Some key questions skirted

田中前外相の弁明

The central question in the hearing, which was nationally televised for the first time, was whether Ms. Tanaka misused some of the money the government paid her secretaries. She categorically denied the allegation but went little further than that. Council members asked sharp questions but received only vague answers. For all the publicity it attracted, the hearing produced no hard evidence.

Most of the blame for that goes to Ms. Tanaka. The hearing was held at her own request, yet when confronted with critical questions she said she was "not in charge." And when questions focused on details, she often turned to her accompanying attorney for help. Ms. Tanaka, one of Japan's most popular politicians, was supposedly speaking to the nation as well. But in the eyes of many, she must have looked like a different person.

Indeed, her testimony flew in the face of the Diet code of ethics established at the same time that the Council on Political Ethics was created. The charter says in effect that any Diet member suspected of wrongdoing must do everything he or she can do to dispel suspicions. But Ms. Tanaka showed little willingness to get to the truth, disappointing those who had expected her to set an example of integrity.

It is not just Ms. Tanaka who has failed the test of public confidence. The ethics council, having failed to obtain any substantial evidence, has also fallen far short of expectations. Not only has it proved incapable of protecting the prestige of the Diet and the honor of Diet members in general, it has also created a deep sense of frustration among the public, prompting many to question the very reason for its existence.

Two major questions remain unanswered. First, why did Ms. Tanaka hire employees from her family-run company to serve as her public secretaries? Second, why did they receive less pay than they were entitled to? Related to this question is the suspicion, first raised by popular weeklies back in April, that Ms. Tanaka may have pocketed the difference.

Ms. Tanaka told the council that her government-paid aides had stayed on the company payroll because that was their condition for working with her. That reason is understandable in the sense that quitting the company, however temporarily, would have shortened their period of continuous employment and thus reduced their retirement benefits. The fact, however, is that none of them returned to the firm following their stints at her Tokyo office.

Even more doubtful is the way in which their salaries were handled. Allegedly the money paid by the government was first pooled in a company account and then distributed to them in amounts smaller than the official payments. It remains unclear precisely what happened to the rest of the money. Nor is it clear whether the secretaries have received separation allowances. All of this has thrown doubt on the credibility of the accounting records that Ms. Tanaka has submitted to the ethics council.

There is no evidence to suggest a coverup. It can be reasonably said, however, that her testimony has deepened, not reduced, suspicions. One wonders whether Ms. Tanaka now faces the same fate as those "gray officials" implicated in the Lockheed scandal who languished under the shadow of public mistrust for so long that they eventually faded into obscurity. It would be unfortunate, indeed, if the political life of a talented politician like Ms. Tanaka was cut short by a lingering scandal.

The challenge for the ethics council is to follow up the hearing and clarify remaining questions. With the Diet session scheduled to adjourn at the end of this month, there is not much time left to probe the case. But if the panel calls it quits for good, the pay scandal will continue to fester. So far this year two legislators have already lost their Diet seats over similar affairs.

For Ms. Tanaka, the only way to prove her integrity is to provide more accurate and specific answers. For this purpose she should present more bookkeeping records on related matters, including the flow of cash. The council, meanwhile, should seek further testimony from Ms. Tanaka and her associates. It would be better if she testified under oath. If all this is done, Ms. Tanaka and the council will have done the nation a great service.

The Japan Times: July 27, 2002
(C) All rights reserved

      国会が議決した政治倫理綱領によると、不正疑惑のある議員は疑惑払拭のため、できる限りの努力をしなければならない。しかし田中氏は真実を語ろうとせず、正直な答えを期待した人々を失望させた。政倫審も国会の威信と議員一般の名誉を守れず、国民に不満を抱かせ、その存在意義を疑わせた。

      田中氏はなぜファミリー企業の社員を公設秘書として雇ったのか。支払われた給料が所定の額より少ないのはなぜか。氏は給与を流用しなかったか。氏によれば、秘書たち自身が氏の下で働く条件として出向を希望したという。離職で退職手当が減ることを考えれば理解できるが、実際には東京事務所での勤務後に復職した秘書はいなかった。

      隠ぺい工作を示唆する証拠はないが、田中氏の証言でかえって疑惑が深まったようだ。ロッキード事件の灰色高官のように疑惑が残って、氏の政治生命が短くなってしまうとしたら残念だ。

      政倫審の課題は調査を続け、残る疑問を解明することだ。国会閉会をひかえ、調査の時間はあまりないが、政倫審がこれで一件落着としてしまえば疑惑はさらに深まる。潔白を証明する唯一の方法は、金の流れを明示した帳簿等の提出、より正確で具体的な答えを提示することだ。政倫審も田中氏と元秘書の証言を徹底的に聞く必要がある。それをして初めて、田中氏と政倫審は国民への奉仕の役目を果たしたといえる。

The Japan Times Weekly
August 3, 2002
(C) All rights reserved