Is the BBC anti-Japan and marginalizing this nation?

Of course, smaller nations like Taiwan and Singapore are equally modern and have fine attributes but their scope for being major powers are hampered by various obvious factors. Therefore, why does the BBC highlight China and India separately in their Asia section while ignoring Japan?

When focusing on issues related to how baby girls are viewed in China, India, and Japan, it is clear that over many recent decades that tens of millions of baby girls have been killed in China and India. Indeed, aborting baby female girls isn’t an issue to any degree in Japan when compared to the cultural traits that tolerate this in India. Similarly, the one-child-policy in China equates to the mass slaughter of baby girls merely based on their gender. Therefore, Japan is ultra modern in this area compared with China and India.

Likewise, in terms of enormous gaps between rich and poor then obviously Japan is a role model for China and India. Yes, poverty exists in Japan, just like poverty exists in all nations. However, in China the gap between rich and poor is enormous and the same applies to India. Also, the poor are treated in India negatively based on caste issues while in China the working poor from the countryside are exploited in major cities throughout this country. This reality once more shows that Japan is a role model for both nations that are blighted by enormous gaps between the rich and poor.

GDP (nominal) per capita also favors Japan enormously. For example, the International Monetary Fund in 2014 stated the average was $36,331 in Japan, $7,589 in China and $1,626 in India. This reality once more makes the decision by the BBC to highlight China and India without recognizing Japan appear vindictive at worse, or based on pure ignorance.

Corporate law is also much more transparent in Japan in relation to China and India. Indeed, while corruption is a problem that is endemic within the capitalist system internationally, it is still abundantly clear that the legal system in Japan is both modern and transparent. However, in China and India corruption is endemic within the system and the same applies to political shenanigans that favor unjust contracts based on enormous cronyism. Of course, Japan isn’t immune from business cronyism – again another weakness within the capitalist system. Yet unlike China, whereby elites within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and People’s Liberation Army become enormously rich, this reality doesn’t exist to anywhere near the same degree in Japan.

The Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index also highlights the enormous gap between China, India and Japan. China is ranked 100 out of 175 nations that are reviewed. India is ranked 85 out of 175 nations but Japan is ranked 15 and this is higher than America that is ranked 17. Once more, it is abundantly clear that the role model is Japan. However, somehow the BBC appears to be negating this reality by shunning Japan in its Asia index that only shows China and India separately.

In the area of literacy the CCP in China did focus on educating the masses even if children in the countryside continue to face enormous discrimination. Despite this, and the gaps between the elites who have access to the crème de la crème of universities in China compared with poorer children, the overwhelming majority of people are literate. Overall, in 2013 literacy in China was 97.5% for men and 92.7% for women, compared with India whereby 82.1% of men are literate and 65.5% of women. However, in Japan the rate of literacy is 99% just like in America and other powerful nations like Germany. Once more, no gender gap exists in Japan. Therefore, it is clear that this nation is to be admired compared with the nations that the BBC highlight in the Asia section.

Overall, is it abundantly clear that Japan is a role model throughout the world and this applies to a broad spectrum of areas – therefore, why is this nation being marginalized and shunned by the BBC? The question remains, is the BBC abiding by this policy based on racism – or because of pure neglect and ignorance?