By Junko Kaneko

It is ironic that while deliberations about two of the three "media control" bills are under way in the Diet, the media has uncovered more than a few scandals involving Diet members and executives of large corporations. These two bills are the Personal Information Protection Bill and the Human Rights Protection Bill. It should be noted, however, that the deliberations caused a sensation among opposition parties and journalists, and assemblies for arguing against the bills have been held in many parts of Japan. In addition, the two bills must be debated among the political parties. There is no doubt, in any case, that this is a result of the problems which are inherent in the two bills perse.

The Personal Information Protection bill was proposed with the intention of protecting personal information possessed by Government and civilian agencies and to prevent leaks. The fundamental principles are (1) clarification of the purpose in using personal information, (2) its proper obtainment, (3) accuracy of the information, (4) establishment of security against leaks, and (5) allowing participation by the subject of the information.

The Human Rights Protection bill, on the other hand, was originally drafted to establish a committee for protecting against discrimination and maltreatment. The government wants to add to this regulations against the invasion of privacy caused by excessive interviews by journalists.

There are some matters of concern arising from the bills. The first is the vague definition of the agent who deals with private data. What is worse, the Government holds the right to make judgment about whether or not the agent acts within the spirit of the regulations. The second is the fear of invasion of the freedom of expression and the public right to know. And the third is the apprehension for the difficulties of making an accusation against a member of the Diet or big corporations for some injustice.

The Government parties explain to the opposition parties and organs of public opinion that the two bills are not meant to restrict the activities of the mass media. However, the truth of their statement is suspect, because one can easily anticipate the narrowed activities of reporting if the bills clear the Diet. That is, when the press requests an interview to a person who is under suspicion for his or her illegal act, it has to make explicit the purpose of the interview. Moreover, when the media makes a report about the content of the interview, it has to obtain the persons consent to do it. Such things mean that journalists must ask a suspect for permission of their alleged illegal act's, which, therefore, can shelter the suspect. Unless the press fulfills its function of bringing out and deterring wrongdoings of the State, the Government or enterprises, their ways will never change for the better, which will lead people to deepen their distrust of the Government.

Under the present environment we can easily get personal information due to the progress of information technology, and legislation on protection of personal information would definitely be reassuring for all of us. In addition, it is true that excessive reporting acts are apt to invade human rights. What should be noticed, however, is that the passage of those bills in question can inevitably result in the situation where injustices will never come to light, not to mention the unsettled problems about human rights.

Just the other day another scandal about the Government's information management came to light. The Defense Agency's central information office compiled lists of personal data on individuals who had requested some information from the Agency. The scandal occurred in spite of the existing law prescribing that in cases where the administrative organs need to have a file on personal information, they have to specify the purpose of its use and to limit the description to the extent of necessity. This revealed that the coverage of the two bills in question could easily be manipulated. Predictably, these bills may only protect administrative organs. Therefore, the four major opposition parties feel apprehensive and demand the bills' withdrawal or amendment. Many Japanese have misgivings that these bills can ruin the spirit of democracy, and they sincerely hope that they will not be easily passed.