Japan right-wing party scores landslide election win

Hawkish Shinzo Abe to return as prime minister, vowing tough stance on China

 

Japan's Yoshihiko Noda,the leader of the losing Democratic Party of Japan, told voters: 'I apologize deeply for our failure to achieve results.' (Issei Kato/Reuters

Japan's Liberal Democratic Party ( LDP) won by a landslide in Sunday's House of Representatives election as it solo secured 294 seats in the election.

The LDP's key ally, the New Komeito Party, got 31 seats, helping the two-party coalition gain 325 seats in the lower house.

The Liberal Democratic Party's (LDP) leader Shinzo Abe served as Prime Minister from 2006 to 2007. (Yuriko Nakao/Reuters)Japan's conservative Liberal Democratic Party returned to power in a landslide election victory Sunday after three years in opposition, exit polls showed, signalling a rightward shift in the government that could further heighten tensions with rival China.

The victory means that the hawkish former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will get a second chance to lead the nation after a one-year stint in 2006-2007. He would be Japan's seventh prime minister in six-and-a-half years.

Public broadcaster NHK's exit polls projected that the LDP, which ruled Japan for most of the post-World War II era until it was dumped in 2009, won between 275 and 300 seats in the 480-seat lower house of parliament. Official results were not expected until Monday morning. Before the election, it had 118 seats.

The results were a sharp rebuke for Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda's ruling Democratic Party of Japan, reflecting widespread unhappiness for its failure to keep campaign promises and get the stagnant economy going during its three years in power.

With Japan stuck in a two-decade slump and receding behind China as the region's most important economic player, voters appeared ready to turn back to the LDP.

A serious-looking Abe characterized the win as more of a protest vote against the DPJ than a strong endorsement of his party.

"I think the results do not mean we have regained the public's trust 100 per cent. Rather, they reflect 'no votes' to the DPJ's politics that stalled everything the past three years," he told NHK. "Now we are facing the test of how we can live up to the public's expectations, and we have to answer that question."

The ruling Democrats, which won in a landslide three years ago amid high hopes for change, captured less than 100 seats, exit polls indicated, down sharply from its pre-election strength of 230.

Calling the results "severe," Noda told a late-night news conference he was stepping down to take responsibility for the defeat.

'It was the voters' judgment to our failure to live up to their expectations.'—Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda on his party's loss

"I apologize deeply for our failure to achieve results," he said. "It was the voters' judgment to our failure to live up to their expectations during our three years and three months of leadership."

The LDP will stick with its long-time partner New Komeito, backed by a large Buddhist organization, to form a coalition government, party officials said. Together, they will probably control about 320 seats, NHK projected — a two-thirds majority that would make it easier for the government to pass legislation.

Noda said a special parliamentary session would be held before year-end to pick a new prime minister. As leader of the biggest party in the lower house, Abe will almost certainly assume that post.

The new government will need to quickly deliver results ahead of upper house elections in the summer. To revive Japan's struggling economy, Abe will likely push for increased public works spending and lobby for stronger moves by the central bank to break Japan out of its deflationary trap.

'Restore some national pride'

Still, some voters said they supported the LDP's vows to build a stronger, more assertive country to answer increasing pressure from China and threats of North Korean rocket launches. Abe has repeatedly said he will protect Japan's "territory and beautiful seas" amid a territorial dispute with China over some uninhabited islands in the East China Sea.
 
The nationalistic, populist Japan Restoration Party is also expected to capture a few seats and perhaps, form a coalition with the new ruling party. (Yuriko Nakao/Reuters)

 "
I feel like the LDP will protect Japan and restore some national pride," Momoko Mihara, 31, said after voting for the Liberal Democrats in the western Tokyo suburb of Fuchu. "I hope Mr. Abe will stand tall."

The LDP may also have benefited from voter confusion over the dizzying array of more than 12 parties.

One of the new parties, the right-leaning, populist Japan Restoration Party, won between 40 to 61 seats, NHK projected. The party, led by the bombastic nationalist ex-Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara and Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto — both of whom are polarizing figures with forceful leadership styles — could become a future coalition partner for the LDP, analysts said.

Ishihara was the one who stirred up the latest dispute with China over the islands when he proposed that the Tokyo government buy them from their private Japanese owners and develop them.

In this first election since the March 11, 2011, earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disasters, atomic energy ended up not being a major election issue even though polls show about 80 per cent of Japanese want to phase out nuclear power.

'We're not like Germany'

In the end, economic concerns won out, said Kazuhisa Kawakami at Meiji Gakuin University.

'The economy has been in dire straits these past three years, and it must be the top priority.'—Shinzo Abe

"We need to prioritize the economy, especially since we are an island nation," he said. "We're not like Germany. We can't just get energy from other countries in a pinch."

The staunchly anti-nuclear Tomorrow Party — which was formed just three weeks ago —captured between six and 15 seats, NHK estimated.

Abe's Political History

During his previous tenure as prime minister, Abe pursued a nationalistic agenda pressing for more patriotic education and upgrading the defence agency to ministry status.

He also insisted there was no proof Japan's military had coerced Chinese, Korean and other women into prostitution in military brothels during Japan's wartime aggression in Asia. He later apologized but lately has suggested that a landmark 1993 apology for sex slavery needs revising.

Abe has said he regrets not visiting Yasukuni Shrine, which enshrines Japan's war dead, including Class-A war criminals, during his term as prime minister. China and South Korea oppose such visits, saying they reflect Japan's reluctance to fully atone for its wartime atrocities.

Tomorrow Party head Yukiko Kada said she was very disappointed to see LDP, the original promoter of the nuclear energy policy — and still the most pro-nuclear party — making a big comeback.

Abe, 58, is considered one of the more conservative figures in the increasingly conservative LDP.

It remains to be seen how he will behave this time around, though he is talking tough toward China, and the LDP platform calls developing fisheries and setting up a permanent outpost in the disputed islands, called Senkakus by Japan and Daioyu by China — a move that would infuriate Beijing.

The LDP wants to revise Japan's pacifist constitution to strengthen its Self-Defence Forces and, breaching a postwar taboo, designate them as a "military." It also proposes increasing Japan's defence budget.

It's not clear, however, how strongly the LDP will push such proposals.

"The economy has been in dire straits these past three years, and it must be the top priority," Abe said in a televised interview. "We must strengthen our alliance with the U.S. and also improve relations with China, with a strong determination that is no change in the fact the Senkaku islands are our territory." - CBCnews

Related posts:
Japan's war planes F-15 fighter jets against a Chinese suveilance plane over Diaoyu Islands 
75th anniversary of Nanjing massacre

China Dream a nightmare for others?

New Communist Party chief Xi Jinping’s ‘China Dream’ speech raises concern among foreign countries, especially those locked in territorial disputes with China, such as Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines.

THE “China Dream” is a phrase that has appeared in plays and books, but it recently got an airing at the topmost echelon of power when new Communist Party chief Xi Jinping used it to rally the nation.

Making his second speech since taking over as China’s top leader last month, Xi outlined what he deemed the greatest dream for China: realising the revival of the Chinese nation.

He said: “Everyone is talking about a China Dream. I believe the revival of the Chinese nation is the greatest dream of the nation since modern times. We are at the closest point to the Chinese nation’s resurgence than any time in modern history... and I am sure we will accomplish our goal.”

Xi’s choice of words has sparked a new craze over the phrase China Dream, with netizens rendering their own definitions of “zhongguo meng”, such as a corruption-free country.

Many believe the new leader was trying to mobilise domestic support for his agenda of continuing reform and opening up, by inspiring people towards a China Dream – the title of a 1987 play about a Chinese couple dreaming of success in the United States.

“It also serves to galvanise the people’s support and rally the public around the new administration’s economic and political agenda,” said Professor Wang Dong, an international studies expert at Peking University.

But a closer analysis of Xi’s speech makes one wonder if there is cause for concern for foreign countries, especially those locked in territorial disputes with China, such as Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines.

First, he chose to make the speech at the National Museum, where he and six other members of the apex Politburo Standing Committee had viewed the iconic China’s Road To Renaissance exhibition late last month.

Visitors tend to spend at least two hours at the exhibition, which begins with narratives of China as a weak country that suffered humiliating defeats and the loss of sovereign territories to foreign powers around the early 1900s.

It then traces the country’s efforts to rise from the ashes, which gained speed after the reforms and opening up under late leader Deng Xiaoping in 1980s.

Given the symbolic setting, the natural fear is that part of Xi’s China Dream may include taking a tougher stance towards foreign countries that China perceives to be threatening again to grab its territories.

There were hints in his speech when he said: “Looking back at our past, we can see that if we are lagging behind, we will suffer beatings. Only when we advance, then can we be strong.”

Also, the phrase “China Dream” evokes memories of a 2010 book by a People’s Liberation Army officer, which advocated a speedy strengthening of China’s military might or risk being sidelined by the US.

In his Chinese-language book, The China Dream, Senior Colonel Liu Mingfu wrote that “as long as China seeks to rise to become world No. 1... then even if China is more capitalist than the US, the US will still be determined to contain it”.

“If China in the 21st century cannot become world No. 1, cannot become the top power, then inevitably, it will become a straggler that is cast aside,” added Col Liu, who is a professor at the National Defence University.

If Xi was indirectly backing Col Liu’s beliefs, it could hint at more aggressive moves by Beijing in dealing with foreign countries in future.

For some, it may have already happened. On the day Xi sketched his idea of the greatest dream for China, news broke that police in southern Hainan province would get new powers to intercept foreign ships in the contested South China Sea.

Though it is unclear whether the new rules taking effect next month would be limited to only Hainan island’s territorial waters within 12 nautical miles, the move has given some of its neighbours sleepless nights.

It has also unnerved non-claimant countries such as Singapore, which places great value on regional peace and freedom of navigation.

To be fair, China is not the only claimant state stirring up the waters in the maritime hub lately. Others have taken similar actions.

Also, to be sure, some believe that Xi’s China Dream pertains mostly to improving the people’s lives through better jobs and better rule of law.

In that sense, it does not differ much in essence from the American Dream, which promises equal and fair opportunities for all, in pursuit of a better life. Or the Singapore dream, which epitomises the prospects of a successful life gained through hard work.

But niggling concerns remain, given that China’s new commander-in-chief could fan or yield to more nationalistic sentiments by taking a more hawkish foreign policy stance, particularly if domestic political problems persist.

Said Professor Taylor Fravel, a China expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: “Xi’s speech suggests that he may be more willing to invoke nationalism, but at this point it is too soon to tell how this will affect China’s foreign policies.”

After decades of promising a peaceful rise, it would be a shame if Beijing starts to grow its might at an unhealthy pace or flex it aggressively, which could worsen already frayed ties with its neighbours and destabilise the region.

While China and its people are entitled to pursuing their dream after decades of setbacks, it is also in the country’s interest to continue to act like a responsible global power by showing sensitivity to others in the region.

A dream for China should not become a nightmare for the rest of the world.

By Kor Kian Beng, China Correspondent  The Straits Times/Asia News Network

New beginning in Malaysian strata property management?

With more and more people living in stratified buildings, the new Strata Management Act is timely in helping to reduce animosity among residents and owners during dispute resolutions.

Act for peace: An effective and efficient dispute resolution mechanism will help promote peace and good neighbourliness in stratified buildings.

LAST Sunday, I attended the annual general meeting (AGM) of the management corporation of an upmarket condominium as a proxy for my wife. Its last AGM was held in September last year.

This AGM was by far the most heated and disorderly since the management corporation was set up some six years ago. A fight almost broke out despite the presence of representatives of the Commissioner of Buildings (COB) and the police.

Let me now share with you my personal thoughts about the AGM, before examining whether the new Strata Management Act (SMA), when it comes into force, will help minimise and remove such animosity which appears to be rather prevalent and common among occupants living and undertaking business in stratified buildings.

In fact, trouble was already brewing before the AGM. In the AGM notice sent to owners of all the 170 parcel units, all the three outgoing 2011/2012 Council (CM2012) members – in their 30s (let’s call him CM1), 60s (CM2) and 70s (CM3) – jointly signed and attached a three-page letter containing allegations of impropriety against the previous Council (CM2011) members.

The CM2011 members, through their lawyers, demanded that their written explanatory response also be circulated to all the parcel owners before the AGM. This was refused.

Drama-charged

The situation was aggravated when CM2, the outgoing CM2012 chairman, used his welcoming speech, delivered in Mandarin, to reply to CM2011 members’ written explanatory response, which was also not circulated during the AGM. He also attempted to make more allegations of impropriety against CM2011 members until I intervened because the latter had not first been given any opportunity to be heard. Procedurally also, this should not have been done before first electing the chairman of the AGM.

I also observed that each time someone spoke up against any resolution proposed by CM2012, CM3 would shout and try to interrupt and intimidate the speaker. A fight almost ensued when some parcel owners confronted CM1 and CM3 during the break. They wanted to know why their parcel unit numbers had been displayed on the notice board as not having settled a one-time payment of RM400 for upgrading work, approved in the 2010 AGM. The parcel owners felt aggrieved that they had been publicly shamed, claiming and showing proof that at the time the notice was put up, CM1, CM2 and CM3 as Council members themselves had failed to pay maintenance charges for a few months, but their parcel unit numbers were not mentioned in the said notice. CM3 then raised his walking stick cum foldable chair, wanting to strike his fellow septuagenarian CM2011 member who questioned him until he was restrained by police and the former’s wife.

(Interestingly, I was informed by the COB that a fight virtually broke out before him during the extraordinary general meeting of a nearby condominium on Oct 28 when chairs were also thrown! Fortunately, goodwill prevailed when the injured decided not to press any criminal charges.)

The AGM then proceeded with election of 2012/2013 Council members. The House decided to elect only seven Council members. Eight owners were nominated. When the COB suggested that voting could be dispensed with if the House decided to change the number to eight, CM2 strenuously objected. CM2 vociferously proclaimed that he could not accept the CM2011 Chairman into the new Council. When one of the eight said he would withdraw so that the number could be reduced to seven, CM2 objected too because that would mean CM2011 Chairman would get elected. It was obvious to everyone present that there is a lot of bad blood between CM2 and CM2011 Chairman. Then almost half of those present who are owners living in the condominium walked out in protest.

Nevertheless CM1, CM2 and CM3 were elected even though it was obvious that they did not enjoy any support from the live-in owners. Their support came, instead, from the proxies. Twelve proxies who were present actually represented owners of 48 parcel units. CM1, CM2 and an estate agent who is also an owner (EA), were also each a proxy to several parcel unit owners. It was abundantly clear that these proxies were mainly CM2’s friends.

When challenged whether these proxies knew who the principals/owners they were representing, the mainly Mandarin-speaking group just remained silent. But CM2 openly instructed them on how to vote and they voted according to his instructions. If voting had been done by show of hands, CM1, CM2 and CM3 could have lost, but it was done by poll where the proxies’ votes are calculated according to all their principals’/owners’ shares of the parcel units.

In fact, this expressly went against the COB’s circular that a person can be a proxy to only one owner at any one general meeting. According to the management office, just like last year, CM2012’s supporters’ completed proxy forms were submitted in bulk by CM2 and EA, that is, they were not submitted individually by either the owners/principals or their proxy holders. No verification was also done whether the owners/principals did personally execute the proxy forms or whether the owners/principals and proxies knew each other.

It is sad to see that the live-in owners who were present were powerless to decide on the affairs of their condominium which they know most. Instead, these outsiders (one of them a former gardener at the condominium), who appeared bored and lost throughout the proceedings when English was used, had the ultimate say.

To my mind, the entire AGM is invalid as the legality of the proxies’ appointment and voting is seriously in doubt because it has also gone against the law of agency.

In fact, I had raised this issue of manipulating the proxy voting system even way back in June last year in my article, “Resolving tenancy disputes” (Sunday Star, June 12, 2011). I also subsequently had a brief SMS discussion with the Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung.

I am glad that the SMA has now made the one-proxy-one-owner rule clear in paragraph 18 of the Second Schedule. However, in light of the above and the relaxation of quorum requirement, paragraph 18 should be amended to state that only an owner’s immediate family member, tenant or attorney (appointed by way of a power of attorney) is qualified to be his proxy. If the owner is a corporation or organisation, the same principle should also apply in that there should be a close nexus between the owner and his proxy.

This will also compel owners to take more responsibility and a keen interest in the management affairs of their properties by making an effort to attend the general meetings. Such an amendment is not required to be tabled before Parliament as the minister is empowered to do so under Section 152 of the SMA.

Timely law

That said, assuming the SMA is in force now, the above fiasco could have been avoided. Under the new law, the Council will be known as a management committee and no committee member shall hold office for more than three consecutive terms. Also, a committee member will be deemed to have vacated his office if his conduct brings discredit on the management committee.

Most importantly, any dispute or altercation among owners living in stratified buildings can be resolved through the Snatrata Management Tribul. Hence, the Tribunal ought to be set up expeditiously unlike the Strata Titles Board which was never set up since the enabling provision was first inserted in the Strata Titles Act, 1985 (Act 318) in December 2000.

With an effective and efficient dispute resolution mechanism in place, this will help promote peace and good neighbourliness in stratified buildings. A lot of precious time can also be saved during general meetings. For example, in the Dec 9 AGM, CM2011 and CM2012 members seemed to be more obsessed with each other instead of discussing real issues such as lax enforcement of House Rules, the recent robbery-cum-rape case that reportedly took place and the appearance of a large crack on the exterior wall of the building next to one of its columns.

Similarly, the performance of the managing agent engaged by CM2012 at RM8,000 per month was not discussed. In my view, the performance of CM2011 members in managing the condominium is better than the said managing agent’s. Not to mention, they did it voluntarily. In this respect, I must register my agreement with Chor that registered valuers should not have monopoly over the management of stratified properties because strata owners must be allowed to have a choice and the right to decide who is best to manage their building.

As a whole, congratulations are in order for Chor, Datuk Seri Douglas Uggah Embas, Minister of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) and their ministry officials in revamping the laws relating to strata management. When the SMA comes into force, the Housing and Local Government Ministry will take over from the NRE in monitoring the management of all stratified buildings and the operation of the SMA. Act 318 has also been amended and the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 will be repealed.

Time will only tell how successful the SMA is in coming to grips with multifarious problems faced by those who live and do business in stratified buildings. But it cannot be gainsaid that this new law marks a new beginning of a comprehensive legal framework in strata management.

Comment by Roger Tan

> The writer is a former chairman of the Conveyancing Practice Committee of the Malaysian Bar Council. 

Related posts:
Good property management, maintenance add value 25 Nov 2012
Is property building management a professional? 08 Nov 2012
Managing strata properties in Malaysia Sep 11, 2012
World's Simplest Management Secret 08 Nov 2012