「政倫審」泉房穂さんと考える なぜ自民党は「非公開」を主張?岸田総理の本音は?【スーパーJチャンネル】(2024年2月27日)
Summary
TLDRThe transcript discusses the reasons behind the Liberal Democratic Party's (LDP) insistence on confidentiality and the public's demand for transparency. It highlights that historically, complete non-disclosure has only occurred once in eight instances. The speaker suggests that the debate on public versus private should start with the questioning of witnesses, which should be open to the public. There is a call for a third-party investigation committee to handle the investigation and for politicians to focus on budget discussions and policy-making. The speaker expresses disappointment in the traditional political back-and-forth and emphasizes the need for decisive leadership, particularly from Prime Minister Kishida, to address national concerns and prevent future occurrences. The summary underscores the importance of a thorough investigation, assigning responsibility, and implementing preventive measures to ensure such issues do not recur.
Takeaways
- 🤔 The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is emphasizing non-disclosure, which is a point of contention. Historically, complete non-disclosure has only occurred once in eight instances, suggesting that the current stance may be more about negotiation tactics than a firm policy.
- 📢 The debate over disclosure versus non-disclosure should ideally start with public witness questioning, as this would naturally lead to transparency.
- 🗓️ There is confusion and chaos regarding the schedule for the upcoming session, with even the LDP expressing dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs.
- 📽️ Some members of the LDP are open to partial disclosure, allowing for camera recording at the beginning, but the reasons for not fully disclosing everything remain unclear.
- 🚫 There is a strong resistance from certain individuals within the party against full disclosure, which is causing a deadlock in decision-making.
- 🗣️ The public and even journalists expect transparency and are frustrated with the lack of clear communication from the party.
- 👮♂️ There is a call for a third-party investigation committee to handle the matter thoroughly and allow politicians to focus on their legislative duties.
- 💰 The underlying issue seems to be a negotiation involving the budget, raising concerns about whether political discussions are truly centered around the national interest.
- 👑 Prime Minister Kishida is seen as having the guiding authority to make a decisive decision on the matter, with expectations for a bold and sincere approach.
- 🤝 There is an expectation for the Prime Minister to lead with decisiveness, especially in matters that affect the livelihood of the citizens.
- 📉 The current situation is seen as a regression to old-fashioned politics, which is viewed as regrettable. There is a desire for a more modern and transparent approach to political discussions.
- 🛠️ It is suggested that establishing a third-party investigation from the outset could have been a better approach, and there is a call for a comprehensive investigation to prevent similar issues in the future.
Q & A
Why does the Liberal Democratic Party emphasize non-disclosure?
-The script suggests that the Liberal Democratic Party's emphasis on non-disclosure might be due to internal pressures and historical precedents, with complete non-disclosure only occurring once in eight instances in the past. However, the exact reasons are not clear without direct inquiry from the party members themselves.
What is the significance of starting with a public witness questioning?
-Starting with public witness questioning is significant as it sets the expectation of transparency from the beginning. It implies that if there are witnesses to be questioned, the process should be open to the public, ensuring openness and accountability.
Why is there confusion regarding the schedule for the upcoming session?
-The confusion stems from the ongoing negotiations and the lack of a set schedule. The script mentions that even as the date has been announced, there is still uncertainty due to the opposition's actions and the chaotic situation on the ground.
What are the voices within the Liberal Democratic Party regarding the level of disclosure?
-There seems to be a divide within the party. While some members are open to partial disclosure and allowing camera filming, others are strongly against any form of disclosure, although the exact reasons for their opposition are not specified.
What is the role of the Prime Minister in resolving the issue of disclosure?
-The Prime Minister, in this case, Mr. Kishida, is expected to take a decisive role in guiding the party towards a resolution. There is an expectation for him to make a firm decision that considers both the public's right to know and the party's stance on non-disclosure.
What is the speaker's view on the current state of politics as depicted in the script?
-The speaker expresses disappointment at the continuation of what they perceive as old-fashioned politics. They suggest that the focus should be on substantive issues like budget discussions rather than on procedural matters like disclosure.
Why is the establishment of a third-party investigation committee suggested?
-The speaker suggests a third-party investigation committee to handle the investigation and fact-finding, allowing politicians to focus on their primary roles of budget review and law-making. This would also help in preventing a situation where politicians are investigating themselves.
What is the importance of a thorough investigation into the matter?
-A thorough investigation is crucial for understanding the full extent of the issue, assigning responsibility where it's due, and implementing measures to prevent recurrence. It is seen as a necessary step before any meaningful action or decision can be taken.
What is the speaker's opinion on the effectiveness of witness questioning?
-The speaker expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of witness questioning, noting that many cases end without resolution when witnesses claim not to remember. They advocate for a more structured approach through a third-party investigation.
What historical precedent is mentioned regarding the handling of similar situations?
-The speaker refers to the Kōno Statement, where a third-party investigation was conducted, leading to changes in the electoral system. This is cited as an example of how Japan has effectively handled similar situations in the past.
What is the speaker's view on the concept of 'sincerity' in the context of the discussion?
-The speaker believes that the concept of 'sincerity' should be treated as an exceptional circumstance rather than the norm. They suggest that lying should not be tolerated, and that there should be consequences for such actions, especially in a political context.
What is the speaker's final recommendation for moving forward with the issue?
-The speaker recommends that the investigation should not stop at the current stage but should continue. They emphasize that the current situation is just the starting point, and there is a need for a more in-depth discussion and a thorough investigation to reach a resolution.
Outlines
🤔 Concerns Over LDP's Preference for Non-Disclosure
The first paragraph discusses the LDP's (Liberal Democratic Party) insistence on non-disclosure and the public's desire for transparency. It mentions that historically, complete non-disclosure has only occurred once in eight instances, suggesting that the party is not entirely against openness. The speaker expresses the opinion that if there were to be a witness inquiry, it should be public by default. There's also a critique of the current situation, indicating that the LDP is causing confusion and that even within the party, there's a sense that things are not going well. The speaker calls for a more decisive approach to governance, with a focus on the budget and national issues rather than internal party politics.
📢 The Need for Full Disclosure and Accountability
The second paragraph emphasizes the necessity of full disclosure to understand the entire situation and to hold those responsible accountable. The speaker believes that without a complete understanding, it's not possible to prevent such incidents from happening again. There's a call for a third-party investigation to clarify all aspects and for the Diet (Japanese parliament) to focus on its primary duties such as budget review and law-making. The paragraph also touches on the importance of learning from past incidents, like the Curtis case, where a third-party investigation led to electoral system reforms.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Self-Defense Forces
💡Public Disclosure
💡Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)
💡National Acceptance
💡Witness Summons
💡Parliamentary Debate
💡Third-Party Investigation
💡Budget Review
💡Political Ethics
💡Constitutional Review
💡Accountability
💡Policy-making
Highlights
The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) emphasizes the importance of confidentiality, but historically, complete non-disclosure has only occurred once in eight instances.
Discussions on public disclosure versus confidentiality should ideally begin with witness questioning, which is naturally a public process.
There is confusion and chaos in the current situation, with the opposition party also pushing for their demands, causing delays in decision-making.
Even within the LDP, there are voices expressing that the situation is becoming untenable, indicating internal dissatisfaction.
Some members within the party are open to partial disclosure, but the stance of the remaining members is unclear, suggesting a lack of consensus.
The public is expected to demand a full explanation and accountability from those responsible after understanding the complete situation.
The speaker suggests that a third-party investigation committee should be established to thoroughly investigate and delegate the responsibility to prevent recurrence.
The importance of maintaining the original role of politicians in budget review and law-making is emphasized, separate from the investigation process.
The speaker expresses disappointment in the continuation of traditional politics and calls for a more rational approach.
There is an expectation for Prime Minister Kishida to take decisive action and leadership in resolving the issue.
The Prime Minister's true intentions regarding public disclosure are questioned, with a call for more transparency.
The historical context of non-disclosure in parliamentary history is discussed, highlighting the rarity of complete non-disclosure.
The public's trust is considered crucial, and it is suggested that without a full disclosure, the public will not be satisfied.
The idea of starting with a constitutional basis for questioning witnesses is proposed as a better initial approach.
The potential for memory issues during witness questioning is acknowledged, emphasizing the need for thorough third-party investigation.
The importance of establishing a system where politicians do not have to judge their own actions to prevent a collapse in the political system is discussed.
The speaker references past instances, such as the Curtis incident, where third-party involvement led to significant changes in the electoral system.
The concept of 'kokkenshin' (sincerity) is discussed as an exceptional situation rather than the norm, suggesting it should be treated as such.
The upcoming session is viewed not as the end but as the beginning of a continued discussion and investigation into the matter.
Transcripts
今日は泉さんそして知記者にはなぜ自民党
は非公開を主張するのか総理は公開したい
のかしたくないのかどうすれば国民は納得
するのかというこの3つのテーマについて
お伺いをしていきますえまず泉さんどうし
て自民党はこう非公開にこうこだわるんだ
と思いますでもこれもね成林士も過去見て
も完全非公開なんてのは8回中1回だけ
ですからまそういう意味で普通に考えれば
その全部飛行かないと思うんですけど多分
ここら辺でまさに押したり引いたりが
始まってしまっていてうん結果的にこれで
一部になったとしてもこれで終わって
しまっていけないんであってま本ここの
議論じゃないはずですけどねうんそれより
先の議論ということです公開非公開の議論
をするんだったら初めから証人喚問して
いれば証人喚問は当然公開ですからまそう
いう意味では場の設定が理心じゃなくてま
証人官房でまある意味最初から場を設定し
たが良かったというのが私のあの意見です
けどたださん今も競技が続いて
るってことでこれ本当に明日精できるん
ですかもうあの先週からあこの水木という
日程は出てたんではい常識的には国会の
常識的にはこれやる方向なんですけどうん
あの我々記者としてももう当然そうだと
思ってたんですが本当に現場今大混乱で
先ほどの速も出てましたけどあれまた野党
が蹴ってますからまだ決まってないで前の
日の夕方までこんなことが決まらないって
ちょっと入れにもほがあるという感じでで
これ自民党の中からすらですね今もう王場
際が悪いという声もう本当にうん
レーションは満してますね少しあの自民党
側も一部公開ということでただ冒頭のみ
カメラ撮影OK少しずつ情報はしてます
けどもどうして全部公開とはしないんです
か本当にわかんないんですけどあの嫌がっ
てる方は本当に嫌がってるみたいですね
あのこの中のお2人はですねあの構わない
と言ってるようなんですが残る3人の方は
本当にま何か困ることががあるのかどうか
分かりませんけれどもお嫌がってると本気
で嫌がってるということでまこの中には
ですねもう複数の方記者会見までしてる方
もいますんでそうそうそうそうそう変わら
ないじゃんていうことなんですいやそうな
んですこれもすでに記者会見しておられる
方が同じことを言う可能性高いですから
抑えてくべきことは成林心はま公開非公会
もあるけどもっと大きな論点は偽罪の制裁
ないんですよ仮に嘘をついてもうん
ポイントでまそういう場でどこまで相が
できるかというのは本当に花疑問ですから
うん泉さん元々国会議員でいらっしゃい
ましたけれども何がそんなに嫌なんだろう
なというのがこう推測されましいやそこは
本人に聞かない分かりませんけどただ今回
の様子見ていて私感じるのは昔ながらの
古いまさに政治が続いてることは本当残念
に思っていて結局予算との引き換えみたい
の議論ですやんか本当は国民生活考えた
予算予算でしっかり議論をしこの政も
しっかり議論べなだうんだから私なんかは
もう理心どこじゃなくて第3者調査委員会
を作ってそこでしっかり委ねた上で国会
議員は本来の政治家としての議論を予算
審議してほしいと思うのでもっと昔ながら
のこういったお合いへし合いじゃなくて
ですねちゃんと分けてやったらいいと私は
思いますけどねはいまその中でこう指導権
を取れるとしたら岸田総理だと思うんです
けども岸田総理としてはうんえこのように
述べていましたね適切に国会でご判断さ
れると考えているとまある人言のようにも
感じるんですけども泉さんこういった発言
見てどうですかいやま私はね逆に岸田総理
に期待してるんですよやっぱりなんやかん
や言ってもトップの決断ってのは大きい
ですからある意味岸田総理が思い切って
誠意と仮のもについても思い切った決断を
くし加えて国民生活を救うについても
思いきった決断を果たせばいいと思うので
結局は決断できる政治だと思うので記総理
本当に苦手なこととかちょっと嫌なことは
こう任せてしまうのでやっぱりソダという
のは決断する人だとうん期待したいです
けどね知さんあの岸田総理が公開しようと
思ってるのか非公開にしたいと思ってるの
かこれはどっちなんですあそうですねあの
まこれ昨日の国会のやり取りですけども
もう1つ岸田総理ですねあのま過去にこの
完全非公開は1回だけだとはいこれですね
完全飛公会長い歴史の中でも過去1回しか
なかったこれあの昨日の発言の中であり
まして要するに木田さんの本音としては
もう公開してちゃんと説明席に果たして
欲しいってのは本音なんですよただうん
だったら総裁としてもうちょっとリ発揮し
てくれていいんじゃないのていうのは多分
みんな思ってることででそのあの自民党の
関係者も総理の本音が見えないでもっと
言ってくれればいいのにというところあり
ますねあのもちろんその精錬心っていうの
がそのま自発的なものですんで上からこう
抑えつけて何かっていうことはないという
部分あるにしてもですねまこれが本音なん
だとすればもうちょっというところだと
思います言っときたいんです今この成林書
を開いたところで公開したところで説明
責任をこれで果たしたと言えないと思い
ますし全解明なんてまだまだですからこで
論うんを打ち切ってはいけないと私は思い
ますね井さん今後どういったことを1番
必要になってくると思いますあ国民的に
言えばやっぱ全員を解明して全員を解明し
た後にちゃんと叱るべき責任を取るべき方
が責任を取るそして再発こんなことない
ようにちゃんとした対策を取るとでその
前提は全容解明ですからやっぱり全容解明
は必要だと思いますよで今回の生理心で
全容解明できると思ってる国民はまずい
ないでしょうからまこれはあくまでも突破
校スタートに過ぎないと思いますね
まだまだこの議論はやる必があると思い
ますそのま突破校の1つであるこの成林心
からその後ま例えば参考人承知であったり
証人科とかそういったとこにもついてい
くっていうこと私はそもそも最初から憲法
62条に基づくえまさに承認喚問すれば
良かったと思うのでもうさそこですしただ
証人喚問したところで記憶にございません
と言われて大体終わってしまうケースが
多いのでやはり第3者にしっかりと全用
解明の調査をちゃんと国会が設置してやっ
てもらうでそれをしっかりやりてもらえな
国会議は国会としてうん本来の予算審議と
か法律を作るとで加えて対策も第3者に
委ねて作ってその投資を受けてやらないと
公会議員自身が自分の首を占めるような
まさに崩壊者しますかと議論ですからま
かつてあのまさにクルト事件の時に第3者
に委ねてその投資を受けて選挙制度変えた
経緯もありますからかつてちゃんと日本も
やってきてるんで逆に昔よりも交代してる
ような感じがしますねま今出てますけれど
も政治倫理審査会と証人官にはまこのよう
になどの違いがある強さの違いがあると
いうことですよねそもそも私も弁護士です
けどお金の貸管の裁判でも当然全員先制を
して義象すると罰せられるのが当たり前で
あって嘘をついても許されるなんてことは
普通ないんであって逆に精錬心が非常に
例外的な状況だと思うのでここは抑えて
おいた方がいいと思いますねその中で成林
士も明日となってる状態で明日どういった
こと一番求めます明日がゴールじゃなくて
明日がスタートなんですよ精が23日開い
たからん
なでまー過ないとのり議論を続てくきだと
私は思いはいえここまで泉さんそして者に
話を聞きましたありがとうございました
ありがとうございまし
た
Просмотреть больше связанных видео
TEMPO PASANG BADAN & TANTANG KAPOLDA SUMBAR YG ANCAM CARI SIAPA MEMVIRALKAN KASUS KEMATIAN AFIF
Nadhim Zahawi sacked from UK government after tax row - BBC News
立憲・辻元氏「解散で決着つけたらいい」岸田首相「全く考えていない」 参院予算委で締めくくり質疑(2024年3月28日)
India Paper Leaks: Cheating Plagues India jobs Coveted by millions | Know in detail | UPSC
حفيظ دراجي يطلب من الشعب الجزائري أن لا يتدخل في بقاء أو رحيل بلماضي 🤔
What are Cabinet committees, and why is the CCS the most important? | UPSC
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)