Better use of talented people

外国籍地方公務員の登用問題

    This is the first time that the Supreme Court has made a decision on the right of foreign residents to assume public positions in Japan. The 15-justice Grand Bench voted 13-2 against the health worker. Ms. Chong filed the suit in 1994 after the metropolitan government turned down her request to take an exam for a managerial post.

    The ruling has tremendous significance. Since day-to-day services provided by local governments directly affect the lives of local residents, many Japanese would have misgivings about foreigners assuming responsible positions in local administrations. But what about foreign residents who, like Ms. Chong, enjoy the special legal status of permanent residency in Japan?

    Ms. Chong, who was born to a Korean father and Japanese mother, has lived in Japan long enough to speak Japanese fluently and understand Japanese culture well. She has experience and expertise as a public-health nurse. Promoting such talented long-term foreign employees should serve the public interest.

    The Supreme Court ruling has two salient features. First, it gives special consideration to a group of managerial local-government civil servants who "perform acts involving the exercise of public authority, such as directly forming residents' rights and obligations and defining the scope thereof, or make decisions concerning major local-government measures, or participate in such decisions."

    The ruling states that, in principle, these local-government employees are assumed to be Japanese nationals since Japan's sovereign power rests with the Japanese people. It defends Tokyo's screening system — which excludes foreign nationals — as a rational one that assumes that those selected for promotion will sooner or later take positions involving the exercise of public authority or the performance of other important public duties and responsibilities.

    The statement could be taken to mean that foreign residents wishing to hold important civil-service jobs in Japan must first get Japanese nationality. The Supreme Court would have done a better job if it had addressed problems involved in the Tokyo system, per se, instead of defending it as a matter of course.

    The ruling, however, does not shut the door to all foreign appointments. It skirts the "legally valid" view of the Cabinet Legislative Bureau, announced in 1953, that civil servants who exercise public authority or participate in the making of public decisions must be Japanese nationals. This is the second feature of the ruling.

    That view is no longer valid. Today, especially in communities where many foreigners live, public policy needs to be administered in ways that reflect their wishes. City halls in Kobe and Kawasaki have hired increasing numbers of foreign residents in recent years.

    The Supreme Court decision does not rule out foreign employment in the civil service. It leaves the door open for employment in non-managerial positions.

    With Japanese society aging rapidly, demand for administrative services in areas such as health care, nursing and welfare is bound to increase.

    Since the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry is moving toward expanding employment of foreign technicians and specialists, such as Philippine nurses, one wonders whether such foreigners will be willing to work in a country where appointments or promotions to managerial positions are effectively closed.

    It is time for Japan to adopt a unified employment policy for foreigners. The nation's challenge is to make better use of talented people, Japanese or non-Japanese. It will be unfortunate if the Supreme Court ruling ends up discouraging prospective long-term foreign residents.

The Japan Times Weekly
Feb. 5, 2005
(C) All rights reserved

      最高裁大法廷は1月26日、訴訟の上告審判決で、15人の裁判官のうち13人の多数意見により「都の措置は、合理的理由に基づいている」との判断を示し、鄭さんは敗訴した。

      在日韓国人の父と日本人の母の間に生まれた鄭さんは日本語を話し、日本文化も十分理解し、保健師としての専門知識も持つ。有能な外国籍職員を管理職に登用することは公共の利益になる。

      最高裁は、（1）住民の権利義務を定め、範囲を確定する公権力を行使し、（2）地方自治体の重要な施策決定や決定に参画する公務員は、「国民主権の原理に照らし、外国人の就任は想定されていない」と判断した。

      「外国人が日本で管理職公務員になるためには帰化する事が必要」ということだろうが、最高裁は都の措置を擁護するよりも、その問題点を精査すべきであった。

      しかしこの判決は、外国人の地方公務員採用を排除するものではなく、非管理職には門戸が開かれている。

      高齢化社会では介護、看護、福祉関係の行政サービスに対する需要が増えると予想される。厚生労働省はフィリピン人看護師のような外国人専門職、技術職労働者の雇用を拡大する意向だ。しかし彼らは、外国人の管理職登用への道を閉ざすような国で働きたいと思うだろうか。

      外国人労働者の雇用について統一政策を作る必要がある。有能な労働者は、国籍に関係なく活用することが重要である。今回の最高裁判断が、日本に永住を希望している外国人を失望させたとすれば、残念なことである。