Japan’s ruling party is seeking a new leader. We are a leading political organization that has dominated power for the past 70 years. The perfect candidate would be popular with the electorate, able to bridge various factions and have an ability to win elections. Above all, they would have no skeletons in the closet or ties to religious cults — and definitely no history of giving potentially illegal political gifts.
When the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) last year set about looking for a new leader, the job description would have read something like that. However, the man who got the job, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, did not get the message. It is bad enough that his public popularity has been underwhelming, leading to a disastrous performance in last year’s general election that left the LDP running a minority government. Now, just as polling season is set to ramp up again, he was caught up in a political funding scandal, trashing a squeaky-clean image that was perhaps his greatest public strength.
Ishiba had admitted to giving gift vouchers worth ￥100,000 (US$670) to 15 first-time lawmakers ahead of a dinner at his official residence. Although they all returned the gifts, the act could be in contravention of political funding laws, although the legislation has plenty of wiggle room.
The vouchers were “prepared at my own personal expense, from my pocket money, in lieu of a souvenir of the dinner and as a gesture of appreciation to their families,” Ishiba said last week when the news broke. “They don’t violate any laws.”
It might be true that his gifts are not criminal — experts are divided — and it might hinge on what exactly was discussed at the dinner. However, the legality is not the core issue: It is a matter of appearances. The only reason Ishiba is in the job at all is because of the scandal that has consumed the LDP for more than a year, in which lawmakers failed to report hundreds of millions of yen in proceeds from fundraising parties. It has led to multiple indictments and the dissolution of almost all the LDP’s factions. Ishiba’s predecessor, Fumio Kishida, stepped down to take responsibility, despite not being personally implicated.
Ishiba’s rationale has rung hollow. The prime minister said that since the gifts were not intended to be used for political purposes, they are harmless. And in any case, he also received such gifts when he was younger, he said. His attempts to deal with the scandal have the air of an “I’m sorry if you were offended” non-apology.
Rather than demonstrate humility, he instead berated a reporter who asked if the gifts contravened political funding laws. The prime minister seemed to seek a “gotcha” moment, demanding they cite precisely which clause and article of the law he might have contravened.
Ishiba likes to carry the airs of being the “smartest person in the room.” That was hardly the time for such preening. If there was nothing wrong with the gifts, then the lawmakers would not be returning them. It is telling that all 15, elected for the first time, seemed to have better political instincts than a man who has spent his career trying to become prime minister.
Of course, you might say the stakes are minuscule, as they often are in Japanese politics. Who can be bought for US$670? However, precisely because of the LDP’s stranglehold on power, the public is distrustful. Resignations have in the past been triggered for very minor infractions, such as distributing melons or paper fans to constituents.
Taken as a whole, the amount spent was ￥1.5 million, or about one-third of the average national salary — not exactly “pocket money,” as Ishiba put it. Especially at a time when voters are incensed not only about the LDP’s use of slush funds, but with inflation and falling real wages, it is hard to understand what the prime minister was thinking. Often thought to be in touch with regular people despite his own rather privileged background, he has misread the situation badly.
The affair has already torpedoed his polling. An Asahi survey found support for his Cabinet dropped 14 percentage points to 26 percent — the same level for Kishida before his resignation, although 60 percent said Ishiba did not need to resign over the incident.
The timing of the scandal, coming just a day after the first public calls within the LDP to remove him, fearing defeat in the upper house elections this summer, would raise suspicions that it is a coordinated effort to push Ishiba out. However, I am not convinced that any of the contenders, including former Japanese minister of state for economic security Sanae Takaichi, whom he defeated in last year’s runoff vote to lead the party, would resonate any better. Others who might make strong candidates could be reluctant to take their shot, when the party commands a weak minority government. It is a matter of debate whether any LDP politician can live up to the standards demanded by the public right now. The party brand itself might be damaged beyond repair.
One thing is for sure: No matter the workplace, if you do not live up to the job expectations, sooner or later you would be shown the door.
Gearoid Reidy is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Japan and the Koreas. He previously led the breaking news team in North Asia and was the Tokyo deputy bureau chief.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS