When political rights are broadly defined, they can include voting rights, standing for political office, becoming a civil servant and sometimes such quasi-political rights as the rights to receive some forms of state compensation. Here, we shall see a case on the right to be a public servant and some debates about political rights.
National Health Insurance system as mutual assistance and social solidarity, the automatic
membership is at least conditioned as a member of our society...' (Hanta\901:153). Although it
is regarded that ‘leave to remain' and aliens' residence maybe irrelevant in other legislation (ibid .) The toint of disputes argued in this case is similar to that of Son's suit.
The right to be a public servant is quite an important matter in Japan8. There is no legal restriction which prohibits an alien from becoming a public servant in the constitution nor other statutory legislation. Restrictions may be placed by ‘Orders', however, in application forms for recruitment examinations. The exception is the Diplomat Act (Guimu Komuin Ho, 1952) and indirectly, for specific occupations
such as members of the Diet. The guideline (from the Cabinet Legislation Bureau) which bars aliens from being government officials, is the requirement that Japanese nationality is necessary for 'exercising public power or participating in the formulation of state will' (25/3/1953, Takatsuji answer). This is called Komuin ni
Kansuru Tozen no Hori (Natural legal theory on public servants). As background,
this was the answer to a question asking ‘among those who lost their Japanese Nationality, whether they also lose their status as public servants or not’. In practice, the Koreans and Taiwanese already in those public servant positions at national level, were asked to naturalise around 1952 (Tong-Il-Il Pao, 19/3/1996).
The problem begins when this answer is generalised and extended to actual facts. According to Okazaki (1996), after the 1965 Agreement, nationality criterion was included in the National Personnel Authority’s rule (Jinjiin kisoku) 8-18, 8. This
says that those who do not have Japanese Nationality, cannot sit for the (national level public servants') recruitment examinations. For the local level, when a kindergarten employed a Chinese national in 1973/5, the Ministry of Home Affairs replied to a prefectural authority that ‘when the job involves to the exercises of public will of local authorities, aliens should not be permitted to sit for the
8 On the right to be n public servant, Okazaki (1978,1996) has worked with this from the earliest time, especially on the employment of alien lecturers in public/national universities. This is achieved in 1982, by special measurement legislation, historical background and other court cases such as the right to sit for teacher's qualification exams can be found in Nakahra (1993) and Nakai (1989).
recruitment tests (Okazaki, 1996, Chong’s argument, 22/3/1995). The employment of aliens at municipality level varies. In particular, administrative jobs are in most cases closed to them (above that level) after that9.
First, of direct significance is that the central/loca! government as well as its related organisations offer many work opportunities, often very good ones. For instance, jobs as law practitioners (1977), Japan Telecom and Telecommunications and in nursing (1982) originally had a nationality clause for their employment or some restriction but later the condition was removed (Nakahara, 1993). Moreover outside Tokyo, officials in local authorities are regarded as having the same status as central government officials. Second, of indirect significance is the fact that the restriction of government-related work opportunities discourages and even justifies the private companies' discrimination against aliens. A good example of a court case on private company employment discrimination against a Korean is Park Jong-sok’s case, mentioned above. According to Kim Kyeung-duk (1996) who became the first Korean lawyer in Japan, the reason why Park’s employment discrimination case (1974) could win was because it was after ‘informal notification- (saiyou naitei) which the plaintiff received and was promised already,
but if it had been before that notification (i.e. before the company’s decision had been taken or if the decision had not been delivered to him), he would lose even today (November 1996, lecture).
9 At the time of my writing (10/96), there are two popular ways to employ aliens at the local level which try to work within the principle. One is Kawasaki city style, which opens its employment to aliens fix- most kinds of jobs (for instance, firebrigade) but restrict arrangement
and promotion (Yumiuri Shinbun, 13/5/1996). The other is Kochi Prefecture's style which
restricts the nature of jobs which aliens' can be employed in, but in principle open for their promotion after that (Tong-ll-ll Pao, 14/3/1996 , Asa hi Shinbun, 27/4/1996). However, this Kochi style has not yet put into practice. This classification is that of Okazaki (1996).
Finally, as the right to hold public office is regarded as part of suffrage in the broader sense, this will have an impact on voting right of aliens, a subject on which the Supreme Court offered judgement (28/2/1995, Saikosai ruling)10 11. Although similar suits on suffrage also brought by a Briton (firstly in November 1989), it seems that the courts distinguish ‘those with a historical connection with Japan’ and 'others', and their reasoning on this case is less enthusiastic. The suffrage of Koreans was first ‘halted’ (but not ‘abolished') after the war (December 1945, alteration of the Election Act of the House of Representatives11, as mentioned). In other words, the first entitlements which the former empire subjects had lost after 1945 was suffrage12. In that sense, political rights are the last ones to ‘recover’ symbolically1 *. However, not everyone shares the desire for suffrage. Of those who support the North Korean Government, for example, Kim Chang-son (1986) thinks that as the right to live in Japan but retaining ethnicity (i.e. being different from the Japanese) has not been secured, to ask for suffrage might lead to ultimately to assimilation. In addition. North Koreans considers themselves as aliens(Koreans
10 The importance of this judgement is that although it rejected the claims of appellants, it went further and said that ‘for those aliens who have close connection with local authorities, it is not prohibited in the constitution to legislation and entitle voting rights in order to reflectithose aliens') will... however, whether to react or not is within the authority of legislative power'
{Hanji: 1523:51). This ruling is accepted positively in general {Asahi Shinbun, 1/3/1995). After this judgement, some political parties started to consider the possibility of entitling suffrage to
aliens at local level. (Teiju gaikokujin no chiho sanseiken wo motomeru renraku kyogikai,
1995).
11 According to the recent study by Mizuno (1996), it is likely that the Japanese government
halted Korean and Taiwanese suffrage (by inserting a koseki criterion within the revised act) in
order to preserve the monarchy. Mizuno found a presentation paper in 1945, which showed
concerned about the communist influence on the Japanese regime, (reported in Asahi Shinhun,
5/2/1996).
12 However. Tanaka (1974) sees the suffrage rights entitled to former empire subjects as much lighter and rather symbolic compared to the obligation (sueh as eonscription) imposed on them. " In the 1990s. the political rights of aliens' is a timely topic and the recent discussion on
'teiju gaikokujin' given the above, concentrates on suffrage, in particular at local level. These academics take part in (or influence) actual suits directly as well as indirectly.
Overseas) with their independent home country and at least, they are given a chance to raise their opinions in their home country.