[ 解説 ] 玉城知事に対する問責決議案が可決！/ 新垣淑豊

Full Transcript Councilor Miyazato: I'd like to ask Councilor Yoshitoyo Arakaki some questions regarding the censure resolution passed at yesterday's final plenary session. Thank you. Councilor Arakaki: Yes, thank you. Councilor Miyazato: I heard that a censure resolution was passed in the prefectural assembly yesterday, and it was reported in the newspaper, albeit only partially, as the first of its kind in the history of prefectural politics. Councilor Arakaki: Right, it's surprising. I thought there might have been one before, but apparently not. Councilor Miyazato: That's right. So, to make it easier for everyone to understand, could you briefly explain what a censure resolution is? Councilor Arakaki: A censure resolution isn't legally binding, but it's meant to hold someone accountable for political or moral matters, as the name suggests. Yesterday, we had two vacancies, so the system was such that a majority of the 46 members needed to vote in favor for this censure motion to pass. We had 21 members, plus the Speaker, so there were 20 in the chamber. Plus, the Komeito party added 4 members, making a total of 24. Since that's 24 out of 46, it's a majority, and the censure motion was passed against the governor, demanding that he take full responsibility for the Washington office issue. Miyazato: Yes. To be more specific, is it correct to understand this as the governor introducing a salary reduction ordinance, but that was also rejected, meaning he hasn't taken any responsibility at all? Arakaki: That's right. Conversely, some members of the ruling party were saying, "Why didn't they pass this salary reduction ordinance?" I think they're saying he should be held accountable. From our perspective, considering the long-term use of taxpayers' money entrusted to us by the citizens of the prefecture, and the various violations of the Local Government Employee Law and the Local Autonomy Law that have emerged regarding this Washington office, we tried to reject this budget again and again, but they submitted it anyway. Therefore, while the ruling party members bear some responsibility, as representatives of the administration and executive branch, we felt that the organizational management methods and legal aspects of the Washington office that they presented to the governor were simply unacceptable. We also had a special committee on the Washington bureaucracy, and before their report was released, I submitted a proposal for a salary reduction as a sign of my remorse. I repeatedly told them, "No, no, that can wait until our report is presented." But they submitted it anyway, so we rejected it. The response to that salary cut was, "No, that's not right." It was a mere 550,000 yen pay cut, a one-month reduction, and we felt we couldn't accept that. This time, we're filing a censure motion, which is unprecedented in the history of the prefecture's administration. I think we've presented the governor with a fairly heavy burden of accountability. Miyazato: There were two arguments in favor and two against this. What were your impressions? Arakaki: Well, regarding the opposing arguments... These were from the ruling party, and their impression was that the governor should have simply accepted the salary cut. In response to that, including the Washington office issue, they said, "No, the governor is working hard." But just working hard isn't enough. The question is whether results are being achieved. And since it's an administration, whether it's being run legally and properly is a very important issue. As I mentioned earlier, the executive branch has clearly admitted to violating the Local Public Service Act and the Local Autonomy Act, so we believe they should take responsibility for these actions. This is something they, as the heads of the administration, should do. Regarding that responsibility, we submitted a report on the Washington office issue. From our perspective, this report was carefully balanced, and focused solely on presenting the facts as investigated. We aimed to avoid including subjective opinions or aspects of responsibility as much as possible, and strived for unanimous agreement. This was also the chairman's intention, and that's how we proceeded. In response, they began saying things like, "Why are you holding him accountable here when there was no mention of responsibility in that report?" So we responded, "No, no, that's a completely different matter," "He should definitely take responsibility as the head of the administration," While we conceded on the wording of the report, I believe there was a strong sentiment among us legislators that the underlying illegal actions committed by Okinawa Prefecture up to that point should be held strictly accountable. Miyazato: Certainly, some legislators from the ruling party, those supporting the governor, heckled, "There's no mention of responsibility," but that doesn't mean there's no responsibility, right?...