On January 22, there was a policy study gathering at the headquarters of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to discuss matters relating to the government’s third basic plan to build a gender-equal society. The session was well attended, with men and women in their twenties and thirties representing an overwhelming majority of the audience.

　　　Why should the issue of gender-equality be taken up in Japan at this time? It is because the substance of the current government’s “Third Basic Plan for Gender-Equal Society” is atrociously defective. Approved by the cabinet of Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) Premier Naoto Kan last December 17, the plan is slated to constitute one of the nation’s fundamental policies over the next five years.

　　　Reviewed every five years, the previous plan – the so-called “Second Basic Plan” – was formulated under the then-incumbent LDP administration with LDP members of the parliament, including Ms Eriko Yamatani, a member of the House of Councilors, taking the initiative. Explains Yamatani:

　　　“The main feature of the first basic plan adopted in 2001, as is emblematic of the word ‘gender-equal,’ was formulated on the basis of viewing the differences between men and women as synonymous with ‘discrimination (against women).’ However, as we prepared the second plan, we made a special point of taking a fresh look at the differences between men and women as reflecting the special characteristics of the two sexes – not synonymous with discrimination.”

　　　Put simply, Yamatani and her colleagues assumed a position that manliness and femininity should not be denied, but rather respected as a reflection of the specific characteristics of the two sexes. Yamatani had initially expected the 2001 plan to advocate a creation of a society in which men and women could enjoy an egalitarian life, each respecting the differences with the other. Actually, however, “there were more than enough radical feminist demands incorporated into the first basic plan,” she recalls.

　　　The second basic plan came into being in 2006 in the last year of the LDP administration of Junichiro Koizumi, which readjusted the excessive areas that made the first plan unrealistic. But it quickly slipped back into a document of “a radical nature” when the DPJ came into power in the fall of 2009 and Ms Mizuho Fukushima, head of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), a junior partner in the DPJ-led government, was named minister in charge (Minister of State for Consumer Affairs and Food Safety, Social Affairs, and Gender Equality).

　　　Ms Akiko Okamoto, Secretary-General of the “Association to Protect Family Ties,” who is well versed in this issue, points out there are problems with the third plan. Last May, she was invited to state her expert opinion at a government-sponsored interim session aimed at reviewing the progress of discussions pertaining to the plan.

　　　In short, Okamoto warns that the collapse of families resulting from loosened family ties is already at the root of Japan’s worsening social problems, and that, against such a backdrop, the DPJ’s third basic plan for a gender-equal society will inevitably cause Japanese families to come further apart. This, stresses Okamoto, is the biggest problem with the DPJ plan. The DPJ-proposed plan specifically calls for adoption of a new legal system, allowing married couples to use different surnames in family registries, as well as a revision of the civil code to enforce it. It also specifies that “the current social system and practices based on family-based units which assume only one person – fundamentally the husband – provides for the family, be switched to a system and practices based on individual units (with the husband and wife becoming separate units).”

Individual Units Versus Family Units

　　　What, then, does the “transfer of the social system and practices from family-based units to individual-based units” really mean? To put it simply, it means a comprehensive change of the Japanese social system, as well as its values, under the premise of shifting from the norm requiring the husband to bring home the bacon to that of both husband and wife providing for the family.

　　　It is common now in many families in Japan for both the husband and wife work. However, what the DPJ advocates is mind-boggling: the ruling party maintains that Japan should aim at building a revised taxation system, along with as a new social system, which views families not on the basis of a married couple or a family as a single unit, but of husband and wife functioning as two equal – but separate – units within a family. In other words, the party maintains that social and taxation systems entirely different from today’s should apply to two-income families, while the husband and wife continue earning their living as before.

　　　Because it has been worked out primarily by Fukushima, with those around her who approve of her stance, the values at the core of the DPJ plan are the same as those permeating through a book she co-authored in 1989, entitled  “Enjoy Married Life with Separate Surnames” (Akashi Shoten, Tokyo). In this book she wrote that she “sincerely hopes that all Japanese will end up having their names registered as individuals (instead of as a member of a family, which is the current system).”

　　　Okamoto certainly hit the nail on the head when she took Fukushima to task by rebuking the above statement as “nothing but an attempt to make excuses for advocating the inevitable ‘collapse of the Japanese family system’ by resorting to a seemingly harmless expression” (“Seiron” monthly magazine).

　　　The second section of the third basic plan specifies measures required to legislate the desired shift to a new social and taxation system by removing husbands and wives from within the framework of “families” and positioning them as “equal individuals.” One example is a review of the existing taxation system.

　　　How taxes are collected and spent reflects the very basic character of a given society most directly. For example, the DPJ has advocated “a reduction and an eventual abolition of the spouse deduction.” This tax policy will further erode the traditional Japanese family system, which is already under attack on many fronts. Explains Yamatani: “The DPJ has decided to add 7,000 yen (about $84) per child a month, raising to 20,000 yen (about $240) the total monthly sum of support for only those children under the age of three. To secure the source of revenue, they have decided to abolish the existing juvenile allowances for all children (which currently covers children up to 15 years of age). They are also considering the feasibility of abolishing spouse deductions. Meanwhile, child-rearing allowances still apply to single-parent families, and still other types of allowances are provided depending on the municipalities.

　　　“From such a perspective, if spouse deductions and other related benefits are to be done away with, people may likely feel it would perhaps be monetarily more advantageous to the individual not to have his or her name entered into the family registry. Frankly, I am almost tempted to ask the government whether or not they are trying to destroy the Japanese family system through tax reform.”

　　　The DPJ ostensibly maintains that child support is for children, as well as for hard-pressed parents who must support them. The party further contends that, to put the brakes on the alarming trend in Japan towards fewer children, it is vitally important for the entire society to cooperate in the rearing of children, and for the government to give a helping hand.

　　　We all agree children should be cared for and taken care of. However, it won’t do our children any good in the end if the government spends blindly on child support without putting an upper limit to the income of the recipient entitled to child rearing allowances while the nation’s budgetary deficit continues to pile up astronomically. If the current Japanese financial deficit and the flawed social security system remain un-rectified, our future generations (i.e., children born since 2006) will have to bear a lifetime net tax and social security burden of 105,000,000 yen (about $1,255,000) per head, according to an analysis published in June, 2009, by the Economic and Social Research Institute of the Cabinet Office. If the government truly cares for our children, it should spare no effort to prevent the financial deficit from expanding further under all circumstances, whatever the reason may be.

The Role and Responsibility of Politics

　　　The idea that the government can ameliorate the trend towards fewer children through tax revision is also quite simply mistaken. This is because one of the primary reasons for such a trend is the sheer decline in the number of Japanese men and women wanting to get married. If the government is genuinely searching for effective countermeasures against the falling birthrate, it is vital to develop an infrastructure that encourages more Japanese to get married while young; the basic DPJ scheme, which strikes one as prompting young men and women in Japan to go separate ways rather than building a family together, is grossly mistaken.

　　　During last month’s gender-equality discussion at the LDP headquarters, one more difficult issue was raised by one of the participants. As part of the proposed revision of the civil code allowing married couples to select separate surnames, there is an article (Article 900) concerning the rights of illegitimate children. The article currently grants illegitimate children the right to inherit one half of what legitimate children are entitled to. The proposed revision is so designed as to allow illegitimate children to inherit the same amount as legitimate children. The participant asked:

　　　“If you tell me that all children, legitimate or not, should be treated equally as they could in no way have chosen their parents, I’m inclined to say to myself, ‘Maybe illegitimate children should be treated equally under the proposed new Japanese taxation law. ’ And yet, I am not quite convinced.”

　　　It certainly is an extremely difficult proposition. Nothing is more complicated than the human mind. In life, one is likely to face a crossroads where he or she dares choose the different path – the wrong path – despite the fact that reason dictates that is not the right way to go. In fact, there may be times when one falls in love with someone aside from his or her spouse. However, politics has its roles and responsibilities to fulfill. That is, when a person fails to see things from a rational point of view, shouldn’t the responsibility of politics be to provide that person an environment enabling him or her to be nudged to act as sensibly as possible?

　　　Should the law decide that all children, legitimate or illegitimate, be treated equally, politics may end up prompting people to take the wrong path – which should be avoided in light of the long-standing social system and practices reflecting the nation’s basic values. Instead, politics should work towards encouraging people to cherish traditional social conventions nurtured by their culture as much as possible. If anything, when politics functions properly and legal justice is done in Japan, those wanting to leave a fortune behind for their loved ones may do so by deciding on the allotment of the inheritance as they see fit.

　　　If so, I see no reason why the proposed tax revision should be pursued further.

(Translated from Renaissance Japan column no. 447 in the February 10, 2011 issue of The Weekly Shincho.)