Flower, Mountain, island…

Madagascar Periwinkle. Tiger Head Mountain. Discovery Bay. Hong Kong. Lantau Island

ISGAP — The Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism & Policy

This is more relevant than ever given the shocking rise in antisemitism in the last few years in both the Left and the far Right.
https://isgap.org/

"Hong Kong Fire Wasn't Due to Bamboo! It was flammable nets!" | David Zhang

 

Like I thought. Bamboo is not easily set on fire. I know. We've got a lot of bamboo and we tried. It doesn't like to burn. 

Bamboo scaffolding has been used for over a century in Hong Kong, never had a burn. Until now, with the Netting. Which comes from Shandong, China. With China certification, not Hong Kong's standard certification. Until now. 

Bamboo has big advantages: it's light, it's cheap, it's ecologically sound and has a tensile strength stronger than steel. 

It's the green covering, the netting, which is at fault. Which one commenter said was like "solid petrol". It comes from China and there's hints of corruption around its approval. 

David Zhang strikes me as correct, pretty much all, in his analysis. 

There's more at Lei's Real Talk. "The System Failure Behind Hong Kong’s Tragedy". Intro: 

The deadly fire at Wong Fuk Court shocked the world — but the tragedy wasn’t caused by fate. It was the result of a full-scale system failure.

Substandard mainland-made materials, illegal safety nets, ignored complaints, failed inspections, and politically backed contractors all created the perfect storm.

Officials blamed bamboo scaffolding, but residents point to the real culprit: collapsing oversight and declining standards under Beijing’s rule.

This disaster exposed how Hong Kong’s governance has deteriorated and why such a fire could only happen today. In this episode, we unpack what truly caused the blaze — and what it reveals about Hong Kong’s future.

The public in Hong Kong is overwhelmingly saying that it's the Green "Safety" Netting. Not the bamboo scaffolding. And you can see from what's left in the burnt out buildings. The Bamboo scaffolding is still there. The netting is all burnt out. 

Time for ICAC. The Independent Commission Against Corruption. Time to resist mainland standards in Hong Kong. After all: "One Country; Two Systems". 

=============================

Meantime, via comments, and AI: 

Q: "The HK Police just arrested a citizen who started a petition for thorough investigation into the disaster."

Fact check (AI): True

• Claim: HK Police arrested a citizen who started a petition for a thorough investigation into the disaster.
• Verdict: Accurate. On Nov 29-30, 2025, Hong Kong police arrested university student Miles Kwan for suspected sedition after he launched an online petition (via Tai Po Wang Fuk Court Fire Concern Group) demanding an independent probe into the Nov 26 Tai Po fire (128+ deaths, renovation negligence suspected). 
• Context: Petition sought resident aid, conflict-of-interest checks, supervision reviews, and official accountability. Authorities warned against "exploiting the disaster"; petition closed abruptly (~10k signatures). 
• Related: Separate arrests (11 total) target construction firm officials for manslaughter/corruption in the fire; unrelated to petition.

Please note the nasty use of the word "sedition" by the HK Police. Sedition!! For wanting to find out what actually happened in this worst tragedy of the last century!

"Sedition" means "the crime of inciting people to rebel against a government". It does not mean seeking a thorough investigation into a tragedy. 

This is the same playbook as China did to Australia when we sought to have an investigation into the origins of Covid. Beijing stopped importing goods from Australia. That's bullying. And that's not sedition. 

Hong Kong begins 3 days of mourning for fire victims; death toll at 128 | South China Morning Post

What we know so far:

• 128 people, including a firefighter, confirmed dead

• 79 injured, including 12 firefighters

• Status of 200 people unclear

• More bodies are retrieved from fire scene wrapped in black bags

• Rescue work is ongoing, with a woman, an elderly man and pets evacuated

• The eight residential blocks in the estate had been undergoing renovations since July 2024, covered in bamboo scaffolding and green mesh

• Authorities say highly flammable styrofoam material used in renovation works caused fire to spread rapidly

• Government has launched criminal investigations to find cause of blaze

• Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) arrests eight people

• Three senior staff members of renovation company Prestige Construction & Engineering Co Limited earlier arrested for alleged manslaughter

Hong Kong's anti-corruption agency has arrested two directors of Will Power Architects Company, the consultancy in charge of the renovation project at fire-ravaged Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po, followed by six more people later, bringing the number of arrests to 11 over the blaze that has claimed 128 lives.

[Chief Executive] John Lee Ka-chiu earlier ordered inspections of all public housing estates undergoing major renovations, with authorities launching a criminal investigation into the city's deadliest conflagration in seven decades.

Rescue work continues as raging flames in all blocks have been brought under control in Wang Fuk Court. Some 56 people remain in hospital.

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/society/article/3334435/hong-kong-fire-death-toll-rises-94-rescue-work-continues-day-3

Muslim Brotherhood: the Islamists among us and their 50-year plan

 

94 dead in Hong Kong fire. How did it start?

We are Thankful, this Thanksgiving, that Hong Kong people and companies, and also Chinese, are showing immense sympathy, with massive donations, now in the billions, to help the thousands of bereaved families. 

So many, lives torn apart. All avoidable, man-made. 

Death toll rises to 94

HOW TO HELP the bereaved . We have donated to: Hong Kong Dollar: Bank of China (Hong Kong) account number: 012-875-2-190159-7 (Account name: Support Fund for Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po). 

The government matches dollar for dollar. 

Death toll hits 55 in Hong Kong’s worst fire in 7 decades | SCMP

What we know so far:

• 55 people, including a firefighter, have died. Fifty-one were found dead at the scene
• 76 people are in hospital – 15 in a critical condition, 28 deemed serious
• Another 62 people are still trapped inside seven buildings
• Full-scale rescue work is ongoing, with a woman, an elderly man and pets evacuated
• The eight residential blocks in the estate had been undergoing renovations since July 2024, sheathed in bamboo scaffolding and green mesh
• Authorities say highly flammable styrofoam material used in renovation works caused fire to spread rapidly
• Government has launched criminal investigations to find cause of blaze
• Three people - two directors and a consultant of the contractor behind the renovations - have been arrested for manslaughter
• Graftbusters launch probe into repair works that had price tag of HK$330 million
• Police are searching premises of management firm running estate
• Fires at four of the seven buildings have been put out and blazes in remaining three have been brought under control
• Death toll surpasses 1996 Garley building fire where 41 perished
• Campaigning has been suspended ahead of the December 7 Legco election, Lee says he will review need to postpone the poll
• Read more...

China-Japan Imbroglio Redux

STOP PRESS: China-Japan row escalates.i remain optimistic the row will deescalate, though it’s not looking good for my rosy view, tbf. Both sides are hardening their stances. Still, I’ll stay with my Panglossian view; for now.

And… I still don’t want to take sides

I wrote below before the latest:

What did new Japanese PM, Sanae Takaichi say that sent Beijing ballistic?

It was this, on November 7th: 

“If warships are used and armed force is involved [in a Taiwan emergency], it could undoubtedly become a survival-threatening situation” (from the Taiwan Times, considered China-friendly)

The Straw Man response to Takaichi from China was along the lines of:

"So, what you're saying is:

(1) You'll invade us and brutalise us, and commit genocide, just as you did in WW2. And...

(2) You'll demand massive Reparations, as you did in the 19th century."

(Views echoed by Bejing's Pit Bull)

Well, no to both those.

The comparison to WW2 is clearly wrong. What Takaichi is saying -- even if she should not have said it -- is that if China invaded Taiwan, Japan would have to help defend it, because it would amount to an attack on Japan itself. That is, via its ownership claims to the Senkaku islands, which China also claims, via a Taiwanese county.

I explained that a bit more in my previous post.

Short-form of what happened:

Japan, via Takaishi, said the quiet part out loud. She should not have. Even if it was permitted under 2015 legislation.

China said the quiet part super Loud. It should not have. Even if its strategy is to complain loundly about perceived slights over Taiwan, to keep the rest of the world wrong-footed.

In any case, the current spat is nothing like as serious as the one back in 2012 over Japan's annexation of the Senkaku islands. And we got past that. So I’m guessing we get past this one too.

What of the second point of the Straw Man: the charge about Chinese massive reparations to Japan in the 19th Century?

Here's the summary of the China case:

When China was weakened by western powers (opium wars), Japan attacked China from behind -- defeated China’s Qing Dynasty in the First Sino-Japanese War, imposed the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895) to extract 200 million taels from China and forced it to cede Taiwan, and levied an additional 30 million taels after the Triple Intervention.

The massive war indemnity and territorial gains provided the foundation for Japan’s industrialisation and gained membership in the colonisers’ club.

Here’s a quick fact-check of the statement:

• China weakened by Western powers (Opium Wars): Correct. The two Opium Wars (1839–1842 and 1856–1860) and the resulting unequal treaties severely weakened the Qing Dynasty.
• Japan attacked China from behind: Correct, of dramatic wording. Japan launched a surprise offensive in 1894, catching the Qing off-guard.
• First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) → defeated Qing Dynasty: Correct. Japan decisively won.
• Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895): Correct name and year.
• Extracted 200 million taels from China: Actually 230 million taels (sometimes rounded to 200 million in older Western sources, but the treaty text says 230 million Kuping taels).
• Forced China to cede Taiwan: Correct (Taiwan + the Pescadores/Penghu islands).
• Additional 30 million taels after the Triple Intervention: Correct. Russia, Germany, and France forced Japan to retrocede the Liaodong Peninsula; Japan demanded and received an extra 30 million taels as “compensation”.
• Massive war indemnity provided the foundation for Japan’s industrialisation: Largely accurate. The 230 + 30 million taels (≈ ¥364 million at the time) was about four times Japan’s annual national revenue. Japan used much of it to expand its army/navy and build the Yawata Steel Works (opened 1901), a cornerstone of heavy industry.
• Gained membership in the colonisers’ club: Fair characterisation. Victory over China and the Triple Intervention ironically helped Japan join the imperialist powers; by 1902 it had the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, and in 1905 it defeated Russia, fully entering the great-power club.

Verdict: The statement is accurate.

Ok, fine. But if the first complaint against Japan relates to the Second War, already 80 years ago, and if I said in my previous post:

… it's EIGHTY years ago... When do we give up our bitterness? When do we willingly forget? When do we give up our victimhood? ....

... then what about this Reparations charge against Japan, now going back well over a century?? I mean, come on, Japan-haters, when does it end?

After all, since the end of the Second Warld War, Japan has been a constructive member of the world community. Not always the case with China, one must say. Can we really see Japan demanding "Reparations" from China? I think not.

But if we are to insist that we go back that far, if we're to go 130 years back to find Japanese perfidy, then what's good for the Goose (Japan) is good for the Gander (China):

Here are clear historical examples where China’s actions were on the same level of severity (or worse) than what Japan did to China in 1895:

1. Ming–Qing conquest of Joseon Korea (1627 & 1636)
   • Twice invaded Korea, forced the king to kneel before Qing generals, took tens of thousands of Koreans as slaves, extracted massive tribute for centuries, and turned Korea into a vassal state.
   • Comparable to Japan later turning Korea into a colony (1910).
2. Qing destruction of the Dzungar Khanate (1755–1759)
   • Full-scale genocide: Qing armies deliberately exterminated 80–90 % of the Dzungar Mongol population (est. 500,000–800,000 killed through massacre, starvation, and smallpox).
   • Far more lethal and intentional than anything Japan did to Chinese civilians in the 1894–95 war.
   • Holds the region, now Xinjiang and Uygur, until today. 
3. Qing conquest of Tibet (1720)
   • Military invasion, execution of resistance leaders, installation of direct Qing rule and garrisons. 
   • Tibet has remained under Qing (later Chinese) control until today.
4. Qing invasion of Vietnam (1788–1789)
   • 200,000-man army sent to overthrow the Tây Sơn dynasty and restore the Lê puppet ruler. Defeated, but the intent was outright conquest and annexation.
5. Centuries of tribute system coercion
   • China routinely used military threats to force neighbouring states (Korea, Vietnam, Ryukyu Islands, Burma, Nepal) to send humiliating tribute missions, accept Chinese calendars, and acknowledge the emperor as “Son of Heaven” above their own rulers. Refusal often meant invasion.

In short: Imperial China was just as aggressive, extractive, and occasionally genocidal as any other empire when it had the power to be.

The Qing in the 18th century acted exactly like the European powers or Meiji Japan did later — they just lost that capability by the 19th century and became the victim instead of the perpetrator.

I rest my case. For now.

(And so should Beijing and Tokyo).

Afterthought: In any case, why do I worry? Why do I write about this? I have zero influence on what either of the parties to the current spat do. Zero. So.. there it is. What, me Worry?

“13 dead as searing heat hampers Hong Kong Tai Po blaze rescue efforts”

Thirteen people including a firefighter have been killed and at least 15 others are critically injured in an inferno ravaging a housing estate in Hong Kong’s Tai Po neighbourhood, as flames lash over bamboo scaffolding across seven blocks with multiple residents trapped inside.

Huge plumes of dark smoke billowed high into the sky at the scene at Wang Fuk Court on Wednesday, with the flames quickly spreading to seven out of eight blocks in the estate.

Read more …

It seems to have started in the bamboo scaffolding. I’ve long been a fan of bamboo, even for scaffolding. Light, stiff, ecological. Used for millennia. But this tragedy may well make changes. 

Cities I lived in for over a year

All of the below I lived in for on year or more. Years I lived in each (in brackets): 

Tokyo (3) >> Rome (5) >> New York (3) >> Bonn (1) >> Canberra (10) >> Pretoria (1) >> London (3) >> Sydney (3) >> Beijing (3) >> Shanghai(1) >> Hong Kong (36)

Which leaves 6 years for all the rest. 

Continents lived in: Asia, Europe, America, Africa and Oceania. 

By far the longest in Asia: 43 years and counting. 

In total, I've been to 79 countries and visited all seven continents, including Antarctica twice. Many people have visited more countries, for sure. But I wonder how many have lived in quite as many cities for that long... 

This is just for my record. 

Tesla stock is a ’must own’ as world nears dramatic shift, Melius says

Go LONG TSLA! (That's me saying that. And I've said that for a LONG while).

Analysts are catching up. 

Here's what an Investing.com analyst says:

Investing.com -- Tesla’s autonomous-driving lead is approaching an irreversible tipping point that could trigger one of the biggest value shifts in modern industrial history, according to a new report from Melius Research.

Analyst Rob Wertheimer said the firm recently called Tesla a “must own” because “the world is about to change, dramatically.” 

Drawing on a Hemingway line about a bankruptcy happening, “two ways, gradually, then suddenly,” Wertheimer wrote that the same dynamic now applies to autonomy.

But, he stressed, “our point is not that Tesla is at risk, it’s that everybody else is.”

Melius argues that autonomy is nearing the moment when years of incremental progress suddenly give way to mass adoption, transforming what Wertheimer calls “a $7 trillion dollar sector.” 

He adds that the next five years “will see hundreds of billions in value shift… to Tesla.”

Public awareness remains low. “Not even 1 out of 100 Americans have ridden in a self-driving car,” Wertheimer stated, adding that only “tens of thousands” have tried Tesla’s latest supervised FSD system. When widespread rollout arrives, “it will still shock most people.”

The catalyst, Melius says, is the accelerating improvement in Tesla’s full self-driving software, now at version 14.1.7.  Read on...

Violence and murder on America’s Left

Violence and murder is normalised on the American Left. As we see here in this video.

Discussing with ex Antifa activists. That is, by far-Left activists. 

Introduced by Steven Edginton of GB News.

"Pick a side". No, I don't want to pick a side. Looking again at the China-Japan dispute

What was it Japanese PM Sanae Takaichi said, on 7 November 2025 that so upset Beijing? That led to a present "crisis"? Here it is:

“If warships are used and armed force is involved [in a Taiwan emergency], it could undoubtedly become a survival-threatening situation” [for Japan].

That’s the exact quote. Nothing about Japan launching a counter-attack, nothing about “joining America to hit the mainland.” Just a statement that if Beijing uses armed force to take Taiwan, the Japanese Senkaku Islands are threatened. Which is a threat to Japan. It is, inarguably, a "survival-threatening situation".

Recall: China officially lists Japan's Senkaku Islands as part of Taiwan Province’s “Diaoyu County”. They are 110 km from the island of Taiwan and suddenly sit inside a combat zone. Japan would be defending territory it has administered for decades. That’s the legal and geographical basis for PM Takaichi's self-defence argument.

I fully understand the anger. Imperial Japan killed nearly 20 million Chinese between 1931 and 1945. I have Chinese friends who lost family members. The Nanjing Massacre, Unit 731, the whole horrific list – it’s burned into collective Chinese memory. I know that.

The Century of Humiliation 百年国耻 (Bai-nian Guo-chi) is not ancient history to millions of people; it’s personal. I get that too.

But demanding that everyone now scream “Japan is evil!” because a sitting prime minister made a factual security assessment crosses a line for me. China’s reaction – summoning the ambassador, UN complaints, seafood bans, pulling Japanese films, diplomats posting (then deleting) “cut off the dirty head” – is disproportionate. The online mob, the Weibo storm troopers – "Little Pinks", and the inevitable Wu Mao amplification (the "Fifty cent army") – turned a single Diet answer into a weeks-long nationalist frenzy that only forced Beijing to dig in deeper.

I’m not waving a Rising Sun flag, and I’m certainly not cheering the CCP. I’ve lived in Hong Kong long enough to see both sides up close. History deserves respect, geography deserves honesty, and neither Tokyo nor Beijing gets a blank cheque from me. Refusing to pick a tribe and shout slogans isn’t apathy – it’s just refusing to let old wounds or new mobs do my thinking for me.

My friends had relatives killed by the "Japanese bandits". My own father fought against the Japanese on the infamous Kokoda Trail in Papua New Guinea. Japanese war planes and submarines attacked Australia.

But it's EIGHTY years ago, folks! That war was 80 years ago. Japan -- whatever you think of it -- is a very different place today.

When do we give up our bitterness? When do we willingly forget? When do we give up our victimhood? When is the "Century of Humiliation" over?

Never??!

Surely not.

My earlier post; "Why did Japan's new PM spark alarm?"

=======================

ADDED: China and Japan had a crisis in 2012 over the Senkaku Islands that was much more dangerous than that today. I remember it. It was all over Japan annexing the Senkakus. Wikipedia:

China's 2012 response to Japan—sanctioning widespread violent protests in 100+ cities (vandalism, car smashings, factory torchings), boycotts causing $250M+ in Japanese auto losses and broader economic self-harm up to $US 2 billion (e.g., AEON mall $8.8M damage), plus naval/air brinkmanship—escalated a administrative dispute into chaos, reflecting state-orchestrated fury to deflect domestic issues. The scale of Beijing's reaction risked war and undermined regional stability....

“Don’t stand with bigots”. Seth Dillon on anti-antisemitism

 

A long video, but an important one. Seth Dillon talks about the challenges of resisting Antisemitism which I prefer to call “Jew hatred”. The massive rise of Jew hatred on the far right and its long-time existence on the Left. The importance of standing for the Good and the True. Of resisting “the narrative”, the narrative of the Jews being uniquely perfidious, uniquely the cause of all world problems, all world wars.

Seth is a good and true man himself, very eloquent. He says the issue is not that Israel is untouchable, that, as the Narrative claims, “you can’t criticise Israel” because it has power over Washington. The opposite is the case. If you criticise the narrative, criticise the Jew haters, that’s when you get the vicious pushback and death threats. You can build a flourishing business off Jew hatred, says Seth. Thin on that. 

I stand with Israel and the Jewish people. 

ADDED: Seth talks a lot about Free Speech. It was his company, The Babylon Bee, a conservative Christian parody website, that was banned on the then Twitter and which prompted Elon Musk into buying it for 44 Billion, to open it to free speech and rename it "X". Which people seem to have got used to. 

Wow, Wow, Wowsa! The good, the bad and the ugly of Ashes Test cricket. And an unlikely Australia win!

Travis Head with the bat, and Mitchell Starc with the ball, trounced England in an unlikely way. The first time since 1949 that a side has to beat the highest of three previous innings in the last innings. 

But Australia did it, after a collapse by England and a marvellous knock of 123 by Travis Head, with his 100 coming in 69 balls, a record.

Watch the highlights of this amazing Day Two of the Ashes. 

Last weekend at the pool...

... before the winter close down. Noone in the pool 
because it's "cold". Around 19C... too cold
for we wimpy HongKongers... 

Club Siena, Discovery Bay, HK, pool. Very lovely.
Looking to Central, Hong Kong in the distance

We enjoy nibbles and a bottle of our own
wine and cheese by the poolside

Till next year!

Why did Japan's new PM spark alarm in Asia?

 

ADDED: Xi Jinping and Japanese PM Sanae Takaichi on 31 October, met at sidelines of APEC meeting. Xi called for reduction in tensions. “Conflicts should not define our ties”. Here. Despite which tensions have flared.

Below is a follow-up to an earlier post, The China-Japan imbroglio.

Victory Gao is China's pit bull. He attacks anything including babies, and mauls them. Not with facts, but with lies and distortions. As we see above (or here). Where he makes the case that Japan’s 1945 Instruments of Surrender prohibit it from any military action even in self defence. 

Gao is Beijing’s go-to guy, I assume, when they want to be super tough and aggressive. He’s the bark and the bite. Yet it’s all deniable if it gets out of hand. For the moment he’s in full throated barking attack.

Contrary to Gao, however, Japan is NOT bound by its "Instruments of Surrender" of 1945 to never defend itself as he claims. For Gao to claim this is either him lying or him being an ignoramus. He’s either a Fool or a Knave, IOW.

Does Gao think we can't check this stuff? Well, as it happens, most people will simply see the headline and accept it. Some obsessives will check it up. And find him wanting. Find him lying. 

None of this is to say that the Japanese PM, Sanae Takaichi, making it clear that Japan would come to the defence of Taiwan, should it be attacked -- because it would amount to an attack on Japan -- was the right thing for her to do. She should have kept schtum. That's the best case for the status quo policy. The best policy, in my view. 

Below is what AI says about Gao's claims above:

  

The 1945 Instruments of Surrender—signed aboard the USS Missouri on September 2, 1945—marked Japan’s formal capitulation at the end of World War II, accepting the terms of the Potsdam Declaration and placing the country under Allied occupation led by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP).  Key provisions included the immediate cessation of hostilities, disarmament of Japanese forces, and the subjection of the Emperor’s and government’s authority to SCAP directives during the occupation period. 

These were explicitly transitional measures to enforce demobilization and prevent resurgence of militarism, not perpetual bindings on Japan’s sovereignty or future defense policies.  Once the occupation concluded, these terms were effectively superseded, with no ongoing legal enforceability under international law.

This transition was formalized by the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco (effective April 28, 1952), which 48 Allied nations signed to end the state of war, terminate the occupation, and restore Japan’s full sovereignty.   Article 2(a) of the treaty requires Japan to “recognize the full force of the Potsdam Declaration,” but it imposes no new or permanent military disabilities—explicitly avoiding punitive restrictions.  Instead, it aligns Japan’s commitments with the UN Charter, which explicitly preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense (Article 51). Japan’s post-treaty military—reorganized as the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) in 1954—has always been framed as strictly defensive, fulfilling the treaty’s intent to prevent aggression while allowing for national security needs.  

The 1947 Japanese Constitution, drafted under SCAP oversight and effective from May 3, 1947, operationalized these post-surrender reforms domestically. Article 9 renounces war as a sovereign right and prohibits maintaining “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential,” but it has been consistently interpreted (by Japanese governments and courts) to permit minimal forces for self-defense.   

The 2015 security legislation builds on decades of such interpretations, enabling limited collective self-defense only when Japan’s “survival-threatening situation” is at stake—such as an attack on close allies (e.g., U.S. forces under the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty) that directly endangers Japan.   This includes hypothetical Taiwan contingencies, as Prime Minister Takaichi referenced, but strictly within geographic and existential limits tied to Japanese security.

Critically, Japan’s Tokyo High Court ruled in December 2023 that the 2015 laws do not violate Article 9 or the Constitution’s pacifist principles, affirming their constitutionality after years of legal challenges.  No credible international legal analysis has found them in breach of the Instruments of Surrender, as those were occupation-era artifacts rendered moot by the San Francisco Treaty.  The treaty’s framework explicitly allows defensive capabilities, and the U.S.-Japan alliance (updated via guidelines in 1978 and 2015) integrates Japan’s SDF into collective defense without contradicting post-war accords. 

Victor Gao, vice president of the Center for China and Globalization, has indeed critiqued Takaichi’s remarks and broader Japanese security shifts as potentially violating both the Constitution and the “1945 unconditional surrender terms.”   His statements appear in recent interviews (e.g., with Global Times and China Daily), framing them as a “fantasy” that risks reviving Japanese militarism and threatens regional peace.  However, this view is more geopolitical rhetoric than rigorous legal analysis. Gao, a prominent Chinese commentator, often invokes the surrender to underscore historical grievances and deter perceived Japanese remilitarization—echoing Beijing’s narrative on Taiwan and East Asian stability.  Legally, though, it overextends the Instruments’ scope: they bound Japan only until sovereignty’s restoration in 1952, after which domestic laws like the 2015 package govern under constitutional review.   No Allied power, including the U.S. (Japan’s key treaty partner), has challenged the legislation on surrender grounds; in fact, it enhances alliance interoperability for shared threats like North Korea or potential Taiwan crises. 

In short, the 2015 legislation aligns with Japan’s evolved—but constitutionally bounded—right to self-defense, postdating and complying with the full arc of post-WWII settlements. 

Takaichi’s plain-speaking may indeed gift Beijing propaganda ammo amid Japan-China tensions over the Senkakus or Taiwan, but it doesn’t rewrite history or law. If anything, it reflects Tokyo’s pragmatic response to a volatile neighborhood, not a taboo-breaking revival of empire.