Introduction
Seeing the World and Japan from the Philippines
In writing this book, I have been seeking answers to two questions. First, why has the Philippines not become materially rich and politically stable, enjoying“freedom and democracy,”
despite the fact it used to be a colony of the great power of modern times, the United States of
America? Second, although the Philippines‒Japan relationship has been close and relatedly
long, why has it not built on earlier experiences and why did it not involve a wider section of
the population?
These two questions pose larger and deeper issues that go beyond Philippine history and
the study of Philippines‒Japan relations. The former question is related to how to construct a
world order without the leadership of a powerful nation. The latter asks what international
relations ought to be when the co-existence of many cultures is now regarded as important.
In another recent work, I have discussed the significance of studying Philippine history and
Philippines‒Japan relations in modern and contemporary times.1 Between the 16th and 17th
centuries, the Philippines was ruled by Spain, the most powerful country at the time; at the
end of the 19th century, it became a U. S. colony. By looking into the Philippines’past, we are
able to see the world from different angles, the world where these powerful countries dominated. Philippines‒Japan relations have a long history, going back to the Shuinsen (red seal
trade ship: early 17th century) period. After the Meiji era, the relationship between the two
countries became closer, as this book indicates. For instance, one can find a monument to the
foremost national hero of the Philippines, José RIZAL (1861‒96) in Hibiya Park in Tōkyō and
a memorial to Artemio RICARTE (1865‒1945) at Yamashita Park in Yokohama. One of
Ōsaka’
s famous scenes is the glittering neon signs at Dotonbori. One of the signs was said to
be a running Filipino athlete who participated in the Asian Games (Far East Championships)
in 1921. Indeed, by looking into Philippine history, our horizons would be widened, and we
would be able to see the world and Japan from different perspectives.
Philippine history in modern and contemporary times has almost always been discussed
with the Philippines‒U.S. relationship as a focal point. By adding a Japanese viewpoint, the
presentation of additional aspects or different interpretations of Philippine modern and contemporary history may be possible. One way that non-Filipino researchers could contribute
to the study of Philippine history is to reflect on the very core of the subject with their Filipi1
Hayase Shinzō, Mikan no Firipin Kakumei to Shokuminchi-ka (Unfinished Philippine Revolution
and Colonization). Tōkyō: Yamakawa Shuppan-sha, 2009a.
̶ 1 ̶
no counterparts and to provide a totally new point of view. This would be a significant contribution. Japanese involvement in the Philippines in modern and contemporary times was as
deep as that of the U.S., if not more so. By adding the Japanese point of view, I believe Philippine history could offer a wider and deeper perspective. I would like to cite the following
works on the Philippines by Japanese scholars: IKAHATA Setsuho’
s history of the Philippine
revolution,2 NAGANO Yoshiko’
s history of the Philippine economy,3 and NAKANO Satoshi’
s
work on Philippines‒U.S. historical relations.4 Their works merit special mention, as they
contribute greatly to the Philippine historiography. I also tried to write Philippine history
with a more inclusive approach angle and to add new aspects. For instance, in one study I described the Muslim area of southern Mindanao, placing it in the context of the eastern part of
maritime Southeast Asia. Another work is an analysis of how the peoples in Southeast Asia
view the Japanese occupation. Both were also published in English. In another work, I described how the“Americanization”that had been taking place in the Philippines also took
place all over the world after World War I.5
Looking into the historical relationship between the Japanese and the Filipinos gives us the
wisdom to begin to address the question of what the future relationship should be. This is especially true today because we are faced with the new phenomena of globalization and multicultural co-existence. This new situation influences nations and peoples right at this moment,
whether people intend it or not. Perhaps none of the ordinary Japanese who had some connection to the Philippines ever thought that their existence had influenced Philippine history
and society. This book tries to focus on the Japanese who went to the Philippines and the
goods, such as general merchandise, that the Japanese merchants brought. Although the merchandise had been considered insignificant in the overall economy, this book examines how
the Japanese and the goods influenced the Philippines, its people and their lives. In this way, I
2
3
4
5
Ikehata Setsuho, Firipin Kakumei to Katorishizumu (The Philippine Revolution and Catholicism).
Tōkyō: Keisō Shobō, 1987.
Nagano Yoshiko, Firipin Keizai-shi Kenkyū: Tōgyō Shihon to Jinushisei (A Study on Philippine
Economic History: Sugar Capital and Haciendas). Tōkyō: Keisō Shobō, 1986; do., Satō Asienda to
Hinkon: Firipin Negurosu-to Shō-shi (Sugar Haciendas and Poverty: A Short History of Negros
Island, Philippines). Tōkyō: Keisō Shobō, 1990; do., Firipin Ginkō-shi Kenkyū: Shokuminchi to
Kin’
yū (A Study of Philippine Banking History: American Colonial State and Finance).
Tōkyō: Ochanomizu Shobō, 2003.
Nakano Satoshi, Firipin Dokuritsu Mondai-shi (A History of the Philippine Independence
Problem). Tōkyō: Ryūkei Shosha, 1997; do., Rekishi Keiken toshite no Amerika Teikoku: Beihi
Kankeishi no Gunzō (American Empire as Historical Experience: Collective Images in U.S.‒
Philippine Historical Relationship). Tōkyō: Iwanami Shoten, 2007.
Hayase Shinzō, Mindanao Ethnohistory beyond Nations. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press, 2007; do., A Walk Through War Memories in Southeast Asia. Quezon City: New
Day Publishers, 2010; do., Mandara Kokka kara Kokumin Kokka e (From Mandala States to Nation
States: The World War I in Southeast Asian History). Kyōto: Jimbun Shoin, 2012a.
̶ 2 ̶
hope to provide an example of how each individual had been a part of creating history and
society. On the part of the Filipinos, they would be proud and confident that they have created and maintained their own history and society, in spite of being dominated by strong foreign powers.
It is important to keep in mind that the Philippines that accepted the Japanese and their
goods belongs to a maritime society. The maritime world was highly fluid and unstable. People and things moved relatively freely, and“outsiders”were welcomed because they brought
new knowledge and technology. People had no reason to refuse them because they enriched
their lives. In this way, Philippine society accepted“outsiders”positively. The image of Japanese immigrants was rather negative as they were described as“kimin”(forsaken people) in
Japan, but the Filipinos gave them a positive image. When we study Japanese immigrants to
the Philippines, we should consider this aspect. At the same time, we must be aware that we
have been influencing others and their societies without realizing it, now that we live in the
midst of globalization. Some influences are welcomed, others dreaded.
People may ask,“for whom and for what do you study modern and contemporary Philippines‒Japan relations?”I would like to reply,“so that each one of us will live with pride and
confidence as participants in creating history and society.”This is what I tried to convey
throughout this book. I hope this will come across to my readers.
History of the Study of Modern and Contemporary Philippines–Japan Relations
It is not easy to write a history of modern and contemporary Philippines‒Japan relations
for several reasons. First, no indigenous kingdom existed in the Philippines except in the
southern part where Islamic kingdoms were established; therefore, documented institutions
did not develop. Second, the Philippines became a colony of Spain and then the U.S. Accordingly, it is hard to trace the relationship or exchange between Filipinos and the Japanese. After
the Philippines became a U.S. colony in 1898, if one wanted to focus on institutional history,
one had to look into Philippines‒U.S. or Japan‒U.S. relationships. The Philippines‒Japan relationship was rather invisible under such circumstances. If one ventures to write of Philippines‒Japan relations, one has to rely on empirical written historical materials (written by
Americans); as it was not a significant subject for Americans, except when they wished to restrict such contacts, and farther more one-sided any narrative would be ambiguous and could
not present a complete picture. This is why it is hard to write the history of the Philippines
and Japan based solely on written historical materials. And because of this, I find it worthwhile writing the history of this subject. In doing so, we will have an opportunity to look into
historical themes that so far have been neglected or ignored.
̶ 3 ̶
One of the pioneers of the research on the history of modern and contemporary Philippines‒Japan relations is Grant K. GOODMAN, who established the basis for future research.
His works relied on sources from the U.S., Japan, and the Philippines,6 guiding later researchers who followed in his footsteps. Works by pioneering Filipino researchers include those of
Josefa M. SANIEL7 and Lydia N. YU-JOSE.8 Their works showed the Filipino people the importance of studying the history of the relationships between the two countries. Yu-Jose is
one of those few Filipinos who could read Japanese materials. Another researcher, Motoe
TERAMI-WADA, who lived in the Philippines for a length of time, and has incorporated the
sensibility of the Filipino masses by using Filipino (Tagalog) fiction in her research. She has
been producing works both in Japanese and English.9 Other Japanese scholars, TAKEDA Naoko and KOBAYASHI Shigeko, studied the history of Japanese immigrants to the Philippines.
Takeda wrote about the immigrant fisherman from Hiroshima from a sociological point of
view,10 and Kobayashi described the Japanese immigrants from Okinawa from a pedagogical
point of view.11
One of the best studies on the Japanese occupation of the Philippines was produced by the
Forum for the Survey of Records Concerning the Japanese Occupation of the Philippines.12
Another forum, the Research Forum for Philippines‒Japan Relations, conducted research on
the relations that went beyond the two countries.13 Other noteworthy works include YOSHIKAWA Yōko’
s study of the reparation negotiation between the Philippines and Japan14
and NAGAI Hitoshi’
s work on the trials of Japanese war criminals, which closely followed
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Grant K. Goodman, Four Aspects of Philippine–Japanese Relations, 1930–1940. Yale University
Southeast Asia Studies, 1967; do., Davao: A Case Study in Japanese–Philippine Relations. The
University of Kansas, Center for East Asian Studies, 1967.
Josefa M. Saniel, Japan and the Philippines 1868–1898. Manila: De la Salle University Press, 1998
(Third edition; first book edition, 1969).
Lydia N. Yu-Jose, Japan Views the Philippines, 1900–1944. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press, 1999 (Rev. ed., first printing 1992).
Motoe Terami-Wada, The Japanese in the Philippines 1880 s-1980 s. Manila: National Historical
Commission of the Philippines, 2010; do., Sakdalistas Struggle for Philippine Independence 1930–
1945. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2014.
Takeda Naoko, Manira e Watatta Setouchi Gyomin: Imin Sōshutsu Boson no Hen’
you (Fishermen
from Setouchi to Manila: Social Change of Mother Villages Sent Emigrants). Tōkyō: Ochanomizu
Shobō, 2002.
Kobayashi Shigeko,“Kokumin Kokka”Nippon to Imin no Kiseki: Okinawa Firipin Imin Kyōiku-shi
“
( Nation-States” Japan and the Trace of Emigrants: A History of Education of Okinawan
Emigrants in the Philippines). Tōkyō: Gakubunsha, 2010.
Ikehata Setsuho and Ricardo Trota Jose, eds., The Philippines under Japan: Occupation Policy and
Reaction. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1999.
Ikehata Setsuho and Lydia N. Yu Jose, Philippines–Japan Relations. Quezon City: Ateneo de
Manila University Press, 2003.
Yoshikawa Yōko, Nippi Baishō Gaikō Kōshō no Kenkyū (A Study of Diplomatic Negotiations on the
Issue of Reparation between Japan and the Philippines). Tōkyō: Keisō Shobō, 1991.
̶ 4 ̶
the process of the trials.15
The research into the history of modern and contemporary Philippines‒Japan relations has
developed inspired by similar research that took place in the wider Southeast Asian region.
YANO Tōru’
s two pioneering works16 were followed by another two books edited by Yano17
and YOSHIKAWA Toshiharu,18 establishing an outline for the study of two-country relations,
i.e., Japan and respective Southeast Asian countries. The works of Yano and Yoshikawa were
followed by GOTŌ Ken’
ichi and KURASAWA Aiko on Indonesia, HARA Fujio on Malaysia,
YOSHIKAWA Toshiharu and MURASHIMA Eiji on Thailand, SHIRAISHI Masaya on Vietnam, and NEMOTO Kei on Burma (Myanmar). These works have greatly influenced my research on Philippines‒Japan relations, although they were not directly quoted in this book.
Beyond Modern Written Historiography
This book, simply put, presents contemporary historiography that goes beyond modern
written historiography. As mentioned earlier, the history of Philippines‒Japan relations cannot be fully told from the point of view of institutional history based solely on written historiography. Sometimes in the past, the history of these two-country relations was written based
on personal interviews and narratives without providing concrete evidence. This kind of
method, often used in social history, might pose a danger to academic research because it
might not be able to present an accurate picture. To avoid this, I analyzed the data obtained
from lists of the Japanese who went to the Philippines in the prewar time. The lists included
names and occupations. In other work, I presented certain characteristics of the trade patterns among Japan, the Philippines, and the U.S. based on trade statistics. The lists and trade
statistics used in the research were later published in book form in 1995 and 2000 respectively.19 I also made a data analysis of Japanese trading companies in the Philippines. To further
15
16
17
18
19
Nagai Hitoshi, Firipin to Tainichi Senpan Saiban (The War Crimes Trials and Japan‒Philippines
Relations, 1945‒1953). Tōkyō: Iwanami Shoten, 2010; do., Firipin BC-kyū Senpan Saiban (The BCClass War Crimes Trials in the Philippines). Tōkyō: Kōdan-sha, 2013.
Yano Tōru,“Nanshin”no Keifu (The Genealogy of“Towards the South”
). Tōkyō: Chūkō Shinsho, 1975;
do., Nippon no Nan’
yo Shikan (Japanese Historical Views of South Seas). Tōkyō: Chūkō Shinsho, 1979.
Yano Tōru, ed., Kōza Tōnan-Ajia-gaku 10: Tōnan-Ajia to Nippon (Series Southeast Asian Studies
10: Southeast Asia and Japan). Tōkyō: Kōbun-dō, 1991.
Yoshikawa Toshiharu, ed., Kingendai-shi no Nakano Nippon to Tōnan-Ajia (Japan and Southeast
Asia in Modern History). Tōkyō: Tōkyō Shoseki, 1992.
Hayase Shinzō, Firipin-yuki Tokōsha Chōsa, 1901–39 (An Analysis on Japanese Emigrants to the
Philippines, 1901‒39: From Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Diplomatic Record Office,
Archival Documents‘List of Those People Going Overseas Using Emigration Companies’
). Kyōto:
Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyōto University, 1995; do.,“Nichi-Bei-Hi Bōeki Tōkei 1874‒
1942: Ajia Bōeki to Hanshin 2-kō no Shiten kara”(Trade Statistics on Japan, the Philippines and
the United States, 1874‒1942: With Special Reference to the Asian Trade and the Ports of Ōsaka
and Tōkyō), Jinbun Kenkyū (Ōsaka City University), 52, 2000, pp. 1‒33.
̶ 5 ̶
support the research, I created checklists of consul reports sent by the Japanese Consulate in
the Philippines to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.“The Consul Report”was important in order to see the whole picture of Japanese business activities in the Philippines. The Report,
with the checklists and index, were later published.20 The Firipin Jōhō (The Philippine Information Bulletin) was first published in 1936 and is one of the basic materials for researching
Philippines‒Japan relations and exchange from 1936 to 1944. I facilitated the reprint of the
entire publication and wrote the introduction, which became Chapter 6 of this book. I also
created a checklist of all the articles appearing in the entire publication and index based on
the titles of articles as an addendum.21 Other publications include two checklists: one is“Firipin Kankei Bunken Mokuroku (Senzen, Senchū)”(Bibliography on Philippine-Related Materials: Prewar and During the War) and the other,“Firipin Senkimono Bunken Mokuroku”
(Bibliography on Philippine War Memoirs)22 with introductions. These works were necessary
in order to first present an overview of these materials before analyzing and examining certain historical issues. I tried to avoid selfishly picking certain materials that suited my need,
whether intentionally or not. The monographs that comprise each chapter of this book were
written while I organized the historical materials, creating and publishing them as research
tools.23
The written historiography that has dominated scholarship in modern times was written
only from the point of view of the so-called“advanced countries.”In other words, it was a
historical view based on a modern government system of centralized powers, usually found
in temperate regions. This kind of historical view was usually centered on agricultural peoples and elite males. In order to liberate themselves from this practice, scholars began looking
20
21
22
23
Hayase Shinzō, ed.,“Ryōji Hōkoku”Keisai Firipin Kankei Kiji Mokuroku, 1881–1943 (List of
Articles on the Philippines in“Consul Reports,”1881‒1943). Tōkyō: Ryūkei Shosha, 2003a.
Hayase Shinzō, ed., Fukkokuban Firipin Jōhō Fukan (Kaisetsu, Sō-Mokuroku, Sakuin) (Additional
Volume (Annotation, Complete List of Contents and Indeces) for Reprinted The Philippine
Information Belletin). Tōkyō: Ryūkei Shosha, 2003b.
Hayase Shinzō, ed., Firipin Kankei Bunken Mokuroku (Bibliography on the Philippines). Tōkyō:
Ryūkei Shosha, 2009b.
I have explained the importance of going beyond written documents in a handbook written for
Philippine history researchers: Rekishi Kenkyū to Chiiki Kenkyū no Hazamade: Filipin-shi de
Ronbun o Kakutoki (Between Historical Studies and Area Studies: Writing a Thesis on Philippine
History) (Tōkyō: Hōsei University Press, 2004b). In order to prove this point, I tried to show what
“clinical knowledge”means and how the historical research ought to be in my next book, A Walk
Through War Memories in Southeast Asia (Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 2010). I made public
my field notes and emphasized the importance of regional study in Rekishi Kūkan toshiteno Kaiiki
o Aruku (Walking in the Maritime World As Historical Space) (Tōkyō: Hōsei University Press,
2008a). At the same time, I indicated the importance of written historiography in Mirai to
Taiwasuru Rekishi (History Talking to the Future) (Tōkyō: Hōsei University Press, 2008b). This is a
collection of book reviews serialized in Kinokuniya Bookstore’
s Booklog,“Space for Book
Reviews.”
̶ 6 ̶
into other sub-historical materials. For instance, they utilized pictures, images and icons such
as paintings and movies, along with other non-written materials such as landscape, scenery,
architecture, machinery, memory, oral tradition, language, and the physical body. The works
based on such sources are considered a hybrid combination of different academic fields, and
some fine works have had an important impact on written historiography. Furthermore, written materials could be greatly useful to effectively incorporate these quasi- or non-written
historical materials, though at times written materials may serve as inadequate source material. Accordingly, those who mainly use written materials as a basic research tool have a duty to
show the limitations they impose. When we re-read written sources after looking at what
quasi- and non-written historical materials could provide, we discover what we had missed
in the first reading. These two different methodologies will have a synergistic effect on the
writing of history. I believe the role of contemporary historiography is to provide an image of
world history that accommodates today’
s trends in globalization and multi-cultural
symbiotic societies.
Each chapter in this book is based on previously published articles or presented papers in
the conferences. Since they were published at different times, some chapters overlap, however
their slightly different purposes does make this repetition helpful for the readers. Additionally, as these chapters are based on older publications, some newer publications and sources
may not be utilized in all chapters, or at all. Nonetheless, I believe they will help the reader.
Usually the Japanese era names mean nothing and do not provide a useful periodization
when used in describing foreign history (such as Philippine history); however, sometimes I
used the Japanese era names in this book because when I discuss the Japanese in the Philippines, the Japanese era names indicate a certain historical era, making it easy to summarize.
Introduction: new in English. In Japanese“Introduction”in HAYASE Shinzō, Firipin
Kingendaishi no Naka no Nihon-jin: Shokuminchi no Keisei to Imin, Shōhin (Japanese in the
Philippine Modern History: Immigrants and Imported Goods). University of Tōkyō Press,
2012b.
: Japanese in the Pre-War Philippines: Emigrants, Diplomats, and Military ActiviChapter 1“
ties,”a paper presented at the 9th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of
Australia, University of New England, July 6‒9, 1992.
Chapter 2:“Diplomats of Meiji Japan in the Philippines,”Philippine Quarterly of Culture &
Society, Vol. 17, No. 4 (December 1989), pp. 290‒308, and also published in Journal of the
Japan–Netherlands Institute, Vol. 2 (1990), pp. 115‒130.
Chapter 3: new in English. In Japanese Chapter 2 in Hayase 2012b.
̶ 7 ̶
: Japanese Goods in Prewar Philippines,”in IKEHATA Setsuho and Lydia N. YuChapter 4“
Jose, eds., Philippines–Japan Relations. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press,
2003, pp. 117‒154.
Chapter 5:“A Study of Early Popular Consuming Society: The Philippines and Japanese
Goods under the American Colonial Rule,”Seventh International Conference on Philippine Studies, International Institute for Asian Studies, Leiden, June 16‒19, 2004.
Chapter 6:“The Philippine Society of Japan and the Philippine Information Bulletin,”in
Ronald D. Holmes, ed., Diplomatic Relations between Japan and Southeast Asia: Progress
and Challenges Through Half-a-Century. Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Council
(PSSC), 2007, pp. 76‒97.
: Japanese Residents of‘Dabao-kuo’
,”in IKEHATA Setsuho and Ricardo T. Jose,
Chapter 7“
eds., The Philippines under Japanese Occupation. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University
Press, 1999, pp. 247‒287, 355‒358.
: Publications of War Memoirs as Paper Cenotaphs: Mass Death and the Defeat̶
Chapter 8“
The Meaning of Writing War Memoirs,”Anglo-Daiwa Foundation Colloquia, London Colloquia, Goldsmiths College, University of London, November 5‒6, 2009.
Conclusion: new in English. In Japanese“Conclusion”in Hayase 2012b.
̶ 8 ̶
I. Japanese Immigrants in the Philippines
̶ 9 ̶
Chapter 1: An Overview of Japanese in the Prewar Philippines
̶Emigrants, Diplomats and Military Activities̶
According to Japanese diplomatic records from 1868 to 1941, 776,304 Japanese emigrated
to countries other than Korea, Manchuria, and Nan’
yō Guntō (the South Seas Islands) which
during that period were under the influence of the Japanese Empire. Of these emigrants,
75,955 (9.8%) journeyed to present-day Southeast Asia. The above figures, however, only include those who applied for and received passports from the Japanese government. In fact,
numerous Japanese traveled without documents, especially to Southeast Asia because of its
geographical proximity. Of the documented emigrants to countries in Southeast Asia, 53,115
(69.9%) left for the Philippines, which at the time was under the colonial rule of the United
States.1 Most of these migrants were laborers or farmers with little capital, and many of them
were considered illegal contract workers by the American colonial administration. The United States had forbidden the importation of contract labor, and prohibited any further Chinese
immigration to the American mainland. The colonial government in the Philippines observed this policy as well. Nevertheless, the Philippines faced a labor shortage. By taking advantage of a loophole in the law, they were able to employ Japanese laborers, who bridged this
gap. These emigrants arrived in the archipelago as the result of an oral contract between Japanese emigration companies and the government of, or private companies in, the Philippines.
Both the colonial rulers and the Japanese government tacitly permitted these economic activities.
On the other hand, from the very beginning of American colonial rule at the turn of the
century, the United States was aware of the threat of a Japanese invasion of the Philippines.
Indeed, Japan had regarded the Philippines as an area of possible territorial expansion as early as the Philippine Revolution at the very end of the nineteenth century. If the United States
had regarded the Philippines as an important colony in the Asia-Pacific region, they would
have become increasingly nervous about the burgeoning Japanese presence in the colony.
The aim of this chapter is to clarify one aspect of the history of the Philippines, as it concerns relations between the United States and Japan, through a study of prewar Japanese activities from three vantage points: those of emigrants, diplomats, and the military.
1
Including a few emigrants to Guam. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Kaigai Ijū
Tōkei (Statistics on Japanese Emigrants). JICA, 1988, pp. 108‒109.
̶ 10 ̶
1. Japanese Prostitutes:“Karayuki-san”
The first Japanese to arrive in the Philippines at the beginning of this century were prostitutes, the so-called karayuki-san, as well as construction workers, agricultural laborers, carpenters, woodcutters, fishermen, and merchants.
The karayuki-san and their pimps illegally entered the islands from ports such as Hong
Kong and Singapore starting in the late 19th century, but especially after 1902. They could be
found in all areas where single men gathered, especially American military bases and on the
developing frontiers. Among the 685 female and 2,420 male Japanese living in Manila in June
1912, the Japanese consulate counted 356 or more karayuki-san.2 Although prostitution itself
was banned in the Philippines, these Japanese women were introduced and employed to satisfy the sexual needs of American soldiers and to help foster colonial economic development.
There were at least 300‒400 Japanese prostitutes in the Philippines by 1920.3
While the Japanese government could not entirely ignore the existence of brothel prostitution in the Philippines, it was not able to abolish it before 1920. The amount of income from
karayuki-san remitted to Japan was not insignificant, at least initially. However, after World
War I, once Japan had established itself as a regional economic power deriving significant income from its exports, the foreign currency from the karayuki-san assumed less importance
on a national level. By 1940, there were only 11 Japanese prostitutes registered in the Philippine archipelago, nineteen years after the Imperial proscription against prostitution overseas.
2. Japanese Construction Laborers on Benguet Road
Japanese emigration to the Philippines experienced several peak periods. Japanese government statistics show the first to have occurred from October 1903 until the end of 1904. The
cause of the remarkable upsurge in the number of Japanese laborers can be traced to recruitment for the construction of the Benguet road in northern Luzon between 1901 and 1905,
and other early colonial public works projects.4 In 1903 alone, at least 1,370 Japanese arrived
in the Philippines, followed by an additional 1,493 in 1904, based on emigration company records. The majority of these men were unskilled construction workers, originally farmers
2
3
4
These statistics are from documents of the Diplomatic Record Office, Japan Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, File No.7.1.5.4 (hereafter JMFA 7.1.5.4)“Kaigai Zairyū Honhōjin Shokugyō-betsu Jinkō
Chōsa Ikken (Lists of the Population Survey of Overseas Japanese by Occupations)”and JMFA
K.3.7.0.7“Zaigai Honhōjin Shokugyō-betsu Jinkō-hyō Ikken (Lists of the Population of Overseas
Japanese by Occupations).”
Motoe Terami-Wada,“Karayuki-san of Manila: 1890‒1920,”Philippine Studies, Vol. 34, Third
Quarter, 1986, pp. 287‒316.
See in detail on“Benguet emigrants”Hayase Shinzō, Bengetto Imin no Kyozō to Jitsuzō (Myth and
Reality of the Japanese“Benguet Emigrants”in the Philippines, 1903‒1905̶A Study of the
History on Modern Japan-Southeast Asian Relations). Tōkyō: Dōbun-kan, 1989.
̶ 11 ̶
from rural villages in Hiroshima, Fukuoka, Fukushima and Kumamoto prefectures.5 These
Japanese were recruited by the American colonial government through the Japanese Consulate in Manila, even as both sides understood the contract to be illegal. Therefore, the colonial
government did not keep official records of the recruitment of Japanese laborers, and the Japanese consulate reported it to their home government in confidential documents.
These laborers were called“emigrants,”but at that time in Japan“emigrants”meant overseas workers who intended to return. As“Benguet emigrants”returned home within a few
years, there were very few women or children among them. Many of them were heads of families or the eldest sons. At that time, Japan did not have the financial means to support overseas citizens living in an American colony. Neither the Japanese nor the American colonial
governments were interested in sending or accepting unskilled Japanese labor. Nevertheless,
in the end both governments tolerated their existence in the Philippines. After completion of
the Benguet road and other early development projects, most Japanese laborers were forced
to leave the islands. There were few jobs to be found for them in the Philippines, and their
need for employment was ignored by both Japan and the American administration. They had
been employed out of necessity, as part of the labor force which was insufficient in the early
years of American rule. These unskilled Japanese laborers soon disappeared from the islands.
As long as the Japanese workers remained short-term residents, they were not a serious
threat to the colonial government. However, it seems that the existence of thousands of Japanese was seen as a threat to both Americans and Filipinos. In fact, the Filipino press warned
of the Japanese peril, beginning with the first group of“Benguet emigrants”arriving at
Manila in October 1903. At that time, Japan already occupied Formosa. As both governments recognized anti-Japanese feelings among Filipinos, these Japanese laborers were quartered in Manila and transferred in small numbers to construction sites in Benguet. Later, a
Japanese consul in Manila advised emigration companies to limit the number of laborers on
each ship from Japan to less than one hundred, so that the Filipinos might not recognize
the great number of Japanese coming into the country.6
3. Japanese Planters and Laborers in Davao
The Japanese abaca (Manila hemp) industry in Davao commenced in 1903. After the com5
6
See in detail on analyses of Japanese emigrants to the Philippines Hayase Shinzō, Filipin-yuki
Tokōsha Chōsa, 1901–39 (An Analysis on Japanese Emigrants to the Philippines, 1901‒39̶From
Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Diplomatic Record Office, Archival Documents‘Lists of
Those People Going Overseas Using Emigration Companies’
). Kyōto: Center for Southeast Asian
Studies, Kyōto University, 1995.
Nippon Gaikō Bunsho (Japanese Diplomatric Records). Vol. 36, pp. 447‒449, 453‒456.
̶ 12 ̶
pletion of the Benguet road and other large scale colonial projects, a few hundred Japanese
were unwillingly sent south to Davao, on Mindanao Island, under the leadership of ŌTA
Kyōzaburō to work on American and European abaca plantations. Initially, the Japanese were
deemed poor laborers. The western plantation owner took a dim view because of frequent demands for higher wages for stripping and their tendency not to stay in any one place for too
long. The number of Japanese on the Davao frontier remained demographically insignificant
up until 1913. However, the foundation of the Furukawa Plantation Company in 1914, with
the support of a Japanese zaibatsu cartel, and a boom in investment in the Nan’
yō (the South
Seas) including the Davao Gulf region during and after World War I led to a significant transformation in Davao. By the close of 1918, the number of Japanese plantations had risen to 71,
and the Japanese population in Davao jumped to 6,368.7
These Japanese plantations also faced serious labor shortages, and recruited laborers from
Japan. Most Japanese came to Davao through emigration companies with a dream of making
a quick fortune, but they were actually illegal contract workers. Some of them were smuggled
to Davao via northern Borneo and the Sulu Archipelago. In February 1918, more than 400
Japanese waited in Sandakan, Borneo, for the opportunity to enter the Davao Gulf region. In
April of the same year, 55 Japanese from Okinawa landed in Davao without permission in a
boat of only 30 tons, and were captured by the Philippine coast guard. They had departed
from a port in Formosa in January.8 By 1923, however, the Japanese population in Davao had
dramatically slumped to 2,684 because of the global depression. This demographic fact
showed that most Japanese were not prepared to stay in the islands for a long period of time.
Nevertheless, with the abaca industry looking up in Davao in the late 1920s, the Japanese
population increased once more and the press in Manila again warned of the consequence.
These Japanese laborers were well-known to be illegal contract workers among Japanese diplomats in Manila. The Japanese consul-general advised the restriction of Japanese emigrants
to 2,400 a year and to a maximum of 100 per ship, and that they be sent as free emigrants.
The Japanese government aided their citizens in spite of its knowledge of their illegality, and
the American colonial government tacitly permitted their presence.9
With Japan’
s emergence as a modern world power, Filipinos, and especially the press, be7
8
9
See in detail on Japanese in Davao Hayase Shinzō,“Tribes, Settlers, and Administrators on a
Frontier: Economic Development and Social Change in Davao, Southeastern Mindanao, the
Philippines, 1899‒1941,”Ph.D. Dissertation, Murdoch University, 1984.
JMFA 3.8.8.4 “Honhōjin Kaigai Mikkō Zassan (On Japanese Stowaways),” Vol. 6, No. 26
“Kokuseki Shōmei ni yori‘Sandakan’Keiyu‘Mindanao’
tō e Mikkō-serumono ni Kansuru Ken
(On Stowaways to Mindanao Island through Sandakan by Nationalities).”
JMFA 3.8.2.285‒12“Honhō Imin Kankei Zakken: Bessatsu Firipin no Bu (On Japanese Emigrants:
Appendeix Philippines).”
̶ 13 ̶
came ever more nervous about the extent of Japanese investment in the Philippines. The vocal opposition played on people’
s nationalist sentiments using the Japanese menace to discourage any further investment or settlement by the Japanese. Newspapers in the Philippines
issued stern warnings, with sensational banner headlines. As a result of a concerted press
campaign, the new public land act̶to prevent the acquisition of property in the Philippines
by aliens̶was passed on February 8, 1918. Under this act, only corporations with 61% of
their capital stock belonging to citizens of the United States or the Philippines were allowed
to acquire agricultural land. It was obvious that one of the principal aims of this act was to exclude Japanese corporations from the Philippines.10
The new public land bill was forwarded to Washington, D.C. with a strong endorsement from
Governor-General Francis Burton HARRISON. In May 1918, he also sent a cablegram to the
Secretary of War stressing the significance of the new legislation for arresting Japanese development in Davao. The Secretary of War recommended approval of the bill to President Thomas
Woodrow WILSON, but the Secretary of State was reluctant to support it as drafted. As a result
of the confidential advice, President Wilson sent the bill back to the Philippines for revision in
the fall of 1918. Therefore, the Philippine Legislature carefully eliminated all the objectionable
sections pointed out in the State Department’
s document and on March 8, 1919 passed the bill.
There was then no plausible reason for the United States Government to reject the land bill.
When the new public land law came into effect on July 1, 1919, many Japanese corporations that had invested large sums of money were forced out of business, abandoning their
capital assets in the process. Obviously, the amended land law was quite unsatisfactory from
the viewpoint of the Japanese government, which requested its modification. Two supplementary land laws were passed in 1920 and 1921. Surprisingly, these land laws were more favorable to the Japanese than they had requested. The laws were supported by powerful American cordage manufacturers, which were seeking to ensure a steady supply of cheap, high
quality hemp from the Philippines. They found that abaca production by the Japanese in
Davao was of great benefit to them, and thus lobbied congress in Washington to support and
maintain its development. This policy of noninterference and tacit support was not abandoned until the outbreak of the Pacific War. The area under abaca cultivation in Davao increased to 75,070 hectares by 1930, and the Japanese population increased to nearly 20,000 by
1941. Not surprisingly, from 1928, about two-thirds of all Japanese residents in the Philippines were settled in Davao. These Japanese enjoyed the benefits of favorable colonial legisla10
See in detail on the new public land act Hayase Shinzō“
, American Colonial Policy and the Development
of Japanese Abaca Industry in Davao, 1898‒1941,”Philippine Studies, Vol. 33, Fourth Quarter, 1985, pp.
505‒517, and also published in The Journal of History, Vols. 30‒31, Nos. 1‒2, 1985‒1886, pp. 139‒151.
̶ 14 ̶
tion designed to protect the interests of the American cordage industry. Another large group
of Japanese emigrated to San Jose and Mangarin on Mindoro Island and Lumarau, Zamboanga on Mindanao Island for the purpose of agricultural settlement after 1910. However, these
Japanese settlement schemes failed. Apart from Davao, there were only 343 Japanese engaged
in agriculture on the archipelago in 1940.
Japanese carpenters and woodcutters were found in many places in the Philippines. These
artisans and laborers were also employed out of necessity for the purposes of colonial economic development. They were called upon to construct the infrastructure for the islands.
Japanese carpenters built barracks, public buildings, and so on, while Japanese woodcutters
supplied the necessary sawn timber for this construction. Japanese woodcutters soon disappeared, but the number of carpenters hovered around several hundreds as late as 1940.
4. Japanese Fishermen
Another equally important early Japanese group in the Philippines was fishermen. Their
activities began in 1900 and gradually expanded. According to Japanese consulate reports
from Manila, there were 15 Japanese fishermen in 1902, 17 fishing boats and 45 fishermen in
1903, and at least 50 boats and 110 men in 1906. By the end of the Meiji era, that is, in 1912,
more than 100 Japanese were engaged in fishing in Manila Bay. Although these Japanese fishermen’
s boats were quite small, no more than several tons, and were not under strong leadership, they played an important role in the fishing market in Manila. These Japanese fishing
activities were not restricted by the colonial government, but the Japanese were bewildered by
the colonial laws, which changed very frequently. Initially, there was no government office for
the fishery, which was treated the same as the coastal trade, and the law was changed at least
four times from February 6, 1902 to September 5, 1905. At some times, boats could not be
registered under Japanese names, so Filipino or American residents were asked to be the
nominal owners of Japanese boats. At other times, registration under Japanese names was
possible, as long as they received permission and made a tax payment. In any case, they were
allowed to fish in Manila Bay. These changes were not caused by anti-Japanese feelings, but
rather because the government did not regard fishing as an important economic activity in
the Philippines, especially for Filipinos. Nevertheless, Japanese fishermen offered fresh fish to
the residents of Manila, a little more effectively than their Filipino counterparts. In 1940 there
were 1,727 Japanese engaged in the fisheries of the archipelago.11
11
See in detail on Japanese fishermen in Manila Bay Chapter 3 and Hayase Shinzō“
, Meiji-ki Manirawan no Nippon-jin Gyomin (Japanese Fishermen in Manila Bay during Meiji Era),”in Akimichi
Tomoya, ed., Kaijin no Sekai (The World of Sea People). Tōkyō: Dōbun-kan, 1998, pp. 343‒368.
̶ 15 ̶
5. Japanese Commercial Activities
The early activities of Japanese merchants mainly centered on grocery stores in Manila. After unskilled laborers like construction workers lost their jobs, they ended to join the smallscale commercial sector as peddlers, rice cracker sellers and so on, with little capital. Some
made profits gradually and opened grocery stores in various local towns. The number of Japanese grocery stores grew to 340 by 1915. However, after World War I, other commercial activities assumed more importance. Hundreds of employees of companies and banks came to
the islands from Japan. The amount of Japanese trade with the Philippines increased, and Japan became the most important commercial partner for the islands, after the United States.
At the same time, retail traders and owners of merchandise shops also became more active.
The percentage of Japanese-owned stores was still only 0.9% in the islands by 1939. According to Consular statistics, there were 556 Japanese engaged in the retail trade, and 1,945 company employees, in the Philippines on the eve of the war.12
Prewar Japanese were also active in the Philippines in various other fields. Some of them
were considered desirable, and some were not from the viewpoint of Japanese diplomats on
the ground.
6. Japanese Diplomats in Manila
The Japanese Consulate in Manila was founded on December 29, 1888 for the purpose expanding trade and commerce in the Nan’
yō. However, the consulate closed on September 13,
1893, because of the low number of Japanese coming to the islands, and was not opened
again until October 26, 1896. After the start of American occupation, the Japanese government restricted emigration to the Philippines in accordance with American law.13 In 1901, in
response to the success of the Hawaiian example, the Japanese government reversed its restrictive policy and allowed free emigration to the Philippines under the auspices of recognized agencies.14 The Philippines was considered a suitable place for Japanese to emigrate to
because of its geographic proximity and its status as an American colony. Thus, Japanese emigration to the archipelago gradually increased after the American occupation in 1898.
However, the Imperial government did not generally approve of unskilled Japanese emigration, and only permitted them to go to the Philippines on an experimental basis. These overseas coolie laborers, it was felt, reflected Japan’
s economic backwardness and their presence
did nothing to improve the image of Japan when compared with Western countries, or sup12
13
14
See in detail on Japanese commercial activities Chapter 4.
“Alien Contract Law”(February 26, 1885),“Anticontract Labor Law”(March 3, 1903),“An Act to
Regulate the Immigration of Aliens into the United States”(February 20, 1907).
Nippon Gaikō Bunsho (Japanese Diplomatric Records). Vol. 36, p. 408.
̶ 16 ̶
port its expansion in Korea and northern China. On the other hand, the Japanese government partially depended on foreign exchange from citizens overseas.
After the American occupation, and the increase of Japanese emigration to the Philippines,
one finds various reports on Japanese residents written by diplomats in Manila. These reports
contain many statements which contradict other accounts. A typical example is an estimation
of the importance of Japanese laborers in the construction of the Benguet road. Nowadays in
Japan, it is believed that Japanese construction workers were instrumental to the completion
of the project, at considerable cost and suffering to themselves, after American, Chinese and
Filipino laborers had failed. However, this myth is not supported by primary documents in
the Philippines, the United States, or even in Japan. If we look for the source of this mythology, we find it in the reports of Japanese diplomats at that time.15
The over-estimation of the value of Japanese labor in the Philippines did not occur only
among the diplomats, but also among the laborers themselves. They had incurred a bad reputation among American overseers because of their many complaints, but they actually believed that they were the best workers on the site. The Japanese had come with an inherent
sense of racial superiority over the Filipinos, owing to the influence of Japan’
s modernization
along Western lines and its expansion in Asia. They took pride in being citizens of a rising
Japan. While strongly convinced of their superiority over Filipinos and adopting a strong
attitude reflective of imperialism toward Japan’
s Asian neighbors, they rarely were respected
by Filipinos at all. However, as they were only acting as employees for the Americans, they
also had a sense of inferiority with respect to the United States.
The United States was also an emerging colonial power in eastern Asia, and Japanese diplomats in Manila were circumspect both in speech and action. Their self-confidence itself, and
their public role, was perceived as an incarnation of a modernizing Japan stepping onto the
world stage. Thus, Japanese diplomats deplored the poor economic and social standing of
Japanese residents in the Philippines. Undeniably there was a wide gap between the position
held by Japan as a nation and that of Japanese emigrants. Japanese diplomats in places like
Manila and Singapore tried to close this gap in colonial Asia.
These efforts of diplomats in Manila were rewarded. World War I was as a turning point.
Japan became a world-class power economically on the heels of its new found military
strength. The Japanese who had stayed on in the Philippines since the end of the nineteenth
century now did well in business, and became model representatives appropriate for a world
power. Furthermore, Japanese financial groups were set up to invest in firms and plantations
15
See in detail on Japanese diplomats in Manila Chapter 2.
̶ 17 ̶
in the Philippines, and leading businessmen from mainland Japan came to dominate Japanese society in the Philippines.
From the advent of the Meiji era through the Shōwa period Japanese diplomats had maintained an attitude of cultural superiority as representatives of a modern Asian nation-state.
Initially their demeanor in the Philippines was somewhat contradictory, as these diplomats
were well aware of the widespread existence of Japanese prostitutes and coolie laborers as
“lesser”citizens. Nevertheless, these diplomats were being supported by an emergent world
military power. Their attitude and policy recommendations contributed to the consent of the
Japanese people to expand into the Philippines when war broke out in the Pacific basin.
7. Military Activities
After the Sino‒Japanese War of 1894‒95, some Asian countries, including the Philippines,
suddenly expected Japan to help their own reform or independence movements. A revolutionary society in the Philippines, Katipunan, sent several members to Japan to obtain weapons and military assistance. Some Japanese military officers, politicians, and Pan-Asianists
were interested in this movement. The Japanese warship Kongō arrived in Manila in May
1896, and its captain met Andres BONIFACIO and other Katipunan leaders through TAGAWA Moritarō, a well-known pioneer in the Japanese business community in Manila. However, the main focus of Japan in that era was to revise the unequal treaties with European countries. Japan had to maintain a harmonious foreign policy with the west. The negotiations
between revolutionary members and Japanese sympathizers were proceeded discretely, and
finally in July 1899 a weapons shipment was sent to the Philippines aboard the Nunobikimaru. This ship sank, and the weapons did not reach the Filipinos.16
On May 13, 1898 there was a fierce debate between the pro-American and pro-Japanese
factions among Filipino residents in Hong Kong. As a result of this debate, the Filipino revolutionaries permitted the United States to intervene in their independence movements, and
consequently the Philippines was colonized by the United States. After the American occupation in 1898, some pro-Japanese groups remained active, and they became involved in antiAmerican activities.17
At the same time, Japanese military activities continued in the Philippines. Japanese resi16
17
Ikehata Setsuho,“Filipin Kakumei to Nippon no Kan’
yo (Philippine Revolution and Japanese
Participation),”in Ikehata Setsuho, Terami Motoe and Hayase Shinzō, Seiki Tenkanki ni okeru
Nippon Firipin Kankei (Japan-Philippine Relations at the Turn of the Century). Tōkyō: The
Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tōkyō University of Foreign
Studies, 1989, pp. 1‒36.
Ibid.
̶ 18 ̶
dents, as well as diplomats in Manila, assisted with these activities. One of these activities was
fishing, which started in 1900 under the leadership of YAMANE Yosōbei from Hiroshima
Prefecture. According to his granddaughter-in-law, he heard that Manila Bay was a promising
fishing area from a certain Mr. Tagawa in the prefectural office of Hiroshima, who visited
there to recruit Japanese laborers for the Manila Railway Company. Evidence suggested that
this was TAGAWA Moritarō, a mediator between Filipino revolutionary members and Japanese military officers. Yamane’
s first attempts at fishing in Manila Bay were not productive.
He made several trips between Hiroshima and Manila for six years before dying of malaria in
Manila on October 16, 1906 at the age of 59. As he gained experience and improved equipment, his results gradually improved. However, Yamane himself was not a fisherman, and
somewhat suspiciously, his name was never found in the lists of emigrants to the Philippines.
A monument was erected to him in his hometown, Tadanoumi, Hiroshima in December
1923. The calligrapher of the main epitaph was full general FUKUDA Masatarō, and the other was an editorial adviser of the Formosa Governor-General’
s Office, the Committee for
Compilation of Historical Materials, HAYASHI Tomoyoshi. There are three other monuments in Hiroshima nowadays concerning fishing activities in Manila Bay during the Meiji
era, and none of them mention such a relation with a military officer or Formosa at all. The
beginning of Japanese fishing in Manila Bay was not only for commercial activities, but also,
it seems, also for military activities. Even if not, foreigners’
activities in Manila Bay would
have been suspected by the colonial government from a strategic point of view.18
After Japan defeated Russia in the 1904‒05 war, Japanese and pro-Japanese Filipinos became even more active in the Philippines. Japanese military officers like Ihara were stationed
in Manila and gathered information from local Japanese agencies and pro-Japanese Filipinos.
The Japanese consulate in Manila became their headquarters, and the consul himself made
inspection trips throughout the islands which provided a basis for first hand contacts. Japanese grocery store keepers like Tagawa also played an important role in these activities. Japanese peddlers and fishermen collected geographical and strategic information about various
places in the islands, especially Lingayen Bay and Ramon Bay, as possible landing places for
Japanese invasion troops. Furthermore, Japanese warships arrived from time to time and surveyed the Philippine archipelago.19
Pro-Japanese Filipinos became also became operatives, with Jose RAMOS, alias ISHIKAWA Yasumasa, who had married a Japanese woman and lived in Japan, as their leader. Vari18
19
Hayase 1998.
“Philippine Constabulary Reports, 1906‒13,”4 volumes, Harry Hill Bandholz Papers, Michigan
Historical Collections, Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan.
̶ 19 ̶
ous other organizations played a role, such as freemasons and societies such as Ang
Paraluman (The Relief Society), The Sons of the Widow, Consolidasion Filipina (Philippine
Consolidation), Adhesion Filipina (Philippine Adhesion), The Philippine Columbian Association, La Esperanza (The Hope), Tagumpay (Victory), Katubusan Cigar Factory, a labor
union called Union del Trabajo, newspaper companies such as El Renacimiento (The Renascence) and Muling-pag-Manila, and Aglipayans (Philippine Independent Church). It was reported to the director of Philippine Constabulary that the leaders of the military organization
of the Liberating Army of the Philippines under the wing of the Japanese government in 1909
were Jose RAMOS as General-in-chief, with Mariano TRIAS, Juan CAILLES, Miguel
MALVAR, Teodoro GONZALES, Licerio GERONIMO, Teodoro SANDIKO, Eugenio BLANCO,
Gregorio AGLIPAY, Lope K. SANTOS, Ramon DIOKNO, Vicente LUKBAN and others as
Generals.20
Rumors of an impending American‒Japanese war spread widely in the Philippines. It was
already believed that following a declaration of war Japan’
s first objective would be the Hawaiian Islands, which were not considered sufficiently strong enough to protect themselves
from the sudden attack of a large Japanese fleet. Ideally, the occupation of the Philippines
would follow a successful attack on Hawaii, and the bulk of Filipino people would take part in
a war of independence on the side of Japan against the United States.21
Soon after Japan’
s attack on Russia in 1904, the United States prepared a series of plans and
maneuvers for joint army‒navy action against Japan. Even after the Katsura‒Taft secret agreement in 1905, in which Japan and the United States both acknowledged American suzerainty
over the Philippines and that of the Japanese over Korea, this situation of distrust and fear did
not change. The American naval command proposed the Philippines as the site for a major
Pacific naval base, to be located at Olongapo on Subic Bay. However, by 1909 the United
States decided to move its suggested site for a Pacific base instead to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.22
The actual American‒Japanese war did not occur until 1941. However, preparation for the
war began in the early 20th century. Still, over the next 30 years, the defense of the Philippines was not buttressed enough to prevent a Japanese invasion of the islands. The American
colonial government had to deal generously with Filipino leaders, otherwise they would
strongly demand independence and became ever more pro-Japanese. When the Japanese and
20
21
22
Ibid.
Ibid.
William Emerson Berry,“American Military Bases in the Philippines, Base Negotiations, and
Philippine‒American Relations: Past, Present, and Future,”Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University,
1981; Edward S. Miller, War Plan Orange: The U.S. Strategy to Defeat Japan, 1897–1945.
Annapolis, Maryland: the United States Naval Institute Press, 1991.
̶ 20 ̶
pro-Japanese Filipinos were most active in 1907, the United States permitted Filipinos to establish the Philippine Assembly. In the same year, however, they also prohibited the use of a
revolutionary flag by an act of legislation. The pro-Japanese Filipino movements were ultimately taken over by the Sakudal movements in the 1930s, and cooperated with the Japanese
military administration between 1942 and 1945. It is clear that, since the 1890s, Philippine
history is not comprehensible without a balanced understanding of the relations between the
two empires of the United States and Japan. Japanese economic, diplomatic and military activities in the Philippines finally came together when the imperial army invaded. While many
Japanese emigrants were not regarded as important local elements by diplomats and military
officers, they were nevertheless used at times to gather strategic and other information.23
23
See in detail on Japanese residents in the Philippines during Japanese occupation Chapter 7.
̶ 21 ̶
Table 1–1. Japanese Population in the Philippines, 1889‒1943
Philippines
Dec. 31, 1889
Dec. 31, 1891
Dec. 31, 1896
Dec. 31, 1897
Dec. 31, 1898*
Dec. 31, 1899
Mar. 31, 1900
Dec. 31, 1900
Dec. 31, 1901*
Jul. 23, 1902*
Jun. 9, 1903*
Jun. 30, 1903
Jul. 15, 1904*
Aug. 17, 1905*
Dec. 31, 1905
Nov. 19, 1906*
Jul. 20, 1907*
Dec. 31, 1907
Dec. 31, 1908
Dec. 31, 1909
Dec. 31, 1910
Dec. 31 1911
Jun. 30, 1912
Dec. 31, 1912
Jun. 30, 1913
Dec. 31, 1913
Jun. 30, 1914
Jun. 30, 1915
Jun. 30, 1916
Manila and Its Vicinity
Male
Female
Total
2
100.0%
5
100.0%
7
100.0%
13
81.3%
18
16
82
89.1%
78
92.9%
103
61.7%
226
57.1%
ca.590
65.6%
0
2
3
18.7%
6
8
10
10.9%
6
7.1%
64
38.3%
170
42.9%
ca.310
34.4%
773
63.6%
1,622
77.4%
1,687
78.8%
1,802
74.0%
1,476
70.8%
1,500
68.8%
1,461
77.2%
1,520
79.2%
1,688
78.2%
1,902
74.4%
2,268
76.9%
2,536
78.4%
2,863
78.4%
3,431
80.2%
3,935
82.4%
4,315
83.3%
4,689
83.3%
5,193
83.7%
442
36.4%
474
22.6%
455
21.2%
633
26.0%
609
29.2%
680
31.2%
431
22.8%
399
20.8%
470
21.8%
653
25.6%
683
23.1%
694
21.6%
791
21.6%
846
19.8%
840
17.6%
864
16.7%
942
16.7%
1,010
16.3%
̶
0
0
̶
Davao and Its Vicinity
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
2
100.0%
5
4
100.0%
7
7
100.0%
16
13
86.7%
̶
24
24
̶
92
0
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
2
13.3%
2
100.0%
4
80.0%
7
100.0%
15
93.8%
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
0
0
̶
84
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
167
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
396
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
ca.900
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
1,215
630
63.6%
361
36.4%
2,142
̶
2,435
0
̶
22
1.8%
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
2,085
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
2,180
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
1,892
1,919
2,158
2,555
2,951
3,233
3,654
4,277
4,775
5,179
5,631
6,203
̶
̶
̶
2,096
̶
̶
711
991
22
81.6% 100.0%
̶
415
66.2%
499
69.2%
537
68.9%
517
65.2%
774
71.8%
794
72.1%
955
72.5%
212
33.8%
222
30.8%
242
31.1%
276
34.8%
304
28.2%
308
27.9%
363
27.5%
627
33.1%
721
37.6%
779
36.1%
793
31.0%
1,078
36.5%
1,102
34.1%
1,318
36.1%
311
99.7%
319
98.2%
330
96.5%
348
96.4%
290
95.4%
351
97.0%
415
96.7%
1
0.3%
6
1.8%
12
3.5%
13
3.6%
14
4.6%
11
3.0%
14
3.3%
312
16.5%
325
16.9%
342
15.8%
361
14.1%
304
10.3%
362
11.2%
429
11.7%
1,282
75.8%
1,349
76.1%
1,381
75.9%
1,475
74.6%
410
24.2%
423
23.9%
439
24.1%
501
25.4%
1,692
35.4%
1,772
34.2%
1,820
32.3%
1,976
31.9%
573
94.9%
675
95.1%
984
95.8%
1,383
95.9%
31
5.1%
35
4.9%
43
4.2%
59
4.1%
604
12.6%
710
13.7%
1,027
18.2%
1,442
23.2%
̶
̶ 22 ̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
Table 1–1. Continued
Philippines
Jun. 30, 1917
Jun. 30, 1918
Jun. 30, 1919
Jun. 30, 1920
Jun. 30, 1921
Jun. 30, 1922
Jun. 30, 1923
Jun. 30, 1924
Oct. 1, 1925
Jun. 30, 1926
Oct. 1, 1927
Oct. 1, 1928
Oct. 1, 1929
Oct. 1, 1930
Oct. 1, 1931
Oct. 1, 1932
Oct. 1, 1933
Oct. 1, 1934
Oct. 1, 1935
Oct. 1, 1936
Oct. 1, 1937
Oct. 1, 1938
Oct. 1, 1939
Oct. 1, 1940+
Dec. 10, 1941
Jan. 23, 1943#
Jul. 1943 ※
Manila and Its Vicinity
Davao and Its Vicinity
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
6,290
86.2%
9,812
90.2%
8,731
90.5%
8,091
87.9%
7,255
86.5%
6,158
83.9%
5,729
84.4%
6,629
82.2%
7,069
82.0%
7,772
80.9%
8,927
81.3%
10,920
78.3%
11,926
77.0%
14,624
74.5%
14,432
74.3%
14,572
72.9%
14,363
71.6%
14,425
70.2%
14,822
69.0%
14,339
68.0%
16,074
67.2%
17,211
66.8%
16,575
65.6%
18,896
65.8%
1,011
13.8%
1,069
9.8%
912
9.5%
1,116
12.1%
1,136
13.5%
1,181
16.1%
1,062
15.6%
1,438
17.8%
1,553
18.0%
1,835
19.1%
2,060
18.7%
3,018
21.7%
3,561
23.0%
5,004
25.5%
4,979
25.7%
5,421
27.1%
5,686
28.4%
6,133
29.8%
6,646
31.0%
6,748
32.0%
7,860
32.8%
8,565
33.2%
8,694
34.4%
9,835
34.2%
7,301
1,634
74.7%
1,801
77.1%
1,690
81.7%
1,582
78.3%
1,899
81.6%
1,770
77.8%
1,667
76.9%
1,692
73.0%
1,571
72.2%
1,687
72.1%
1,648
74.3%
1,931
70.8%
2,302
71.2%
2,756
69.2%
2,886
69.0%
2,899
69.4%
3,052
69.4%
2,744
67.3%
2,828
68.4%
2,570
66.8%
3,043
68.0%
3,110
68.6%
2,304
67.5%
3,145
68.2%
552
25.3%
535
22.9%
378
18.3%
439
21.7%
429
18.4%
505
22.2%
501
23.1%
625
27.0%
606
27.8%
654
27.9%
571
25.7%
798
29.2%
929
28.8%
1,228
30.8%
1,296
31.0%
1,280
30.6%
1,345
30.6%
1,332
32.7%
1,309
31.6%
1,276
33.2%
1,431
32.0%
1,424
31.4%
1,109
32.5%
1,465
31.8%
2,186
29.9%
2,336
21.5%
2,068
21.4%
2,021
22.0%
2,328
27.7%
2,275
31.0%
2,168
31.9%
2,317
28.7%
2,177
25.2%
2,341
24.4%
2,219
20.2%
2,729
19.6%
3,231
20.9%
3,984
20.3%
4,182
21.5%
4,179
20.9%
4,397
21.9%
4,076
19.8%
4,137
19.3%
3,846
18.2%
4,474
18.7%
4,534
17.6%
3,413
13.5%
4,610
16.0%
2,746
96.1%
6,149
96.6%
5,413
96.3%
5,168
93.1%
3,856
90.4%
2,847
89.1%
2,436
90.8%
3,253
87.1%
3,917
86.8%
4,585
84.8%
5,806
83.6%
7,141
80.1%
7,885
78.7%
9,716
77.5%
9,599
75.3%
9,557
73.6%
9,129
71.7%
9,128
69.9%
9,249
68.4%
9,270
66.1%
9,879
65.2%
10,770
64.3%
11,118
62.9%
12,088
62.7%
112
3.9%
219
3.4%
208
3.7%
384
6.9%
408
9.6%
349
10.9%
248
9.2%
480
12.9%
598
13.2%
822
15.2%
1,141
16.4%
1,771
19.9%
2,140
21.3%
2,821
22.5%
3,157
24.7%
3,435
26.4%
3,601
28.3%
3,930
30.1%
4,279
31.6%
4,759
33.9%
5,271
34.8%
5,985
35.7%
6,549
37.1%
7,179
37.3%
11,758
61.6%
7,331
38.4%
2,858
39.1%
6,368
58.5%
5,621
58.3%
5,552
60.3%
4,264
50.8%
3,196
43.5%
2,684
39.5%
3,733
46.3%
4,515
52.4%
5,407
56.3%
6,947
63.2%
8,912
63.9%
10,025
64.7%
12,537
63.9%
12,756
65.7%
12,992
65.0%
12,730
63.5
13,058
63.5%
13,528
63.0%
14,029
66.5%
15,150
63.3%
16,755
65.0%
17,667
69.9%
19,267
67.1%
17,674
19,089
̶
̶
̶
10,881
9,643
9,207
8,391
7,339
6,791
8,067
8,622
9,607
10,987
13,938
15,487
19,628
19,411
19,993
20,049
20,558
21,468
21,087
23,934
25,776
25,269
28,731
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
5,575
75.6%
̶
̶
1,761
23.9%
̶
̶
7,376
* Reported, # announced, the others are the population as of the date.
※
“Total”is not the total population of male and female.
+ estimated (underline)
Sources: JMFA 7.1.5.4, K3.7.0.7; Tsūshō Isan (Consul Report); Manila Shimbun.
̶ 23 ̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
Chapter 2: Diplomats of Meiji Japan in the Philippines
The aims of this chapter are, firstly, to clarify how Japanese diplomats in the Philippines
during the Meiji period (1868‒1912) saw Japanese emigrants in the islands, and secondly, to
show how this influenced Japan’
s national policy as regards the Nanshin (towards the South)
movement in the Shōwa period before World War II (1926‒41).
The Meiji period was of crucial importance for Japan as a modernizing nation. Japan felt
that she had to increase her prestige in international society in order to join the imperialistic
and/or colonial states. Japan was successful in winning the Sino-Japanese War of 1894‒95 and
the Russo‒Japanese War of 1904‒05, and colonized Taiwan in 1895 and Korea in 1910.
Domestically, however, the modernizing of Japan caused confusion and impoverishment, especially in rural communities. Many farmers and others were forced to leave their hometowns
because of poverty and/or the dream of making a fortune at a stroke in areas outside of their
hometowns. Most of them moved to urban communities or the newly reclaimed Hokkaidō Island, while others went overseas to regions such as Korea, China, and the Americas. Some of
them, but not a major group, emigrated to the Philippines. However, Japanese emigrants to the
regions under European power had to work as unskilled laborers like the Chinese and Indian
coolies. In the Philippines, which was an American colony since 1898, thousands of Japanese
worked as coolies, carpenters, agricultural laborers and so on. These Japanese laborers came
from rural villages, so that inevitably they were compared unfavorably with Westerners like
Spaniards and Americans. Moreover, Filipinos in Manila and other parts of the Philippines
looked down upon Japanese prostitutes, called karayuki-san, and their pimps.
The Japanese diplomats in the Philippines as well as other colonial Asian countries were
aware of the presence of these low-class Japanese. In spite of it, they expected to be treated
like representatives of a world power. They believed that Japan had already become a firstclass power, comparable to the industrializing countries of the West. In their diplomatic documents, there are many contradictory descriptions of Japan as a nation and Japanese as individuals in the Meiji period.
1. Japan’
s Push Factor
Japan, which was a rising world power, had become interested in the Nan’
yō (South Seas),
presently Southeast Asia, as an area of possible expansion. Japanese emigration to the Philippines first started as a result of the labor shortage in the islands and radical social change in
Japan. Japanese emigration to the Nan’
yō in the 1930s has to be considered within a wider
̶ 24 ̶
framework of national policy, the Nanshin movement. This was supported by the military and
linked directly with overseas Japanese expansion. The first stage of the Japanese Nanshin
movement, however, began with the Meiji period and the inarticulate lower class, represented
by the life and experiences of prostitutes and laborers.
The Philippines was considered a desirable place to settle by some Japanese from the beginning of the Meiji period. A number of emigration schemes to the Philippines were promoted
by Japanese enthusiasts. YOKOO Tōsaku stated in 1885 that poor Japanese should settle in
Palawan, Sulu and Mindanao islands, while SUGIURA Jūgō advocated in the following year
that the“new commoners”(former“out-caste”people) should be organized as“colonial
troops,”emigrate gradually, and wait for an opportunity to rise in revolt against Spain!1 SUGANUMA Tadakaze also considered the Philippines to be within the sphere of new territory
for settlements, and he himself made plans for a field survey for possible agricultural settlements in the Philippines in April 1889.2 Furthermore, in 1891 SUZUKI Nariaki, an embassy
clerk in Manila, undertook a survey in Pampanga Province for a planned Japanese settlement.3 However, most of these schemes never got off the ground, in part because the Spanish
government had prohibited foreign immigrants from entering the Philippines.4
When the Japanese Consulate in Manila was founded on December 29, 1888, for the main
purpose of the expansion of trade and commerce, there were only 35 Japanese in the Philippines.5 In 1893 the number of Japanese fell to seven, and the consulate was obliged to close, to
reopen on October 26, 1896. After the American occupation, the Japanese government restricted emigration to the Philippines in accordance with American law.6 At that time in the
mainland of the United States there was agitation against the“yellow peril.”All Japanese emigrants, whether using emigration companies7 or not, were generally prohibited from going to
the Philippines by a notice issued by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on August 18,
1899. Then, in 1901 due to the success of the Hawaiian example, the Japanese government reversed its policy and approved the free emigration to the Philippines under the auspices of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Irie Toraji, Meiji Nanshin-shikō (The History of the Nanshin“Towards the South”Movement in
the Meiji Period). Tōkyō: Ida Shoten, 1943, pp. 73‒82.
Ibid., pp. 82‒93. Suganuma suddenly died of cholera on July 6 of the same year. See in detail on
Suganuma pp. 143‒145 in Chapter 7.
Nippon Gaikō Bunsho (Japan Diplomatic Documents), Vol. 24,“Report to Kawakami Tsūshōkyoku-chō from SUZUKI Nariaki,”June 13, 1891, pp. 435‒441.
Irie Toraji, Hōjin Kaigai Hatten-shi (The History of the Development of Overseas Japanese).
Tōkyō: Imin Mondai Kenkyū-kai, 1938, Vol. I, p. 421.
2 consulate officials, 2 consulate employees, 4 businessmen, 12 acrobats and 15 seamen.
“Alien Contract Law”(February 26, 1885),“Anticontract Labor Law”(March 3, 1903),“An Act to
Regulate the Immigration of Aliens in to the United States”(February 20, 1907).
The Nippon Kichiza Emigration Company, the first Japanese emigration company, was founded in
December 1891. By 1905 there were 39 such companies.
̶ 25 ̶
Table 2–1. Arrived and Departed, and Immigrated and Emigrated Japanese to/from the Philippines, 1898‒1912
Year ended Dec. 31
Arrived
Departed
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
Year ended June 30
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
10
35
95
492
705
2,312
2,118
419
757
519
277
374
381
321
721
912
806
371
318
266
269
314
402
407
Immigrated
Emigrated
2
5
20
*Departed from Japan
year ended Dec. 31
12
5
8
77
2,215
2,923
427
234
229
216
552
795
632
124
92
102
108
160
172
71
176
143
170
396
596
689
This table is compiled from the following sources:
1898‒1900: Iwaya Jōkichi,“Hiripin-guntō Imin Jijō”in Imin Chōsa Hōkoku, Vol. VI, 1911, p. 99.
1901‒05: Tsūshō Isan; Nippon Gaikō Bunsho.
1906‒12: The Government of the Philippine Islands, Bureau of Customs, Annual Report of the Insular
Collector of Customs, 1908‒40.
*: Kokusai Kyōryoku Jigyōdan (JICA), Kaigai Ijū Tōkei, 1988, p. 109.
recognized agencies.8 The Philippines was considered a suitable place for Japanese to emigrate to because of its geographic proximity and its status as an American colony. Since early
in the Meiji period the greatest number of Japanese emigrants had gone to the United States.
Some Japanese felt a familiarity with the United States and hoped eventually to be able to
transfer to its mainland. Japanese emigration to the Philippines gradually increased after the
American occupation; it did so dramatically in 1903 [see Table 2‒1].
2. Philippines’Pull Factor
American colonial administrators in the Philippines were faced with the choice of encouraging immigration of“higher”quality labor or relying on the local workforce to help develop
the new colony. Americans felt that the quality of Philippine labor was“inferior.”According
to American perceptions, Filipinos were physically weak and lazy. However, by the turn of the
century the United States had forbidden the importation of contract labor to the United
States and prohibited any further Chinese immigration. Overseas investors and planters
strongly advocated the need for exemption from these laws in the case of the Philippines.
8
Nippon Gaikō Bunsho, Vol. 36,“Letter to Keishi-sōkan and Seven Fu-ken Chijis from Chinda
Shomu-chōkan,”p. 408.
̶ 26 ̶
Some Americans initially called for the immigration of American negroes, and subsequently
of Japanese to bridge the labor gap.9 Congress might have been willing to vote for an exemption, but in the end American administrators in the Philippines decided not to request Congressional action. Colonial officials turned instead to the development of an educational
system for the Philippines charged with the responsibility of improving the“character”of
Philippine labor.10 The colonial educational administrators chose to concentrate their effort at
the level of a comprehensive primary education, because it was known that younger students
could be more easily socialized to work on behalf of the varied interests of the new colony.
The object was not so much to teach vocational skills as to teach the“dignity of labor”and to
develop the students’physical strength and coordination.11 Some colonial administrators
were optimistic about the progress they had begun to make in this direction. Professor W. C.
WELBORN, Chief of the Bureau of Agriculture, made the following statement about the
making of a Filipino labor force, to a visiting Congressional party in 1905:
I am particularly hopeful for the coming generation of Filipinos. They seem to learn
very rapidly and to develop their muscles and acquire a respect for labor. I am very
hopeful that the young men and boys that we have now in the schools will be a great improvement over any labor we had before.12
However, the educational effort, even by the most optimistic standard, was not expected to
bring an immediate result. While the colonial officials in Manila and Washington D.C. could
wait for the results of this educational enterprise, private entrepreneurs and overseers of public works on the spot did not agree with the following statement in General Arthur MACARTHUR’
s report to the War Department:“The Filipino will work when properly paid and Chi13
nese are not necessary as laborers as has been asserted.”
Indeed, to American employers Filipinos were not desirable laborers, and to Filipino laborers the Philippines under American colonial rule was not a desirable place of work. Filipinos
showed a lack of will to work for their overseers and an American colony, since they felt that
9
10
11
12
13
The Manila Times, April 18, 1902, p. 5.
Leonard F. Giesecke, History of American Economic Policy in the Philippines during the American
Colonial Period, 1900–1935. New York & London: Garland Publishing, 1987, p. 232.
Ibid., p. 250.
Ibid., pp. 246‒247. Giesecke quotes from Public Hearings in the Philippine Islands upon the
Proposed Reduction of the Tariff upon Philippine Sugar and Tobacco, the Extension of the United
States Coastwise Navigation Laws to the Philippines, and the General Economic Conditions in the
Islands, Held during the Month of August, 1905, before the Secretary of War and the Congressional
Party Accompanying Him to the Islands. Manila, 1905, p. 69.
The Manila Times, September 29, 1901, p. 4.
̶ 27 ̶
there was little or no direct advantage to be gained for themselves, their families or their
country. When properly treated, however, they worked well, like Filipinos in Hawaii, who
were introduced instead of Chinese and Japanese sugar plantation laborers.14 In any case,
American colonial officers and/or developers in the Philippines were troubled by the labor
shortage. Taking advantage of a loophole in the law they employed Japanese laborers.
3. Japanese Laborers
It is not easy to determine how many Japanese emigrated to the Philippines during the
Meiji period or for what aims. There are many stories of emigrants’experiences. However,
these stories do not offer a general overview of the emigration from Japan at that time, and it
is difficult to confirm which parts are trustworthy. For the purpose of getting a broader understanding of Japanese emigrants in the Philippines, I analyzed the following archival documents of the Diplomatic Record Office, Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs: File No. 3.8.2.38
(hereafter JMFA 3.8.2.38)“Imin Toriatsukai-nin o Keiyu-seru Kaigai Tokōsha Meibo (Lists of
Those People Going Overseas Using Emigration Companies),”File No. 3.8.2.90“Imin Toriatsukai-nin ni Yorazaru Imin ni Taishi Tokō Kyoka o Ataetaru-mono no Seimei Tsuki-hyō
Keishi-chō Fu-ken yori Hōkoku Ikken (Monthly Lists of Those People Going Overseas not
Using Emigration Companies Approved and Reported by Prefectures)”and File No. 7.1.5.4.
“Kaigai Zairyū Honhōjin Shokugyō-betsu Jinkō Chōsa Ikken (Lists of the Population Survey
15
of Overseas Japanese by Occupations)”
[see Tables 2‒2, 2‒3].
From this analysis it was learned that Japanese emigrants from October 1903 to the end of
1904 was characteristically construction workers. 1370 in 1903 and 1493 in 1904 are counted
in the above lists of emigrants using emigration companies [see Table 2‒3(1)]. This remarkable upsurge in the numbers of Japanese laborers can be traced to the recruitment of laborers
for the Benguet road construction in northern Luzon in 1901‒05 and other early American
colonial projects.16 The majority of Japanese were from farming villages of Hiroshima, Fukuoka, Fukushima and Kumamoto prefectures, and were unskilled laborers [see Table 2‒3(2)].
These prefectures had produced many emigrants to Hawaii and other places. The average age
14
15
16
W. Cameron Forbes, The Philippine Islands. Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1928, Vol. I, pp. 518‒522.
Hayase Shinzō, Firipin-yuki Tokō-sha Chōsa, 1901–39 (An Analysis on Japanese Emigrants to the
Philippines, 1901‒39̶From Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Diplomatic Record Office,
Archival Documents‘List of Those People Going Overseas Using Emigration Companies’
). Kyōto:
Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyōto University, 1995.
See in detail on“Benguet emigrants”Hayase Shinzō,“Bengetto Imin”no Kyozō to Jitsuzō (The
Myth of the Reality of the Japanese“Benguet Emigrants”in the Philippines, 1903‒1905). Tōkyō:
Dōbun-kan Shuppan, 1989.
̶ 28 ̶
Table 2–2. Japanese Populations in the Philippines, 1889‒1912
Dec. 31, 1889 census
Dec. 31, 1891 census
Dec. 31, 1896 census
Dec. 31, 1897 census
Dec. 31, 1898 census
Dec. 31, 1898 census
Dec. 31, 1899 census
Dec. 31, 1900 census
Dec. 31, 1901 census
Jul. 23, 1902 report
Jun. 9, 1903 report
Jun. 30, 1903 census
Jul. 15, 1904 report
Aug. 17, 1905 report
Dec. 31, 1905 census
Nov. 19, 1906 report
Jul. 20, 1907 report
Dec. 31, 1907 census
Dec. 31, 1908 census
Dec. 31, 1909 census
Dec. 31, 1910 census
Dec. 31, 1912 census
Male
Female
2
4
7
13
18
16
82
103
226
ca.590
0
0
0
3
6
8
10
64
170
ca.310
773
1,622
1,687
1,802
1,476
1,500
1,461
1,520
1,688
1,902
2,863
442
474
455
633
609
680
431
399
470
653
791
Total
Source and note
2
4
7
16
24
24
92
167
396
ca.900
711
1,215
2,096
2,142
2,435
2,085
2,180
1,892
1,919
2,158
2,555
3,654
a.
a.
a.
a.
b. Manila only?
c.
a.
a.
b.
b.
d. Manila only
a.
e.
f.
a.
g.
h.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
This table is compiled from the following sources:
a. JMFA 7.1.5.4“Kaigai Zairyū Honhōjin Shokugyō-betsu Jinkō Chōsa Ikken.”
b. Tsūshō Isan, No. 226 (August 28, 1902) p. 50.
c. Tsūshō Isan, No. 137 (June 28, 1899) p. 73.
d. Tsūshō Isan, No. 20 (July 3, 1903) p. 47.
e. Tsūshō Isan, No. 26 (May 13, 1905) p. 48.
f. Tsūshō Isan, No. 66 (November 18, 1905) p. 42.
g. Tsūshō Isan, No. 7 (February 3, 1907) p. 36.
h. Tsūshō Isan, No. 59 (October 18, 1907) p. 43.
Table 2–3(1). Number of Japanese Emigrants to the Philippines, 1901‒1912
Year
Emigrants using
emigration companies
(hereafter Co.)
Emigrants not using
emigration companies
(hereafter Free)
Total
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
0
0
1,370
1,493
246
0
27
81
134
336
528
603
11
76
119
250
42
26
44
6
0
0
3
0
11
76
1,489
1,743
288
26
71
87
134
336
531
603
Total
(%)
4,818
89
577
11
5,395
̶ 29 ̶
Table 2–3(2). Japanese Emigrants to the Philippines, 1901‒1912 by Prefecture
Pref.
Year
Hirosima
Co.+Free
Fukuoka
Co.+Free
Fukusima
Co.+Free
Kumamoto
Co.+Free
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
0+ 0
0+ 0
225+ 0
250+101
7+ 0
0+ 0
0+ 0
0+ 0
0+ 0
61+ 0
94+ 0
151+ 0
0+ 1
0+ 0
332+12
307+ 9
12+10
0+ 3
0+ 0
1+ 0
2+ 0
0+ 0
0+ 0
47+ 0
0+0
0+0
8+0
11+0
0+0
0+0
10+0
20+0
48+0
213+0
200+0
90+0
Total
(%)
788+101
16 18
701+35
15 6
Grand
Total
(%)
889
17
736
14
Others
Co.+Free
Total
Co.+Free
0+ 0
0+ 0
332+26
145+ 4
0+ 0
0+ 0
0+ 6
0+ 0
0+ 0
0+ 0
9+ 0
21+ 0
0+ 9
0+ 75
473+ 81
780+133
219+ 31
0+ 19
17+ 34
59+ 6
84+ 0
61+ 0
220+ 3
294+ 0
0+ 10
0+ 75
1370+119
1493+247
238+ 41
0+ 22
27+ 40
80+ 6
134+ 0
335+ 0
523+ 3
603+ 0
600+0
12 0
507+36
11 6
2207+391
46 69
4803+563
600
11
543
10
2598
48
5366
of those going to the Philippines was higher than that of other places17 [see Table 2‒3(3)].
There were very few women and children [see Tables 2‒3(4)]. Many of them were heads of
families or the eldest sons, and returned home within a few years.18
The Japanese government did not prefer unskilled Japanese emigrants and only experimentally permitted them to go to the Philippines. These overseas Japanese coolie laborers reflected Japan’
s backwardness and did not help to improve the image of Japan compared with
Western countries, or to support its expansion into Korea and northern China. On the other
hand, the Japanese government was interested in the acquisition of foreign exchange from
overseas Japanese. At that time Japan did not have enough economic power to support overseas citizens living in an American colony. Both the Japanese and American colonial governments were not interested in sending/accepting unskilled Japanese labor. Nevertheless, in the
end both of them tolerated their existence in the Philippines.
17
18
Tsūshō Isan, No. 62, November 14, 1904,“Saikin Sankanenkan ni okeru Kaigai Tokō Honhō Imin
no Inzū oyobi Shubetsu-hyō (Lists of Classifications of Japanese Emigrants for the Last Three
Years),”p. 36.
See in detail on Japanese emigrants in the Philippines in the Meiji period, Hayase Shinzō,
“Amerika Shokumin Tōchi-ka Shoki (Meiji-ki) Firipin no Nippon-jin Rōdō (Japanese Labor in the
Philippines under the Early American Colonial Rule or the Meiji Period)”in Ikehata Setsuho,
Terami Motoe and Hayase Shinzō, Seiki Tenkanki ni okeru Nippon Firipin Kankei (Japan‒
Philippine Relations at the Turn of the Century). The Institute for the Study of Languages and
Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tōkyō University of Foreign Studies, 1989, pp. 67‒98.
̶ 30 ̶
Table 2–3(3). Japanese Emigrants to the Philippines, 1901‒1912 by Age
Age
Year
Under 10
Co.+Free
11‒20
Co.+Free
21‒30
Co.+Free
0+
0+
528+
637+
100+
0+
7+
28+
65+
139+
264+
294+
9
33
55
95
15
9
20
4
0
0
0
0
31‒40
Co.+Free
41‒50
Co.+Free
Over 51
Co.+Free
Total
Co.+Free
0+
0+
209+
296+
75+
0+
7+
21+
33+
86+
97+
90+
1
26
30
62
14
4
10
0
0
0
2
0
0+ 0
0+11
84+19
100+46
29+ 8
0+ 5
1+ 0
3+ 2
7+ 0
24+ 0
14+ 0
14+ 0
0+0
0+0
1+0
1+3
1+0
0+0
0+1
0+0
0+0
0+0
1+0
0+0
0+ 11
0+ 76
1,152+119
1,417+250
245+ 42
0+ 26
27+ 44
81+ 6
134+ 0
332+ 0
527+ 3
602+ 0
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
0+
0+
1+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
6+
1+
1
1
0
3
1
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0+ 0
0+ 5
329+15
383+41
40+ 4
0+ 4
12+ 9
29+ 0
29+ 0
83+ 0
145+ 1
203+ 0
Total
(%)
8+14
0 2
1,253+79
28 14
2,062+240
46 42
914+149
20 26
276+91
6 16
4+4
0 1
4,517+577
Grand
Total
(%)
22
0
1,332
26
2,302
45
1,063
21
367
7
8
0
5,094
Note: Some emigrants are not listed by their ages.
Table 2–3(4). Japanese Emigrants to the Philippines, 1901‒1912 by Sex
Year
Male
Co.+Free
Female
Co.+Free
Children
under 10
Total
Co.+Free
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
0+ 7
0+ 67
1,357+111
1,474+235
246+ 33
0+ 10
27+ 27
77+ 4
134+ 0
333+ 0
501+ 3
599+ 0
0+ 3
0+ 8
12+ 8
19+12
0+ 8
0+12
0+13
4+ 2
0+ 0
3+ 0
21+ 0
3+ 0
0+
0+
1+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
6+
1+
1
1
0
3
1
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0+ 11
0+ 76
1,370+119
1,493+250
246+ 42
0+ 26
27+ 44
81+ 6
134+ 0
336+ 0
528+ 3
603+ 0
Total
(%)
4,748+497
99 86
62+66
1 11
8+14
0 2
4,818+577
Grand
Total
(%)
5245
97
126
2
22
0
5395
Sources: Hayase Shinzō, Firipin-yuki Tokō-sha Chōsa, 1901–39 (An Analysis on Japanese Emigrants to
the Philippines, 1901‒39̶From Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Diplomatic Record Office, Archival Documents‘List of Those People Going Overseas Using Emigration Companies’
). Kyōto: Center
for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyōto University, 1995.
̶ 31 ̶
After the Benguet road construction and other early colonial projects were terminated, the
number of Japanese emigrants using emigration companies to go to the Philippines dropped
abruptly to 246 in 1905. Most of them were carpenters and there were very few unskilled laborers. In the lists of emigrants using emigration companies there were no emigrants to the
Philippines for more than two years after August 1905. Probably, this fact is indicative of a
failure of unskilled Japanese emigrants in the islands. After November 1907 the number of
Japanese emigrants to the Philippines increased gradually. However, the number in 1912 was
still less than half that of 1903 or 1904. Admittedly, there are few common elements between
emigrants of 1903‒04 and 1907‒12. Many of the emigrants in 1907‒12 worked as carpenters,
lumberjacks, farmers and fishermen for commercial products, who were scarce in the Philippines. The average age of skilled laborers was higher than that of unskilled laborers. They emigrated by themselves and probably left the Philippines within several years. Japanese emigrants not using emigration companies (JMFA 3.8.2.90) also included many skilled laborers.
On the other hand, in the lists of Japanese population surveys by occupations in the Philippines (JMFA 7.1.5.4), there are a number of Japanese prostitutes listed under various names.
They never show in the above lists of emigrants. They smuggled themselves into the country
transferring from Hong Kong, Singapore etc. They were found in all the areas where single
men gathered, such as American military bases, camps and developing places. These Japanese
laborers and prostitutes were introduced and employed to serve the needs of American colonial development in the Philippines, and they were subordinate to American colonial power.
Japanese Diplomats in Manila were embarrassed about such residents in the Philippines.
4. The Reports of Japanese Diplomats in Manila
According to Firipin Nenkan (The Philippine Year Book), edited by ŌTANI Jun’
ichi, there
were a total of 17 directors of the Japanese Consulate in Manila between December 29, 1888
and September 13, 1893, and October 26, 1896 and July 30, 1912 (the last day of the Meiji
period).19 After the American occupation and the resulting increase of Japanese emigration to
the Philippines, one finds various reports on Japanese residents in the islands written by Japanese diplomats in Manila. In these reports there are many contradictory statements.
A typical example is an estimate of Japanese laborers for the Benguet road construction.
Nowadays in Japan it is believed that it took the so-called“Benguet emigrants”to complete
this construction at the cost of considerable Japanese victims, much suffering, but supported
19
The names of directors and their periods in this yearbook are not reliable. In fact, there are no
reliable lists as far as the author knows. For example, there are several dates from September to
December for the closing of the consulate in 1893.
̶ 32 ̶
by staying power, after American, Chinese and Filipino laborers failed to do so. However, this
belief is not supported by any primary documents in the Philippines, the United States, or
even in Japan. If we look for the source of this myth, we find it in the reports of the Japanese
diplomats at that time.
Consul NARITA Gorō, who was the only Japanese diplomat who made an inspection of the
Benguet road construction in November 1904, reported that the employment of Japanese laborers contributed the progress of this project, and expected the future growth of Japanese labor in the islands. According to Narita, the reason why Japanese laborers made about twice as
much progress as Filipino laborers was that Japanese had experienced hardships in their life
under the cash economy of their home country. Narita stated, on the one hand, the difficulties of the Benguet road construction labor, and on the other hand, that most of the Japanese
did not like to engage in hazardous work. Some Okinawans attended to such hard work and
received some extra pay, while the white men mainly used blasting powder. Most of the Japanese laborers worked on the same sort of public works in Japan. Most of the Japanese worked
about 20 days a month, a few only five days, and none of them every day of the month. They
often changed jobs and also went on strike. Narita also witnessed the insanitary condition of
their quarters and the failure to keep them clean. In fact, many Japanese lives were lost
through diseases. Nowadays in Japan it is believed that 700 of the 1,500 Japanese laborers on
the Benguet road died, mostly accidents as a result of their extraordinary bravery. The fact is,
however, that most of them died of dysentery, beriberi, malaria and other diseases. 93 deaths
were reported by agents of emigration companies in Manila. The Japanese death rate per
1,000 on the Benguet road between October 1903 and August 1904 was 15.58, which was
higher than the average rate of 8.52, that for Americans being 2.65; Filipinos, 6.68; and Chinese, 10.46 [see Table 2‒4].
In spite of his knowledge of the Japanese situation, Narita proceeded to state that the progress of this construction after the employment of Japanese laborers gave evidence of their superiority.20 However, the time of their introduction was coincident with the introduction of
Chinese, the increase of white laborers [see Table 2‒5], and above all things Major Lyman W.
V. KENNON’
s appointment as officer in charge of improvements in Benguet Province, including completing the construction of the Benguet road on June 1, 1903. He showed great
leadership for completing this project. American colonial officers on the spot recognized the
high professional skill level of Japanese workers such as carpenters and stone masons. How20
Narita Gorō“
, Hiripin-tō Bengetto-shū Honhō Imin Shūgyō-chi Junkai Fukumei-sho (A Report of
the Tour of Japanese Working Places in Benguet Province in the Philippine Island),”Tsūshō Isan,
No. 35, June 23, 1905, pp. 32‒41. The original one is in JMFA 6.1.6.59. The published one is
identical with the original except for a few sentences.
̶ 33 ̶
Table 2–4. Diseases and Deaths on the Benguet Road, October 1, 1903‒August 31, 1904
“
* Americans”
Total Number
of Employees
Relative percentage
Chinese
Japanese
Filipinos
Total
26,051
4,527
2,867
6,225
12,432
17.4%
11.0%
23.9%
47.7%
139
380
1,455
10
658
204
1,183
13
26
591
6
494
472
34
358
302
652
2,069
12
932
529
131
1,837
168
384
1,547
17
1,371
1,208
184
1,709
622
1,442
5,662
45
3,455
2,413
349
5,087
Total
4,029
1,994
6,464
6,588
19,075
Relative percentage
21.1%
10.5%
33.9%
34.5%
̶
̶
40
10
16
12
2
17
5
23
4
5
10
Principal Diseases Classified
Dysentery
Diarrhea
Malaria
Fractures
Wounds
Ulcers
Beriberi
Miscellaneous
Deaths and Principal Causes
Dysentery
Malaria, Pernicious
Beriberi
Accidents
Bronchitis, Capillary
Pneumonia
Opium Poisoning
Abscess of Liver
Cholera
Miscellaneous
Total
Death Rate, per 1,000
̶
̶
̶
̶
8
̶
̶
̶
̶
13
1
1
̶
8
̶
̶
19
57
15
52
25
8
10
8
1
5
41
97
83
222
15.58
6.68
Average 8.52
̶
̶
7
1
4
12
12
30
2.65
10.46
1
3
̶
̶
̶
* All workmen of American (whites and blacks) or European origin were classified under the general
heading of“Americans.”
This table is compiled from the following source: Report of the Philippine Commission to the Secretary
of War, 1904 (hereafter RPC 1904). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office (Bureau of Insular
Affairs, War Department), Part 3, pp. 268‒271.
ever, generally they found Japanese workers inferior to white men and American negros, and
paid little attention to them.21
In Japan, the government and emigration companies judged the results of the“Benguet
emigration”a failure, so that from August 1905 to October 1907 none of the emigrants using
emigration companies went to the Philippines. Emigration companies suffered a loss of“Benguet emigrants”and stopped sending emigrants to the Philippines. The Japanese government
did not encourage them, and some prefectural governments refused to issue passports to Jap21
Journal of W. Cameron Forbes (Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Washington, D.C.), Vol.
I, p. 70.
̶ 34 ̶
anese who wanted to emigrate to the Philippines. As the Benguet road construction took a
heavy toll on lives, estimated at 200 or more, Japanese began to look at the Philippines as a
den of diseases.22
The most important diplomatic report on Japanese emigrants to the Philippines during the
Meiji period was written by Vice Consul IWAYA Jōkichi. His report entitled“Hiripin-guntō
Imin Jijō”(Emigration Affairs in the Philippine Islands) was published in Imin Chōsa Hōkoku
(Reports of Emigration Survey) in 1911, and was used by IRIE Toraji in his works.23 Irie’
s
writings have been considered the most authoritative on pre-World War II Japanese emigration to the world in general, including the Philippines. Consequently the myth of“Benguet
emigrants”in the Philippines during the Meiji period was based mostly on Iwaya’
s report.
However, Iwaya’
s report left out many aspects when it was published. The original report was
written in March 1910 and filed in JMFA 6.1.6.59. The parts on Japanese prostitutes and the
disadvantages of Japanese laborers as well as military affairs were blue-penciled. Japan as a
rising world power did not want such matters to become known because of the damage they
might do to the national prestige. If Irie had read the original report, he would have gotten a
different impression of Japanese emigrants in the Philippines, and would have given a different account of it.
People who read Iwaya’
s published report on the good characters of the Japanese laborers,
especially during the period of Nanshin movement in the 1930s, would believe that it was excellent. However, if one reads between the lines, one will notice adverse reflections on the
conduct of Japanese laborers in the Philippines even in the published report. Iwaya and other
diplomats reported not only on actual Japanese residents in the Philippines, but also on nonexistent Japanese in the islands, that would be“suitable citizens”for a first-class power. They
insisted that Japanese should not work as unskilled laborers like Chinese coolies or Filipinos,
but that they should manage firms and plantations like Americans and Spaniards. Japanese
should show their national pride before Americans.
It is difficult to assess the standing of Japanese laborers in the Philippines during the Meiji
period. Generally, skilled Japanese laborers were deemed better than Filipinos and received
twice their wages. However, this is not evidence of their skill. They worked hard because they
22
23
“A Survey Report on Emigration”by Akatsuka Shōsuke on February 14, 1908 in JMFA 6.1.6.59
“Manira Ryōji-kan Hōkoku-sho (A Report of the Consulate in Manila)”
; Nippon Gaikō Bunsho,
Vol. 42,“A Report on the Inspection into the Demand for Japanese Immigrants in the Philippine
Islands Written by Fujiwara Genkichi, an Agent of Tōyō Emigration Company,”December 27,
1909, p. 834; Akatsuka Shōsuke,“Hiripin-guntō Imin Chōsa Hōkoku-sho (A Report of Emigration
Survey in the Philippine Islands),”in Gaimu-shō, Tsūshō-kyoku, comp., Imin Chōsa Hōkoku
(Reports of Emigration Survey). Vol. I, p. 59.
Irie 1938; 1943.
̶ 35 ̶
Table 2–5. Average Daily Number of Employees on the Benguet Road Construction, January
1901‒August 1904
Month Year
Americans*
January 1901
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
（28）
（21）
（23）
（25）
（26）
（23）
January 1902
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
48
62
55
51
50
31
Japanese
Chinese
Filipinos
Others
（124）
（488）
（800）
（855）
（613）
（152）
（509）
（823）
（880）
（639）
（539）
516
0
0
0
0
ca.30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
（483）
（888）
（1,245）
（736）
600∼1,000
812
3,024
2,705
1,925
1,550
980
860
3,086
2,760
1,976
1,600
1,011
0
0
0
0
0
334
967
996
496
405
202
558
385
379
329
299
611
395
684
1,777
1,320
618
20
156a
156a
165a
206b
37
1,177
1,469
1,623
2,816
2,772
1,890
January 1903
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
312
314
333
377
392
364
45
32
46
65
116
525
572
January 1904
February
March
April
May
June
534
509
506
508
452
481
598
628
723
575
502
588
302
211
258
276
306
346
744
2,329
1,150
1,457
1,379
1,350
15
116
112
203
170
140
2,193
3,793
2,749
3,019
2,809
2,905
2,990
3,614
1,699
8,409
756
17,468
126
4.3
2,911
41
40
2,785
2,882
Jan.‒June 1904
71
Monthly average
%
498
17.1
602
20.7
283
9.7
1,402
48.1
July 1904
August
September
October
440
452
855
812
322
311
1,127
1,267
̶ 36 ̶
Table 2–5. Continued
Month Year
Americans*
Japanese
Chinese
Filipinos
Others
Total
November
December
January 1905
February
March
* All workmen of American (whites and blacks) or European origin were classified under the general
heading of“Americans.”
a: 136 including convicts.
b: 175 including convicts.
( ) estimates.
July 1903 was the average of only four days between July 28 and 31.
This Table is compiled from the following sources except one of June 1903 which was based on JMFA
7.1.5.4‒5“Kaigai Zairyū Honhōjin Shokugyō-betsu Jinkō Chōsa Ikken.”
USNA RG350 2367‒2318“Report of the Benguet Road for the Years 1901-2-3”
; RPC 1904 Part 3, pp.
257‒271.“Report of Benguet Improvements.”
intended to earn large amount of money and leave for home as soon as possible. It seems that
the demand for double wages resulted in limited employment of Japanese labor. Japanese laborers in the Philippines were too few for American colonial officers and Filipinos to adopt a
strong anti-Japanese policy. Both the Japanese and American colonial governments felt no
need to restrict Japanese immigration. Where there was a shortage of some kinds of occupation in the Philippines, Japanese laborers were accepted. On the other hand, in the case of unskilled laborers, as long as the employers were satisfied with Filipino laborers, there was no
need to employ Japanese. Generally speaking, during the Meiji period, Japanese laborers were
not outstanding among others the rest.
The overvaluing of Japanese labor in the Philippines did not occur only among Japanese
diplomats, but also among Japanese laborers themselves. They had a bad reputation among
American overseers because of their many complaints. They believed that they were the best
workers there.24 Probably, they had come with a sense of superiority over the Filipinos before
they left Japan owing to the influence of Japan’
s modernization along Western lines and“its
departure from Asia.”They took pride as citizens of a rising Japan. However, as they were
only employees for Americans, they had a sense of their inferiority to Americans. While
strongly convinced of their superiority to Filipinos and adopting a strong attitude of imperialism toward Japan’
s Asian neighbors, they actually were not respected by the Filipinos at all.
24
“Zadan-kai Bengetto Dōro Kōji no Omoide o Kataru (A Roundtable Talk on Benguet Road
Construction),”Umi o Koete, Vol. II, No. 12, December 1939, p. 34.
̶ 37 ̶
5. Japanese Diplomats and Japanese Expansion
Japan had watched the Philippines as an area of possible expansion as early as the Philippine Revolution at the turn of the century.25 Japanese diplomats in Manila were not as aggressive as Consul FUJITA Toshirō in Singapore, who succeeded in raising the social position of
Japanese in the Netherlands East Indies to that of equality with Europeans in May 1899.
As the United States was also a rising colonial power in eastern Asia, Japanese diplomats in
Manila were circumspect in their speech and action. However, their strong self-confidence in
the superiority of Japan and the Japanese was certainly the same as that of Consul Fujita. Every
so often they gave expression of this outlook when adverting to the American presence in the
islands. Their self-confidence itself was an incarnation of Meiji Japan with its pride as a
military world power. Thus, Japanese diplomats deplored the poor standing of Japanese residents in the Philippines.
The role of Japanese diplomats in colonial Asia deserves to be looked into more closely.
Japanese diplomats were the sole support of Japanese residents in places under white rule.
They looked upon themselves as an extension of Japan, and Japanese residents in those areas
could keep their pride as citizens of Japan owing to their existence in spite of their uneasiness
under white rule. Japanese diplomats were regarded as the leaders of overseas Japanese by
“foreigners.”Undeniably there was a wide gap between the position held by Japan as a nation
and that of Japanese individuals during the Meiji period. Japanese diplomats tried to close
this gap in colonial Asia.
These efforts of Japanese diplomats in Manila were rewarded. With World War I as a turning point, Japan became a first-class world power economically on the heels of its military
power. The Japanese who had stayed behind in the Philippines since the Meiji period did well
in business, and became residents suitable for a world power. Furthermore, Japanese financial
groups were set up to invest in firms and plantations in the Philippines, and leading businessmen from large enterprises in mainland Japan dominated Japanese society in the Philippines.
They had been indifferent to Japanese laborers during the Meiji period.
In the 1930s, talk about Japanese laborers during the Meiji period became full of exaggerations and fabrications. These stories were based on the expatriates’experiences and diplomats’reports. However, the expatriates, who were already old, lacked a broad view and emphasized mainly their hardships. Various writers, who were not involved with them in the
Meiji period, conveniently quoted from diplomats’reports and oral histories to indicate the
Japanese superiority to Americans, Chinese and Filipinos. From Meiji to Shōwa Japanese dip25
Ikehata Setsuho,“Firipin Kakumei to Nippon no Kan’
yo (The Philippine Revolution and Japanese
Participation),”in Ikehata, Terami and Hayase, 1989, pp. 1‒36.
̶ 38 ̶
lomats had kept their attitude of superiority as representatives of a modern nation-state.
Their behavior in the Philippines during the Meiji period was clearly out of line, as they were
well aware of the existence of Japanese prostitutes and coolie laborers as“lesser”citizens.
These diplomats of Meiji Japan were backed by a world military power and modernization, or
in other words, Westernization, and their thoughts and behavior were exactly the same as
those of the leaders of Japan. Their diplomatic attitude contributed to the consent of the Japanese people to expansionist moves to the Philippines because of Japanese superiority from
the Meiji period onward, and possibly before as well. However, this consensus did not go over
well with people in colonial Asia, especially the Philippines. The Philippines was strongly
Christianized and Americanized, and Filipinos were self-admittedly the most Westernized
people in Asia. Japanese expansionism from the Meiji period onward achieved a success in
whipping up her own people’
s nationalism and pride, but failed to establish friendly relations
within colonial Asia. In other words, Japanese lost the sense of international harmony, and
unfortunately has still not restored it.
This paper was presented at the Dutch‒Japanese Symposium on the History of Dutch and
Japanese Expansion in Memory of the Late NAGAZUMI Akira, Tōkyō and Kyōto, October
9‒14, 1989.
̶ 39 ̶
Chapter 3: Japanese Fishermen in Manila Bay
during the Meiji Period (1868–1912)
Introduction
I have already discussed the activities of the Japanese in the Philippines during the Meiji
period (1868‒1912) in my book and article.1 The basic data for these discussions was derived
from documents at the Diplomatic Record Office, Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in
2
Tōkyō, including the“Lists of Those People Going Overseas Using Emigration Companies”
and the“Monthly Lists of Those People Going Overseas Not Using Emigration Companies
3
Approved and Reported by Prefectures,”
as well as“Demographic Charts of Japanese Na4
tionals Living in the Philippines Classified by Occupation”
which also appeared in Tsūshō
Isan (Commercial Reports from Consuls). In this chapter, I would like to describe Japanese
fishing activities in Manila Bay and attempt to gauge the meaning of such activities in the
context of the Philippine fishery, based on information from four stone monuments erected
in Hiroshima Prefecture, in addition to the above mentioned data.
1. Fishermen in the Lists of Overseas Travelers to the Philippines
The lists of emigrant travelers kept at the Diplomatic Record Office are mainly divided into
those using emigration companies and those not using such companies “
( free emigrants”
). In
the ten-year period from 1903 to 1912, only 13 engaged in fishing went to the Philippines
through emigration companies, which accounted for only 0.3% of the total 4,818. All of these
13 were from Wakayama Prefecture and left Japan either on January 20 (10) or February 17
(3), 1903. Their destination was simply described as“the Philippines.”All of the ten people
who left in January were residents of Esumi, Esumi-mura (village), Nishimuro-gun (county).
They were classified as“commoner,”and their occupation,“agriculture.”The words“com1
2
3
4
Hayase Shinzō, Benguet Imin-no Kyozō to Jitsuzō (Myth and Reality of the Japanese Benguet
Immigrants in the Philippines, 1903‒05). (Tōkyō: Dōbun-kan, 1989) and “America
Shokumintōchika Shoki (Meiji-ki) Firipin no Nihon-jin Rōdō (Japanese Labor in the Philippines
in the Early Period of American Colonial Rule [Meiji Period]),”in Ikehata Setsuho, Terami Motoe
and Hayase Shinzō, Seiki Tenkanki ni okeru Nippon Firipin Kankei (Japan‒Philippine Relations at
the Turn of the Century). Tōkyō: The Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia
and Africa, Tōkyō University of Foreign Studies, 1989, pp. 67‒98.
Diplomatic Record Office, Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs (hereafter JMFA) File No. 3.8.2.38
“Imin Toriatsukai-nin o Keiyu seru Kaigai Tōkōsha Meibo.”
JMFA 3.8.2.90“Imin Toriatukai-nin ni Yorazaru Imin ni Taishi Tokōkyoka o Ataetaru Mono no
Seimei Tsukihyō Keishichō Fuken yori Hōkoku Ikken.”
JMFA 7.1.5.4“Kaigai Zairyū Honhōjin Shokugyō-betsu Jinkō Chōsa Ikken.”
̶ 40 ̶
moner”and“agriculture”were preprinted on the forms. Since Esumi was a half-farming,
half-fishing village facing the sea, it is estimated that even those classified as“farmers”could
not have been completely unrelated to fishing. Three not from Esumi Village (those who left
in February) also came from coastal villages. Since Wakayama natives were famous in those
days as pearl divers off Thursday Island in northern Australia, it is possible that the emigrants
of 1903 were also pearl divers leaving for the Sulu Archipelago in the southern Philippines.
They were all in their 20s, except one 42-year-old man, whereas the average age of fishery-related free emigrants was in the mid-30s in most years. In this as well, the Wakayama group
appears different from the others, even if they had all been fishermen.
Among free emigrants who left Japan during the 11-year period from 1901 to 1911, the
“occupation”column of 376 was filled in, and 121 of them (excluding one repeated name)
were classified as“fisherman,”which accounts for 32.2% of the total, the largest segment. As
for their purpose of travel, 46 left for“fishing,”52 for“fishing as temporary work,”2 for“repeated travel for fishing,”1 for“fishing in a foreign territory”and 1 for“repeated travel for
fishing/fishing as temporary work,”that is, 102 in total or 36.6% of the total, left for fishing,
again the largest segment. That is to say that those engaged in fishing freely left for the Philippines, without using the service of emigration companies. The emigrants can be divided into
three groups based on where they came from. The first group is of residents of Hinase, Hinase-mura, Wake-gun, Okayama Prefecture (today’
s Bizen City); in total, 53 departed, that is,
3 in 1902, 5 in 1903, 33 in 1904 and 12 in 1905, accounting for 43.8% of emigrants who were
fishermen by occupation and 50.4% of those departing for fishing. The second group is residents of Momoshima-mura, Numakuma-gun, Hiroshima Prefecture (today’
s Onomichi
City). Although this group’
s data is available only for 1904, 45 (of which 3 overlap) were fishermen by occupation. The third group is residents of an area around Seto, Akaiwa-gun,
Okayama Prefecture (today’
s Okayama City). By occupation, there was only one fisherman
who departed in 1902, but 24 left in 1902 to fish.
The purpose of the residents of Hinase was“fishing as temporary work.”The purpose of
the emigrants who departed in 1905 was more precisely“temporary bay work in Manila,”
and they were believed to have engaged in coastal fishing in Manila Bay. The fishermen of Hinase, which was close to the Okayama‒Hyōgo prefectural borders, prospered rapidly during
the Edo period (1603‒1867), when Hinase was made part of the Okayama clan territory. They
developed fish netting techniques such as utase-ami, nagase-ami and tsubo-ami, and advanced to dominate the entire Seto Inland Sea area, Tokushima, Wakayama and Ise Bay from
the late Edo to Meiji periods. Following the establishment of the Meiji Fisheries Law in 1902,
which restricted the use of fishing grounds in other prefectures, they advanced into the Kore̶ 41 ̶
an Straits, Taiwan and Singapore. Their advance to the Philippines coincided with the establishment of the Fisheries Law of 1902 and promotion of fishing in foreign territories in the
late 1890s. According to Hinase-chō Shi (Hinase Town History), ARIYOSHI Sekimatsu
crossed the sea in 1904 with utase-ami, followed by KISHIMOTO Kōtaro, ARIYOSHI Kanekichi and ARATA Kayaji in 1905; at one time, approximately 12 fishing boats from Hinase
were in operation. Although this endeavor brought 600 to 700 yen per month, many fishermen found it too distant and went back to Japan, on hearing of the country’
s post-Russo‒Japanese War boom. Even KAWAGUCHI Kamekichi, who stayed overseas for the longest time,
returned home in the 15th year. After this, no one left Hinase. As the lists of emigrants indicate, 3 and 5 left Hinase in 1902 and 1903, respectively, for fishing. In any case, however, since
there were few reports of Hinase fishermen fishing in Manila Bay, their emigration to Manila
Bay for fishing is believed to have been temporary.
Momoshima is a small island of 3.1 square kilometers; today, it can be reached in about 20
minutes from Onomichi by ferry. Numakuma-gun Shi (Numakuma County History) states
that the departure of fishermen for Korea and Taiwan, as well as for Manila Bay in 1903,
caused many fishermen to go overseas.
Little is known about emigrants from Seto and its surrounding area. All of them except one
were“farmers”in the“occupation”column, and the forms were not preprinted but were
filled in by hand. Since today’
s Seto and its vicinity are in an inland area, several kilometers
away from the Yoshii and Asahi Rivers and more than a dozen of kilometers away from the
mouths of the rivers, it is estimated that in the Meiji period farmers left for the Philippines to
fish. They were probably employed as assistant fishermen at first, but the true motives of their
departure are unclear. They may be related to the facts that in those days the area had a system of cash payment for annual tribute, and that many farmers lost their land and became
tenant farmers due to excessive gambling.
Since many emigrants who did not depend on emigration companies left for Manila, it is
assumed that they departed to fish in Manila Bay. Also, many stated on the form that their
purpose of travel was“fishing as temporary work,”and even those whose purpose of travel
was simply written down as“fishing”are believed to have engaged in fishing as temporary
work. In the lists, 10 people’
s names appear twice or more (three times for 3 of them). Since
the dates of two permits issued to one of them were merely one month apart, it is questionable whether this person actually had three departures. The others, however, are believed to
have left for the Philippines as often as the number of permits given. For example, SAKAWAKI Inokichi from Hinase received three travel permits, on September 6, 1902; January 18,
1904 and October 24, 1904. OKUHASHI Wasankichi also from Hinase had three permits on
̶ 42 ̶
January 18, 1904; October 24, 1904 and September 18, 1905. There were three people whose
purpose of emigration was declared as“repeated travel for fishing,”but no previous travel record existed for one of them. It is assumed, therefore, that these lists were incomplete and
that there must have been other fishermen who were traveling between the Philippines and
Japan. Comparison between the lists of emigrants and a list of Japanese fishermen in the Philippines in the Meiji period suggests the possibility that no record was kept from 1906 onward. Of 563 aged 11 and above included in the lists of free emigrants, the purpose of emigration of 284 (50.4%) was not filled in. There must have been some among them whose
purpose was fishing. Also, in and after 1906, there were no departures from Okayama and
Hiroshima prefectures, which had produced the majority of fishermen before, and no emigrant leaving for fishing; therefore, it is assumed that since 1906, no record of travelers leaving for fishing is at least presently kept at the Diplomatic Record Office. If there had been no
record in those days either, many fishermen must have crossed the sea“secretly”without obtaining travel permits in and after 1906.
2. Japanese Fishermen in the Philippines Classified by Occupations
Demographic charts of Japanese nationals living in the Philippines classified by occupations are available from the report of July 23, 1902. The first report states that there were 211
Japanese in Manila City, of which 15 were fishermen and 2 were sailors, in a year when there
were 33 free emigrants who departed for the purpose of fishing. Later, from 1903 to 1905, the
number of fishermen in Manila ranged from 50 to 60, with no major change. This means that
95 people whose occupation was declared as“fishing”in the list of free emigrants of 1904
were not included in the demographic charts. As the number of repeated names in the list
suggests, many stayed only during a fishing period of several months and returned home. It is
possible that such fishermen were not reflected in the charts. However, from 1906, when fishermen stopped appearing in the lists, the number of Japanese fishermen living in the Philippines actually began to increase. The demographic charts indicate over 100 Japanese fishermen working in Manila Bay from that year on.
It should be noted that fishermen were concentrated in Manila Bay. Although the charts
state that fishermen were found near Olongapo in Luzon, Mindanao Island and Albay Province in 1907, they probably did not succeed as there is no mention of them later. In Davao, a
dozen or so fishermen seem to have started fishing in 1911. Besides fishing, there were some
pearl divers working around Sulu Archipelago from 1907. From these, it can be said that Japanese fishermen in the Philippines in the Meiji period are mainly divided into those engaged
in coastal fishing in Manila Bay and those engaged in pearl diving around Sulu Archipelago,
̶ 43 ̶
and that the majority belonged to the former group, which was more stable than the latter.
3. Four Stone Monuments in Hiroshima Prefecture
In Hiroshima Prefecture, there are four stone monuments related to the departure of Japanese fishermen for Manila Bay. They are YAMANE Yosōbei’
s Shōtoku Monument, erected in
front of Komarui Shrine in Futamado, Tadanoumi-chō, Takehara City; AKAMATSU
Tsunesaburō’
s Shōtoku Monument in Honmura (formerly Gō), Momoshima-chō, Onomichi
City; MURAKAMI Yōga’
s Kion Monument, also in Honmura (formerly Sakojō); and NAKAI
Manzō’
s Hōtoku Monument, in front of the back gate of Utsumi Town Hall on Tashima, an
island of 8.5 square kilometers east of Momoshima, in Utsumi-chō, Numakuma-gun (today’
s
Fukuyama City). Yamane himself went to Manila and fished in Manila Bay, while the other
three men were local leaders who invested in Japanese fishery in Manila Bay and encouraged
the departure of local fishermen but never went to Manila themselves. The monuments were
erected in May 1914 (Nakai’
s), October 1914 (Akamatsu’
s), July 1918 (Murakami’
s) and December 1923 (Yamane’
s). Inscriptions on the monuments suggest not only the conditions at
the times of fishermen’
s departure for Manila Bay but also the relationship between the owners of the monuments and local people since the inscriptions include the names and hometowns of people who made donations for the erection of the monuments.
Yamane was one of the pioneer Japanese fishermen in Manila Bay. The inscriptions indicate
that he sailed for 70 days to go to Manila in the autumn of his 54th year in 1900, set up his
base in Tondo and commenced fishing. Due to poor preparation and lack of local experience,
or because of attacks by the Filipinos, he failed and went home in April 1901, then returned
to the Philippines with a team of 15 fishermen, three boats and fishing tools which he had
purchased by selling his properties. He then sailed back and forth between Japan and the
Philippines several times, gradually improving his equipment and accumulating experience
and successes, until his death in Manila at the age of 59, on October 16, 1906. The monument
was erected in his memory with donations from 182 related people from 8 prefectures, 12
counties, 1 city, 2 towns and 14 villages.
The wife of Yamane’
s grandson Yoichirō, Sasae, spoke of Yamane’
s motive for going to
Manila.5 Sasae herself moved to Manila in 1929 and lived in the Philippines. Yamane decided
to go to Manila after he heard of the fishing potential in Manila Bay from a man named Tagawa, who was visiting Hiroshima Prefectural Hall to recruit personnel for the Manila Railway
Company. Some say that Yamane met with some Army personnel at that time and was as5
Interviewed on October 28, 1990.
̶ 44 ̶
signed to investigate Manila Bay. In those days, the Philippine Revolutionary Army was fighting against the United States, after the Revolution against Spain in 1896‒98 and the transfer
of colonial rule from Spain to the United States in December 1898. Some members of the
Philippine Revolutionary Army were expecting Japanese cooperation, while some in Japan
were considering taking this opportunity to colonize the Philippines.6 The man named Tagawa is believed to have been TAGAWA Moritarō, a pioneer Japanese businessman in the Philippines after Meiji and a leader of the Japanese business community in Manila. Tagawa is also
known as the man who served as intermediary between the Japanese Army and the Philippine Revolutionary Army.7 He was also partly responsible for the employment of Japanese laborers in the Philippines. It is quite intriguing that Yamane’
s name never appears in the above
mentioned lists of emigrants, despite his several trips between Japan and the Philippines during the six-year period from his first arrival to his death in Manila. Judging from the above, it
is reasonable to say that Yamane’
s connection with the Army was real. This is further supported by the notation on the stone monument that states the inscriptions are by FUKUDA
Masatarō, an army general (Commander of the Taiwanese Army, 1921‒23). Yamane’
s monument was the last to be erected among the four stone monuments and, unlike the other three,
bears the name of a governmental organization, the Government-General of Taiwan, which
was directly involved in Japan’
s southward advance.
As inscribed on Yamane’
s monument, the names of 182 donors are carved on its back and
both sides. The amounts of donations are: ￥262 in total from 13 Tadanoumi-chō residents;
￥247 from 68 Momoshima-mura residents; ￥282 from 62 Tashima-mura residents; ￥20
from 6 Yokoshima-mura residents; ￥28 from 6 Nihojima-mura residents; ￥17 from 3 Ōnomura residents; ￥3 from 1 Jigozen resident; ￥3 from 1 Mukaishima resident; ￥18 from 3
Hinase-mura residents; ￥8 from 2 Hōden-mura residents; ￥12 from 4 Okayama residents;
￥5 from 1 Shimonoseki resident; ￥3 from 1 Ōshima-gun resident; ￥3 from 1 Uoshima-
mura resident; ￥3 from 1 Matsumae-mura resident; ￥3 from 1 Sangahama resident; ￥5
from 1 Higashi-mura resident; ￥5 from 2 Fukuoka Prefecture residents; ￥3 from 1 Nishimukimura resident; ￥11 from 4 Fukui Prefecture residents. At least 20 of these donors are also in
the lists of emigrants (there are other names found both among the donors and in the lists,
but some are phonetically identical but written in different Chinese characters). Many of the
donors are believed to have been fishermen who went to Manila Bay themselves, and it is
6
7
Ikehata Setsuho,“Firipin Kakumei to Nippon no Kan’
yo (Philippine Revolution and Japanese
Participation),”in Ikehata, Terami and Hayase 1989, pp. 1‒36.
Yoshikawa Yōko,“Beiryō-ka Manira no Shoki no Nippon Shōgyō, 1898‒1920: TAGAWA Moritarō
no Nampō Kan’
yo (Development of the Japanese Commercial Sector in Manila, 1898‒1920: The
Case of Jose M. Tagawa),”Tōnan Ajia Kenkyū, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1980, pp. 401‒402.
̶ 45 ̶
estimated that the majority of the fishermen came from Momoshima and Tashima. Tashima
fishermen included in the lists numbered only 9, who were in the list of those given
travel permits in 1904. The list of donors indicates that the fishermen from Tashima departed
for the Philippines in and after 1906, when there was no one in the lists whose purpose of
emigration was fishing, replacing fishermen from Hinase. The average amount of donation
was ￥4.5 per Tashima resident, nearly ￥1 more than the average of Momoshima residents,
￥3.6. Donors from Hiroshima and Okayama Prefectures along the Seto Inland Sea coastlines
suggest Yamane’
s extensive human ties.
Nakai’
s Hōtoku Monument in Tashima and Akamatsu’
s Shōtoku Monument in Momoshima were erected nine years earlier than Yamane’
s Shōtoku Monument, and Murakami’
s Kion
Monument in Momoshima was erected five years earlier than Yamane’
s. Inscriptions on
Nakai’
s monument state that investment in fishing equipment and encouragement to local
fishermen for fishing in Manila Bay resulted in as many as 170 fishermen fishing in Manila
Bay in only six years. It can be said that Tashima fishermen decided to follow the example
of Momoshima fishermen, who had already departed in groups for Manila Bay to work and
succeeded. The addresses of 78 donors are not indicated, but they are all believed to have
come from Tashima. Only five of them are found in the lists of emigrants, but at least 31 of
them also contributed money to Yamane’
s monument, suggesting ties with Yamane.
Akamatsu’
s Shōtoku Monument in Momoshima bears inscriptions describing how Yamane, upon returning from Manila Bay, spread word about the fishing potential there: fishing
commenced in 1903 with two boats, and large hauls attracted more fishermen from Momoshima and other prefectures, amounting to over 40 boats and 200 fishermen in ten years.
The mention of Yamane’
s name suggests that Yamane took Momoshima fishermen overseas
and that they were active in Manila Bay since the early period. 72 contributors to the Shōtoku
Monument break down into 62 from Momoshima-mura, 5 from Tashima-mura, 2 from Yokoshima-mura, 1 from Ehime Prefecture, 1 from Okayama Prefecture and 1 from Mie Prefecture. Of 20 people who are in the lists of emigrants and among the donors for Yamane’
s monument, 17 are also among the donors for this monument. This indicates close ties between
Yamane and Akamatsu from the early period.
Inscriptions on Murakami’
s Kion Monument state that Momoshima fishermen left for
Manila Bay in 1903 for fishing and that Murakami encouraged fishing in foreign territories
and donated his own money to support it. The monument’
s 63 donors break down into 59
from Momoshima-mura, 2 from Tashima-mura, 1 from Yokoshima-mura and 1 from Higashimura, Mitsugi-gun. However, only four of them are found in the lists of emigrants, suggesting that among Momoshima fishermen they were late departures. There are at least 33
̶ 46 ̶
names, that is more than half the donors, that appear both on Murakami’
s and Yamane’
s
monuments, indicating close ties with Yamane.
Nakai, Akamatsu and Murakami were local leaders who served in important posts such as
village headman. Their relationship with Yamane may be more public, rather than personal,
as it is possible to assume that through introduction from prefectural to municipal offices Yamane accepted taking fishermen to the Philippines from Momoshima and Tashima, which
were not very close to Tadanoumi. Fishing in foreign territories could have been promoted in
Japan during the Meiji period, not only to expand Japan’
s fishery industry overseas but also
to send advance guards for overseas colonization. The three other monuments indicate that
Yamane played an important role in fishermen’
s advance to Manila Bay.
4. Fishing Activities by Japanese Fishermen in Manila Bay
According to a report made by the Japanese Consulate in Manila in 1906, fishing activities
by Japanese fishermen in Manila Bay began in 1900 when YAMANE Yosōbei from Hiroshima
Prefecture and KASAI Ryōzō from Fukuoka Prefecture began sending fishing boats and fishermen annually.8 Neither name is found in the lists of emigrants. Descriptions of definite fishing activities appear for the first time in the report of 1902. At that time, 15 Japanese fishermen were divided into two groups, one of which was a group of 12 led by Yamane. Yamane’
s
group were in four Filipino-owned, Japanese-made boats, carrying ten hobiki-ami fishing
nets and fishing from the Manila Bay coast to Corregidor Island. Since they were not in steam
boats, fishermen were kept from sailing to fishing grounds by heavy rains and winds even
from October to May, that is, outside the rainy season. They caught prawn, croaker, snapper,
ray, flatfish, octopus, squid, shark, striped mullet, catfish, whitebait, sardine, yellow fin and so
on, and sold them everyday in the market. Yamane’
s 12-member group recorded their sales
from December 1901 to May 1902: 79 dollars 17 cents in December 1901 (Mexican silver; 1
US dollar = about 2 Mexican silvers; 1 Mexican silver = 1 peso); 98 dollars 61 cents in January
1902; 385 dollars 55 cents in February 1902; 1,853 dollars 19 cents in March 1902; 1,070 dollars 9 cents in April 1902; 422 dollars 20 cents in May 1902; 3,908 dollars 81 cents in total.9
Later, almost every year, Tsūshō Isan carried articles about fishery-related laws and Japanese
fishermen’
s activities in Manila Bay as reports from the Japanese Consulate in Manila, which
were reprinted in Dai Nippon Suisan Kaihō (Great Japanese Fishery Association Newsletter).
In the report of 1903, Japanese fishery managers numbered 6, fishing boats 17 and hired fishermen 39 (Japanese), and the numbers increased to over 50 fishing boats, 60 fishermen and
8
9
Tsūshō Isan, No. 51, August 28, 1906, p. 40.
Tsūshō Isan, No. 226, 28 August 1902, pp. 55‒56.
̶ 47 ̶
50 assistant fishermen in 1906. The assistant fishermen were laborers who had become unemployed following the completion of Benguet road construction works. The numbers had
stopped increasing by 1908, when there were about 35 fishing boats and 120 fishermen. At
the end of the report of the same year, it was stated that there is little possibility that the number of fishing boats or fishermen in Manila Bay would increase further. In fact, the following
year’
s report showed no major change, with 26 or 27 fishing boats and about 100 fishermen,
which were 31 fishing boats and 150 fishermen in 1912. In the report of 1909, fishermen were
mostly from Hiroshima Prefecture, with a smaller number of those from Okayama Prefecture. Fishermen from Wakayama Prefecture were not working in the Philippines at that time,
since the Philippine Fishery Company established in Tanabe-chō, Nishimuro-gun, Wakayama Prefecture made inquiries about fishing and shellfish collecting in the Philippines at the
Bureau of Trade and Commerce of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Governor of
Wakayama on November 22, 1906. There are reports stating that this Wakayama-based fishing company was involved in collecting shellfish in Zamboanga, but there are no reports on
their fishing activities in Manila Bay.10 How did Japan’
s small fishing industry in Manila Bay
with small fishing boats develop, and where were its limits?
According to the national census of the Philippines in 1903, Manila City had a population
of 219,928 and constituted a major fish market because of the Filipino’
s preference for fish
over livestock meat. Nevertheless, the fishing industry did not prosper much in Manila as in
the entire Philippines because the preservation of live fish posed a major problem in the tropical climate. There were no freezers and refrigerators, and dried fish did not sell well because
of large and coarse salts contained.11 Moreover, fishing was sometimes impossible during the
rainy season from June to September because of rainstorms, and fish spoiled quickly in the
area’
s hot climate and high humidity, especially during the rainy season. All in all, fishing was
not an occupation that remained stable throughout the year. Nevertheless, the fishery had a
chance for development in the late 19th century, when the consumer market began to grow
rapidly following the urbanization of Manila triggered by the spread of a currency-based
economy. It was not, however, small-scale fishermen in coastal areas who took advantage of
this boom, but instead companies possessing steam boats which dominated the fishing
grounds. Furthermore, the local marine product industry missed this opportunity for
10
11
JMFA 3.5.8.109“Ruson-tō ni okeru Jibikiami Gyōgyō oyobi Shinjugai Saishugyōsha Kankei Zassan
(Matters on Beach Seine Fishery and Pearl Fishery in Luzon Island);”Akatsuka Shōsuke,“Hiripinguntō Imin Chōsa Hōkoku-sho (A Report of Emigration Survey in the Philippine Islands),”in
Gaimu-shō, Tsūshō-kyoku, comp., Imin Chōsa Hōkoku (Reports of Emigration Survey). Vol. I,
1908, p. 112.
Tsūshō Isan, No. 39, July 18, 1908, p. 67.
̶ 48 ̶
growth, as the importation of canned or smoked goods and frozen fish increased from the
United States and Australia. The amount of imports into the Philippines increased rapidly
from 262,916 dollars in fiscal 1906 to 332,710 dollars in fiscal 1909 and to 612,765 dollars in
fiscal 1910, of which imports from the United States reached 251,644 dollars, thanks to the
removal of import duties in 1909. Imports from Japan, including dried fish and canned
goods, reached 17,129 dollars in fiscal 1910.12 In such a situation, the small Japanese-operated
fishing industry managed to develop, with fishing skills and techniques, and experience in
commodity trading, that were superior to those of the Philippine fishermen, and by providing fresh fish which ordinary consumers in Manila wished to put on their table daily.
According to the report of 1903, 500 Filipino fishing boats with 5,000 fishermen, 1 British
boat with 4 fishermen (Filipinos) and 17 Japanese boats with 39 fishermen were engaged in
fishing in the sea off Manila. The fishing techniques which the Filipino fishermen used did
not differ much from some of the Japanese techniques, which included“hand-reeled net,
foot-reeled net, nagashi-se-ami, gill net, lift net, shite ami, beach seine, kandori net, push net,
long line, pole-and-line, cast net and weir,”but the Filipino fishermen were inferior in terms
of skills and tools used to the Japanese and sailed in dugout canoes. Philippine-made fishnets
were painted with cow’
s blood and lasted for about three years, but they became slack easily,
were not sufficiently flexible and did not assure large hauls. For Filipino fishermen who had
to support their wives and children, making 60 dollars in Mexican silver per month by fishing
for a living was not easy.13
On the other hand, the Japanese fishermen mainly used techniques and instruments such
as“sandy beach seine, wachi drift net, wahoo drift net, utase ami, fixed net and long line.”
Their fishing boats were imported from Japan at a transportation cost of about 80 yen (1 US
dollar = about 2 yen) and at the ad valorem tax rate of 15% in 1903. Japanese-made fishnets
painted with lacquer were serviceable for only ten months and required repainting every
twelve uses, but they resisted water well, were very flexible and brought about large hauls. It
was convenient and economical to buy fishnets sold in Chinese shops, but Chinese-made
fishnets lasted for only eight months while Japanese fishnets lasted for ten months. So the
Japanese imported utase ami fishnets which farmers and fishermen in Hiroshima Prefecture
were making on the side from Japan at the ad valorem tax rate of 20%. Japanese fishermen
worked three times as much as the Filipinos and lived on only 6 dollars in Mexican silver per
month since they were alone and lived on their boats. The report states that fishing by the
12
13
Tsūshō Isan, No. 35, June 20, 1911, pp. 13‒14.
Ibid.
̶ 49 ̶
Japanese was far superior to the Filipino fishery in terms of cost efficiency as well.14
Japanese fishing boats were moored in Tondo, left the port at night and returned at dawn.
Japanese fishermen had considerable revenues, and many of them sent money home. Their
fishing performance was good, but many of them fell sick, with three or four patients at the
outset of each cholera epidemic. Also, partially due to living at sea, some normally goodnatured fishermen sometimes turned violent, drank a lot and had brawls.15 Some also fell
into gambling, as Japanese in the Philippines often did in those days, and those from Hinasemura, Okayama Prefecture were particularly infamous, some being arrested by the Philippine police, paying a 20-dollar fine and being released on bail repeatedly.
The catch of fish by Japanese fishing boats was 5‒40 kan per boat per day or about 10 kan
on average (1 kan＝3.75 kg). One Japanese boat made on average about 350 dollars in Mexican silver per month, and about 2,500 dollars in Mexican silver on average per year, including
non-operating months during the rainy reason. The fish caught was either sold to Filipino
middlemen off the coast or sold via Filipino retailers with a 10% commission in Manila City’
s
four large markets which also sold fruit, dry goods and daily articles. Fresh fish was priced
1‒5 dollars in Mexican silver per kan, and daily sales did not go below 8,000 dollars on average.16 Japanese fishermen formed unions on the basis of 3- to 5-person boats, engaged in fishing independently in these units, and made 34 yen per person per month in 1907, when the
catch was relatively low at 2,100 yen in the trial account settlement.17 There was one fishing
boat which is said to have made as much as 2,800 yen in two and a half months.18 This means
that their fishermen made more than double the average wage of a day laborer in Japan at
that time, 0.49 yen. The average amount of money which one Japanese fisherman sent home
was about 200 yen per year, and it is estimated that 20,000 yen was sent to Japan each year in
total. In general, Japanese fishermen in Manila are said to have had higher living standards
than ordinary laborers in rural areas.19
The greatest problems for Japanese fishery operators were rainstorms, the deterioration of
fishnets and the treatment of fishermen during a 4- to 5-month-long non-working period in
the rainy season when fish drying was not feasible. They sent boats on a trial basis to Tabaco
and Legazpi in Albay Province, which had a different fishing period and relatively higher fish
14
15
16
17
18
19
Tsūshō Isan, New No. 20, July 3, 1903, pp. 30‒31.
Iwaya Jōkichi,“Firipin-guntō Imin Jijō (A Report of Emigration Affairs in the Philippine Islands),”
in Gaimu-shō, Tsūshō-kyoku, comp., Imin Chōsa Hōkoku (Reports of Emigration Survey). Vol. VI,
1911, pp. 112‒113.
Tsūshō Isan, New No. 20, July 3, 1903, pp. 31‒32.
Tsūshō Isan, No. 39, July 18, 1908, p. 68.
Tsūshō Isan, No. 51, August 28, 1906, p. 41.
Akatsuka 1908, pp. 119‒120.
̶ 50 ̶
prices (about 30 cents per kan), but not much was achieved. Since many fishermen who went
home during the rainy season did not return to the Philippines for a second time, it was necessary to hire unskilled workers as assistants. Usually, fishermen were paid 30‒35 yen per
month with lodging and board or were given equally distributed profits from fishing. Filipino
fishermen were paid about 15 yen with rice as board, and it was easy to dismiss them during
the rainy season. Another important problem for fishery operators was the procurement of
fishing boats. Attempts were made to have Japanese shipwrights build boats with lumber
from the Philippines, but, due to extremely high wages for shipwrights, it was more economical to import from Japan, even with transportation and import duties.20
Japanese fishing activities were not under any restrictions by the Philippine colonial government. One restriction imposed on fishing concerned the installation of weirs, in compliance with the Manila Customs House General Orders No. 25 dated December 9, 1902 (partially revised by the Order No. 31 dated March 5, 1903); to prevent obstruction to
navigational routes, fishery operators installing weirs were required to obtain a special license
and pay fees. Also, the law promulgated on May 29, 1906 (Philippine Administrative Committee Act No. 1499, hereafter referred to as PC Act No. 1499, later relaxed with PC Act No.
1685 dated August 14, 1907) prohibited fishing with the use of explosives and poisonous substances. As for the sale of fish, the Tax Collection Law promulgated in July 1904, imposed an
operating tax of one three hundredth of sales of fish. However, there were no laws or restrictions that were particularly disadvantageous to foreigners.21
What caused difficulty in fact was the frequent promulgation and amendment of laws by
the colonial government, which had no clear basic colonial policy and thus annoyed Japanese
fishermen in the Philippines. The situation was complicated as there was no governmental office in charge of the fishery and marine products industries, which were instead placed under
direct jurisdiction of the Custom House. In Philippine law at that time, fishery was treated in
the same way as coastal trade. The Philippine Custom House Administrative Law Chapter 10
Clause Concerning Coastal Trade (PC Act No. 355) promulgated on February 6, 1902, prohibited the use of fishing boats whose owner and captain were not Philippine nationals or
Americans living in the Philippines, and Japanese-owned fishing boats were confiscated by
the Custom House. As a solution, Japanese boat owners registered their boats under Filipino
names, obtained an operating license and“rented”such boats for fishing. Then, the Special
Coastal Trade Law promulgated on November 17, 1902 (PC Act No. 520) authorized coastal
trade by general foreign ships including fishing boats on the condition of paying 1 dollar per
20
21
Tsūshō Isan, No. 39, July 18, 1908, p. 68.
Tsūshō Isan, No. 28, May 13, 1907, pp. 68‒69.
̶ 51 ̶
ton per year as operating tax until July 1, 1904.22 However, the PC Act No. 863 promulgated
on September 2, 1903 revised it and required foreign ships engaged in coastal trade to measure at least 50 tons. Consequently, ships registered in accordance with the earlier law were
able to operate until July 1, 1904, but all the Japanese fishing boats registered before, which
were all below 5 tons, were not allowed to renew their licenses upon expiration and were required, as previously, to be registered under Filipino names.23 Since this change necessitated
troublesome procedures and many ship owners did not bother, some fishing boats were temporarily confiscated by the Custom House. Under such circumstances, Japanese merchants
and fishery operators established the Philippine Coastwise Trading Company on January 16,
1905, in accordance with the law promulgated on September 22, 1904 (PC Act No. 1235), obtained an operating license on January 27, 1905 and immediately commenced fishing on the
same day.24 This company was located in Tondo district in Manila City, and its directors were
ŌTA Sakutarō (Managing Director), TAGAWA Moritarō, NAKAKURA Kurōsaburō (Direc-
tors), KITAMURA Kentarō and INOUE Naotarō (Auditors). The company had 50,000 Philippine pesos in capital and registered an annual haul of about 18,000 pesos with 40 fishing
boats amounting to 191.92 tons.25 Many Japanese fishing boats were owned by this company
on paper, while the remaining few boats were registered under the name of an American,
Ranfold [?], and operated while paying 15‒30 yen each month of the fishing period as lease
fees. Then, the law of June 15, 1905 (PC Act No. 1354) made it unnecessary for ships of total
tonnage of 15 tons or less to be registered or pay taxes on and after July 1, 1905. This was revised by the law of September 5, 1905 (PC Act No. 1387), requiring steam boats and other
motorized ships to pay 1.5 pesos per ton and other ships to pay 1 peso per ton as license tax.26
In the space of only three and a half years, laws were introduced and revised rapidly in this
manner. Changes were made still later, and it became possible even for Japanese individuals
living in the Philippines to own or be the captain of ships of 15 tons or less, and only ships of
15 tons or more were required to be company-owned.
For Japanese fishermen, it was difficult to follow these frequent changes, and many continued to pay the American Ranfold until September 1906, despite the revision of the law on
July 1, 1905, which permitted fishing boat ownership by Japanese. A Japanese Consulate employee who had learned this fact negotiated with Ranfold for his approval of the change of
22
23
24
25
26
Tsūshō Isan, New No. 20, July 3, 1903, pp. 28‒29.
Tsūshō Isan, New No. 43, October 18, 1903, p. 26.
Tsūshō Isan, No. 15, March 18, 1905, pp. 36‒37.
JMFA 3.3.7.25“Nō-Kō-Shō-Gyogyō tō ni Jūjisuru Zaigai Honhōjin no Eigyō Jōtai Torishirabe
Ikken (Survey on Overseas Japanese Who Engage in Agriculture, Industry, Commerce, and
Fishery).”
Tsūshō Isan, No. 71, December 8, 1905, pp. 30‒31; Akatsuka 1908, p. 120.
̶ 52 ̶
ownership in exchange for 1,000 yen and made Japanese fishermen deposit in a bank 330 yen
per month which they would have paid otherwise, that is, 2,310 yen in total per year (for seven months of the fishing period), to be withdrawn only at the time of returning to Japan.27
Japanese fishermen did not know that the revised law of September 5, 1905 now required
them to pay license fees and engaged in fishing without license until March 1912, when the
Philippine Custom House Director pointed it out. At that time, there were 31 Japaneseowned fishing boats; three of them did not have to be licensed as they were damaged, and
nine of the remaining 28 were made in the Philippines and were entitled to licensing even if
they were owned by Japanese individuals. The remaining 19 Japanese-made boats were able
to be licensed when two to four people formed a union for each boat according to the Philippine law. To facilitate these procedures, SUGIMURA Kozō, acting Japanese Consul in Manila,
carried out negotiations and made tremendous efforts. As a result, Japanese fishermen were
exempted from the retroactive payment of taxes and were allowed to continue fishing even
during the application procedures. Also, to avoid the 50% ad valorem tax imposed at that
time on the importation of foreign ships, the 19 boats were registered as boats manufactured
in the Philippines with materials brought from Japan.28
29
“The List of fishing boats owned by Japanese in 1912”
indicates that 28 boats in operation
measured on average 8.96 tons, the largest one being 12.42 tons. This is to say that these fishing boats were small, although they may be considered much larger than boats in 1903,
which were 5 tons or less. Fishing boats manufactured in Manila numbered 2 in 1906, 1 in
1907, 1 in 1908, 4 in 1911 and 1 in 1912, measuring on average 9.77 tons, slightly larger than
Japanese-made ones whose average was 8.57 tons. All of them were registered under the
names of Japanese individuals and licensed for barge and bay activities. All Japanese-made
fishing boats were registered under organizational names and licensed for coastal trade. Of
the Japanese owners, 14 names were given in full (family and given names), of which only six
were in the lists of“free emigrants.”This also reconfirms that the lists of emigrants were incomplete. Three of the owners also found in the list of emigrants were from Momoshimamura, two from Tashima-mura, both Hiroshima Prefecture, and one from Higashi-Kataoka,
Asahi-mura, Oku-gun, Okayama Prefecture. Three from Momoshima-mura, TADA
Kyōnosuke, FUJIMOTO Hikosaburō and AKAMATSU Daikichi received their travel permits
on May 31, June 30, and August 1, 1904, when they were 37, 37 and 17 years old, respectively.
From Tashima-mura, MURAKAMI Iwatarō and MIZOGUCHI Seikichi received their per27
28
29
Akatsuka 1908, p. 120.
JMFA 3.5.8.133“Hirippin Engan Gyōgyō Kankei Zakken (Matters on Coastal Fishery in the
Philippines).”
Ibid.
̶ 53 ̶
mits on July 8 and October 8, 1904, when they were 26 and 28 years old, respectively. From
Higashi-Kataoka, Asahi-mura, which was a community situated near the mouth of the Yoshii
River facing the Seto Inland Sea, UKITA Fusatarō received his travel permit on January 19,
1903, when he was 18 years old. He then went to“Manila, the U.S. territory of the Philippines”for the purpose of fishing, but his occupation was declared as“commerce.”For all six
of them, the registration of their boats thus took place almost ten years after the issuance of
their travel permit. The names of contributors inscribed on the stone monuments indicate
that KANBARA Sadakichi and NAKAMURA Gihei were from Tashima-mura, and MIYAMOTO Sakunojō from Tadanoumi-chō. If TAKEDA Tsuneichi was the same person as the
TAKEDA Tsuneichi (one Chinese character is different) listed among the donors on one of
the stone monuments, he must have come from Momoshima-mura. Since the family names
of the other four men, Yoshinaga, Yoshimoto, Kuroda and Matsuura, are not found among
the contributors in the communities of the four stone monuments, it is surmised that they
were not from Hiroshima Prefecture nor had any ties with Yamane. These four men each
owned a Manila-manufactured ship. The group of Ukita and others was not among the
groups of fishermen from eastern Hiroshima Prefecture, but the name Ukita is found on Yamane’
s Shōtoku Monument. Nine Manila-made fishing boats were all owned by different
people. Group owners included the group of Tada and others, who had 4 boats, the group of
Ukita and others with 3 boats, the group of Akamatsu and others with 4 boats, the group of
Kanbara and others with 4 boats and the group of Nakamura and others with 4 boats, which
meant one person had one or two boats on average. Some of these owners were also individual owners, and it is believed that they in fact individually owned one to three boats per person. In terms of hometown, those from Tashima owned 10 boats, those from Momoshima
had 9 boats (or 10, if TAKEDA Tsuneichi was also from Momoshima), and those from
Okayama Prefecture owned 3 boats. In any case, these were the groups of small-scale fishermen, judging from the ownership of small fishing boats, organized around those from Momoshima and Tashima, Hiroshima Prefecture, which men from Okayama Prefecture joined.
As described above, Manila Bay provided a place of activity for small-scale Japanese fishermen in the Meiji period. Trawl fishing using steam boats commenced during the last years of
the Meiji period but failed due to inadequate techniques, poor fishing grounds and market
conditions. The motorization of small-scale fishing started only in the Shōwa period (1926‒
89). Activities by small-scale fishermen mainly comprised supplying live fish to ordinary Filipino people for their daily diet. The list of directors of the Philippine Coastwise Trading
Company indicate that there was none among them who demonstrated strong leadership in
fishing. ŌTA Sakutarō, the Company’
s Managing Director, was in fact the same person as
̶ 54 ̶
ŌTA Kyōzaburō, who came to be known as the“father of Davao”and who later succeeded in
the Manila hemp business (he was using his brother Sakutaro’
s passport). One of the Company’
s directors, TAGAWA Moritarō, was, as mentioned above, the pioneer Japanese businessman in Manila and the owner of M. Tagawa & Co. Another director, NAKAKURA
Kurōsaburō and one of the auditors named KITAMURA Kentarō were not registered in the
lists of emigrants; later, their names were deleted from the list of directors. The other auditor,
INOUE Naotarō, was a Japanese business leader in Manila in those days, comparable to Ōta
and Tagawa. Therefore, Japanese fishermen in Manila in the Meiji period were not organized
to cross the sea or fish. Rather, they were simply small groups of fishermen from the same
hometowns who were sponsored by wealthy village leaders. Their activities in Manila Bay
were said to have almost dominated the Manila markets, but reports by the Japanese Consulate in Manila suggest that the Japanese authorities in Manila expected much from agriculture
but not fishing, and particularly not fishing by small-scale fishermen. At the same time, however, Japanese Consulate employees made vigorous efforts to protect the vested interests of
Japanese fishermen and did not fail to make use of fishermen for military purposes.
5. Philippine Fishery
The national census of the Philippines in 1903 states that no statistical data were available
on the Philippine fishery and that there were an estimated 28,000 fishing boats and 119,000
people engaged in fishing. In the subsequent national census in 1918, more detailed statistical
information was collected concerning the fishery. According to the 1918 census, there were
3,650 Filipino and 118 foreign fishery operators across the Philippines and they produced an
annual catch of 8,692,401.29 pesos. Of these fishery operators, 18 Filipinos and 67 foreigners
were in Manila, mainly fishing in the sea using boats and fishnets. More than half the foreigners were concentrated in Manila, many of whom are believed to have been Japanese. Manila’
s
fishing industry had a capital of 104,675.00 pesos (1.1% of the national total), hired 332 laborers per month for 31.3 pesos on average (national average: 22.3 pesos) and produced a
catch valued at 204,849.95 pesos (2.4% of the national total). These figures suggest that Manila did not enjoy a particularly favorable fishing situation, since Bulacan Province (10.4% of
the national total) and Bataan Province (9.1% of the national total) far surpassed it in terms
of the catch of fish and Bulacan Province occupied an outstanding 48.8% of the national total
in terms of capital. Both of Bulacan and Bataan Provinces face Manila Bay. The national census of 1918, however, carried data mostly concerning aquaculture, pearl shell collection and
the classification of fish, and no data on specific fishing activities, let alone fishing activities
̶ 55 ̶
by Japanese.30
From these data, it can be said that the Philippine fishery was conducted for domestic consumption on a small scale, and there was no foreign participation with major capital. This
does not mean, however, that the United States occupying the Philippines took no interest in
the fishery resources of the Philippines. From 1907 to 1909, the United States sent the investigation ship Albatross of the Fish Commission to conduct surveys of deep-sea fishing, and
pearl and sponge fishing. The results of the surveys were published in The Philippine Journal
of Science and the like, which mainly contained the classification of fish and were not of practical use for those actually involved in fishery. Upon examining the survey report, the Secretary of the Interior of the Philippines, D. C. WORCESTER, wrote to the U.S. President and
presented a pessimistic view of fishery potential in the Philippines, stating that“deep-sea
31
fishing would be in vain.”
Accordingly, there was no fishing activity in Philippine waters by
Americans before the dispatch of the Albatross. The activity did not develop after the surveys.
The importation of marine products, as briefly mentioned above, increased from 1903 to
1909 by 62.8%, far above the increase of 51.7% in the total importation of foods excluding
rice.32 In 1910, it further increased 48.4% from the previous year. Particularly remarkable was
the increase of canned food; from 1903 to 1910, the importation of canned salmon increased
12.4 times in quantity and 8.7 times in monetary value.33 This means that the general Filipino
consumers began to habitually eat not only fresh and dried fish but canned fish as well. The
national census of the Philippines in 1918 states that there were 1,600 kinds of fish in the
Philippine sea area, of which only 100 kinds were available on the market.34 While it is true
that there are many kinds of fish in a tropical area, large hauls cannot be expected as in the
case of salmon and herring in the northern seas. In terms of fishing, American interests were
in the Northern Pacific and Atlantic, where a modern fishery was in operation, and not much
in the Philippines.
30
31
32
33
34
United States Bureau of the Census, comp., Census of the Philippine Islands: Taken under the
Direction of the Philippine Commission in the Year 1903. Washington D.C.: United States Bureau of
the Census, 1905, Vol. IV, p. 534; Census Office of the Philippine Islands, comp., Census of the
Philippine Islands: Taken under the Direction of the Philippine Legislature in the Year 1918, Manila:
Bureau of Printing, 1921, Vol. IV, Part I, pp. 588‒599, 766‒773.
United States National Archives and Records Administration (hereafter USNA), Record Group
350“Records of the Bureau of Insular Affairs,”File 4507“Fisheries-general record,”No. 44, May 1,
1907.
USNA Record Group 350, File 4507, No. 50, November 15, 1912.
USNA Record Group 350, File 4507, No. 52.
Census 1918, Vol. IV, part I, p. 590.
̶ 56 ̶
Concluding Remarks
Fishing activities by Japanese fishermen in Manila Bay in the Meiji period achieved a measure of success, because of the lack of interest on the part of the Unites States in developing
the fishery and the delayed approach to modernizing the fishery on the part of the Philippines. Nevertheless, with no governmental support, the Japanese fishing activities were unstable, mainly involving temporary migratory workers who sought temporary work for high
wages. Although many Japanese fishermen working in the Philippines came from the Seto Inland Sea area, not all of them full-time fishermen in the first place. Rather, they were people
who would go out to sea whenever favorable conditions convinced them to do so. Accordingly, they would have left the sea if they had found good jobs in the city.
Such fishermen were, at the same time, easily taken advantage of by those in power. The
connection between Yamane and the Army was not coincidental, since geographical surveys
were considered invaluable by some Japanese military men eyeing the Philippines as a possible future Japanese colony. While cautious surveillance by the Philippine Constabulary of activities by Japanese residents in the Philippines in those days is discussed in detail in another
paper, some Americans were already realistically considering the possible invasion of the
Philippines by the Japanese, who had already occupied Taiwan. Thus, it was only natural if
Japanese engaged in fishing in Manila Bay, just off the capital of Manila, were viewed as potential spies. Despite such circumstances, however, fishing activities by the Japanese in Manila
Bay were not subjected to any restriction. This is proof that the United States was not greatly
concerned about the Philippines, and the fishermen themselves posed no serious risk. The
Japanese government also made use of the fishermen, but did not attach importance to their
activities. In other words, the fishermen constituted a presence which was not incorporated
into an organization for permanent activities but which was utilized from time to time when
the need arose.
̶ 57 ̶