Editorial: LDP attitude of preventing freedom of speech is unforgivable
Jul. 7, 2015
At a recent study session of members of the ruling party, lawmakers did not hesitate to make irreverent comments threatening freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The Chugoku Shimbun feels immense concern over these remarks.
The study session was held by the panel on culture and art, made up of younger members of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). In their very first gathering, the participants made a series of comments voicing criticism of news outlets that are opposed to the administration’s security bills. One lawmaker even proposed silencing the media by exerting financial pressure. “The best way to punish the mass media is to deplete their advertising revenue,” he said, suggesting that the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren) be urged to back this idea.
With the effort to pass the security bills in the Lower House not progressing as they wish, their frustration may have prompted them to try shifting the blame to the mass media. This line of thinking, however, is not only unreasonable, it is irrational and vindictive.
But this is not the end of the story. Concerning the press in Okinawa, which strongly opposes the relocation of the U.S. military base to the Henoko district, another lawmaker made the hyperbolic comment, “They have been completely taken over by the left wing.” In addition, Naoki Hyakuta, a writer who was invited to speak at the study session, called for two newspapers in Okinawa to be shut down. Though Mr. Hyakuta later defended his remark by claiming that he was “just joking,” his comment makes clear that he did not understand the gravity of the situation.
News outlets have the responsibility and the authority to monitor the movements of the government and the ruling party. What if such practices are blocked by force? It is very clear what could happen, given the nation’s history where the public wasn’t provided with reliable information during the war years, leading to a horrific outcome.
After a furious response from opposition parties, the LDP wasted little time in meting out punishments to the lawmakers involved. They forbid Minoru Kihara, the director of the LDP’s Youth Division and the leader of the study session, from holding party posts for one year, and issued strict reprimands to three others who made provocative statements.
The LDP’s response shows that the party is seeking to avoid further setbacks to the security bills, whose prospects for passage are still uncertain, despite a significant extension to the Diet session. Still, we don’t believe this issue has been put to rest because it symbolizes the broader arrogance of the Abe administration in refusing to carefully consider other points of view.
As one example, during a session of debate over the proposed legislation, the prime minister himself jeered at a lawmaker from an opposition party, shouting, “Ask your question more quickly.” Moreover, he seems intent on ignoring comments that have been made by constitutional scholars, who insist that permitting the nation to exercise the right of collective self-defense is unconstitutional. Many people will see a link between such behavior and the remarks made by younger LDP lawmakers at the study session.
In the first place, the participants at that session have been close to Mr. Abe and his heavy influence. The unspoken objective of the gathering was apparently to help promote the re-election of the prime minister at the upcoming election of the LDP president in September. Katsunobu Kato, the deputy chief Cabinet secretary, and Koichi Hagiuda, a special adviser to Mr. Abe, also took part in the study session, which was the first meeting of the members of this panel.
The day before yesterday, the prime minister was grilled in the Diet over this matter. However, though Mr. Abe stressed his respect for freedom of the press, he fended off the criticism by saying it was “a private study session,” as if this were a problem not pertinent to his party. And yet the gathering was held by an LDP lawmaker, a public figure, at LDP headquarters. Yesterday, LDP Secretary-General Sadakazu Tanigaki, finally recognizing the seriousness of the issue, said, “These comments have done significant damage to the people’s faith in our party.” The prime minister, too, should note this significance.
The LDP’s attitude toward the media is not the only concern. On the same day that the study session took place, a more liberal group of LDP lawmakers sought to hold another study session, but their plans were thwarted by the LDP leadership. In that session, Yoshinori Kobayashi, a manga artist who is critical of making changes to the interpretation of the constitution with regard to the right of collective self-defense, was expected to take part. The fact that he was prevented from speaking highlights how intraparty discussions have been practically forced out. In the past, the LDP maintained wider latitude for differing views.
Democracy is built on a foundation of free and unfettered news reporting and lively debate. In this light, each government in power must accept the burden of pointed criticism over its policies. If other views are blocked because they frustrate the administration’s aims, this suggests that the policy in question is unfavorable from the start.
(Originally published on June 28, 2015)
The study session was held by the panel on culture and art, made up of younger members of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). In their very first gathering, the participants made a series of comments voicing criticism of news outlets that are opposed to the administration’s security bills. One lawmaker even proposed silencing the media by exerting financial pressure. “The best way to punish the mass media is to deplete their advertising revenue,” he said, suggesting that the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren) be urged to back this idea.
With the effort to pass the security bills in the Lower House not progressing as they wish, their frustration may have prompted them to try shifting the blame to the mass media. This line of thinking, however, is not only unreasonable, it is irrational and vindictive.
But this is not the end of the story. Concerning the press in Okinawa, which strongly opposes the relocation of the U.S. military base to the Henoko district, another lawmaker made the hyperbolic comment, “They have been completely taken over by the left wing.” In addition, Naoki Hyakuta, a writer who was invited to speak at the study session, called for two newspapers in Okinawa to be shut down. Though Mr. Hyakuta later defended his remark by claiming that he was “just joking,” his comment makes clear that he did not understand the gravity of the situation.
News outlets have the responsibility and the authority to monitor the movements of the government and the ruling party. What if such practices are blocked by force? It is very clear what could happen, given the nation’s history where the public wasn’t provided with reliable information during the war years, leading to a horrific outcome.
After a furious response from opposition parties, the LDP wasted little time in meting out punishments to the lawmakers involved. They forbid Minoru Kihara, the director of the LDP’s Youth Division and the leader of the study session, from holding party posts for one year, and issued strict reprimands to three others who made provocative statements.
The LDP’s response shows that the party is seeking to avoid further setbacks to the security bills, whose prospects for passage are still uncertain, despite a significant extension to the Diet session. Still, we don’t believe this issue has been put to rest because it symbolizes the broader arrogance of the Abe administration in refusing to carefully consider other points of view.
As one example, during a session of debate over the proposed legislation, the prime minister himself jeered at a lawmaker from an opposition party, shouting, “Ask your question more quickly.” Moreover, he seems intent on ignoring comments that have been made by constitutional scholars, who insist that permitting the nation to exercise the right of collective self-defense is unconstitutional. Many people will see a link between such behavior and the remarks made by younger LDP lawmakers at the study session.
In the first place, the participants at that session have been close to Mr. Abe and his heavy influence. The unspoken objective of the gathering was apparently to help promote the re-election of the prime minister at the upcoming election of the LDP president in September. Katsunobu Kato, the deputy chief Cabinet secretary, and Koichi Hagiuda, a special adviser to Mr. Abe, also took part in the study session, which was the first meeting of the members of this panel.
The day before yesterday, the prime minister was grilled in the Diet over this matter. However, though Mr. Abe stressed his respect for freedom of the press, he fended off the criticism by saying it was “a private study session,” as if this were a problem not pertinent to his party. And yet the gathering was held by an LDP lawmaker, a public figure, at LDP headquarters. Yesterday, LDP Secretary-General Sadakazu Tanigaki, finally recognizing the seriousness of the issue, said, “These comments have done significant damage to the people’s faith in our party.” The prime minister, too, should note this significance.
The LDP’s attitude toward the media is not the only concern. On the same day that the study session took place, a more liberal group of LDP lawmakers sought to hold another study session, but their plans were thwarted by the LDP leadership. In that session, Yoshinori Kobayashi, a manga artist who is critical of making changes to the interpretation of the constitution with regard to the right of collective self-defense, was expected to take part. The fact that he was prevented from speaking highlights how intraparty discussions have been practically forced out. In the past, the LDP maintained wider latitude for differing views.
Democracy is built on a foundation of free and unfettered news reporting and lively debate. In this light, each government in power must accept the burden of pointed criticism over its policies. If other views are blocked because they frustrate the administration’s aims, this suggests that the policy in question is unfavorable from the start.
(Originally published on June 28, 2015)
