The Yomiuri Shimbun
How does the Democratic Party of Japan think of its responsibility as the largest party in the House of Councillors while the House of Representatives is controlled by the ruling bloc?
We are seriously concerned about the way the DPJ has handled the summoning of Finance Minister Fukushiro Nukaga.
The upper house's Financial Affairs Committee voted Tuesday to summon Nukaga as a sworn witness Monday by a majority of votes by the opposition parties and with the absence of the ruling parties--the Liberal Democratic Party and New Komeito.
After the decision, the Japanese Communist Party said it was a mistake to have voted to summon him. Similar sentiments were echoed within the People's New Party.
In spite of this, the DPJ said it would follow through on its demand to bring Nukaga before the upper house committee.
Under Article 62 of the Constitution, each house is allowed to call a sworn witness to testify as a part of investigations related to the government. Perjury is punishable by up to 10 years in prison under the Diet Testimony Law.
===
DPJ breaking with tradition
For as long as sworn witnesses have been called to the Diet, it has been customary for it to be done through a unanimous vote in one of the houses, to prevent the action from being used arbitrarily and because it could compromise the human rights of sworn witnesses.
The upper house's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee initially endorsed--by a majority of votes from the opposition parties and with the absence of the ruling parties--to summon former Administrative Vice Defense Minister Takemasa Moriya on Nov. 15. Later, the upper house panel revoted in order to make Moriya's summoning unanimous, out of respect to the long-standing custom.
Despite all these factors, the DPJ is sticking to its guns in summoning Nukaga, even if it means the breaking with custom. The party apparently intends to use Nukaga's testimony for political purposes.
We have to say that the DPJ's numerical superiority in the upper house appears to be making the party lose its head.
The issue involving Nukaga surfaced when Moriya, while testifying before the upper house committee, said Nukaga had been present at a dinner between Moriya and a former Yamada Corp. executive, among others. The finance minister categorically denied this and presented his schedule for the day that the dinner meeting took place as well as the testimony of a dinner participant who said Nukaga was not at the dinner.
===
Could spiral out of control
There is no connection between the issue of whether Nukaga attended the dinner and the scandals regarding the Defense Ministry's procurement of defense equipment. It is therefore questionable for the upper house panel to go as far as summoning Nukaga simply over his alleged attendance at the dinner.
"[Whether Nukaga attended the dinner] is not an issue, but there is suspected collusion between politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen," DPJ President Ichiro Ozawa said. If what Ozawa said constitutes the reasons behind summoning Nukaga, the DPJ is summoning him for summoning's sake and not because of any specific suspicions of wrongdoing by the finance minister.
There have been calls within the LDP to summon Ozawa in connection with the receipt of political donations amounting to 6 million yen between 1995 and 2006 from Yamada Corp. by two of Ozawa's political organizations. Ozawa said he returned all the money, but LDP members say Ozawa's mere receiving of the donations from Yamada provides a justifiable reason to summon the DPJ leader.
The ruling parties have an overwhelming majority in the lower house. If the summoning of witnesses through a majority vote becomes the norm, the two houses could end up summoning sworn witnesses as they like. If this happens, it would rightly be called mudslinging, and the Diet would rightly face criticism for shirking its responsibilities.
Summoning witnesses must never be used as a tool for political mudslinging.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Nov. 30, 2007)
(Nov. 30, 2007)
Posts
