A former pop star became a deputy minister, and the sports paper led with her jacket. The 937 people in the comments asked something else — what has she actually done? The one comment that answered drew 584 hmm presses
937 people asked what she had ever done. Nine answered. The one who answered in the most detail sank to the bottom of the thread under 584 hmm presses. I went to the record of parliamentary proceedings to find out what that person had seen.
How the votes fell
Ranked by upvotes. Left of the slash is agree, right is disagree. This is where the resentment actually sits.
- 1st 6420 ∕ 313 Given the past allegations and reporting, she cannot be called a fit person for the post. Others in this reshuffle also have questions hanging over them, and the prime minister owes the public an account of each of them. The vetting behind these choices cannot be called adequate, and that raises serious doubt about the vetting itself. The opposition parties should press hard on this in the next session
- 2nd 5227 ∕ 70 I do not know how much work she has done. I do not know how much she knows either. But is there really no member of the governing party with more expertise in this field than her? If she went into show business young and then studied the subject properly, that would be admirable, but the only impression I have of her is the overseas study trip. Whether this is a shortage of talent or a sign that the post means nothing, I cannot say — but she should work for the public and show us
- 3rd 3516 ∕ 68 Her as a deputy minister, and another member with questions over his past as a full minister. What on earth is this cabinet? I cannot help wondering what they think public trust and political ethics are for
- 4th 2027 ∕ 24 Looking at politicians lately makes the whole thing feel absurd. A deputy minister with no ability to speak of. Where is this country going? It is not that she is too young. What I object to is appointing someone in whom no ability can be detected at all. Nor am I saying entertainers and athletes should stay out of politics. I want to be shown the standard — on what basis are ministers and deputy ministers chosen?
- 5th 1185 ∕ 132 There is something about this appointment that makes me tilt my head. Of course she has been elected to the upper house more than once, and her work on disability policy and an inclusive society, drawing on raising a deaf child, deserves credit. On the other hand a deputy minister is deeply involved in administration and policy coordination, and it is not strange that people doubt whether she has a standout record in that. The verdict should rest not on the appointment itself but on whether she delivers something concrete in the job
I read all 937 top-level comments. About thirteen hours after publication, at half past five on the morning of 20 September 2026. The article shows 1,332 comments in all, and the replies displayed under the top-level comments come to 217. The buttons stand at 32,331 agree, 807 that-explains-it and 2,433 hmm — 93 to 7. Several of the 51 threads counted here before ran tighter than that, at 96 to 4, 95 to 5 and 94 to 6, so this is not the most one-sided thread on the site. The vote sits at the top. The single first-placed comment holds 6,420 presses, 20 per cent of the vote; the top five hold 57 per cent, the top ten 68 per cent, the top twenty 78 per cent. The bottom is quiet — 113 of the 937, 12 per cent, drew no agree press at all, 76 comments, 8 per cent, drew no button of any kind, and 48 comments, 5 per cent, drew more hmm than agree. Now the thing worth seeing here. The article and the thread are looking at two different objects. The headline is about the design of a jacket, and the piece closes by describing a navy outfit, a floor-length dress and a scalloped jacket. Comments touching the clothes came to 61, 6.5 per cent, carrying 743 presses, 2.3 per cent of the vote. And most of those 61 are not praise for the outfit; they are people saying the clothes are not the story, report the substance, examine her fitness for the job, this is not a fashion show. So what was the thread talking about? Comments using a word for record, achievement, result, ability, fitness, competence, suitability, expertise or knowledge, or asking what she has done or what she can do, came to 158, 17 per cent, carrying 18,021 presses, 56 per cent of the vote. Comments aimed at the side that made the appointment — the prime minister, the reshuffle, the selection, the shortage of talent — came to 306, 33 per cent, carrying 22,056 presses, 68 per cent. So the thread was looking past the clothes at what this person has done, and at who chose her. Here is the core of it. The thread asked, over and over, what has she done. So how many comments answered? Counting by hand, comments naming a concrete piece of her work in parliament or in a policy field came to nine out of 937, 1.0 per cent. They carry 1,218 presses, 3.8 per cent of the vote, but 1,185 of those presses sit on a single comment — the fifth-placed one, which names her work and then says a standout administrative record is not visible. Take that one out and the answers come to eight comments carrying 33 presses between them, 0.1 per cent of the vote. Now what happened to the most concrete answer of all. It is from someone who says they watched her on the parliamentary broadcast questioning a budget committee about disability policy, using sign language as she spoke. Twenty-one agree presses, ten that-explains-it, and 584 hmm. That is 27.8 times. It is the most hmm-pressed comment of all 937. The first-placed comment drew 313 hmm, so this one was pushed back on harder than the comment that won the thread. There is one more. A comment saying she is a specialist in disability welfare who has pulled together many bills and has a real administrative record. It holds one agree press and sits 721st. I went and checked whether the thing that person says they watched is really there. Searching the National Diet Library's record of proceedings for her name returns 371 speeches. They span 96 meetings, the earliest on 22 February 2017 and the latest on 3 July 2026, and there is not a single year between 2017 and 2026 without a record. By committee, the education and science committee accounts for 81, the audit committee 61, the cabinet committee 53, the budget committee 22, the research commission on international economy and diplomacy 21, the health and labour committee 18, and the special committee on Okinawa and the northern territories 16. Speeches longer than 200 characters — questioning rather than a few lines of greeting — number 263. Speeches containing the word for sign language number 46. Her speeches in the upper house budget committee itself are recorded on three days — 13 March 2023, 18 March 2024 and 12 December 2025. The transcript of that last one, the fifth sitting of the upper house budget committee, runs to 7,306 characters across eight speeches. She opens on the Deaflympics, says that sign language is not gesture but a language with its own grammar and vocabulary, and describes her deaf son as the origin of her political life. The word for sign language appears 61 times in it, Okinawa 10 times, and prime minister eight times. The date the pushed-back comment gives, around February this year, does not match the record. The February 2026 entries are two short speeches in the special committee on Okinawa and the northern territories. But the substance of what that person describes — a budget committee, sign language, disability policy, addressed to the prime minister — is sitting in the transcript of 12 December 2025. A comment that was a few months out on the date was pushed back on 584 times. Here is what I could not check. The record holds speeches and nothing else. It cannot tell me how many bills she has sponsored. So I have checked neither the comment claiming she has sponsored none nor the comment claiming she has pulled together many. A count of speeches is not a measure of work; some of the 371 are short acknowledgements. Nor have I graded the quality of any of the questioning. On why she was chosen, on factional politics, on the Okinawa governor's race — the thread is full of guesses and I could verify none of them. Comments touching the earlier reporting about her, on an election-law allegation, an affair and a study trip to France, came to 88, 9.4 per cent, carrying 12,686 presses, 39 per cent of the vote; this site has not established whether any of that reporting is sound. On the comments I counted without quoting. Comments mocking her intelligence or education came to 84, 9.0 per cent, carrying 3,201 presses, 9.9 per cent of the vote. This site does not print abuse aimed at a named individual, so they are counted and not shown. Comments about her private life came to 63, 6.7 per cent, carrying 6,892 presses, 21 per cent. Comments about looks or gender came to 14, 1.5 per cent, carrying 221 presses, 0.7 per cent. Comments mentioning foreigners or nationality came to three, 0.3 per cent, carrying 24 presses, 0.1 per cent. On the comments pushed back hardest. First is the parliamentary broadcast one at 27.8 times. Second, at 33.7 times, is one saying she studies hard and works hard, with three agree against 101 hmm. Third, at 70.0 times, is one setting out in bullet points the case for the appointment, with one agree against 70 hmm. By ratio the third is the steepest; by raw count the 584 stands alone. All three of the most pushed-back comments are defences of her. Finally, to check the verdict this site started from. She has never done a day of work in parliament — that does not match the record. The proceedings hold 371 speeches across 96 meetings in every year from 2017 to 2026. But the other half of it holds. Nobody has looked. Of 937 comments, exactly one is from a person who says they watched her at work, and that one is the most pushed-back comment in the thread. A deputy minister with no ability to speak of — the comment shared from this site's account holds fourth place, with 2,027 agree presses, 13 that-explains-it and 24 hmm, and it is where the thread's weight sits, because comments asking about record and ability hold 56 per cent of the vote. Parliament is rotten — that is a judgement, not a count, but the nearby wording can be counted. Comments using a word for rotten, finished, the end of the world, shameful or pitiful came to 43, 4.6 per cent, carrying 475 presses, 1.5 per cent of the vote. Many comments, few presses, because most of them are one line long. Finally, on names. She is a sitting member of parliament and the appointment is a public one, so her name appears here. This site withholds names only for private individuals caught up in a crime or an accident.
What happened
At twenty-five past four on the afternoon of Saturday 19 September 2026, the sports paper Hochi Shimbun ran this story on Yahoo! News Japan.
Eriko Imai, a member of the upper house who was once a singer in the group SPEED, has been made a state minister at the Cabinet Office. She announced it on her own Instagram, saying she had received the appointment and been formally attested by the Emperor, and that her brief covers Okinawa, children's policy and disability policy.
The article carries that announcement and the commemorative photograph taken at the prime minister's official residence.
And the headline the paper chose reads — the design of her jacket, and voices saying the dress scores a hundred out of a hundred.
The piece closes on the clothes as well. A navy outfit, a floor-length dress with a clean falling line, a jacket with scalloped detailing. And then, online there are voices saying her dress scores a hundred out of a hundred.
937 people declined to follow.
The verdict this site started from
She has never done a day of work in parliament, and parliament is rotten.
That was the first reading here. But before writing it down I went to the record of proceedings, and the never part does not match what is there. So it has been corrected. What remains is the objection to putting someone in high office when no ability can be detected in them.
And when I counted, the thread turned out to be standing in exactly that place.
93 to 7 — 937 comments, about thirteen hours in
I read all 937 top-level comments. The article shows 1,332 in all, and the replies displayed come to 217.
The buttons stand at 32,331 agree, 807 that-explains-it and 2,433 hmm. That is 93 to 7.
Several of the 51 threads counted here before ran tighter — 96 to 4, 95 to 5, 94 to 6 — so this is not the most one-sided thread on the site.
The vote sits at the top. The first-placed comment alone holds 6,420 presses, 20 per cent; the top five hold 57 per cent, the top ten 68 per cent, the top twenty 78 per cent. The bottom is quiet, with 113 of the 937, 12 per cent, drawing no agree press at all.
What the paper put in the headline was the clothes
Dress, jacket, outfit, styling, fashion, scalloping, a hundred out of a hundred. Comments using any one of those words came to 61, 6.5 per cent. They carry 743 presses, 2.3 per cent of the vote.
The subject the paper chose for its headline, and for its closing paragraph, holds 2.3 per cent of the vote in the thread below it.
And those 61 are mostly not praise. They are people saying the clothes are not the story. Report the substance. Examine whether she is fit for the job. This is not a fashion show.
The thread was asking one thing
Record, achievement, result, ability, fitness, competence, suitability, expertise, knowledge, what has she done, what can she do. Comments using any one of those came to 158, 17 per cent, carrying 18,021 presses, 56 per cent of the vote.
Comments aimed at the side that made the appointment — the prime minister, the reshuffle, the selection, the shortage of talent — came to 306, 33 per cent, carrying 22,056 presses, 68 per cent.
The thread was looking past the clothes, at what this person has done and at who chose her.
Second place begins with the words I do not know
I do not know how much work she has done. I do not know how much she knows either. But is there really no member of the governing party with more expertise in this field than her? If she went into show business young and then studied the subject properly, that would be admirable, but the only impression I have of her is the overseas study trip. Whether she has to be put in this post because the party is short of people, or because the post means nothing, I cannot say — but she should work for the public and show us.
どの位のお仕事をされてきたのかはわかりません。どの位の知識があるのかも知りません。
ただ、本当に自民党には彼女よりもその分野に精通されている議員の方はおられないのでしょうか？
お若い時から芸能活動をされてきて、ご専門の事を学ばれたのなら素晴らしい事だと思いますが、少なくても私は海外視察の件でしか印象がありません。
この方を副大臣に置かなければいけないのは、自民党の人材不足なのか役職の無意味さなのかは分からないですが、国民のために働いて示していただきたいです。The second most-read comment in the thread opens by saying I do not know, twice.
It is not abuse. It is someone reporting an absence.
The comment shared from this site's account is fourth
Looking at politicians lately makes the whole thing feel absurd. A deputy minister with no ability to speak of. Where is this country going? It is not that she is too young. What I object to is appointing someone in whom no ability can be detected at all. Nor am I saying entertainers and athletes should stay out of politics. I want to be shown the standard — on what basis are ministers and deputy ministers chosen?
最近の政治家を見てると、本当にバカくさくなる。
実力もないのに副大臣。
日本はどうなっていくのか。
若いからダメなのではない。
実力を全く感じ取れない者を登用することに対して反対している。
芸能人、スポーツ選手が政治家になるなというのではない。
何を基準に大臣、副大臣に登用するのか、明確な基準を示してもらいたい。Fourth by vote, with 2,027 agree presses, 13 that-explains-it and 24 hmm.
This comment does not rest on her age, or on her having been a performer. It asks to be shown the standard.
Make me believe it
Former entertainers in politics attract criticism easily. Well, the public never sees a politician actually working — I never see the member for my own constituency except at election time. Only ministers and office-holders appear on television, and most ordinary members are people whose names I do not even know. So the public has no choice but to believe they are working. But I cannot believe Eriko Imai is working. Make me believe it.
元芸能人議員は批判が集まりやすい。
まぁ政治家が仕事してるところなんて国民から見えないから、うちの選挙区の維新の議員も選挙以外で目にすることはない。
大臣や役職付きの人しかテレビにはでないし、一般の議員は名前すら知らない人ばかりだ。だから国民は仕事をしてくれていると信じるしかないのだが、今井絵理子さんは仕事をしていると信じられないな。信じさせてくれ。Eleventh by vote.
This one names the problem. The work of a member of parliament is invisible to the public, so the public has to take it on trust — and the trust has run out. Make me believe it.
Some comments noticed the shape of the article itself
One says that abroad, in Europe especially, people look up what results you have actually delivered before they say anything, and that instead of dreamy reporting about the design of a jacket the paper should have examined that side of it, even for a sports paper. It holds 48 agree presses and sits 42nd.
Another says that a company calling itself a newspaper should be writing a piece examining whether she has the record for the job. Another says the reporters should be asking about the policies she means to protect people with, not about dresses and jackets. One quotes the headline back at the paper and says it is exactly that sort of voice that keeps getting her elected.
Forty-eight comments said anyone could do the job
There is one more line that recurs in this thread. Anyone could be a deputy minister; the post is decoration; it is there to draw a crowd; the job is reading out what the civil servants have written; it is an honorary title. Comments containing any of those came to 48, 5.1 per cent.
They carry 341 presses between them, 1.1 per cent of the vote. Plenty of comments, almost no presses.
That line diminishes the office itself, and the weight of the thread did not go to it. What the thread pressed was not that the job is small, but that this person may not be equal to it, and that the people who chose her owe an account of what they saw.
Nine comments answered the question
The thread asked, over and over, what has she done. So how many answered?
Counting by hand through all 937, comments naming a concrete piece of her work in parliament or in a policy field came to nine. That is 1.0 per cent.
They carry 1,218 presses, 3.8 per cent of the vote — but 1,185 of those sit on one comment, the fifth-placed one, which names her work and then says a standout administrative record is not visible.
Take that out and the answers come to eight comments carrying 33 presses between them. That is 0.1 per cent of the vote.
The most pushed-back comment is the one from someone who watched
Around February this year I watched her on the parliamentary broadcast putting questions to the prime minister in the budget committee. She used sign language as she spoke, and — I may be partial — her questions on disability policy were specific and showed she knew the ground thoroughly. She is also elected from Okinawa, and I think it is that sort of expectation, that she should work hard and speak to the public, that led the prime minister to pick her.
今年2月頃、予算委員会で高市首相に、今井議員が質問をしていたのを国会中継で見ました。手話も使いながら、贔屓目かもしれませんが、具体的かつ現場を知り尽くして、障がい者政策について質問をされていました。沖縄県選出でもあり、是非とも頑張って、国民へ発信して欲しい、そんな期待から高市首相に抜擢されたように思います。Twenty-one agree presses, ten that-explains-it, 584 hmm. That is 27.8 times.
It is the most hmm-pressed comment of all 937. The comment that won the thread drew 313 hmm, so this one was pushed back on harder than the winner.
There is one more, saying she is a specialist in disability welfare with a real record of bills and administration behind her.
There have been all sorts of scandals, but in disability welfare she is a specialist with real administrative work and a real record, who has pulled together many bills — enough that even the Communist Party rates her. People who cannot even look things up are aiming their criticism at the wrong target.
色々とスキャンダルもあるけど、障害福祉関係では共産党ですら評価するほど、多くの法案をまとめ実務も実績もあるスペシャリストです。調べることもできない人が的外れな批判をしているね。One agree press, 721st by vote.
What the record of proceedings holds
I went and checked whether the thing the pushed-back comment describes is really there.
Searching the National Diet Library's record of parliamentary proceedings for her name returns 371 speeches. They span 96 meetings, the earliest on 22 February 2017 and the latest on 3 July 2026. Between 2017 and 2026 there is not one year without a record.
By committee — 81 in the education and science committee, 61 in the audit committee, 53 in the cabinet committee, 22 in the budget committee, 21 in the research commission on international economy and diplomacy, 18 in the health and labour committee, 16 in the special committee on Okinawa and the northern territories, and 16 in the first subcommittee of the budget committee.
Speeches longer than 200 characters — questioning rather than a few lines of greeting — number 263. Speeches containing the word for sign language number 46.
Her speeches in the upper house budget committee itself are recorded on three days. 13 March 2023, 18 March 2024, and 12 December 2025.
The transcript of that last one, the fifth sitting of the upper house budget committee, runs to 7,306 characters across eight speeches. She opens on the Deaflympics held in Japan, says that sign language is not gesture but a language with its own grammar and vocabulary, and describes her deaf son as the origin of her political life. The word for sign language appears in it 61 times, Okinawa 10 times, prime minister eight times.
The date in the pushed-back comment, around February this year, does not match the record. The February 2026 entries are two short speeches in the special committee on Okinawa and the northern territories.
But the substance — a budget committee, sign language, disability policy, addressed to the prime minister — is sitting in the transcript of 12 December 2025.
A comment that was a few months out on the date was pushed back on 584 times.
The source is the National Diet Library's Record of Proceedings search system (https://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/), retrieved on 20 September 2026.
What I could not check
The record holds speeches and nothing else. It cannot tell me how many bills she has sponsored. So I have checked neither the comment claiming she has sponsored none, nor the comment claiming she has pulled together many.
A count of speeches is not a measure of work. Some of the 371 are short acknowledgements. Nor have I graded the quality of any of the questioning.
Why she was chosen, the factional politics, the connection to the Okinawa governor's race — the thread is full of guesses, and I could verify none of them.
Comments touching the earlier reporting about her, on an election-law allegation, an affair and a study trip to France, came to 88, 9.4 per cent, carrying 12,686 presses, 39 per cent of the vote. This site has not established whether any of that reporting is sound.
Counted but not quoted
Comments mocking her intelligence or her education came to 84, 9.0 per cent, carrying 3,201 presses, 9.9 per cent of the vote. This site does not print abuse aimed at a named individual, so they are counted and not shown.
Comments about her private life came to 63, 6.7 per cent, carrying 6,892 presses, 21 per cent. Comments about looks or gender came to 14, 1.5 per cent, carrying 221 presses, 0.7 per cent. Comments mentioning foreigners or nationality came to three, 0.3 per cent, carrying 24 presses, 0.1 per cent.
All three of the most pushed-back comments are defences
First is the parliamentary broadcast one, 21 agree against 584 hmm, 27.8 times.
Second is one saying she studies hard and works hard, three agree against 101 hmm, 33.7 times.
Third is one setting out in bullet points the case for the appointment, one agree against 70 hmm, 70.0 times.
By ratio the third is steepest. By raw count the 584 stands alone.
Checking the verdict
She has never done a day of work in parliament — that does not match the record. The proceedings hold 371 speeches, across 96 meetings, in every year from 2017 to 2026.
But nobody has looked — that holds. Of 937 comments, exactly one is from a person who says they watched her at work, and that one is the most pushed-back comment in the thread.
A deputy minister with no ability to speak of — the comment shared from this site's account sits fourth, with 2,027 agree presses, 13 that-explains-it and 24 hmm. It is where the thread's weight sits, because comments asking about record and ability hold 56 per cent of the vote.
Parliament is rotten — that is a judgement, not a count. But the nearby wording can be counted. Comments using a word for rotten, finished, the end, shameful or pitiful came to 43, 4.6 per cent, carrying 475 presses, 1.5 per cent of the vote. Many comments, few presses, because most of them run to a single line.
What this thread was really saying
937 people asked what this person has ever done.
The record is public. Anyone can search it, free, at any time. 371 speeches, 96 meetings, ten years of them.
One person out of 937 had gone and looked.
And that person was pushed back on 584 times.
On names
She is a sitting member of parliament and the appointment is a public one, so her name appears here. This site withholds names only for private individuals caught up in a crime or an accident.
Other politicians named in the article are not named here, because this site has not established the details of their pasts.
Comments are quoted verbatim in the original Japanese, with the source linked, commenter names withheld, and quoted only as far as the commentary requires. Translations are mine. Source articles may expire (retrieval dates noted). The substance of this piece is the author's commentary.