	  Southeast Asia].[46]
	  Based on information Takashima collected during 
	  repeated visits to Malaysia and Singapore beginning in the early 1980s, 
	  the booklet discussed atrocities and provided details of the “Memorial to 
	  the Civilian Victims of the Japanese Occupation” and of an exhibition of 
	  victims” mementos at the Sun Yat Sen Villa. The volume served as a 
	  guidebook for Japanese wishing to understand wartime events or visit sites 
	  of Japanese atrocities. In 1983 he began organising study tours to 
	  historical sites related to Japanese Occupation and to places where 
	  massacres occurred in Malaysia andSingapore . 
	  
	  In 1987, I located 
	  official military documents in the Library of the National Institute for 
	  Defense Studies, Defense Agency that included operational orders and 
	  official diaries related to the massacres of Chinese in Negri Sembilan and 
	  Malacca in 1942. Newspapers throughout Japan reported these findings, the 
	  first time public attention had been focused on the killings in Malaya .[47]
	  The document showed that troops from Hiroshima had been 
	  involved in atrocities in Negri Sembilan and this information came as a 
	  major shock to the people of Hiroshima , who had thought themselves as 
	  victims of the atomic bomb and had never imagined that their fathers or 
	  husbands had been involved in the massacres in Malaya .[48]
	   
	  
	  In 1988, several 
	  citizen’s groups jointly invited Chinese survivors from Malaysia to visit 
	  Japan , and held rallies where Japanese citizens listened in to their 
	  testimony. A book that included these statements was published in 1989.
	  
	  [49]
	  Also 
	  in 1988, the Negri Sembilan Chinese Assembly Hall published a book in 
	  Chinese called the Collected Materials of 
	  Suffering of Chinese in Negeri Sembilan during the Japanese Occupation, 
	  and the following year Professor Takashima and I published a Japanese 
	  translation of this volume.[50]
	  Another source of information was the history 
	  textbook used inSingapore by students in lower secondary school,
	  Social and Economic History of Modern Singapore 
	  2, which was translated into Japanese in 1988. The material it 
	  contained concerning the occupation attracted the attention of Japanese 
	  readers, particularly teachers and researchers.[51] 
	  
	  As might be expected, 
	  there was a backlash to these initiatives. It was claimed that Japanese 
	  troops killed only guerrillas and their supporters, and that the number 
	  was much smaller than reported. Responding to these allegations, I 
	  published a book in 1992 entitled Kakyo 
	  Gyakusatu: Nihongun Shihaika no Mare Hanto [Chinese Massacres: The 
	  Malay Peninsula under Japanese Occupation][52]
	  that substantiated in detail the activities of the 
	  Japanese military in Negri Sembilan during March 1942, when several 
	  thousand Chinese were massacred. Since then there has been no rebuttal by 
	  those who would not concede the massacres in Malaya apart from personal 
	  attacks and corrections of trifling details that have no effect on the 
	  central argument.[53] 
	  
	  In 1996, the Singapore 
	  Heritage Society’s book, SYONAN: Singapore under 
	  the Japanese, 1942-1945 was translated into Japanese.[54]
	  This book introduced to Japanese readers the living 
	  conditions and suffering of Singaporeans under the Japanese occupation in 
	  a comprehensive way. Further information appeared in a book I published 
	  entitled, Sabakareta Senso Hanzai: Igirisu no 
	  Tainichi Senpan Saiban [Tried War Crimes; British War Crimes Trials 
	  of Japanese]. This volume contains an account of the Singapore Massacre 
	  based on British, Chinese and Japanese documents.[55] 
	  
	     
	  
	  
	    
	  
	  [25]
	  Kawamura Saburo,
	  Jusan Kaidan wo Noboru [Walking up 
	  Thirteen Steps of the Stairs] (Tokyo: Ato Shobo, 1952). 
	  
	  
	  
	  [26]
	  See Hayashi Hirofumi , BC
	  -kyu Senpan Saiban [Class B & C War 
	  Crimes Trials] ( Tokyo : Iwanami Shoten, 2005), ch. 6. 
	  
	  
	  [27]
	  FO371/105435(National Archives, UK ). 
	  
	  
	  [28] 
	  Later, he was released in 1957. 
	  
	  
	  [29]
	  
	  Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 
	  3 Nov. 1966 . 
	  
	  
	  [30]
	  Asahi Shimbun, 
	  20 Sept. 1967 . 
	  
	  
	  [31]
	  Asahi Shimbun, 
	  18 Sept. 1963 . 
	  
	  
	  [32]
	  These documents are open to the public at the 
	  Diplomatic Record Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 
	  
	  
	  [33] 
	  See footnote no.14. 
	  
	  
	  [34]
	  Asahi Shimbun, 
	  29 Sept. 1963 . 
	  
	  
	  [35] 
	  Hara Fujio, “Maleishia, Shingaporu no Baisho Mondai” [Reparation 
	  Problem with Singapore and Malaysia ], Senso 
	  Skinin Kenkyu [The Report on Japan ’s War Responsibility], No. 10, 
	  Dec. 1995. 
	  
	  
	  [36]
	  Ienaga Saburo, Taiheiyo Senso
	  [The Pacific War] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1967). 
	  
	  
	  [37]
	  “Kessai: 
	  Singaporu no Chugokujin Gyakusatsu Jiken” [Blood Debt: Chinese Massacre in 
	  Singapore ], in Chugoku [ China ], vol. 
	  76 (Mar. 1970). 
	  
	  
	  [38]
	  Tokyo : Private Press, 1976. 
	  
	  
	  [39]
	  Onishi,
	  Hiroku Shonan Kakyo Shukusei Jiken, pp. 
	  93-7. 
	  
	  
	  [40]
	  Otani 
	  Keijiro, Kempei, p. 189. 
	  
	  
	  [41]
	  Zenkoku Kenyukai Rengokai, 
	  Nihon Kempei Seishi, p. 979. 
	  
	  
	  [42]
	  For example, Terasaki Hiroshi,
	  Senso no Yokogao [Profile of the War] 
	  (Tokyo: Taihei Shuppan, 1974), Nakajima Kenzo, 
	  Kaiso no Bungaku[Literature of Recollection], vol. 5 (Tokyo: 
	  Heibonsha, 1977), Omata Yukio, Zoku Shinryaku
	  [Sequel: Aggression] (Tokyo: Tokuma Shoten, 1982), and so on. 
	  
	  
	  [43]
	  See 
	  Rekishigaku Kenkyukai [The Historical Science Society of Japan],
	  Rekishika wa naze Shinryaku ni kodawaruka 
	  [Why Historian adhere to Aggression] (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 1982). 
	  
	  
	  [44]
	  Composed of historians and journalists, Nankin Jiken 
	  Chosa Kenkyu Kai [The Society for the Study of Nanjin Massacre] was 
	  established in 1984. It remains active, although the scope of research has 
	  been extended to Japanese atrocities in China and the rest of Southeast 
	  Asia . 
	  
	  
	  [45]
	  Tokyo : Aoki Shoten, 1986. 
	  
	  
	  [46]
	  Tokyo : 
	  Iwanami Shoten, 1987. 
	  
	  
	  [47]
	  This article was delivered by the Kyodo News Service 
	  and came forth on newspapers on 8 Dec. 1987 . 
	  
	  
	  [48]
	  As mentioned before, the 5th Division conducted Purge 
	  through Purification throughout Malay Peninsular except Johor. The 
	  headquarters of the Division in peace time was situated in Hiroshima and 
	  soldiers were conscripted in Hiroshima and neighboring prefectures. 
	  
	  
	  [49]
	  Senso Giseisha wo Kokoro ni Kizamukai [The Society of 
	  Keeping War Victims in our Heart], Nihongun no 
	  Maresia Jumin Gyakusatu [The Massacres of Malaysian Local 
	  Population by the Japanese Military] (Osaka: Toho Shuppan, 1989). 
	  
	  
	  [50]
	  Originally published in 1988. The Japanese translation 
	  was as follows: Takashima Nobuyoshi & Hayashi Hirofumi (eds.),
	  Maraya no Nihongun [The Japanese Army in 
	  Malaya ] (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 1989). 
	  
	  
	  [51]
	  Ishiwata Nobuo and Masuo Keizo (eds.),
	  Gaikoku no Kyokasho no nakano Nihon to Nihonjin
	  [ Japan and Japanese in a Foreign Textbook] (Tokyo: Ikkosha, 1988). 
	  
	  
	  [52]
	  Tokyo : Suzusawa Shoten, 1992. As for arguments of 
	  right-wingers, see Chapter 8 of this book. 
	  
	  
	  [53]
	  See, for 
	  example, two articles by Hata Ikuhiko in the journal
	  Seiron, August and Oct. 1992 and 
	  Professor Takashima’s and my responses in the same journal on two 
	  occasions in Sept. and Nov. 1992. 
	  
	  
	  [54] 
	  Tokyo : Gaifusha, 
	  1996.
	  
	  
	  [55]
	  Tokyo : Iwanami Shoten, 1998. 
	   
	  
	   
       |