Photo/Illutration Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party) Upper House lawmaker Mizuho Umemura speaks in Osaka’s Chuo Ward as a candidate for the party’s presidential election. (Asahi Shimbun file photo)

Upper House opposition lawmaker Mizuho Umemura made baseless and insulting remarks before the Diet about the death of a Sri Lankan detainee being held at an immigration facility and should apologize.

The outburst occurred during a Diet session considering the revision of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Law.

The death of Wishma Sandamali two years ago highlighted a broad array of immigration control policy issues, among them, prolonged detention and poor health care.

As she asked questions representing her party, Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party), at an Upper House plenary session on May 12, Umemura said: “One remark that (Wishma’s) supporters made might have given her faint hope she would be granted temporary release if she fell ill. That could have resulted in a situation where a doctor suggested she was faking her illness. Such a possibility cannot be overlooked.”

After a group of lawyers for Wishma’s family sent a letter with questions to Umemura on May 16 asking her the basis for her remarks, the lawmaker, at a meeting the same day of the Upper House’s Judicial Affairs Committee, said, “There is no such fact. But the possibility that it occurred cannot be denied.” She also referred to the possibility that the Sri Lankan detainee died due to a hunger strike.

Immigration authorities have not recognized either feigned illness or hunger strike in relation to Wishma’s death. Umemura clearly forgot her responsibility for her remarks on the Diet floor when she expressed an original, groundless theory while using the word “possibility” to obscure the issue of factuality.

On May 18, Umemura cited a constitutional provision that guarantees Diet members will not be held liable for speeches on the Diet floor and said, “What is this parliamentary immunity for? It is there for Diet members to challenge taboos.”

It is morally unacceptable for a legislator to abuse their immunity to make groundless remarks that hurt others.

Her remarks about Wishma also insulted people to help foreign nationals who are in dire straits.

The Immigration Services Agency’s final report on Wishma’s death states that the psychiatrist at the detention center “considered the possibility of feigned illness” based on explanations given by the immigration officials. But it says nothing about her supporters suggesting she engages in malingering.

It is difficult to understand the lawmaker’s aim in singling out foreign nationals and their supporters for criticism in a Diet session while reviewing the way non-Japanese are detained for overstaying their visas and other immigration control-related offenses.

The party itself also bears a heavy responsibility. On May 18, Nippon Ishin announced that it would remove Umemura from the Upper House Judicial Affairs Committee and decide on disciplinary action at a later date.

Fumitake Fujita, Nippon Ishin’s secretary-general, said, “It was highly inappropriate of her to make emotional remarks based on subjective assumptions and imagination.”

However, the party’s response to her remarks to this point has been slow and timid, allowing Umemura to repeatedly make hurtful remarks in the Diet. The party’s decision to punish her was apparently prompted by the uproar she caused. It is hard for the conservative opposition party to claim it took the situation seriously.

Umemura asked questions at the plenary session as a representative of the party, and the Policy Bureau of the party carried out a perfunctory check of the questions. Shun Otokita, chairman of the Policy Bureau, said May 17, “I don’t think she did anything wrong by raising related issues.” Otokita’s comment clearly indicates the party was fully aware of what Umemura would say.

Nippon Ishin has its sights set on becoming the leading opposition party in the next Lower House election. The party should keep in mind that it will not deserve that status if it fails to dispel doubts about its stance toward human rights.

--The Asahi Shimbun, May 19

Related News