Global Voices Online

Stories

Korea: Upcoming Election

Hyejin Kim · 11:53

lingua → es

Only a few days remain until the presidential election in Korea. While one candidate is much more popular than other candidates according to statistics from major media, a TV panel program, Chujeok 60 Minutes, showed something else. The least popular candidate got the first ranking after analyzing election pledges and realities of their promises.

A netizen shows how big the gap is between popular votes and reliable policies.

정말 나 자신도 반성하고 대선 후보도 반성해야 할 계기가 될 시간이었다고 생각했다. 내가 반성해야 될 이유는 각 후보들의 공약에 대해 자세히 모른다는 것과, 대선 후보들이 반성해야되는 것 중 하나는, 군소 후보인 전관 후보님이 말씀하신 표퓰리즘에 빠진 선거에서 탈피 해야된다는 것. 그리고 또 하나는 공약의 실현 가능성과 그 구체적인 대안이 부족하는 것 이었다. 이는 대선 후보 합동 토론을 보면 알 수 있었다. 그리고 뉴스를 보아도 알 수 있고, 광고를 봐도 알 수 있었다. 예를 들어 정동영 후보. 그리고 권영길 후보. 이 두 후보는 플래시 광고를 통해 이명박을 비난했다. 광고비가 얼만데 비난하는데 사용하는지 이해가 안 갔다. 그리고 뉴스만 터졌다 하면 정동영 이명박 비난 뉴스. 신당의 이명박 까대기. 처음 볼 땐 이명박이 잘못했으니까 했는데, 참 계속 그딴 뉴스 나오는 거 보니 공약은 언제 말씀해주실껀가요, 라는 생각이 들 정도 였다. 그리고 이회창 후보의 경우엔 자신의 세번째 도전이니 뽑아달라고 했다. 이는 망언인지 실언인지 아니면 동정표를 원하는건지 ….

행정과 교수가 나와서 이야기 했는데 공약이 부실 한 건 현 대선 후보를 뽑는 경선에 문제가 있다고 했다. 대선 후보 등록 이전에 뽑아대니 공약에 대해 철저히 준비하는 기간이 짧았다는 것이다. 이 말에 심히 공감했으며 한국 정치의 또 다른 일면을 보는 듯 했다.

공약 호감도, 신뢰도인가 지지도를 나타냈을 때, 사회복지부분과 경제분야에서 문국현 후보가 각각 1위와 2위를 했다. 정동영 후보의 경우 일자리 창출 부분에서 1위를 하였는데, 개인적으로 일자리 창출 부분은 정동영 후보의 공약에 찬성을 안 할 수가 없었다. 하지만 복지 분야에서 그 차이가 드러나 문국현 후보가 1위 정동영 후보가 몇 위였는지 모르겄지만, 그다지 실현 가능성을 비추진 않은 듯 했다. …

아무튼 추적 60분에서 공약 지지도 부분부터 봤는데, 한 가지 웃긴 점은 일자리 창출 부분에서 권영길 후보 문국현 후보 정동영 후보 측 정책실장 인터뷰에서 각 진영에서 공약에 대해 빈약하지만 되도록 구체적인 방안을 제시하고 이해도를 높여주려 하였지만, 한나라당 정책실장은 추상적이거나 공약에 대한 부실함을 드러냈다. 이는 경희대 행정과 교수가 말한 부실한 공약을 말하는 것이 아닌가 싶다. 그러니까 앞서 말했던 경희대 교수의 발언에서 보면, 자신이 각 진영의 공약 실정에 대해 조사를 해보았는데, 급하게 공약을 준비한 진영도 있어서 황당했었다고 했다. …

각 후보들의 공약에 대한 구체적인 대안 미흡.표퓰리즘에 빠진 대선.공약을 신뢰하지 않는 유권자와 공약을 잘 알고 있지 못하는 유권자. 그리고 이명박 후보를 지지하는 지지자들은 이명박을 지지하는 것이 아니라 거북이마냥 오래 살아가고 있는 한나라당이라는 당 하나 때문에 지지한다는 것. 덕분에 올바른 내 마음은 더욱 굳혀졌고…

I think that it is time to reflect on myself and presidential candidates should do so as well. The reason why I should reflect on my conduct is I don’t know well about each candidate’s election pledges. The reason why the candidates should reflect is that they should get away from an election which just focuses on the strong populism. And another one is that it is the impossibility of the accomplishment of election pledges and detailed alternatives. And it was easy to know through candidates’ debates. It’s easy to see through news and advertisements. For example, Jung Dong Young and Kwon Young Kil. These two candidates criticized Lee Myung Bak through flash advertisements. I didn’t understand why they use that much of money to criticize him. Everytime the news appears, they were about news that Jung Dong Young criticizes Lee Myung Bak and new parties blame Lee Myung Bak. When I saw them at first, I thought that Lee Myung bak did something wrong. But the more those criticisms are continued, I wondered when he will talk about his election pledges. And Lee Hoe Chang asked people to vote for him because it is his third challene. Is it some kind of absurd remark or improper remark?…

A professor at the Administration Department said that the reason why the election pledges is unsatisfactory is because of the parties’ primary elections. Being focused on those, they didn’t have enough time to prepare election pledges. If you agree with this, you see another aspect of Korean politics.

When we talk about favor of election pledges, faith, and job-approval, social-welfare and economic parts, Moon Kook Hyun got the first and second ranks. Jung Dong Young achieved the first rank of the aspect of creating jobs. In my opinion, I can’t agree with his pledges….

One funny thing was that Kwon Young Kil, Moon Kook Hyun, and Chung Dong Young talked about their own pledges regarding creating jobs and suggested detailed methods even though they were not excellent. However, explanations of the representative of the Grand National Party were way too abstract or poor. It seems like the poor election pledges that the professor talked about. He mentioned that he went through all pledges from presidential candidates and was perplexed that some parties just made up the pledges….

Insufficiency of detailed pledges of each candidate, presidential election that focuses on populism, voters who don’t trust and don’t know about the contents of the pledges…and supporters of the Grand National Party who don’t support Lee Myung Bak and just support him because he’s from the Grand National Party. Owing to this program, I made up my mind….

A candidate who sent his representative to the panel program is questioned over whether he understands his own policies.

정책에 대해 설명하는데 모두 대선후보들이 나와 설명하는데 한나라당만 왜 이명박이 아니고 다른사람이 나와 말하는거얌?? 자기 정책도 제대로 설명하지 못하는거야? 그런거야? 응~?

While other candidates explained their own policies, Lee Myung Bak of the Grand National Party didn’t do so and another representative did his job instead. Why? Can’t he explain his own policies?

Not a few netizens are surprised with the results of the program.

추적 60분 정말 말 잘 풀어나가준다. 무엇보다 각 공약 검증에 관해서 이야기 하는데, 문국현 후보가 사회양극화 1위…그러니까 복지. 그리고 일자리 창출은 확실히 정동영 후보가 옳은 거 같고, 이명박 후보는 3위 무엇보다 정책실장이 나와서 이야기 해주는데, 문국현 후보나 정동영 후보 그리고 권영길 후보 진영은 말 정말 잘한다. 근데 한나라당은 왜그리 추상적인 단어 많이 쓰냐? 그리고 문국현 후보 일자리 창출 2위였고, 그 다음이 뭐시기였는데 그건 1위… 공약에서 다른 장수 정치인들한테 꿀릴게 없다.

하지만!

추적 60분에서 이렇게 말했다. 공약에 대한 구체적인 대안이 없다. 이건 정말 대공감…

Choojeok 60 Minutes talked about nice issues. About going through election pledges, Moon Kook Hyun got the first ranking for social welfare. In terms of creating jobs, Chung Dong Young is right. Lee Myung Bak got the third ranking. His representative, a policy manager, talked about the pledges. Moon Kook Hyun, Chung Dong Young, and Kwon Young Kil are talking well. But why does the GNP use abstract vocabulary so much? Moon Kook Hyun has also obtained the second ranking about creating jobs…. He is better than any other politicians about pledges.

But!

Choojeok 60 Minutes said this. There is nothing alternatives about election pledges in detail. I absolutely agree….

Some netizens hope that the results of the program might change the result of the presidential election.

사실 문국현 후보 공약이 다 그렇다. 현실적이고 1000명 있으면 999.9명한테 도움 되는 거. 단지 0.001명의 대기업 경영자들 나눠 먹을 게 없지. 저기 꼴찌는 100분 토론때 부동산 투기 근절에 아무 계획없고 그냥 제가 건설회사 사장이었습니다. 허허. 구체적으로 어떻게… 그냥 20년. 허허허. 하긴 그 회사 1조 5천억 딴나라 공사해주고 대금 못받아서 망했지. 그 와중에 지 연봉은 다 챙겨갔고. 직원들이 2,3년씩 가서 일했는데 그대로 다 떼였다. 외화낭비+헛된 강제노역 -_- 온국민을 부도난 현대건설 직원처럼 만들고 싶습니까?

역시 문국현 후보가 압도적이다.
지금 중소기업이 2000만개 일자리 만들고 있고 대기업은 130만 개다. 그나마 들어갔다 다시 짜르지. 세금으로 대기업 지원한다고 일자리가 느는 게 아니다. 오히려 중소기업 망하면 대기업 들어가게만 해달라는 사람이 느니까 대기업 입맛대로 엄청 골라서 비정규직으로 굴려버린다. 문국현 공약 중에서 지금 카드수수료 골프장은 엄청 낮고 영세사업장은 높은 거 조정해서 영세사업장은 1%로 규정해버리겠다는 것도 있단다. 진짜 현실적이다. 널리 알리자. …

Look at Moon Kook Hyun’s pledges. They’re realistic. It will help 999.9 people among 1,000. It just gives disadvantage to 0.0001 people who are big entrepreneurs. A candidate doesn’t have any plan to stop speculation in real estate and just brags he was in charge of a construction company for 20 years….

Moon Kook Hyun is really noticeable. At present, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) make 20 milion jobs and big enterprises make 1.3 milion jobs. Supporting big enterprises with tax doesn’t mean increasing jobs. As people would like to work at big enterprises because MNEs close down, those big enterprises change employees to irregular workers on their own. Accoring to Moon Kook Hyun’s pledges, the card commission of golf courses is very low and the commission of small enterprises is high. He would like to change it and regulate so that the small enterprises can pay 1 percent. It’s really realistic. Let’s let people know about it….

0 comments · »»

Japan: Final Report on Internet Regulation

Chris Salzberg · 05:57

lingua → jp · pt · es

The idea that a country boasting one of the world's most active net cultures, with possibly the world's largest blogosphere and almost certainly its largest online forum, would attempt to regulate online content within its borders may appear to some not only far-fetched, but infeasible. Plans unveiled (with little fanfare) earlier this year by the Japanese government, however, aim to do exactly this, targeting a broad range of content, including blogs and personal homepages, in fairly vague terms.

In an interim report [ja] on the proposed regulation published in June by a study group under the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, the broadest of three major types of online communication to be regulated was expressed in the vaguest of these terms. An article posted in June at atmarkIT explains that:

最後の公然通信は最も対象コンテンツが幅広い。中間報告は「ホームページなど公然性を有する通信コンテンツ」と公然通信を定義する。電子メールなど特定の人とだけ行う私信以外のすべてのネット上のコンテンツが、対象になると見られる。「2ちゃんねる」などの掲示板や、個人のブログも公然通信だ。

The last [type], open communication (公然通信/kouzentsushin), targets the most extensive range of content. The interim report defines open communication as “communication content having openness [kouzensei/公然性] such as homepages and so on”. With the exception of private messages used only between specific persons, in the form of email and so on, it seems that all online content will be targeted. Bulletin board services such as “2-channel”, as well as personal blogs, are also [considered] open communication.

The interim report also recommended that public opinions be sought on the issue, so back in June and July the ministry opened a space on its webpage for people to submit comments. Later coverage [ja] indicated that the government received a total of 276 responses, 222 from individuals and the remaining 54 from organizations. Whereas organizations such as the Japanese telecommunications operator KDDI and Sky Perfect Communications were in favour of legal restructuring but expressed reservations about the regulation of content, the Keidanren, Asahi Television, Fuji Television, Japan's public broadcaster NHK, and the Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association were entirely against the plans. Many organizations, including Yahoo Japan, requested clarity about the range of what exactly constitutes “open communication”.

With the publication early this month of a final report [ja] on the proposed regulations, setting down steps to move ahead and submit a bill to the regular diet session in 2010, the topic has finally entered the spotlight. Blogger tokyodo-2005, who covered the issue extensively while it was in the public comments phase, posted an extensive post on the topic of the final report, translated here in its entirety.

In the post, he began by remarking on the achievement of the 222 individuals who submitted comments against the regulation:

ネットについての規制が政府主導でなされ、ネットの表現の自由が奪われるのではないかというおそれがある、「通信・放送の総合的な法体系に関する研究会」の「中間取りまとめ」に対しては、異例の多さのパブリックコメントが寄せられた（※１）。その多くは規制に反対するものだった。その結果、同研究会が１２月６日にとりまとめた通信と放送を融合させる法制度に関する最終報告書には、反対の声を少し配慮したような表現が盛り込まれた。罰則を阻止したようにも読め、大きな成果といえるかもしれません（ﾊﾟﾁﾊﾟﾁ）。パブコメをお願いするシリーズを展開した当ブログとしても少しほっとしています。しかし、規制は一度始まれば強化されます。しかも、致命的な欠陥である「政府による監督」については「独立行政委員会」を設けるべきだという提言はされていません。このまま、法制化させないように、今後も、声を上げ続けましょう。

An “interim report” of the “study group on the legal system for communications and broadcasting,” in which [it was noted] that regulation of the Internet is led by the government, and that [as such] there is a danger that freedom of expression on the net could be taken away, drew an exceptionally large number of public comments (Note 1). Most of these were against the regulation. As a result, the final report of the same study group about the legislative system integrating communication and broadcasting, summarized on December 6th, included an expression which indicates that the voices opposing [the proposed regulations] may haven been taken into consideration. This may be interpreted [as meaning] that introduction of penal regulations was prevented, which could be seen as a major achievement (applause). As a blog which featured a series [of posts] asking [people to make] public comments, [I was] also somewhat relieved by this. However, once the regulations have been initiated, they will be intensified. And on top of this, regarding “government oversight” — the fatal flaw — there was no motion to recommend establishing an “independent administrative commission”. From here on, let's all continue to raise our voices against [this regulation] being legislated.

まずは、最終報告書（※２）の記述（２１頁以下）から。

First, from the description (below page 21) of the final report (Note 2):

He then quotes directly from page 21 of the final report, translated below:

日本国内では現在、著作権法や薬事法等の個別法において違法情報の発信規制が行われているほか、ＩＣＴ利用環境整備の観点からは、個人の権利を侵害する情報についてプロバイダの責任制限や発信者情報開示請求権を定めたプロバイダ責任制限法が制定されているが、社会的法益を侵害するような違法な情報への法制的な対応は諸外国に比して十分とは言い難い。プロバイダが自主的に行っている対策について、法的根拠等の規律整備を求める声や、迅速な被害者救済を求める声も多い。

At the present time within Japan, the transmission of illegal information is regulated in statute laws of the Copyright Law, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law and so on, and also from the viewpoint of improving the environment of ICT [Internet Communications Technology] usage, service providers limited liability legislation has been enacted regarding information violating the rights of the individual, establishing a limitation of liability and claims rights for service providers with respect to the disclosure of senders' information. However, compared to other countries, it is hard to say that legislative measures, directed at information that violates societal interests protected by law, is itself enough. There are a great many voices calling for the improvement of discipline, with a basis in law, regarding the implementation of countermeasures taken independently by service providers, and demanding that aid [be provided] promptly to victims.

しかしながら、違法な情報に対して国が包括的かつ直接的な規制を課すことは、言論・表現活動の過剰な萎縮を招くおそれがあり、また、ブロードバンド網の発展等を背景にここ数年で急速に開花した我が国の自主・自律を旨とする豊かなネット文化と相容れない可能性が高い。パブリックコメント等でも同様の意見が多数寄せられたところである。

Nevertheless, there is a danger that the government imposing direct and comprehensive regulation with regard to illegal information would invite the excessive atrophy of speech and expression. As well, there is a strong possibility that [such regulation] would be incompatible with the rich net culture that has blossomed rapidly in our country over recent years against a background of broadband network development, one that takes as its principle [the values of] independence and autonomy. In public comments [about the regulation] and so on, opinions of this kind were received in great numbers.

これらを総合的に勘案し、情報通信法という包括的な法制においては、違法な情報に対する国による包括的かつ直接的な規制は当面差し控えることとし、情報通信ネットワーク上で情報を流通させる全ての者が本来遵守すべき最低限の配慮事項を、具体的な刑罰を伴わない形で整備することを検討すべきである。同時に、社会的法益を侵害するものも含め、違法な情報への迅速な対応・被害の防止・被害者の救済を図るため、例えば、関係者の法的責任の明確化や、ＩＳＰ等による削除やレイティング設定等の対応の法的根拠の整備など、行政機関が直接関与しない形での対応を促進する枠組みを整備すべきである。なお、違法な情報の流通状況・被害状況については今後詳細な調査を行い、必要があれば刑罰の付与等の適否についても検討すべきである。

Taking these collectively into consideration, in the comprehensive telecommunications legislation called the Telecommunications Law [Jouhou Tsushinhou/ 情報通信法], comprehensive and direct state regulation against illegal information should be withheld for the moment, and there should be an investigation, in a form not accompanied by concrete punishment, of the minimum items of consideration demanding essential compliance of all users distributing information by means of information and telecommunication networks. At the same time, there needs to be the development of a framework for accelerating a response, in a form which does not involve direct participation of an administrative body, in order to deal promptly with illegal information — including [information that] violates societal interests protected by law — and to prevent injury and attempt to provide relief to victims. [What is needed is] a response with a legal basis, for example clarification of the legal responsibility of authorized people, or, through the ISP , elimination [of service to a user] or establishment of a rating service. Furthermore, in the future, a detailed study should be performed regarding circumstances in which there is a circulation of illegal information, or in which there is injury. If there is a need, the adequacy of punishment, etc., should also be investigated.

The blogger goes on to quote a passage from the interim report (Note 3), translated here:

【具体的には、「公然通信」に係るコンテンツ流通に関して、各種ガイドラインやモデル約款等が策定・運用されていることを踏まえ、違法・有害コンテンツ流通に係る最低限の配慮事項として、関係者全般が遵守すべき「共通ルール」の基本部分を規定し、ＩＳＰや業界団体による削除やレイティング設定等の対応指針を作成する際の法的根拠とすべきである。「プロバイダ責任制限法」などＩＣＴ利用環境整備関係法制度についても、可能な限り一元化すべきである】（１０頁）

In concrete terms, given that various guidelines and model agreements regarding the circulation of contents involved in “open communication” have been laid out and put into effect, as minimal items of consideration regarding the circulation of illegal and harmful content, there should be regulation of the basic part of the “shared rules” with which all persons concerned should comply, which will be a legal foundation for creating policy responses, such as [service] cancellation or establishment of a rating system by an ISP or industry group. Regarding legislation related to improvement of the ICT environment such as “service provider limited liability legislation”, where possible there should be unification (page 10).

The blogger then comments:

両者の違いは、どうやら罰則の有無のようだ。中間とりまとめ段階では、明記されていなかったが、罰則が設けられる予定だったが、最終報告書では罰則をはずす方向で明記されたということらしい。

The difference between the two seems to be the existence/nonexistence of penal regulations. At the stage of the interim report, this was not clearly specified, and although there had been plans to establish such regulations, it seems that what was specified in the final report was [oriented] in the direction of removing them.

もし、そうだとしたら、これはパブコメによるかなりの収穫だと思われる。罰則を伴うということは強制捜査を伴うということで、その場合、いやがらせ逮捕などによって、表現の自由を封殺することができる。しかし、罰則がなければ、強制捜査はできない。

If this is the case, then this seems to be a substantial achievement of the public comments. That there would be accompanying penal regulations means that there would be accompanying compulsory investigations, and in that case, it would be possible, through arresting someone in order to harass them, etc., to suppress current freedoms. However, if there are no penal regulations, then there are no compulsory investigations.

…とはいえ、もし、パブコメでの反対表明がなければ、罰則がつく方向で最終報告書が作成されていたのかと思うと、ぞっとする…。

… even so, when I think that, had there not been public comments expressing opposition, the final report would have been framed in terms of moving these penal regulations ahead, it makes me shiver…

もちろん、【行政機関が直接関与しない形での対応】（最終報告書２２頁）といっても、放送に関する独立行政委員会のない日本では形式的には間接的であっても実質的には直接的な関与となることが十分に考えられるため、油断できないし、【なお、違法な情報の流通状況・被害状況については今後詳細な調査を行い、必要があれば刑罰の付与等の適否についても検討すべきである】（最終報告書２２頁）とまで言っているのだから、なおさらだ。

Of course, even though they write “in a form which does not involve direct participation of an administrative body” (page 22 of the final report), in Japan, where there is no independent administrative committee on broadcasting, even if formally this is indirect, in substance it is conceivable that there could be direct participation. Because of this, we cannot drop our guard, all the more so as they went as far as to write: “Furthermore, in the future, a detailed study should be performed regarding circumstances in which there is a circulation of illegal information, or in which there is injury. If there is a need, the adequacy of punishment, etc., should also be investigated” (page 22 of the final report).

なお、有害情報（違法な情報とは必ずしも言い難いが、公共の安全や秩序に対する危険を生じさせるおそれのある情報や特定の者の権利や福祉にとって有害と受け止められる情報）については、中間とりまとめでも最終報告書でも、ゾーニング規制を採用するべきだと述べており、この点は変更がない。

Furthermore, regarding harmful information (I hesitate to necessarily say illegal information, but information that may possibly give rise to a danger to public safety and order or information perceived as harmful to the rights or welfare of a specific person), in the interim report as well as the final report, it is stated that a zoning ordinance should be adopted.

ところが、最終報告書（２３頁）によると、【具体的にはフィルタリングの提供の在り方について検討すべきである。また、民間事業者による有害か否かの具体的判断を支援するための第三者機関を制度化することについても、その必要性も含め検討すべきである】とされており、危険性が顕在化した格好だ。

However, according to the final report (page 23), it says: “In concrete terms, there should be an investigation about ways of offering a filtering [service]. Also, the investigation should include the necessity of institutionalizing an independent organization to provide aid in judging concretely the harmfulness, or lack thereof, of private business.” There is the appearance of danger having been exposed.

つまり、第三者機関を設けて有害性の判断をする方向へ持って行くようだが、その第三者機関は、政府主導のものとなりそうなのだ。なぜなら、同じページに、【具体的な有害性の判断について、ＩＳＰ等では現実的には個別に判断することが困難だという問題点が指摘されており、現行の自主的な対応では十分ではなく国の積極的な対応が必要との声もある】と明確に書かれているからだ。

In other words, while there appears to be a move in the direction of establishing an independent institution to judge harmfulness, it also seems that this independent institution will be under the direction of the government. Because on the same page, it is clearly written that: “As has been pointed out, the problematic issue is that, realistically-speaking, it is difficult for ISPs to individually make judgements regarding concrete harmfulness, and there are voices that [argue] that the current voluntary response is not enough, and that there is a need for an active effort from the government.”

フィルタリングソフトによって遮断すべき情報の選択に政府が絡むなんてとでもない話だ。到底容認できない。

That the government is going to get involved in selecting, by means of filtering software, what information should be blocked, this is completely outrageous. This absolutely cannot be allowed.

しかも、個人のブロガーの問題だけでなく、いわゆる報道機関にとっても、問題の残る最終報告書となっている。毎日新聞（※４）によると、【新法が制定されれば、影響力の大きいメディアによってネット配信されたコンテンツが政治的に偏っていたり、有害だと判断された場合は配信者（事業者や個人）に対し削除や訂正を求めることができるようになる】という。確かに、その趣旨のことが、最終報告書１７〜２０頁にかけて掲載してある…。

On top of this, this is not just a problem of individual bloggers; for so-called media outlets as well, there remain problems in the final report. According to Mainichi Shimbun [newspaper] (Note 4): “If the new law is established, when contents distributed on the net by influential media are judged politically biased or harmful, it will become possible to cancel [service] of the distributor (businessperson or individual) or demand corrections.” Certainly, this is the substance of what appears in pages 17-20 of the final report…

政府が、メディアに対し、「政治的な偏り」を訂正するよう指摘できる国…それって共産国とか独裁国なみの自由しか与えられないってことではないだろうか…。放送については電波の有限性から説明がなされうるが、そもそも、日本では放送行政を政府が携わっていること自体が問題なのだ（※５）。

A country where the government can indicate to the media to make corrections of “political bias”… doesn't that mean that they are going to give as much freedom as communist countries or dictatorships do?… The explanation of broadcasting begins with the finiteness of radio waves, but from the start, the fact that in Japan the government is engaged in the administration of broadcasting is itself the problem (Note 5).

　本報告書の決定的な問題点は、通信と放送を融合した法制度を設けるに当たって、監督機能を政府から「独立行政委員会」に移すべきだという提言をしていないことなのだ。政府による監督を許す限り、日本の表現の自由は、共産国や独裁国なみだというほかない。

The decisive problem of the report is that, in the establishment of a legislative system that fuses communication and broadcasting, there is no proposal from the government recommending that the supervisory function be transferred to an “independent administrative committee”. As long as government supervision is permitted, Japan's freedom of expression will be nothing more than that of a communist country or dictatorship.

　この点、パブコメでも多くの方が、指摘していたが、「通信・放送の総合的な法体系に関する研究会」は、これを無視した格好だ。

This point was also mentioned by many of the people who made public comments [about the proposed regulation], but the “study group on a comprehensive legal system for communication/broadcasting” appears to have ignored [the point about the supervisory function].

　上記毎日新聞によると、総務省は来年１月にも情報通信審議会（総務相の諮問機関）に制度の見直しを諮問し、新法の具体案を詰めるたうえ、２０１０年の通常国会に提出する構えだという。

According to the above-mentioned Mainichi shimbun [newspaper] article, in January of next year, the Ministry of Home Affairs will consult the Information and Communications Council (advisory organ of the Minister of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications) regarding review of the system, and once details of a concrete proposal for a new law have been worked out, there is a plan to present it at an ordinary session of the National Diet in 2010.

　それまでに、独立行政委員会の必要性をより多くの市民に理解してもらわなければならない。みなで、情報流通させましょう！

Until that time, we need to make more citizens understand the necessity of an independent administrative council. Everybody together, let's spread this information!

Notes for the blog entry are listed below:

4 comments · »»

Russia: Voting in Grozny

Veronica Khokhlova · 00:19

lingua → jp

According to the Central Election Commission's data (RUS), over 99 percent of Chechnya's 580,918 eligible voters showed up for the Dec. 2 parliamentary election - and 99.36 percent of them voted for Vladimir Putin's United Russia party.

According to Reuters, “this was the highest vote for Putin anywhere in Russia, where overall turnout was 62 percent and just over 64 percent of votes were cast for United Russia.”

Journalist Timur Aliev - LJ user timur-aliev - wasn't just a voter in this election; he also ran as a candidate for the Union of Right Forces (SPS), a party that came in third in Chechnya, receiving 449 votes (0.08 percent).

Below is Timur's somewhat surreal account (RUS) of what it took to exercise his right to vote in Chechnya's capital Grozny.

The problem with voting for me was that I lived at one address, but was registered at my old address - in the building where the federals from the commandant's office live now. In other words, it was not clear to me where my current polling station was.

I took a taxi, and we began our search. The first obstacle was that the central street was blocked and it was impossible to get to “[Minutka]” directly from the city center. And so we spent about 20 minutes driving around side streets, before we reached my home neighborhood.

We didn't find the polling station where it used to be - and it wasn't at the children's hospital or the prosecutor's office, either. We tried to drive slowly, looking for some [local election committee]'s sign. But in vain.

We tried to search in another part of the neighborhood. We got to Lenin [Avenue] again. School #46 was our next stop. No one there as well. But the guard suggested that we drive over to school #25.

So we went to the very beginning of Lenin [Avenue] - that's basically the city's edge. There was nothing there, a wasteland where the school used to be - and I didn't even know about it, been too long since I was in this area last. We asked the passerby where school #25 was. They waved - and we, following their directions, drove along the narrow, dirty streets. Then we found it - the school was located in the former kindergarten building. And the polling station was there, too.

Inside, there were surprisingly many people - about 7-10 people were crowding around the table with voters' lists. Three of them had arrived right before us, in a Volga. Later I realized they were observers from the CPRF [Communist Party], they were there to let the election committee's officials know that they'd need the protocols, but they were voting there as well.

I glanced through the list of streets whose residents were supposed to vote at this very polling station. My street wasn't there, but the neighboring ones were. I asked the people sitting at the table. One of them turned out to be the head of the [local election committee], and he recognized me and said: “a-a, he is a frequent guest at our TV.” He asked if I were a lawyer - because of my very knowledgeable performance during the debates - and wished me good luck, saying - we need people like this at the Duma. I gave him a vague ‘hmm' in response.

They handed down the lists to me, so that I could search for my name in them. But I wasn't there. Moreover, of all the buildings that used to stand on our street, there was only one present on the list - the first one. The rest of the people weren't listed. I asked them where they got these data from. From the administration, they'd given it to us, replied one of the committee's members. That is, what happened is that the residents of only one building out of 45 on our relatively short streets had been added to the voters' lists. Even if barely anyone lived there [physically] - but these people hadn't changed their registration addresses, hoping to receive compensation, and they all still live in Grozny - I had seen practically all of them. But still, they were not listed.

Finally, they entered me on the additional voters' list - I was #15 there. I filled in the ballot, and we moved on (but that's a different story).

After some time, as we were driving through “Minutka,” I saw yet another man who had voted at our polling station. He was waiting for a [bus] to take him to the center, which meant that he, just like myself, had come over specifically for the vote.

Here's what's interesting - even if I still lived at my old address, would I feel like searching so intensely for my polling station, considering I didn't have a stake in it and it was a 40-minute walk in the mud away (in the Soviet times, one could get there using public transportation - about five stops with one transfer). I doubt it.

But it turns out people have not been deterred - judging by the official results, they all showed up for the vote. Though, to be fair, it should be noted that with the way they were recording voters in the ruined Grozny, when it's not clear where anyone lives, it wouldn't be an impossible thing to show a 200-percent turnout, by including those additional voters' lists, too.