In December 2013; the Japanese parliament approved a state secrets law. The leading party, The Liberal Democratic party, tabled the law in parliament. This is the party of the ruling Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The new law was established to protect state secrets. Despite a lot of criticism and stalling attempts from the opposition, the bill was finally approved into law. The upper house, whose majority members are from the ruling party, approved the bill by 130 to 82. This law gives mandate to heads of ministries and agencies to classify 23 types of information related to diplomacy, counterintelligence, counterterrorism and defense for an indefinite period.
The law caused massive outrage from members of the Japanese public. The greatest worry of the Japanese people is that the government officials could use the law to hide information that is embarrassing to them from the public view. The law terms anything relating to nuclear power as a state secret. Critics fear that with this law in place, the public will not know of cases like the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in 2ooo. The law empowers government officials to lock away secrets for as long as 60 years. There are harsh penalties for those who break the law. Government officials who leak secrets get prison terms of up to 10 years if found guilty. Journalists, on the other hand, face prison terms of up to 5 years if they get information, which is classified, through the wrong or inappropriate way. This article attempts to compare and contrast two articles from internet sources expressing opinion on the Japan secrets law. The first source an article by Jake Adelstein from the website of the Japan times newspaper. The second source is a blog article from NPR parallels by the author Lucy Craft.
Both sources agree that the new Secrets Law was not been received warmly by the Japanese people. There has been widespread opposition to the law. The law faced opposition since its discussion stage. There was a heated debate in parliament when the bill was tabled. The discussion almost broke into chaos at some instances. The opposition saw this law as oppression to the rights of the Japanese people and was against it. The efforts to have the bill not approved into law were futile. The leading party has the majority representation in both houses; therefore, the law was approved. The public expressed displeasure on the passing of the bill into law. According to a survey that was conducted in Japan following the passing of the bill, majority of the respondents did not support the law. The respondents wanted the law to be rewritten or scrapped. There were also demonstrations across the country with thousands of people gathering in the street in protest of the controversial law.
Both sources agree that the law is an unsuccessful attempt to adapt the U.S. legislative style. They compare the law with the United States national laws of security. According to the sources, the American policy is to promote democracy an ensure transparency of the government while at the same time safeguarding classified information. This is information that would put the national security at risk if it got in the wrong hands. What the Japanese law does is that it takes everything that is bad about the laws of national security of the United States and leaves out on the safeguards and checks. Without these crucial checks, government is likely to misuse the law to cover-up corruption, scandals and embarrassing information from getting into the public view. Japan does not have a legal history that has shown any protection, by the courts, that prevents any form of interference from the state. Without such checks in place, the freedom of the press is bound to face more challenges, and as such will continue to be the subject of discussion. Legal intimidation and harassment of the press is a probable scenario with the law as it is without the checks.
Both sources also agree that there is a harsh penalty for those who break the law. Any government official, including the diplomats and civil servants, who leaks out a secret, faces a 10-year jail term. A reporter who broadcasts such a secret faces prosecution in court. So a reporter faces a 10-year prison term if found guilty. There is widespread fear that the government may misuse the law. There are no documented records that have shown any ruling by the Supreme Court, in Japan, that favored press freedom. The most notable case was in 1978. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a journalist who had published information on national security, although the United States had declassified the information that he had published. The two sources agree that such harsh penalties will have a negative impact on whistle blowing in Japan. This is because such a whistleblower is likely to face a calamitous sentence in the name of breaching national security by bringing out classified information. These writers also assert that by setting up such harsh penalties for infringements in media conduct, the parliament is making investigative journalism illegal, if not banned. It also terms the move as undermining the principles of confidentiality of the sources of the journalists.
Both sources also criticize Prime Minister Abe for his style of leadership. The secrets law was been crafted hastily. Not all stakeholders were involved. The leading party imposed the law on Japanese citizens by taking advantage of the majority membership in both houses to approve the law. The passing of the tough law affected the Prime Ministers popularity. His style of leadership is one that wants to push a nationalist agenda. One source said that Prime Minister was leading Japan to “the new dark ages.” The involvement of the Prime Minister with the Yakuza is controversial and questionable. The Prime minister had a photo of him taken together with a famous Yakuza financier, Icchu Nagamoto, in 2008. The reluctance of the Prime Minister to put in place regulations for the bill to keep checks on the system is of concern. He admits of the need to put in place such checks but does not keep his word.
The two sources liken the Japan’s secrets law to the U.S. laws on national security. However, the NPR article by Lucy Craft shows the law as a victory to Washington while The Japan Times article by Jake Adelstein does not. The United States had pressured its Asian friends to have more control over classified information for a long time and as such sought to put caps on press freedom. This would allow seamless sharing of information. The United States endorsed the Japan secrets law through its ambassador, Caroline Kennedy. The U.S. sees this as a step towards protecting national security secrets. The U.S. also supports Japan in its endeavor to establish a national security council.
Of the two sources, the article from NPR parallels provides a wider perspective to the issue compared to the Japan Times article. The Japan Times Article shows displeasure towards the Prime Minister’s law and brands him as a person whose word should not be trusted. It refers to the allegations of his involvement with the Yakuza. Abe, the Prime Minister, denied being involved yet he had his photo taken with one of the top financiers of the Yakuza. On the other hand, the NPR parallel article examines both sides of the scenario and seeks views of more people on the issue. Furthermore, it is more factual when compared to the Japan Times article.
Work Cited
Jake Adelstein. “Japan: The New Uzbekistan of press freedom in Asia” (2013) retrieved on 13th march 2014 from
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/11/30/national/japan-the-new-uzbekistan-of-press-freedom-in-asia
Lucy Craft, “Japan’s State Secrets Law: Hailed by U.S. Denounced by Japanese” (2013) retrieved on 13th march 2014 from
http://www.NPR.org/blogs/parallels/2013/12/31/258655342/japans-state-secrets-law-hailed-by-us-denounced-by-japanese
