This essay examines political double standards in Japan’s opposition politics.
Using examples such as the Morikake controversy, the alleged connections surrounding Tsujimoto Kiyomi and Yoshida Tsunehiko, and the limitations of publicly available political funding reports, the article discusses the principle of burden of proof and criticizes what the author sees as inconsistent political logic within the Constitutional Democratic Party.

February 16, 2019.
Yet when Constitutional Democratic Party Secretary-General Tetsuro Fukuyama was asked by a freelance reporter about Mr. Yoshida Tsunehiko, his eyes reportedly began to wander.
The following continues from the previous chapter.
Political funding reports cover only three years.
So what is the reality?
Unfortunately, under the current system, the political funding reports published on the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications website cover only the most recent three years.
Therefore, it is impossible to directly confirm the reports referenced in the Weekly Asahi article mentioned earlier.
Furthermore, even when reviewing the three years of reports currently available for Ms. Kiyomi Tsujimoto’s political organization “Citizens and Peace Project,” no reference to “Kansai Nama-Concrete” or similar wording can be found.
Fiscal Year 2014 Report.
Fiscal Year 2015 Report.
Fiscal Year 2016 Report.
When writing a website as an individual, it is frustrating that the information one can obtain is inevitably limited.
On the internet, copies of political funding reports said to belong to Ms. Tsujimoto’s earlier political organization “Politica = Kiyomi and Citizens” from 1999 and 2000 are circulating.
However, I have not yet obtained proof that these documents are authentic.
Therefore, as of today, I would like to refrain from asserting that Ms. Tsujimoto has connections with the ready-mixed concrete industry.
I apologize to readers if this leaves a sense of uncertainty, but even if the person in question is a member of the Diet, this website wishes to avoid declaring someone “guilty” without solid evidence.
However, if the person being suspected is Ms. Kiyomi Tsujimoto, the situation becomes different.
This is because Ms. Tsujimoto herself led the political strategy during the Morikake controversy and the sexual harassment controversy insisting that the accused must prove their own innocence.
Please recall this clearly.
As mentioned in the article “Do Not Allow Representative Tsujimoto Kiyomi’s Obstruction Strategy,” it was precisely Ms. Tsujimoto who led the tactic of thorough parliamentary boycotts.
Members of certain opposition parties led by the Constitutional Democratic Party effectively took a twenty-day holiday around Golden Week without the consent of the public.
The so-called Morikake issue was framed as suspicion that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe abused his authority to provide illegal favors to educational institutions run by personal acquaintances.
However, no one has provided a reasonable explanation of which law and which article of that law Prime Minister Abe allegedly violated.
If we consider the Kake Gakuen issue, it would be described as the problem that Prime Minister Abe illegally approved the establishment of a veterinary school for Kake Gakuen, run by his acquaintance Kotaro Kake, even though such approval was prohibited by law.
But in fact, no law exists that prohibits the establishment of veterinary schools.
Rather, the essence of the issue was that the Ministry of Education had issued an illegal administrative notice effectively blocking the creation of new veterinary schools.
In other words, the Morikake controversy was arguably the worst media-driven campaign in modern Japanese political history, in which impression manipulation was used to portray Prime Minister Abe as guilty in order to block debate on constitutional revision.
By participating in this campaign, the Constitutional Democratic Party shares responsibility.
In principle, Japan is a nation governed by the rule of law.
A person is not required to prove their own innocence.
Instead, the accuser must prove that the person is guilty.
This is the principle of law.
Nevertheless, if someone claims that Shinzo Abe is guilty, they at least have the obligation to explain which law may have been violated.
The same principle should apply to opposition politicians.
For example, this website has previously discussed possible connections between the Ministry of Education bribery scandal and Constitutional Democratic Party Representative Yoshida Tsunehiko.
This includes the fact that the arrested suspect Koji Taniguchi served as a policy adviser to Democratic Party for the People Senator Yuichiro Hata.
Through that position he may have had contact with senior officials in the Ministry of Education.
There is also speculation that Representative Yoshida may have been involved behind the scenes.
However, such circumstantial evidence alone is insufficient to conclude that Representative Yoshida is guilty.
For that reason, this website has avoided declaring him the mastermind of the Ministry of Education corruption scandal.
Yet according to the logic used by the Constitutional Democratic Party in the Morikake controversy, it would not be unreasonable to say:
“Yoshida Tsunehiko must be the mastermind of the Ministry of Education bribery scandal.
If he is not, then he should prove it.”
And yet when Secretary-General Fukuyama was asked about Mr. Yoshida by a freelance reporter, his eyes appeared to wander.
Such double standards are truly astonishing.
To be continued.