PC Leak Controversy – Prof. Okuyama on Gov. Saito’s Motive to Discredit Whistleblower
“It’s exactly as I said.”
Was he driven into a corner and desecrated the deceased once again?
On March 5, the Hyogo Prefectural Assembly’s Special Committee under Article 100 concluded that there were major issues with the prefectural government’s response regarding the whistleblower complaint against Governor Motohiko Saito (47).
However, Governor Saito insisted,
“There were no issues with the prefecture’s response.”
Furthermore, he made his first statement about the contents of the former prefectural bureau chief’s private documents stored on an official government computer, saying,
“He had created highly unethical and obscene documents.”
This remark, directed at the former bureau chief who passed away last July after filing the complaint, has caused widespread controversy.
While concerns had been raised from the beginning, the committee’s investigation report stated,
“There is a high possibility that this constitutes an external public interest whistleblowing case, and the illegality may still be ongoing.”
Amid these developments, a video warning about the situation by an expert has resurfaced on social media, drawing renewed attention with comments such as:
“It’s exactly as I said.”
The video comes from Professor Toshihiro Okuyama of Sophia University, an expert on the public interest whistleblowing system, who was invited as a witness to the special committee last September to provide his opinion.
According to Professor Okuyama,
“Whistleblowers are almost always subjected to a mix of exaggerated and baseless personal attacks.”
He analyzed that those accused tend to attack the whistleblower rather than refuting the content of the whistleblowing itself. This is a common pattern seen worldwide. He further explained:
“Why does this happen? One reason is that the accused feel exposed and react emotionally with anger, thinking, ‘How dare they reveal this?’ Another reason is an intentional effort to damage the whistleblower’s reputation and credibility, thereby undermining the legitimacy of the allegations. However, personal attacks are not just about discrediting an individual. The ultimate aim of character attacks and accusations of leaks is to prevent a chain reaction of whistleblowing.”
In short, the typical response of the accused is to criticize the whistleblower’s character and daily behavior, shifting the focus by instilling in public opinion the idea that:
“A person like this cannot be trusted.”
Furthermore, by attacking the whistleblower’s character and using them as an example, the aim is to deter future whistleblowing. Governor Saito’s comments on March 5 regarding the former prefectural bureau chief’s PC perfectly fit this pattern, which has become a hot topic on social media.
Friday Digital visited Professor Okuyama again to hear his thoughts.
— On March 4, the Special Committee under Article 100 concluded that there is a possibility that the illegal situation is still ongoing. What are your thoughts?
“If a whistleblower faces unfavorable treatment or is targeted for exposure, the organization involved is legally required to take remedial and restorative measures. This obligation is mandated by the Whistleblower Protection Act and its guidelines. Companies with more than 301 employees that fail to comply with this are in violation of the law. However, Governor Saito and Hyogo Prefecture have still not taken such measures. That is why the committee concluded that the illegal situation may still be ongoing. The committee’s report clearly states that as part of the prefecture’s own response, it is necessary to take these legally mandated measures.”
— If this is a legal violation, can the police take action?
“The current Whistleblower Protection Act does not impose criminal penalties in practice. Therefore, even if violations occur, law enforcement agencies cannot take action. However, on March 4, the day before Governor Saito’s controversial remarks, the government approved and submitted to the Diet a bill to amend the law, allowing criminal penalties for particularly malicious offenders, aiming to prevent cases like his in the future. While not all violations will be subject to criminal penalties, and there are still many shortcomings, the revision is expected to have a deterrent effect against the mistreatment of whistleblowers.
However, the very next day, on March 5—on the same day the prefectural assembly unanimously adopted the committee’s report stating that the former bureau chief likely qualifies as a whistleblower—Governor Saito publicly made personal attacks against him while responding to questions about the report. This not only defies the prefectural assembly but also appears as an act of resistance and defiance against the government and the whistleblower protection system itself.”
“Although this press conference was the first time the governor himself explicitly mentioned it in a public setting, the Special Committee under Article 100 found that as early as last spring, shortly after the whistleblowing, the prefecture’s General Affairs Department Director—who was a close aide to the governor—showed privacy-related information from the former bureau chief’s official computer to prefectural assembly members. He spread the idea that the whistleblower’s statement is not credible because it was made by such a person.
This is a textbook example of a personal attack against a whistleblower. Instead of refuting the content of the allegations, the approach is to attack the whistleblower’s character. The governor’s remarks in the recent press conference appear to be a continuation of this pattern.
Regarding the prefecture’s rush to discipline the former bureau chief last spring, the committee’s report points out that Governor Saito instructed that the disciplinary action should be taken as soon as possible because he wanted to change the momentum. His remarks at the March 5 press conference came right after the committee’s harsh criticisms were made public. This suggests that his intention was to deflect the backlash against himself and redirect criticism toward the former bureau chief. This aligns perfectly with the typical reaction of those exposed by whistleblowing.
When the former bureau chief was suspended for three months as a disciplinary action on May 7 last year, the prefecture cited four reasons. The press conference questions focused on the first reason, which was the whistleblower document. As I mentioned earlier, the prefecture is obligated to take remedial and restorative measures for the former bureau chief. The committee’s report clearly states that the prefecture must implement these measures on its own.
A reporter asked about this, but instead of addressing the issue, Governor Saito deliberately brought up the contents of private documents unrelated to the whistleblower report. If an explanation about those documents had been truly necessary, it should have been given on May 7 last year when the disciplinary action was announced—not on March 5. Most likely, the prefectural administration itself had no need to disclose this information, but Governor Saito personally wanted to spread it. His remarks this time were an unnecessary attack on the former bureau chief.”
he impact of Governor Saito on future whistleblowing…”>
Governor Saito’s remarks constitute de facto harassment against the whistleblower
— What impact will this case of Hyogo Prefecture violating whistleblower protection laws have on society?
“Nobody wants to experience the kind of harsh treatment that the former director of the Prefectural Residents Bureau went through. Knowing that such treatment is possible, who would still feel motivated to become a whistleblower? I believe this fear has now spread not only among Hyogo Prefectural employees but also among many people in Japan. If this fear leads to a decline in necessary whistleblowing, organizational misconduct and corruption that should be exposed will remain hidden. As a result, society as a whole will suffer—we all will.
The ultimate goal of whistleblower protection laws is not just to protect whistleblowers themselves, but to safeguard the general public from the harm that could result from hidden misconduct and corruption. In other words, the purpose of this law is to protect the public interest,’ while protecting whistleblowers is merely a means to that end. We don’t want to live in a society where someone who witnesses a defect in a vehicle that could endanger a family walking on the sidewalk feels unable to speak up.
The government’s March 4 Cabinet decision on the revised Whistleblower Protection Act includes criminal penalties for individuals and businesses that impose disciplinary actions or dismiss employees for whistleblowing. Hyogo Prefecture exemplifies this issue, where disciplinary action was taken without properly determining whether the former bureau director qualified as a whistleblower. With criminal penalties in place, there will be a greater hesitation—people will think, ‘Wait a minute, isn’t there a Whistleblower Protection Act?’
I was previously not strongly in favor of criminal penalties, but after seeing this case, I have reconsidered. When even the top officials of an administrative body blatantly violate the law, criminal penalties become necessary. However, Governor Saito’s remarks on the day following the Cabinet’s decision do not fall under disciplinary action or dismissal but rather constitute de facto harassment of a whistleblower—something the revised law fails to address. Therefore, I hope the current Diet session will amend the bill or that the next legal revision will introduce criminal penalties for harassment against whistleblowers.”
On the other hand, at a press conference on March 11, Governor Saito was asked by reporters, “Why did you bring up the contents of the former bureau director’s PC on the 5th?” He responded:
“I simply provided an explanation regarding the creation of personal documents unrelated to work during working hours. Since I was asked about the disciplinary action, I explained the handling of the case, outlining the four violations involved. From the prefecture’s perspective, our response was appropriate, and I believe there were no issues with it.”
When asked again whether his statement was problematic, he maintained:
“The fact remains that inappropriate documents were created, so I simply stated the facts.”
He continued to assert that there was no issue in referring to the contents of the former bureau director’s PC.
Having secured re-election, Governor Saito confidently continues his duties. However, with suspicions of violating the Public Offices Election Act still lingering, one can only wonder what’s truly in the hearts of Hyogo’s residents.
PHOTO： Takeshi Kinugawa (Governor Saito)
