Expansion of cabinet unreasonable at this stage
The government has submitted to the Diet a bill to revise the Cabinet Law and the Cabinet Office Establishment Law so the maximum number of cabinet ministers can be raised to 20 from the current 17.
We gravely doubt whether this legislative step was truly necessary to cope with the aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake.
The legislation also would increase the maximum possible number of senior vice ministers and parliamentary secretaries of the Cabinet Office to nine each from the current three. The maximum number of special advisers to the prime minister would be increased to 10 from today's five.
The government says that by increasing the number of possible cabinet ministers, it is making room to create new posts concerned with disaster reconstruction and nuclear power generation. It also says it is considering releasing the chief cabinet secretary from concurrently serving as state minister in charge of Okinawa and northern territories, and the environment minister from doubling as state minister in charge of disaster management.
It would have been understandable if the possible number of ministers was raised immediately after the March 11 disaster, when the government had no time to waste in dealing with the multiple emergencies of the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis. But now, more than two months later, we cannot find any particular reason for the increase.
We must say we consider the bill to be unnecessary and not urgent.
===
Too many captains?
Significant increases in the number of senior vice ministers and parliamentary secretaries of the Cabinet Office and special advisers to the prime minister could ultimately fulfill the saying, "A boat with too many captains will go to the mountain," meaning too many bosses can send a team in a completely wrong direction.
Have government officials already forgotten that so many headquarters and council-like bodies were set up at the Prime Minister's Office to deal with the disaster, they ended up causing confusion instead?
The idea of increasing the possible number of cabinet ministers was originally floated to entice opposition leaders to join the Cabinet and form a grand coalition. Such a coalition would solve the problem of the divided Diet, under which the House of Representatives is controlled by the ruling camp and the House of Councillors by the opposition.
Soon after the momentum for a grand coalition with the Liberal Democratic Party vanished, due to Prime Minister Naoto Kan's poor handling of the issue, Kan approached opposition party New Komeito, using as a pretext the planned appointment of Goshi Hosono as state minister for nuclear disaster to deal with the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. Hosono is a special adviser to the prime minister.
Now even a cabinet reshuffle is being discussed as the administration attempts to contain moves within the Democratic Party of Japan to have Kan resign as prime minister.
The response of the Kan administration has been quite haphazard.
===
Budget must not be delayed
It also is problematic that although quake-related special legislation has been delayed, the government is trying to avoid a long extension of the ordinary Diet session, which ends June 22. It is aiming to delay at least until summer dealing with a second supplementary budget and the special legislation.
The government says it will take time to compile the extra budget and the special legislation, which are meant to incorporate proposals from the Reconstruction Design Council expected to be compiled by the end of June.
But the council has made emergency proposals, including early restoration of the fishery industry in quake-hit areas. Considering the economic situation of disaster-stricken areas, including employment, it is a matter of course that projects be implemented as soon as they are feasible. The government must swiftly compile the second extra budget.
The Kan administration appears to be cautious about a long extension of the Diet session partly because it does not want to be destabilized by fierce attacks from opposition parties. But to delay deliberations on quake-related legislation for that reason would be misplacing priorities.
We can never accept an administration prioritizing its own survival ahead of reconstruction efforts.
Quake insurance system must give peace of mind
Public interest in earthquake insurance has soared since the Great East Japan Earthquake.
Many people's houses were swept away by tsunami triggered by the massive earthquake. Earthquake insurance payments will be a vital means for victims of this disaster to rebuild their lives.
As of Thursday, insurance payouts for the March 11 earthquake and tsunami had reached 670 billion yen. We hope nonlife insurance companies will steadily proceed with insurance payments.
The earthquake insurance system was launched after the 1964 Niigata Earthquake to help stabilize the livelihoods of earthquake victims. This was a response to the problem of fire insurance not covering damage caused by an earthquake or tsunami.
Initially, homeowners could insure their house and its contents up to a maximum of 1.5 million yen, but this ceiling has been gradually increased. While insurance payments remain capped at half the actual value of a home and its contents, maximum insurance payments have been raised to 50 million yen for a house and 10 million yen for its contents since the 1995 Great Hanshin Earthquake.
===
Insurance firms distrusted
According to the General Insurance Association of Japan, a new house in Tokyo is valued at an average of about 20 million yen, and the cap on the insurance policy's value for an average house is about 10 million yen.
The government can grant earthquake victims up to 3 million yen to help them get back on their feet. But even combining this government aid with earthquake insurance payouts, owners of homes destroyed in a quake would have a tough time paying to rebuild their houses. Many people feel the amount of insurance they can receive is not enough.
Many people distrust insurance firms for their strict damage assessments and offering payouts that often fall short of what earthquake victims were expecting. As a result, the number of people taking out earthquake insurance has plateaued in recent years, although the figure has increased to 23 percent from 9 percent at the time of the Great Hanshin Earthquake.
One factor behind this public distrust has been the failure of insurance companies to disclose such basic data as the percentage of earthquake insurance payouts made in full after previous temblors. The insurance world should fully disclose this information and openly answer consumers' questions.
===
Be prepared for next calamity
The high cost of insurance premiums also has caused plenty of grumbling. Premiums for insuring a wooden house for 10 million yen are more than 30,000 yen annually in such earthquake-prone areas as Tokyo and Aichi Prefecture, and 10,000 yen in the prefectures where premiums are the lowest. Consideration should be given to expanding a discount system for earthquake insurance premiums.
The ability of private insurance companies to fully cover the property losses of a large number of earthquake victims is limited. In light of this, the government can tap its special account to cover 50 percent to 95 percent of insurance payment claims when total payouts exceed 115 billion yen.
Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda has said insurance payouts for the March 11 disaster will reach 970 billion yen. If this estimate is correct, the reserves of private insurance firms and the reserve fund of the government's special account will be deep enough to cover the bill.
However, these payments will drain the resources of insurance firms and the special account. This invites the question of how to prepare earthquake insurance coverage for when the next "big one" strikes.
0 comments:
Post a Comment