|
On the evening of January 21, the DPJ Special Secrets Protection Law Strategy Headquarters convened a "Forum for the Abolition of the Special Secrets Protection Law: Let's protect the 'People's Right to Know' and the 'Freedom of Speech'" at the Kenseikinen kaikan near to the Diet. DPJ Diet member Tetsuro Fukuyama (DPJ Next Minister for Foreign Affairs), who debated the legislation in the Special Committee of the House of Councillors during the recent Diet session, served as moderator for a panel discussion.
Panellists were Yukiko Miki, executive director of NPO Access-Info Clearing House Japan, Yoichi Eto, acting chair of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations taskforce on the issue, journalist Toshiaki Hibino, who serves as the Chair of the Shimbun Roren (Japan Confederation of Newspaper Workers
Unions) central committee, Takayuki Yagi, an executive from the Japanese Electrical, Electronic and Information Union, and DPJ member of the House of Representatives Yuichi Goto (Vice Director-General of the DPJ International Department). Approximately 350 people, including trade unions representatives such as those from Rengo, and action groups, as well as individual member of the public, and Diet members from both houses, attended the meeting.
DPJ President Banri Kaieda gave an opening address as host, saying, "In the Diet session at the end of last year, the Abe administration repeatedly forced votes on the special secrets protection act, and enacted it, ignoring the calls from many members of the public, saying: 'This legislation is no good as it is. It will not uphold the public's right to know; neither will it protect the freedom of speech.' We would like to express once again our fury regarding the enactment of this legislation, and the outrages perpetrated by the ruling parties, in particular the LDP. Simultaneously, we hold the strong conviction that whatever it takes, a comprehensive review of this legislation must be undertaken before it is enforced."
Moderator Fukuyama set forth the main problems of the special secrets protection law passed by the government as follows: (1) The legislation was badly written, so that there was a high possibility that information could arbitrarily be designated as secret. (2) There was a grave risk that the public's right to know and the freedom of speech could be infringed upon.
This was clearly demonstrated by a series of controversial remarks made by senior ruling party figures such as the LDP's Secretary General and the Special Advisor to the Prime Minister. (3) The legislation was enacted following forced votes in both Houses of the Diet, and via strong-armed Diet affairs administration perpetuated by the high-handed ruling parties, and
(4) With voices calling for the establishment of a third-party body to serve as a check on the arbitrary designation of secrets by government institutions, a third-party body was suddenly conjured out of thin air by the administration, without any legal foundation.
The first of the panellists to speak, DPJ Diet member Goto, discussed the problems of the government legislation, before going on to explain the content of the DPJ counterproposal. He said the DPJ's position was that "We will keep protection of secrets to the bare minimum necessary, while proceeding with information disclosure." He explained the five legislative proposals aimed for by the DPJ, these being: (1) An official document management law, which would ensure the proper preservation and management of the official documents which form the basis for information disclosure, guaranteeing that they would not be arbitrarily destroyed, as well as making the keeping of written records for Cabinet meetings and the like compulsory.
(2) A revision of the information disclosure law, which would increase the range of information eligible for public disclosure, from the perspective that it is also necessary for the government to enhance information disclosure as well as protecting secrets, and would include a provision for 'in camera hearings' to enable courts to directly examine secrets and judge the appropriateness of their designation. (3) Legislation to establish a committee for proper management of information, which would be established as a highly-autonomous monitoring body, and would eliminate arbitrary designation and control of secrets by government institutions. This legislation would also oblige those persons responsible for managing secret information to report to the committee should they become aware of any designation of secrets that breaks the regulations. (4) A special national security secrets management law, which would ensure that secret information is kept to the absolute minimum necessary, and is effectively managed, by limiting "special national secrets" to the current scope of defines secrets and special defines secrets, plus the minimum amount of information necessary relating to diplomacy and international terrorism, and detailing provisions for effective management of such information. (5) A revision of the Diet law, which would enable the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the House of Councillors to consult with their respective deputies, and when it is deemed necessary, order the heads of government institutions to provide information to the Diet, by for example convening a closed door meeting or similar.
|
