The following editorial appeared in Thursday's Japan News-Yomiuri:
- - -
What kind of society should be created after overcoming a national crisis? It is difficult to say that such a substantial debate has taken place.
The ordinary Diet session has closed. Much time was spent on discussing measures against the novel coronavirus.
It is commendable that, taking into account the spread of infections, the ruling and major opposition parties worked together to pass the revised law on special measures against new strains of influenza, which became the basis for the government's declaration of a state of emergency, and approve the first and second supplementary budgets for fiscal 2020.
Many people cooperated with the requests to suspend business operations based on the special measures law. Although an explosive spread of infections could be contained, the impact on the economy has been severe. A budget that supports the livelihoods of the people is indispensable. It is important for the ruling and opposition parties to collaborate and take appropriate measures to deal with the crisis.
What is regrettable is that the old-fashioned confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties was noticable.
Up until the initial stage of the outbreak, opposition parties such as the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan continued to grill Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on the issue of cherry blossom-viewing parties he organized. Since then, they have focused on the issues of subcontracting and outsourcing, criticizing the high cost of subcontracting administrative work such as for handling the cash subsidies to sustain companies that were included in the supplementary budgets.
The opposition cannot fulfill its role as responsible political parties if it puts priority on trying to damage the image of the Cabinet, rather than making constructive proposals.
The government's actions also raise questions. The bill to revise the Public Prosecutors Office Law to extend the mandatory retirement age of senior prosecutors was criticized by the public for threatening the prosecution's political neutrality. The feeling cannot be denied that the government then seemed to emphasize the size of the two supplementary budgets.
Isn't the prolonged running of the administration and the numerical strength of the ruling coalition holding the most seats in both chambers of the Diet leading to complacency in the government? The prime minister must carry out policies with a sense of tension.
Resuming companies' production activities even in midst of the coronavirus crisis; promoting digitization to give rise to measures against infectious diseases; taking the lead in international cooperation in the face of the U.S.-China confrontation, while solidifying security policies.
The ruling and opposition parties should delve into this pile of domestic and international issues. The government needs to respond positively to deliberations to be held while the Diet is out of session and explain its policies carefully.
Debates between the prime minister and opposition party leaders have not been held, and are continuing to lose meaning. Because each debate runs 45 minutes, opposition parties are demanding a budget committee meeting in which they can ask the prime minister questions for a lengthy time.
It has long been said that there is a growing burden on national politics as the prime minister and Cabinet members are tied up in the Diet. The ruling and opposition parties should seriously consider how to reinvigorate debates between party leaders and conduct Diet deliberations in times of crisis.
The House of Representatives Commission on the Constitution has only held one free debate. It is urged that a bill to revise the National Referendum Law to make the referendum more convenient be passed into law promptly and substantive discussions on the Constitution be held.
Read the original post:
Make active use of deliberations to be held while Diet is out of session - The Advocate
