Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi may have set the stage for his own undoing by betting his political future on reforming the post office, an issue many voters care little about, analysts say.
Koizumi on Monday called early elections for Thursday, in part to punish defectors in his long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), who defeated his plan to privatize Japan Post, which is also the world's largest bank.
But while the issue has consumed him since he was postal minister in 1992 -- Koizumi believes a turn to the free market would help both the post and the economy run better -- many Japanese have other concerns.
"For voters, Koizumi's postal reform is hardly an issue. Voters will be confused about the rationale of the snap election," said Minoru Morita, a well-known political analyst who appears frequently on television.
"If the LDP makes postal reform one of its main campaign platforms, voters will simply ignore it and the party could lose a majority," Morita said.
In 1993, the LDP lost nearly four decades of single-handed rule, spending 10 months in opposition before returning to power through an unlikely alliance with the Socialists.
Now the party is facing an unexpectedly strong challenge from the main opposition Democratic Party, a motley centrist group of former LDP and Socialist lawmakers.
Koizumi has made slitting up the post the center of his domestic agenda, and yesterday said he would punish the LDP defectors who killed the plan in parliament as he tries to rally the party for the election next month.
"I will be merciless. I will decide [candidates] depending only on whether they are against or for the plan to privatize the postal system," he was quoted as saying in the Mainichi Shimbun.
"Koizumi's stubbornness on the postal reforms looks like a folly for voters. Voters will ask, `Why is Koizumi wasting time for an election now?'" said Hiroshi Kawahara, professor of Japanese politics at Tokyo's Waseda University.
"Voters hardly care about the postal reform. They are more concerned about pension reforms, taxes, Iraq and deadlocked talks with North Korea. But this election touches none of them," Kawahara said.
Privatization would have cleared parliament's upper house with up to 17 LDP lawmakers casting dissenting votes. But a staggering 30 LDP members voted against or did not show up for the ballot Monday.
The post office sits on ?355 trillion (US$3.2 trillion) in savings and insurance, effectively making it the world's largest financial institution.
Koizumi believes that breaking it into four entities, including a bank, would give the private sector reason to compete and help Japan out of more than a decade of zero to little growth.
But privatization would likely mean massive job cuts in the postal system while remaining workers would lose job security along with government benefits.
Even so, poll after poll has shown the Japanese public is little interested in the postal reform.
Fewer than one percent of respondents in a July survey by Japan's top-selling daily, the Yomiuri Shimbun, said that privatizing the post was their priority issue.
"The LDP will likely face a very tough election," said Tetsuro Kato, a professor of political science at Hitotsubashi University.
One question is whether New Komeito, a Buddhist-oriented party which provides Koizumi a vital 34 seats in the 480-member lower house, could be tempted to bolt the coalition if the LDP fares poorly.
Koizumi -- who has been in power for more than four years, longer than any Japanese premier in two decades -- vowed he would quit if the LDP and New Komeito together do not secure a majority.
"He is a lame duck. The upcoming election will only confirm the end of the Koizumi government," Kato said.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of