Based on Rui Abiru’s essay in Seiron, this article examines the problems in the opposition’s Diet questioning over the eve party of the Cherry Blossom Viewing Party. It criticizes Constitutional Democratic Party lawmaker Takahiro Kuroiwa for spreading suspicions involving the name of the high-end sushi restaurant Kyubey without confirming the facts with the restaurant itself, and later attempting to blur what he had said.

March 3, 2020
Using Kyubey’s Name Irresponsibly in the Diet: Rui Abiru Exposes the Fiction behind Opposition Attacks
The following continues from the previous chapter.
They paid no regard to the position of Kyubey.
At the House of Representatives Budget Committee on February 4, there was also the following exchange between Takahiro Kuroiwa of the Constitutional Democratic Party and Prime Minister Abe.
Once again, the issue concerned the Cherry Blossom Viewing Party.
When Prime Minister Abe consulted with his secretary during the questioning, Kuroiwa raised his voice and said, “Hey, don’t talk there.”
Prime Minister Abe then admonished him as follows.
“There are times when a secretary gives advice on answers. When I am trying to answer accurately and sincerely, what kind of person shouts at that? You should stop speaking in such an overbearing manner.”
At that time, Prime Minister Abe also rebutted Kuroiwa over the issue of his previous remark that sushi from the high-end sushi restaurant Kyubey had been served to participants at the eve party of the Cherry Blossom Viewing Party held at Hotel New Otani.
“You made a one-sided assertion about the sushi as well, but it was an outright lie, was it not?”
Kuroiwa, for his part, objected, saying, “I never once asserted that sushi from such-and-such a place was served.”
But this is now the age of the internet.
It was quickly verified that, at a meeting of the team pursuing the Prime Minister’s Cherry Blossom Viewing Party issue in November of the previous year, Kuroiwa had said the following in substance.
He had said that, according to various testimonies, supporters had gathered at a first-class hotel in Tokyo on the previous day, and that for a fee of five thousand yen, sushi that appeared from photographs to be from Kyubey had been served.
He added that such a thing could not possibly be covered by five thousand yen, that one plate alone was in the five-thousand-yen world, and that if this were true, it would be a complete provision of the difference and therefore a violation of the Public Offices Election Act.
In fact, when this rumor that Kyubey sushi had been served emerged and was broadcast by television wide shows without verification, Abiru called Yosuke Imada, the owner of Kyubey, to confirm it.
Imada clearly denied it.
He said that he had confirmed with the New Otani branch as well, and that Kyubey sushi had not been served.
It was absolutely mistaken.
When he saw the footage on television, he himself had been surprised, but when he checked, it turned out to be wrong.
He had also examined the past several years, and Kyubey had not served the sushi.
He said that he did not feel good about it either.
That is what Imada stated clearly.
Kuroiwa had spread Kyubey’s name to the public without even confirming the matter with Kyubey.
Then, when Prime Minister Abe pointed this out, he tried to blur the matter by saying that he had not said it.
This is a problem even before one speaks of Diet questioning.
It concerns the honor of a real restaurant.
It concerns the trust that has been built up over many years.
If the name Kyubey is mentioned, the public immediately reacts.
The name of a high-end sushi restaurant becomes a convenient material for making a suspicion look sensational.
That is precisely why, if a politician uses such a name, he must at the very least confirm the matter with the party concerned.
He did not do so.
He used it as material for suspicion.
Television wide shows also spread it without verification.
Is this what they call “administrative oversight”?
Is this what they call the “forum of speech”?
No.
This is an act of damaging another party’s honor while neglecting confirmation.
It is reputational harm caused by words.
The opposition wants to attack the Abe administration.
The Asahi Shimbun and television media ride along with it.
For that purpose, the honor of an actual restaurant does not matter.
That attitude is revealed here.
It was only natural that Prime Minister Abe said, “It was an outright lie, was it not?”
If a politician mentions a specific company or restaurant by name in the Diet, or in a pursuit team meeting, the responsibility is extremely heavy.
If the statement is wrong, it affects the other party’s business, reputation, and employees.
All the more so when the name is tied to phrases such as “violation of the Public Offices Election Act” and “provision of the difference.”
Kuroiwa’s attitude is far too careless for a member of the Diet.
And the media that stirred up the matter without verifying it were equally careless.
The Japanese people must look closely at this structure.
Many of the suspicions created by the opposition and the media are not built upon facts.
They are amplifications of impressions.
They are exaggerations of fragments.
And even when it later becomes clear that they are not factual, they take no responsibility.
They spoke.
They spread it.
They made a fuss.
But it was wrong.
Even then, they do not apologize.
On the contrary, they try to escape by saying things like, “I did not assert it.”
With this, the Diet ceases to be a place where truth is clarified and becomes a place where fiction is manufactured.
Rui Abiru’s essay accurately points out this abnormality.
It is not Prime Minister Abe who is making the Diet desolate.
It is the opposition parties that neglect fact-checking, rush into impression manipulation, and calmly drag the honor of others into their attacks, together with the media that amplify them.
This essay will continue.