TOKYO - Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has accepted the resignation of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Kazuo Yana following controversial remarks about cutting government funding to municipalities that did not support him in an election, ending nearly two weeks of mounting criticism and leaving unresolved allegations of political pressure and election law violations.
Yana submitted his resignation to Takaichi at the Prime Minister's Office on October 14, less than a month after taking office. His departure, widely regarded as an effective dismissal, marked a sharp reversal for the prime minister, who had initially defended his continued service and urged him to regain public trust through his work.
The controversy began when Yana was recorded claiming that road construction budgets for Nasukarasuyama City and Nakagawa Town in Tochigi Prefecture had been substantially reduced for fiscal 2026. His remarks suggested that the municipalities had been penalized because their local leaders had not supported him during an election campaign.
The statement raised immediate concerns about the political manipulation of public spending, with lawmakers questioning whether a national budget intended to serve residents had been used to reward political loyalty or punish opposition.
When the remarks first became public, Takaichi resisted calls for Yana's removal, saying she had told him to work hard and make up for his mistake through his performance as minister.
However, the scandal soon began interfering with his official responsibilities. Yana canceled a planned inspection of areas affected by heavy rainfall in Chiba Prefecture to prepare responses to parliamentary questioning over the budget controversy.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries also established an internal team to assist the minister in handling the allegations, diverting personnel from their regular duties. Yana acknowledged that the situation was troubling, saying he regretted the additional burden placed on ministry staff.
Criticism intensified in parliament, where lawmakers from both the ruling and opposition camps questioned whether Yana was qualified to remain in charge of government administration.
One lawmaker said it was inconceivable that a politician would reduce funding to a municipality simply because its mayor had supported another candidate. Another argued that if Yana had actually influenced the distribution of public money, the action amounted to using government spending for political advantage. If the cuts had not occurred, the remarks could instead be viewed as intimidation of voters through false claims.
Either way, lawmakers argued, such conduct was incompatible with the responsibilities of a Cabinet minister.
Takaichi maintained that government funding must never depend on whether a municipality supports the Liberal Democratic Party, insisting that such political discrimination did not occur in practice.
As the controversy continued, however, her position became increasingly critical. She described Yana's remarks as deeply inappropriate and embarrassing, saying she would have to consider whether someone who made such statements was suitable to oversee government administration.
Further allegations involving the Public Offices Election Act significantly increased the pressure on Yana.
It emerged that his election campaign had arranged free shuttle buses to transport supporters to a campaign launch event during a House of Representatives election. Under Japanese election law, providing benefits to voters in connection with election campaigning can constitute an illegal inducement.
Election-related legal guidance specifically identifies transporting voters by bus to attend campaign speeches as a possible form of prohibited benefit provision.
Takaichi indicated that she would not hesitate to make personnel changes if the arrangement was judged to constitute a violation of election law.
By October 14, Yana's position had become increasingly difficult to defend. After submitting his resignation, he told reporters that he had informed the prime minister of his decision but offered little explanation for why he had waited until that point.
When questioned about the timing of his departure and the circumstances surrounding the decision, he repeatedly referred to having conveyed his intention to resign and eventually walked away while reporters were still asking questions.
Takaichi subsequently said she had intended to hear Yana's explanation and had not made a final decision about his future before receiving his resignation.
The delay in removing the minister has also prompted criticism within the ruling party. Some lawmakers suggested that Takaichi's close political relationship with Yana and her determination to protect him may have contributed to the prolonged handling of the affair.
Political journalist Kenji Goto compared the government's response to fighting a fire, arguing that swift action at the beginning was essential. He said the administration's apparent assumption that the controversy would remain relatively minor had instead allowed it to develop into a serious political problem.
Goto also pointed to what he described as communication difficulties within the Liberal Democratic Party, suggesting that Takaichi's limited interaction with lawmakers, particularly during weekends, had discouraged party members from raising concerns directly with her.
The controversy has not ended with Yana's resignation. Three major questions remain unresolved, involving possible pressure over road construction budgets, free transportation for election supporters and alleged payments to campaign workers.
The first concerns whether Yana attempted to influence the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism over budget allocations to municipalities whose leaders had not supported him.
Yana has denied exerting pressure on the ministry. However, it emerged that he summoned a senior ministry official to the parliamentary members' office building in February, following the House of Representatives election, to inquire about the distribution of road construction funds.
The official reportedly said he did not clearly remember the meeting but did not believe he had been pressured. The ministry also said it had not prepared a written record of the inquiry.
Those explanations have left questions about the purpose of the meeting and whether political considerations influenced budget decisions.
The second issue concerns the free shuttle buses arranged by Yana's campaign. The buses transported participants to a campaign kickoff ceremony without charging fares, raising questions about whether the service amounted to providing an illegal benefit to voters.
The Tochigi election authorities were cited as indicating that such arrangements could potentially violate the Public Offices Election Act.
The third allegation involves payments to individuals who made telephone calls urging voters to support Yana during the election campaign.
A person who worked for Yana's campaign told JNN that staff members received compensation for making calls to solicit votes. The account suggested that payments or meals were provided in connection with the number of hours worked.
Japanese election law generally prohibits payments to campaign workers for activities such as directly soliciting votes, with limited exceptions for certain authorized campaign duties. If compensation was provided for prohibited election activities, it could constitute illegal vote-buying.
The allegations emerged as Yana was already facing intense scrutiny over his budget remarks and the free shuttle bus arrangement.
His resignation has therefore done little to resolve the broader questions surrounding the conduct of his campaign and his dealings with government ministries.
Critics argue that the government must establish whether road budgets were actually influenced by political considerations rather than treating the matter solely as an individual minister's misconduct.
They have also called for a full examination of the election-related allegations, warning that any confirmed vote-buying violation could raise questions about Yana's continued membership in the House of Representatives.
Political commentators have questioned whether the administration's response reflects a deeper problem in Japan's parliamentary democracy.
One commentator argued that the controversy should not be viewed simply as a personal scandal, but as a test of public confidence in democratic government and the proper exercise of political authority.
He also criticized what he regarded as Takaichi's emphasis on centralized leadership and state-directed economic growth, pointing to her use of classical Chinese political concepts in her policy speeches.
The commentator argued that such language reflected a traditional view of rulers governing for the benefit of their subjects rather than a modern democratic emphasis on accountability to citizens.
He also questioned the administration's approach to economic policy, including its emphasis on growth as a prerequisite for wage increases and the government's role in directing economic development.
Another commentator focused on Takaichi's initial instruction that Yana should make up for his mistake through his work.
The commentator argued that such an approach might be appropriate for a minor error unrelated to a person's official responsibilities, but was difficult to justify when the allegations involved the foundations of political office itself.
Questions about the allocation of public money, possible intimidation of municipalities, failures to provide adequate explanations and suspected election law violations were not separate from a minister's duties, the commentator said. They directly concerned the standards required of someone entrusted with public authority.
The decision to accept Yana's resignation was therefore criticized as an attempt to contain the political damage without fully addressing the underlying issues.
Although Yana has left the Cabinet, he remains a member of the House of Representatives, and the allegations concerning budget allocations, campaign transportation and payments to election workers continue to require clarification.
For Takaichi, the controversy has become an early test of her government's accountability, raising questions not only about the conduct of a former minister but also about the prime minister's judgment in allowing him to remain in office after the initial allegations emerged.
Source: TBS
