When Chinese personal names are written in Japanese in kanji is there always an obvious reading?


[In their comment to an
answer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2991/are-foreign-
personal-names-usually-written-in-katakana-rather-than-romaji/2992#2992) on
the question ["Are foreign personal names usually written in katakana rather
than Romaji?"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2991/are-foreign-
personal-names-usually-written-in-katakana-rather-than-romaji), user
[sawa](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/users/458/sawa) says:

> ... Chinese names should be written in kanji rather than katakana and read
> by the Japanese pronunciation. For example, 金大中 is キムデジュン, not きんだいちゅう, but
> 毛沢東 is もうたくとう, not マオジードン. ...

This got me wondering, since each Japanese character generally has at least
two readings is there always one clear reading for pronouncing such names?

I expect of course that the "on" readings would be used, but often there is
more than one on reading for the same character.

From the comments so far (no answers yet) this is indeed very interesting, and
on [Zhen Lin's](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/users/578/zhen-lin)
prompting I would like to include Korean names as well despite their being
discounted in the older linked question.




According to
[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E8%AA%9E%E3%81%AB%E3%81%8A%E3%81%91%E3%82%8B%E5%A4%96%E5%9B%BD%E5%9B%BA%E6%9C%89%E5%90%8D%E8%A9%9E%E3%81%AE%E8%A1%A8%E8%A8%98#.E6.97.A5.E6.9C.AC.E8.AA.9E.E5.81.B4.E3.81.8B.E3.82.89.E3.81.AE.E5.91.BC.E7.A7.B0),

> [...]
>
> また、朝日新聞は中国人名のルビを中国語読みで表記している。（グループ会社のテレビ朝日は日本語読み）
>
> [...]
>
>
> 日本漢字音による読みは原則として漢音を用いるが、金日成、済物浦、銭其琛をそれぞれ「きんにっせい」、「さいもっぽ」、「せんきしん」と読むように呉音や慣用音が用いられることも稀にある。また個別の慣用によって、北京をペキン、香港をホンコンと読んだり、台湾の高雄を「たかお」と訓読みしたりする場合がある。

Here is my translation, additions in square brackets:

> [...]
>
> On the other hand, the Asahi Shimbun prints Chinese names with ruby
> annotation giving the Chinese pronunciation. (Asahi Television, which is in
> the same group, uses Japanese readings.)
>
> [...]
>
> As a general rule, Japanese readings [of these names] use kan-on, but in
> rare instances go-on and kan'yō-on are also used: for example, Kim Il-sung
> (金日成), Jemulpo (済物浦), and Qian Qichen (銭其琛) are read respectively as _Kin
> Nissei_ , _Saimoppo_ , and _Sen Kishin_. [Pure kan-on readings for these
> would be _Kin Jissei_ , _Seibuppo_ , and _Sen Kichin_.] Also, it is
> customary to call Beijing (北京) _Pekin_ , Hong Kong (香港) _Honkon_ , and there
> are cases where kun-yomi is used, such as Kaohsiung (高雄) in Taiwan, which is
> called _Takao_.

The same article also describes the corresponding phenomenon in Korean and
Chinese.




Due to a policy called _mutualism_ (treat back the way you are treated),
Chinese names are written in the corresponding Japanese kanji, and are
pronounced with the most typical Japanese on-reading. Korean names are written
in katakana that describes an approximation of the Korean pronunciation. There
are some exceptions for readings that have been established earlier, and for
academic contexts.

Conversely, Japanese names are incorporated into Chinese, being written with
the corresponding Chinese characters, and read in the Chinese pronunciation,
whereas Korean incorporates Japanese names into Hangul with approximation of
the Japanese reading.

However, mutualism in Japanese is not consistent. Japanese has double
standard, and this mutualism only seems to apply to east Asian languages. For
example, English incorporates Japanese names in the given name-family name
order, and if mutualism were to be applied, Japanese should incorporate
English names in family name-given name order such as オバマバラク or ブッシュジョージ
instead of バラクオバマ or ジョージブッシュ, but it is not done in that way. This may be
reflecting some kind of bias in Japanese.

