Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) won an overwhelming victory in the country's 44th parliamentary elections on Sept. 11. The LDP and its coalition partner New Komeito will continue their political cohabitation to rule the nation.
The recent election's show-stopper was the debate over whether to carry out the privatization of Japan's postal service, which was Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's big election gamble. The election result shows that Koizumi was right to bet on appealing directly to voters to back his reform agenda.
Japan Post is not simply a postal company, but rather a financial services giant that includes a savings bank and insurance business with a combined US$3.2 trillion in assets. The figure is equal to 25 percent of Japan's total savings and two-thirds of its GDP. Thus, Japan Post is what may be regarded as the world's biggest financial institution, whose interest on postal savings is tax-exempt. Eradicating corruption in Japan's postal system and the "black-box" or non-transparent use of savings has been the key to Koizumi's structural reforms since he was head of the postal services agency. His party's victory will further cement his position as prime minister, and leave him free to enact reforms. As a result, postal reform -- which Koizumi believes will establish his place in history -- will be realized.
Three factors helped Koizumi break the political deadlock. First, the reason he was able to fight his way back from what looked like certain defeat was his demand that the issue of postal privatization be put before the people through dissolving the lower house and letting the public decide whether or not they support postal reform. Culturally and historically speaking, Japan is a strongly idealistic nation, so its people generally admire brave warriors who charge forward despite difficulties. Hero worship has long been a mark of the Japanese people, and Koizumi's "epic" stand on reform has impressed the public.
Second, his decision to dissolve the lower house was made at a good time, since it deflected attention from the controversy over whether he would visit Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine on Aug. 15. He did not end up visiting the shrine on that day, at a separate government-sponsored memorial service he offered an apology for Japan's wartime aggression and vowed that the country would never wage war again. This move was admired by the public, and it has paid political dividends by giving Koizumi a five percentage point gain in popularity.
Third, his party's tactic of nominating what the media called "assassin" candidates, especially women, proved a powerful propaganda weapon. This policy has convinced many voters that he's serious about change. The LDP also established a "headhunting unit" to encourage members of the social elite, including celebrities, to run for election. Their participation greatly increased Japan's usually low voter turnout, and helped bolster Koizumi's triumph in parliamentary polls.
Koizumi is one of a small number of strong post-war prime ministers, and his victory indicates a longing for a leader to push through reforms. Japanese society now suffers from a lack of focus, which could arise from public dissatisfaction with Japan's economy and political corruption. It could also be caused in part by anxieties over the pressure from the economic boom in neighboring nations, which has underlined their own loss of national status and lack of direction. But another result of Koizumi's tough stance could be a more aggressive foreign policy, and this is something that should also concern us.
Li Ming-juinn is the chief-editor of the Japanese edition of Issues & Studies, which is published by the Institute of International Relations at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing