Motohiko Saito, re-elected as Hyogo Prefecture’s governor, begins his second term amid unresolved whistleblower allegations. Concerns remain over potential violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act in his handling of the issue.
Motohiko Saito, who was re-elected in the Hyogo Prefectural gubernatorial election, was sworn in as governor on the 19th, about a month and a half after his election. Governor Saito has begun his second term in office, but the whistleblower issue that forced him to lose his job remains before him. It has been pointed out that the response of Saito and the prefecture after the allegations may have violated the Whistleblower Protection Act. Meanwhile, the government is considering strengthening measures to protect whistleblowers. At his inauguration press conference on the afternoon of the 19th, Saito reiterated his claim that the company’s response to the whistleblower issue so far has been “appropriate and legally without any problem.” The Prefectural Assembly’s Special Investigative Committee (100-Article Committee) is scheduled to question Saito from the perspective of the Protection Act, but he stated that he would “convey my thoughts as usual.” On the other hand, when asked about the Consumer Affairs Agency, which is in charge of the whistleblowing system, considering strengthening its measures with Hyogo Prefecture’s response in mind, he said in an interview with media outlets on the 18th, the day after his election, “I think that is something that the national government will discuss and consider.” The internal whistleblower complaint against Saito was made anonymously in March by a former Hyogo Prefecture director of the Nishi-Harima Prefectural Government (then 60), who cited “seven allegations” against Saito, including power harassment of prefectural employees and receiving gifts from them. When Saito learned of the existence of the allegations shortly after, he instructed then Vice Governor Yasutaka Katayama and others to identify the accuser and conduct an investigation. At a press conference in late March, the government described the contents of the document as “a whole load of lies” and announced that it had canceled the appointment of the former director of the Prefectural Affairs Bureau, who was scheduled to retire at the end of the month. They criticized him as “unfit to be a public servant.” It has been pointed out that such actions are suspected of amounting to “searching for whistleblowers” and “detrimental treatment” of whistleblowers, both of which are prohibited by the Whistleblower Protection Act. Experts point out “unfavorable treatment” Saito also addressed his own… (The following is a paid version, 819 characters remaining) Asahi Shimbun, November 19, 2024, 18:13.
Just like the Human Rights Protection Bill, we need to protect whistleblowers, prevent rape victims from having a second chance, ensure that suspects have a way to prove their innocence, and put in place a system that prevents it from being used to bury political opponents in the dark.
Even large companies were forced to respond to the legal reform, but there are now local governments and local administrative agencies that are intentionally ignoring the law lol. And the local residents are enthusiastically supporting this lol. How dare those local governments tell their citizens to follow the Whistleblower Protection Act. Well, it won’t be a problem if they become independent from Japan lol.
I think the election result was the difference between those who accessed primary information (the circumstances leading up to Professor Iokibe’s death) and made their own decision, and those who didn’t. People who can’t think for themselves will continue to rely on whistleblowers forever.
I wonder why the national government is reluctant to intervene in Hyogo Prefecture’s problems? The police are also reluctant to do anything. Since Japan is a polluted country where the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office is hesitant to even consider a pot, it may be that the only way to reform the world is through violence.
Even if the contents of the document were suspicious, shouldn’t they have asked a third-party committee to investigate, and never tried to find the culprit? Whether or not it constituted a public interest whistleblower should have been decided based on the results of the third-party committee’s investigation.
Comments