Do not repress whistleblowing -- Akahata editorial, February 17The Cabinet Office has unveiled its draft bill to "protect whistleblowers for the public interest", but it may instead discourage people from disclosing misconduct. The Koizumi Cabinet plans to introduce the bill in early March.
Recent successive social crimes, such as top non-bank money lender Takefuji Corporation's wiretapping and Mitsubishi Motors' hushing up of user complaints prompt us to enact a bill to protect whistleblowers disclosing anti-social activities by major corporations.
Too high hurdles
The draft bill is designed to protect whistleblowers on social crimes that would affect the lives, bodies, and properties of the people, but it is only applied to criminal cases and those in violation of the laws listed in a separate table.
According to the table, crimes related to the laws on tax, public elections, and political funds regulation are not covered by the bill. Also, charges against tax evasion and illegal fund contributions by politicians are not protected under the bill. To begin with, this kind of bill must be applied to as many cases as possible, and charges against injustices and anti-social activities should be protected fully.
The protection will be applied to active workers, including public officers, retirees, dispatched workers, and employees of companies they do business with, but not to customers. Large corporations' subcontractors will not be included in the proposed bill, quite an unjustifiable matter.
What's more, the government intends to contain whistleblowing within companies and government organizations.
Concerning charges against the press and lawmakers, the bill attaches such severe conditions as cases that need to be protected when: (1) Whistleblowers may be disadvantageously treated as a result of supplying information to corporations and government ministries; (2) sources of information are in danger of being destroyed; (3) whistleblowers are hushed up; (4) no probe is done even after disclosure; and (5) there is an imminent danger for whitsleblowers' lives. These conditions are so harsh that they would discourage whistleblowers from making internal charges.
For example, in making a charge, whistleblowers need to show a 'good reason" supporting the possibilities of their charge being disadvantageous to them and that information sources may be destroyed. Who can show such evidence before making charges?
There's a big difference between the proposed Japanese system and the British system that Japan sees as a "model". In Britain, a whistleblower disclosure will be accepted if he/she "is afraid that he/she will be mistreated because of the disclosure or that evidence may be destroyed.
If an accused company or a government agency neglects to investigate whistleblowers' allegations saying, "We are now investigating it", no matter how half-baked the investigation is, the whistleblower won't be able to accuse it outside of the entity.
Already, many courts have ruled that firing an employee following his/her disclosure of the employer's unjustifiable practices is unlawful. To set stringent requirements on such disclosures will result in lowering the effectiveness of related judicial precedents.
The proposed system has been criticized because "protected areas are too small" and "hurdles are too high for whistlleblowers to disclose misconduct outside of companies or government agencies." Nevertheless, why did the Cabinet Office set forth such stringent requirements? Behind the scene has been strong pressure from business circles.
The Japan Business Federation (JBF or Nippon Keidanren) says, "Whitsleblowing is not something that we should systematically encourage. We should make a system that will not be abused." The JBF wants to narrow as much as possible areas in which whistleblowers are protected so as to prevent disclosures. This is an "anything-goes-for-profits" behavior that throws away corporate ethics and will put corporate management at risk.
Whistleblower protection is not aimed at encouraging employees to "betray" or give an "anonymous tip". Only by setting up such a system can companies discharge a self-cleansing ability and fulfill their social responsibility. This is the way to achieve sound corporate management.
Effective whisleblower protection is called for
Whistleblower protection is a social demand today. If the system prevents from making in-house disclosures, it is tantamount to running counter to the people's demand.
In order to make the system easier to use and more protective of whistleblowers, we demand a drastic review of this system. (end)