Japan's Political Fastitiousness and Taiwan's Moral Indifference

Japan's Political Fastidiousness and Taiwan's Moral Indifference
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 24, 2014

Executive Summary: Should Taiwan adopt laws as harsh as Japan's? That is debatable. The real problem is our vast political gray area. It enables opportunists to run amok. Unless this gray area is eliminated, democracy and the rule of law will always be subject to two sets of standards.

Full Text Below:

Two female political superstars in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's cabinet have been implicated in a political scandal. Both have resigned. These two scandals have shattered Abe's two year record of no scandals and no resignations. Abe's approval ratings have again fallen below five percent, a new low since taking office.

This event has two implications. One is the political impact of the event itself. Public support for Japanese cabinet ministers has long risen and fallen in step with their verbal gaffes and involvement in scandals. Officials often find themselves in over their heads. Last September Abe's "Special Secrets Protection Law" ended his honeymoon with the public. Abe is still attempting to stimulate the economy to stop the slide in his support. But with this scandal, Abe's popularity may be a fading memory.

The second is the significance of the event itself. It offers an object lesson in ethics for Taiwan politicians. Two "golden flower ministers" have resigned. Minister of Trade Yuko Obuchi stands accused of misusing campaign contributions. She used political contributions to purchase cosmetics, leather accessories, and other items unrelated to politics. This is considered improper. Minister of Justice Midori Matsushima violated the provisions of the "Japanese Public Official Election Law," which forbids the giving of gifts. She handed out paper fans worth 65 Yen (22 NTD) to voters during political rallies. That is considered bribery" As we can see, the Obuchi and Matsushima scandals were somewhat different. But the two women were forced to step down just the same.

Had these two incidents occurred on Taiwan, would they have led to the same outcome? Probably not. The ruling and opposition parties have created a huge moral "gray area" that enables Taiwan politicians to weasel their way out of any punishment. Voters are easily swayed by histrionics and blind to reason. The media is indifferent to right and wrong. Politicians often misuse small sums, or use campaign contributions for unclear purposes. When indicted, they find it easy to spin their criminal prosecution as "political persecution," or as a "skeleton in the closet" and gloss them over. They refuse to admit wrongdoing, let alone resign. However, In politically fastidious Japan, even if such acts are not illegal, they are considered serious enough to require a resignation. Such acts violate the high ethical standards set by politicians and voters. Politicians are expected to practice "self-punishment" in order to maintain Japan's national image and honor. Clearly a huge chasm separates Taiwan and Japan when it comes to political ethics.

Japanese politicians are scrutinized under a magnifying glass, or even a microscope. In Japan, there is a strong sense of boundaries. What is one's own and what belongs to someone else, is sharply defined. If someone gives you a gift, you must give one in return. As a result the Japanese generally do not give gifts that are too valuable. Otherwise the other party bears too heavy a burden when he reciprocates. In such a culture politicians are terrified of committing even minor infractions. The Japanese emphasize a "sense of shame." For them such acts are considered heinous.

This is why the the Japanese Government established a "Political Contribution Rules Law" to limit politicians' use of funds during election campaigns. The specificity of the law is amazing. The Japanese government has also established a "State Civil Service Law," a "State Officials Disciplinary Law," and a "Public Service Ethics Law," to ensure oversight. During 2008, over 1,400 civil servants worked overtime, late into the night. When commuting by taxi, they accepted beer and snacks from taxi drivers. This led to a massive anti-corruption campaign. Eventually one person was suspended, another eleven received pay cuts, and 21 were forced to make public apologies. The Minister of Finance at the time was also forced to take a two percent pay cut, as an gesture of contrition.

As a result, Japanese officials guilty of even petty offenses have resigned in droves. For example, in 2001 former Democratic Party political superstar Seiji Maehara, accepted 50,000 Yen in foreign political contributions (about 16,000 NTD). He was forced to resign as Prime Minister and apologize. Former Minister of Agriculture Toshikatsu Matsuoka overstated his office expenses in 2007. He eventually committed suicide.

Now compare Taiwan to Japan. Wen-Je Ko set up the MG one hundred forty-nine accounts. Inadequate monitoring enabled a handful of people to control political contributions. Even if the National Audit Office finds no illegal activity, Wen-Je Ko made private use of public funds and is morally culpable. Attempts to investigate tax evasion however, are spun as "political persecution." The Chung Hsing Bills scandal, the Yu Chang scandal, and the Watergate scandal, are spoken of in the same breath. Yet they are cavalierly dismissed as "skeletons in the closet" by the medical community. If the people are willing to accept such low ethical standards, how can democracy and the rule of law progress?

Should Taiwan adopt laws as harsh as Japan's? That is debatable. The real problem is our vast political gray area. It enables opportunists to run amok. Unless this gray area is eliminated, democracy and the rule of law will always be subject to two sets of standards.

從日本的政治潔癖 看台灣的道德麻痺
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.24 02:53 am

安倍內閣的兩位女性明星部長最近捲入政治獻金醜聞，雙雙宣告辭職。這兩樁政治醜聞，打破安倍上台兩年多來零事故、零下台的紀錄，也讓安倍的民意支持度再度跌破五成，跌至就任以來的新低點。

這個事件有兩個層面的意義。首先，是事件本身的政治影響：一直以來，日本內閣的民意支持常隨著閣員失言及涉入弊案等而下滑，甚至跌入下台的深水區。而安倍在去年九月通過《特定秘密保護法》後，其高民意蜜月期便已結束，只是安倍還在強推刺激經濟對策，企圖止住自己支持度的滑勢。而歷經這次醜聞的重創後，安倍的高人氣，恐怕已成明日黃花。

其次，從事件本身的意涵看，這足供台灣政治人物上一堂道德教育課。引咎辭職的兩位「金花部長」，經濟產業大臣小淵優子是被指控「濫用」政治獻金，因為她把政治獻金使用在購買化妝品及皮件飾品等無關政治的事務上，被認為用途不正當；另一位則是法務大臣松島綠，則是違反《日本公職選舉法》不能免費送東西的規定，因為她在造勢場合上發送價值六十五日圓（台幣廿二元）的圓扇給選民，被認為有「賄選」之嫌。可見，小淵及松島的弊案性質雖略有不同，但兩人被迫下台的命運卻沒有兩樣。

值得玩味的是，如果這兩起事件發生在台灣，會不會發展成相同的結局？答案恐怕是否定的。理由是，因朝野長期對峙所形成的巨大「道德灰色地帶」，使台灣政治人物硬拗成習，加上選民的濫情理盲和媒體的麻痺，這類微小金額或用途不清的問題，很容易被政治人物轉化為「政治追殺」或「歷史共業」而輕輕帶過，不僅不會承認錯誤，更遑論辭職下台。然而，對於有政治潔癖的日本來說，不管違法金額大小，這都是一項非下台不可的「重罪」，因為它逾越選民期許政治家高標準的道德紅線，政治家必須要以「自我懲罰」來維護日本國家的形象與榮譽。台灣與日本對於政治人物要求標準的差距之大，可見一斑。

日本會對政治人物以放大鏡，甚至是顯微鏡來檢視，主要源於日本傳統是有極強的「界限」感，什麼是屬於自己的，什麼是屬於別人的，都要劃分得一清二楚。如果別人贈送禮物給自己，事後一定要等價奉還；所以日本人一般送禮都不會送太貴重的東西，以免讓對方承受太重的「回禮」壓力。在這種文化思維下，政治人物哪怕只是半絲一毫的違規，對於強調「恥感」的日本人來說，都是屬於罪大惡極的敗德之舉。

也如此，日本政府制訂「政治獻金規正法」來約束政治人物在選舉資金使用的遊戲規則，其內容規範之細令人嘆為觀止。日本政府也訂定《國家公務員法》、《國家公務人員懲戒法》和《公務人員倫理法》等，作為監督之搭配。在二○○八年，有一千四百多名公務員因夜間加班，在下班搭乘計程車時，接受司機攬客用的啤酒及小吃招待，結果演變成一場大規模反貪腐風暴。最後，有一人遭停職處分，另有十一人減薪，二十一人公開道歉，當時的財務大臣還主動減薪兩成以示負責。

也因此，日本的達官顯要因涉及小額政治獻金之「微罪」而辭職下台者，有如過江之鯽。例如前民主黨政治明星前原誠司，二○一一年便因為收受外國人政治獻金五萬日圓（約台幣一萬六千元），而宣布辭職謝罪，與首相寶座失之交臂。日本前農林水產大臣松岡利勝，二○○七年因浮報辦公室事務費用，最終以自殺謝罪。

從日本回看台灣，柯文哲的ＭＧ一四九帳戶，在欠缺相關監督機制下，讓外界捐款任由少數人掌控，最後即使審計部認定核銷單據未違法，柯文哲仍難脫「公器私用」的道德質疑。但在政治操作下，外界對其涉逃漏稅務與監督的質疑，卻被導引成執政黨的「政治追殺」，甚至和「興票案」、「宇昌案」乃至「水門案」相提並論，說成是醫界的「歷史共業」。人民如果願意接受這樣的和稀泥，民主和法治怎麼可能進步？

台灣要不要把法令制定得像日本那麼嚴苛，有待討論。但真正的問題在，我們在政治上莫大的灰色地帶，正是留給投機者苟且優遊的空間；這個模糊地帶不消除，民主和法治永遠有兩套標準。