Lawyer Kiyohara Hiroshi: Saito’s Minimum Response
- An international lawyer has publicly questioned a governor's response to a power harassment finding.
- On March 26, international lawyer Kiyohara Hiroshi, commenting on a Japanese television program, addressed the controversy surrounding Hyogo Prefecture Governor Saito Motohiko and a third-party committee's finding of...
- Saito, at a recent press conference, apologized for the power harassment recognition.
Lawyer Criticizes Governor’s Handling of Harassment Claim
Table of Contents
- Lawyer Criticizes Governor’s Handling of Harassment Claim
- Lawyer criticizes Governor’s Handling of Harassment Claim: A Q&A
- Introduction
- Key Questions and Answers
- What specific accusations led to the controversy?
- What did the third-party committee find regarding the governor’s actions?
- What is the governor’s response to these findings?
- What is the main criticism from international lawyer Kiyohara Hiroshi?
- Why does Kiyohara Hiroshi believe the disciplinary action should be withdrawn?
- What is the significance of the disciplinary action in this case?
- How has the governor justified his actions?
- Summary of Key details
An international lawyer has publicly questioned a governor’s response to a power harassment finding.
On March 26, international lawyer Kiyohara Hiroshi, commenting on a Japanese television program, addressed the controversy surrounding Hyogo Prefecture Governor Saito Motohiko and a third-party committee’s finding of power harassment related to an accusation document.
Gov. Saito, at a recent press conference, apologized for the power harassment recognition. We would like to take the points that fall under power harassment as a third-party committee seriously. We would like to once again apologize to staff who have felt uncomfortable and burdened. I would like to take measures to improve,
he said.
The controversy stems from an incident last year when Gov. saito criticized an accusation document from the former director of the Prefectural Citizens bureau, dismissing it as a lie.
He then instructed staff to find the accuser, leading to the former director being disciplined for three months. The third-party committee deemed the search for the accuser, a move perhaps violating the Public interest Reporter Protection Act, as illegal
and considered Gov. Saito’s actions extremely unfair.
Kiyohara argued that the governor should withdraw the disciplinary action against the former director.
The third-party committee has said that the prefecture’s response is illegal, ineffective and invalid. The third party committee clearly states that disciplinary action on the grounds of sending accusations to the media or reporting public interest is illegal, ineffective or invalid. At least what he has to do as a governor is to withdraw the disciplinary action of the former prefectural resident director for three months of suspension.
Kiyohara Hiroshi,international Lawyer
Kiyohara further explained the complexities of reversing the disciplinary action,noting that the former director is no longer a prefectural employee. We cannot go back and disciplinary action against anyone who is not a prefectural employee.
He reiterated that the governor’s appropriate response is to withdraw the disciplinary action due to it’s illegality.
While the third-party committee did not recognize six out of seven accusations in the document, Gov. Saito stated he was glad that the honor of the staff, businesses and organizations who have been given their real names has been restored.
Kiyohara countered, So what about the honor of the former Director of the Prefectural Citizens Bureau? Unless that [disciplinary action] was withdrawn, the honor of the former Director of the Prefectural Citizens bureau will not be restored.
Gov.Saito, when questioned about the illegality, defended his actions. We will take the points of the third party committee seriously, but the prefecture’s response this time was appropriate.
He justified the search for accusers as an unavoidable response to finding who made it,
and has so far refused to withdraw the punishment.
Lawyer criticizes Governor’s Handling of Harassment Claim: A Q&A
Introduction
This article delves into the controversy surrounding Hyogo Prefecture Governor motohiko Saito and the findings of a third-party committee concerning power harassment allegations. International lawyer Kiyohara Hiroshi provides critical insights into the governor’s actions and responses.
Key Questions and Answers
What specific accusations led to the controversy?
The controversy is centered around a document containing accusations against Governor Saito. The former director of the Prefectural citizens bureau authored the accusation document. The governor dismissed the accusations as a “lie” and instructed staff to find the accuser.
What did the third-party committee find regarding the governor’s actions?
The third-party committee found that the governor’s actions were:
Power Harassment: The committee recognized power harassment.
Illegal Search: The committee deemed the search for the accuser “illegal.”
Unfair Actions: The committee considered the Governor’s actions “extremely unfair.”
What is the governor’s response to these findings?
Governor Saito has:
Apologized: He apologized for the power harassment recognized by the panel.
Defended Actions: He defended his actions, stating the prefecture’s response was appropriate.
Refused to Withdraw Punishment: The governor has so far refused to withdraw the disciplinary action against the former director.
What is the main criticism from international lawyer Kiyohara Hiroshi?
Kiyohara Hiroshi believes the governor should withdraw the disciplinary action against the former director of the Prefectural Citizens bureau. He argues the disciplinary action is illegal because it was based on the former director sending accusations to the media.
Why does Kiyohara Hiroshi believe the disciplinary action should be withdrawn?
Kiyohara’s argument stems from the third-party committee’s assessment that the prefecture’s response was illegal, ineffective, and invalid. He points out that the committee stated that disciplinary action on the grounds of sending accusations to the media is illegal.
What is the significance of the disciplinary action in this case?
The disciplinary action, involving a three-month suspension for the former director, is seen as a critical point. According to Kiyohara, withdrawing this action is essential to restore the former director’s honor.
How has the governor justified his actions?
Governor Saito justified the search for the accuser, stating it was “an unavoidable response to finding who made it.” He has not withdrawn the disciplinary action, despite the committee’s findings of illegality.
Summary of Key details
| Aspect | Description |
| :——————– | :———————————————————————————————————————————————— |
| Accusation | Document containing accusations against Governor. |
| Governor’s Response | Dismissed accusations; instructed search for accuser. |
| Committee Findings | Recognized power harassment, labeled the search for the accuser as “illegal” and “extremely unfair.” |
| Lawyer’s Position | Governor should withdraw disciplinary action against the former director due to the illegality of the initial response. |
| Main issue | Disciplinary action and the governor’s justification for his actions are major points of contention. |