The Tribune

After all the opposition, controversy, setbacks and scandals surrounding the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, some people regard it as a minor miracle that these Games are finally under way despite much of Japan being under a state of emergency because of COVID.

Labelled as the ‘cursed’ summer Olympics after being postponed last year followed by so much difficulty and disappointment, many would have bet on another delay or even outright cancellation as local public opinion polls showed a majority of Japanese people - reportedly, as high as 70 percent - preferred one of the two. But the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the organisers in Tokyo insisted the event should go ahead as scheduled. So, now, some 11,000 athletes from over 200 countries are competing in 41 sports including five new ones.

Four days into the Games, there have been various fresh setbacks; for example, two top golfers in the world having to withdraw after testing positive for COVID. But so far there has been no major incident or the chaos and confusion many predicted - though there are still two weeks to go.

Given the uniquely challenging circumstances of these Games, it might be interesting to take a look at the background.

According to numerous reports, the Games were opposed by large numbers in Japan because of the dangers of increasing numbers of COVID cases already happening in Tokyo and elsewhere in the country. Domestic critics maintained it was impossible to hold the Olympics and at the same time protect adequately people’s lives and health since huge numbers of foreign visitors would create a greater risk of new infections and place an extra strain on local health facilities. Put simply, the Games could become a ‘super spreader’ of the virus.

In response, while accepting there were serious concerns about personal and public health in the middle of a global pandemic, the organisers insisted the Olympics could be ‘safe and secure’ - even claiming that, with stringent restrictions in place at the many venues, they could be the safest places in the country. The public would be banned from all events, no spectators from overseas would be allowed, the numbers of team and sponsor delegations - as well as the media - would be capped and everybody would be subject to strict social distancing regimens. This would include, as a readily enforceable measure to stop the spread of the virus, the compulsory wearing of masks at all times, even by athletes at medal ceremonies. Despite all this, however, it seems the Japanese public remained unconvinced and still feared many local people would be put at unnecessary risk, not least because the vaccine rollout nationwide had been slow.

Since there can be few absolute truths about such a subject, whether the health risks were sufficiently serious to have stopped the Games from happening as scheduled must remain a matter for debate. But the fact was public opinion did not prevent a decision to let the Games go ahead which was ultimately for the IOC, as the owner of the Olympics, to determine.

From what I have read, issues like the huge investment of time and resources already made during the course of some seven years of preparation, together with serious contractual obligations, will have been major considerations.

Moreover, if the Japanese had pulled out unilaterally, apparently the risks and losses would have fallen on the local organising committee, and there were also millions of dollars at stake in relation to broadcasting sponsorship.

Add to this the benefits of any Olympics like creation of a sense of national pride and, in the longer term, boosting tourism, trade and the broader economy - together with the encouragement of investment in transport and infrastructure - and outright cancellation was always going to be unlikely. Furthermore, as the 1964 Olympics in Japan were seen at the time as an important symbol of the nation’s rehabilitation and rebuilding process after the Second World War, so this year’s Games are being regarded as an indicator of its revival after a long period of economic stagnation together with its recovery from the major earthquake and tsunami, followed by the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster, in 2011.

Overall, even in such unprecedented times with no visitors, an Olympics strengthens international relations as a country gets a chance to showcase its culture, assets and way of life and to demonstrate its efficiency in running a well organised Games which is, of course, a gigantic task - and what is for sure is Tokyo 2020 will be watched on TV by millions around the world. Moreover, despite the misgivings amongst the general public, as long as the Games proceed without incident the likelihood is that they will raise people’s spirits and morale.

Reportedly, it is already emerging that members of the public, who, in effect, were forced reluctantly to accept the Games should take place, now seem to be surprisingly excited and enthusiastic as some of their countrymen and women have won gold medals - the most noteworthy of whom have been a brother and sister each earning the golden top spot in judo - and they are taking vicarious pleasure and pride in the achievements of these Japanese athletes.

With a pared down but nevertheless successful opening ceremony in an empty stadium, together with a largely incident-free first few days, the organisers must be sighing with relief that, despite the earlier scaremongering - and amid exceptional heat and humidity - the Games have got off to a good start. Nonetheless, since the pandemic is far from over, the dangers remain and all will hope that the next two weeks pass without serious mishap - while they will also surely hope Tokyo will be spared the worst of the threatened approaching typhoon!

Don’t shoot the messengers

In a democracy, investigative journalism is a key element in holding any government to account. Definitions are not hard and fast, but it is said that a particular aim of such journalism is to uncover and expose to public scrutiny matters that are concealed by policy-makers because governments, in particular, regard them as classified. But how far journalists should be allowed to go in order to secure such information has always been controversial. For instance, is it acceptable for journalists to make use of classified information which has been knowingly leaked?

Historically, there have always been cases of the media publishing what has been classified as confidential or sensitive material which journalists have obtained by one means or another but have refused to reveal their source which they claim is privileged. Indeed, the protection of sources is fundamental to journalism - and over the years there have been countless examples in the UK of practitioners of the profession fiercely defending their independence and refusing to reveal sources even at the cost of going to jail.

So, investigative journalism, which is an important element of the press and media in most countries, is an inherently interesting issue, and it has now come to the fore again in the UK in connection with the government’s intention to update and reform the nation’s official secrets legislation.

In Britain, the principal aim of the original Official Secrets Act of 1911 was to protect against espionage. Since then, successive legislation including the present Act of 1989 fulfilled this purpose that included protection against the leaking of sensitive government information. Offences covered by the Acts included spying and sabotage - by hostile countries - as well as the disclosure of sensitive information by employees or ex-employees of the security services. Now, the government is seeking to modernise existing counterespionage laws to deal with new online threats. It has said that in the internet age of speedy data transfer there should not necessarily be a distinction in security terms between espionage and the most serious unauthorised disclosures which, if made available online, could be accessed by a wide range of hostile elements.

The key development causing concern in the media is that the government is proposing journalists who deal with leaked documents should be treated in the same way as those who leak the information or people who have committed espionage offences so that both journalists and spies as well as whistleblowers would be subject to the same harsh penalties. Such a reform means, therefore, reporters who handle leaked classified documents would be treated like spies and be subject to jail terms of up to 14 years. The UK’s Law Commission says there should be a “public interest” defence for journalists to prevent them from being prosecuted in such cases. But the government maintains that would “undermine our efforts to prevent damaging unauthorised disclosures which would not be in the public interest”.

It is claimed this could signal the end of genuine investigative journalism, but the new proposed legislation is still at the ‘consultation’ stage and it will be interesting to see whether the government changes its position. There is no space today to consider how the “public interest” should be defined and the need for government to protect its own material. But the freedom of the press is an integral part of the UK’s democratic process - and it is, perhaps, encouraging that a spokesperson for the Prime Minister is on record as saying the government is committed to ensuring the right balance is struck between protecting press freedom and the need for constraints on the activity of whistle blowers.

High office comes with a price tag

When the former Health Minister in Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s cabinet, Matt Hancock, was caught recently on closed circuit television in a private area outside his office in a passionate and revealing embrace with someone who was not his wife, he was forced to resign. This prompted some people to ask why the British take such a prudish, puritanical view of such happenings which should be a private matter between the parties concerned.

By contrast, the French, for example, adopt a more cavalier and tolerant attitude and here in The Bahamas “sweethearting” for some is a way of life. But it does raise the fundamental and serious question whether anyone in high office has the right to maintain that their behaviour in their private life is wholly their business and nothing to do with the rest of us.

In thinking about this, I came across an interesting article by the best-selling author and political commentator, Frederick Forsyth, whose debut thriller novel published in 1971, The Day of the Jackal, received much acclaim.

His immediate comment is rather too crude to reproduce here. But the essence of it was that, if you cannot stop seeking sexual favours from people other than your spouse, you should not aspire to high office. Of course, everyone knows of political leaders in the past who were reputed to be serial philanderers, the most famous of whom was none other than President John F Kennedy. But in modern times, when people are under relentless public and media scrutiny, it is all but impossible to keep such behaviour under wraps.

Forsyth’s broader advice was that those who are placed in leadership roles are obliged to adhere to certain standards. Members of the public have a right to expect - from those who represent them - honesty, truthfulness, fairness, decency and courtesy to others. In his words, there’s nothing compulsory about trying to be one of the so-called high and mighty, but high office carries a price tag and, if you want to stay there, you have to behave yourself.

Generally, given the Biblical injunction about first taking the beam “out of thine own eye”, some people might regard this as somewhat sanctimonious advice - but most of us would probably agree with it.