The political reform outline of １９８９ has become a mere shell - What is Prime Minister Kishida's formulation of
2024-01-22
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Political reform outline formulated in 1989
One faction after another announced that they would be disbanded, and Prime Minister Kishida also mentioned the dissolution of the Kochi-kai. Looking at the Political Reform Outline drawn up in １９８９, we can see that it does little to address the current party ticket issue. This is an outline adopted by the Liberal Democratic Party in the wake of the Recruit Incident. Prime Minister Kishida has said that he will formulate "new rules," but what is the position of the political reform outline that his own party has drawn up in the past? You can read the full text of the outline by clicking on the link, but here we will describe the table of contents and main points.
Excerpt of the Political Reform Outline
Revising and strengthening the Code of Conduct and the Political Ethics Review Board
Enactment of law to disclose assets of members of the Diet to establish political ethics
Strengthening the ban on donations to ceremonial occasions, etc.
Regulations on business card advertisements, New Year's cards, etc.
Strengthening regulations on posters, etc.
Reducing personnel and office costs
Stock trading regulations
Restraint of parties and new regulations
Concentration of donations to political parties and support for member activities
Expansion of public aid to members of the Diet and examination of political party laws focusing on state subsidies
Fundamental reform of the electoral system
Reduction of total constants
Correcting disparities
Fundamental reform of the electoral district system
Exercising the uniqueness of the House of Councilors
Reform of the current proportional representation system
Reducing the total number of constants and correcting the imbalance in the allocation of constants
Enhancing deliberations and easy-to-understand parliamentary management
Respect for majority rule
Achieving efficient parliamentary management
Determination to remove and eliminate the harmful effects of factions
Transition to a modern national party
Reflections of tribal members
Improving the number of winnings system and ensuring that rewards and punishments are mandatory
New rules for determining candidates
Establishment of decentralization The contents that have been formulated have become a mere mere formality.
Has anything been achieved in this? Looking at the recent party ticket issue, it appears that it has largely faded away, but Prime Minister Kishida recently announced that he is considering disbanding the Kochi-kai. Mr. Nikai's Shijo-kai has announced that it will be disbanded, and the Seiwa-kai, which started it, will also be disbanded. Was it because of the faction itself? In short, it was probably a matter of not reporting political funds. Looking at public opinion to date, it appears that the majority opinion was that the existence of factions themselves was not a problem as a forum for policy discussion, and the prosecutor's investigation also focused on undocumented issues.
Is disbanding factions the solution?
Prime Minister Kishida has said that he will create new party rules while dissolving factions, but first he will create check items from this political reform outline and evaluate each item in stages to see what has been achieved and to what extent. Why not consider it? Instead, they will consider "new rules."
Negative aspects of the parliamentary cabinet system
The negative reason for the creation of factions is related to the structure of the parliamentary cabinet system. Personnel decisions within the party are all about internal party theory, and almost everything is shaped by interpersonal relationships. Your treatment will change depending on which trend you go with. Since the prime minister is the leader of the largest ruling party, the choice of leader is based on internal party theory and is determined by votes from party members based on their factions. On the other hand, if we adopt a dual representation system, no matter how many theories we create within the party, the top positions are decided by the people, so there is little point. It is said that in the United States, which has a presidential system, there are almost no cliques like there are in Japan.
Concept of authority in dual representation system
It is said that one of the reasons why Japan has adopted a parliamentary cabinet system is to limit the authority of the top government. The reason is that they do not have much authority in the sense of reflecting on past wars after defeat. For this reason, Japanese politics takes a very long time to make decisions. In that sense, it can be said that the system is very vulnerable to emergencies. In a dual representation system, the people choose the top person, so the quality of their votes is different from that of other members of the Diet. Furthermore, the number of votes that would be obtained based on the assumption that all citizens would participate in the vote would be vastly different. Members of the Diet are simply elected in the regions in which they run for office. For this reason, the president is given greater authority than the prime minister, who is elected by members of the parliament. This authority also exerts great power in emergencies.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Judgment cases seen from the murder of former Prime Minister Abe and the murder of a member of the Diet in the past. [Table of Contents]
Assassination of Inejiro Asanuma
Hyōsuke Niwa stabbed
Shinjiro Yamamura stabbed case
Koki Ishii stabbed
Nagasaki Mayor Shooting Case
Indefinite imprisonment in past examples
Planning is the worst
1 Representative and degree of influence
Life imprisonment or death penalty
Inejiro Asanuma, chairman of the Japan Socialist Party Central Executive Committee, is a 17-year-old right-wing boy, Otoya Yamaguchi, during a speech at the Hibiya Public Hall in Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo on October 12, 1960. The case of being stabbed by an arrow.The criminal Yamaguchi committed suicide in a single room at the Tokyo Juvenile Classification Home on the night of November 2, three weeks after the incident.
October 21, 1990 A former member of the House of Representatives (12th term) belonging to the Liberal Democratic Party and Hyōsuke Niwa, a member of the Aichi Prefectural Assembly (2nd term), was temporarily discharged from hospital due to schizophrenia at the Ground Self-Defense Force station in Nagoya city. He was stabbed in the neck and died the following month.The criminal is readmitted to a mental hospital.
In 1992, on April 12, the day before his visit to North Korea as the leader of the LDP delegation, he was stabbed and killed by a 24-year-old second daughter who suffered from a mental illness at his home. Her second daughter wasdetermined to be incapacitated due to her loss of soul and was not prosecuted, but she committed suicidefour years later.
On October 25, 2002, Democratic Party member Kouki Ishii died after being stabbed in his left chest with a Yanagi knife at his home parking lot in Setagaya Ward. On June 18, 2004, the Tokyo District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment, stating that he could not trust the defendant's alleged "financial trouble" motive.On November 15, 2005, the Supreme Court confirmed a sentence of life imprisonment.
At 7:51 pm on April 17, 2007, Mayor Ito, who was on a tour, arrived in front of his election office in Daikokumachi, Nagasaki City, near JR Kyushu Nagasaki Station. He was shot at around 7:51:45 pm shortly after staff told reporters that the mayor had returned.
On May 26, 2008, the Nagasaki District Court sentencedto death, pointing out that it "shook the foundations of democracy, such as confusing elections."
On September 29, 2009, the appeal trial at the Fukuoka High Court abandoned the first-instance judgment, andwas sentenced to life imprisonment again. In a peculiar case in which the incumbent mayor was shot dead during the election, the suitability of the death penalty for one victim became the biggest issue. Regarding the reason for avoiding the death penalty, Judge Shoichi Matsuo pointed out that "It is necessary to fully consider that there is only one victim."
He then decided that "it is a challenge to democracy, but the motive is a grudge against the victims, not the purpose of obstructing the election itself," and concluded that "the choice of the death penalty must be hesitant."
Regarding the cases where politicians were killed in the past, except for the case where the criminal committed suicide, both the case of Kouki Ishii's murder and the case of Tetsuya Shiroo's shooting have been confirmed as indefinite imprisonment for the murder of one victim.
The murder of former Prime Minister Abe includes social impact, election obstruction, firearms tampering, sword law violation, planning, clear murder, execution of murder, and unclear motives. When considering planning, it is a weapon that manufactures firearms by itself and is prohibited by law that has the ability to kill, which is considered to be the most malicious in terms of planning.
It is not at the level of purchasing kitchen knives in advance at a home improvement store or making a detailed action plan to kill the victim.
There is no doubt that he is one of the most influential people in Japan in terms of social impact, but since he is a general member of the Diet, it is unknown to what extent it will be added.
The motive is attributed to personal grudges, but there is no causal relationship between the suspect's mother and religious groups.There is no causal relationship with former Prime Minister Abe. , I can't find the part that takes into account the situation.
If you look at past examples, you will be sentenced to life imprisonment, but it will be interesting to see if you will be sentenced to death.Former prosecutor Yoji Ochiai points out that there is a possibility of the death penalty, using the death sentence of the first instance of the Nagasaki District Court as an example.
Although it is an epoch-making judgment as a death sentence for the murder of one person, what kind of judgment will the judiciary make regarding planning, its maliciousness, selfish motives, etc.? The anger of the people does not seem to subside.
Former Prime Minister Noda's memorial speech, which maintained his dignity - How did the opposition party members who continued to spit on the deceased listen to it?
Speech by opposition party adviser who attended state funeral
High praise for maintaining dignity
How do future generations view it?
Listening to former Prime Minister Noda's memorial speech, I felt that he had put a little too much into it, but I got the impression that there was no lie in his words. He also said, ``Not attending a state funeral goes against my outlook on life.'' Mr. Noda may have to leave the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan. Other party members are engaging in political activities that are truly vile and the complete opposite of a mourning contest, blaspheming and spitting on the victims who have been left speechless due to their selfish crimes.
Former Prime Minister Noda seemed to be trying to stop this kind of outrageous behavior by party members, but I would like to hear the opinions of Renho and Tsujimoto, who are trying to climb to the lowest level of vulgarity, regarding the speech by the top advisor of the Constitutional Democratic Party. I wanted to see it. In his speech, Mr. Noda stated that his political orientation was different from Mr. Abe, but he praised the character and achievements of the deceased to the fullest and fulfilled the role of a memorial speech.
Japanese children must have been deeply shocked by the unreasonable murder of their country's most important person. On top of that, it is easy to imagine that the members of the Diet who are riding high on the victims and claiming victory will be shocked. As a former prime minister, Mr. Noda deserves praise for at least trying to convey that this is not the case in Japan.
Continuing attacks on the Gaza Strip - What is the definition of a civilian? | The atomic bomb was dropped without any warning.
Regarding the conflict in the Gaza Strip and the invasion of Ukraine, I understand that the concept of war criminals under international law is extremely weak, but I would like to ask about the definitions of civilians, civilian facilities, military personnel, and military facilities. After these wars are over, the international community will need to be redefined.
According to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Americans are members of the National Guard and are allowed to own firearms according to the Constitution's interpretation. Are they civilians or soldiers? For example, in South Korea, where a conscription system is in place, those who have completed their conscription period are registered as reservists. Are they civilians or soldiers?
In the Nanjing Incident, the commander of the Kuomintang army fled, and the Kuomintang army changed into civilian clothes and fled into a private house, where they fought using civilians as shields, but were they civilians or soldiers? I wonder if the private house they barricaded themselves in had become a military facility at that point. Or will it still be a private house?
At the Tokyo Trials, Rabe testified that the Japanese military did not fire on the Nanjing Safety Zone, calling the Japanese invasion a massacre. Civilians in Nanjing were able to escape to the Nanjing Safety Zone, which was demarcated by international law. The Gaza Strip is approximately 50km from north to south, and evacuation to the south would take up to 25km, making it possible to evacuate in one day.
Is the human shield a civilian or a soldier? At the very least, are they risking their lives to protect their homes? Are they civilians or soldiers?
In other words, the international law that judged Japan in the past is weak to this extent, and even today it criticizes the killing of civilians based on this idea, but does not deny wars based on the exercise of the right of self-defense. I'm watching this battle in it. What should be answered is a clear division between civilians and soldiers.
It is said that there were 122 air raids on Tokyo, but each time did the US military notify Japanese civilians that they were about to carry out an air raid? Or, before the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a bomb of another dimension will be dropped that will cause damage over a wide area. Did Truman tell them that it would be difficult to survive there? If it had been done, would Japanese civilians at the time have been evacuated or would they have remained to fight?
Such international laws only have a deterrent effect and have no meaning in actual war.
Korea is opposed to Sado Kanayama's application for registration as a World Heritage site.Japan have evidence that it was not forced labor.
The Cabinet's decision in April 2021 and the inclusion of warship islands as UNESCO World Heritage sites are posted on the grounds that the recruitment at that time was not a forced labor.Forced Labour Convention in 1930.
When registering as a warship island, South Korea strongly opposes it, and Japan has even proposed a draft of the plan, saying that it will support it if it writes forcedlabor.Japan refused, and at the Japan-South Korea Foreign Ministers' Meeting, South Korea finally agreed to write forcedtowork.The Korean side was particular about the description because it knew that forced labor would be described as forced labor in the Forced Labor Convention at that time.Recruitment is not included in forced labor.It is stated in Article 2-2.The recruitment of the General Mobilization Order falls under paragraph (b).
South Korea opposes Japan's move to apply for the registration of Sado Kanayama as a World Heritage Site, saying it will not allow forced labor to be designated as a World Heritage Site.This is just the same view as it was on Gunkanjima.
C029 - Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
ARTICLE 1
1. Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period.
ARTICLE 2
1. For the purposes of this Convention the term forced or compulsory labour shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.
2. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this Convention, the term forced or compulsory labour shall not include--
(a) any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws for work of a purely military character;
(b) any work or service which forms part of the normal civic obligations of the citizens of a fully self-governing country;
(c) any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations;
(d) any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war or of a calamity or threatened calamity, such as fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, invasion by animal, insect or vegetable pests, and in general any circumstance that would endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population;
(e) minor communal services of a kind which, being performed by the members of the community in the direct interest of the said community, can therefore be considered as normal civic obligations incumbent upon the members of the community, provided that the members of the community or their direct representatives shall have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services.
The Japan - U.S. summit meeting will focus on the Ukraine issue, the Taiwan Strait, China, and IPEF. Japan significantly expands defense spending.
Japan's defense spending to expand significantly
Is the U.S. military “involved” or “intervened” in the Taiwanese emergency?
Official White House press conference record
What is Japanese leadership
Ukraine issue is Taiwan issue
What is Asian-based security?
There wasn't much that was announced at the joint press conference following the summit following President Biden's visit to Japan, but it can be summarized as: unity among allies on the Ukraine issue, commitment to the China issue, the Taiwan Strait issue, and the establishment of IPEF. Examples include cooperation in economic initiatives aimed at the future.
If I had to say, the noteworthy points are that the United States supports Japan's bid to become a permanent member of the United Nations, the United States' understanding of Japan's significant expansion of its defense budget, and the fact that the G7 meeting will be held in Hiroshima, and that there will be no rule-based changes to the status quo. The G7 should be a place where both Europe and Asia can come together and reach an agreement that this will not be tolerated.
In response to a reporter's question about whether the United States would intervene militarily in the event of an emergency in Taiwan, President Biden clarified that it would. He said there was no change to the "one China policy" and that this did not mean China had the right to use military force to seize Taiwan. However, there are cases where "get involved to" used here is translated as "involvement" and cases where "get involved to" is translated as "intervention."
In the official White House press conference transcript, Q : You didn't want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons. Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan, if it comes to that?PRESIDENT BIDEN: Yes.
(See link at the bottom of the article). Did Mr. Biden answer in the sense of involvement or intervention? Incidentally, TBS translates it as involvement, while Nippon Television translates it as intervention. Normally translated, it would mean involvement...
In recent years, the United States has begun to say about Japan that it has high expectations for Japan's leadership. Regarding Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the United States has focused on providing weapons and imposing economic sanctions, and has largely remained silent, giving the impression that it is a European problem that should be dealt with by Britain, Germany, and other European countries.
The Japanese government has considered the Ukraine issue as a Taiwan issue from the beginning and has continued to commit to supporting Ukraine, but President Biden's recent remarks may have been made out of the blue at a joint press conference, and the Japanese government may continue to provide weapons as usual. Does this mean involvement by, etc.?
President Biden has also stated that there will be no changes to the Taiwan issue, so it is difficult to interpret this. If the Taiwan Relations Act remains unchanged as before, there is a high possibility that the world will respond in the same way in the event of a Taiwan emergency. In other words, Taiwan will only fight by providing weapons .
The fact that the United States welcomes Japan's significant increase in defense spending also seems to be a message that Japan should take leadership in Asia's problems. Does this mean that if Japan wants to protect the Taiwan Strait, it should do so?
What was clearly evident at this joint press conference was that Prime Minister Kishida himself stated that the Japan-U.S. Alliance is Japan's only alliance, and that Japan is protected by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. In other words, the United States is currently protecting Japan.
This means that Japan will have to significantly expand its defense spending, build up the ability to defend itself, and think about the Taiwanese crisis on its own terms. Otherwise, he cannot become the leader of Asia. If the United States is only indirectly involved, who will protect democracy in Asia? That only exists in Japan.
