Meeting Agenda
1. Motion for approval of assignment of members to attend open hearing
Location: Kagawa Prefecture
Date: Monday June 9, 2003
2. Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan
>> Reports were heard from the chairperson of the Subcommittee on Ideal Constitution as Supreme Law and the chairperson of the Subcommittee on Security and International Cooperation; this was followed by discussion among the members.
>> A free discussion was held in relation with the upcoming Constitution
Day.
3. Greetings from Commission Chairman NAKAYAMA
Chairman NAKAYAMA reported on the progress made by the Commission in light of the upcoming May 3rd Constitution Day, and presented his opinions on the issues in Iraq, the North Korean issues, the reform of the United Nations and other matters. He then spoke about the direction for the Commission's future work.
Report of the Subcommittee on Ideal Constitution as Supreme Law, and free
discussion
Procedures to revise the Constitution of Japan as a rigid constitution
Report from the subcommittee chairperson (main points)
YASUOKA Okiharu (Subcommittee Chairperson)
>> Members of all parties and groups agreed on the necessity of enacting a national referendum law for any actual revision of the Constitution, but there were two different opinions regarding the proper timing for the enactment of this law, as follows. (a) Some stated that a national referendum law should be enacted as quickly as possible in preparation for future constitutional revisions, and that the lack of such a law at present represents the Diet's "error of omission." (b) Others voiced the opinion that there is no need to immediately enact a national referendum law because no specific proposed amendments to the Constitution have actually been proposed, because it should be discussed first which bodies have the right to initiate revisions, and for many other reasons.
>> Henceforth, it will be important to hold active discussions concerning the issue of enacting a national referendum law for constitutional revisions based on the opinions presented by Professor TAKAMI and Professor NAGAO, and on a deeper understanding of the procedures for revising the Constitution of Japan, which is a relatively rigid constitution.
Free Discussion
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> While it is Diet members' duty to ceaselessly examine the administration of the Constitution and work toward its improvement, at the same time when it becomes clear that the current of the times is pushing for revisions of the Constitution itself, it is also our duty as Diet members to pursue new ideals and to propose constitutional revisions to the people, in whom sovereignty resides.
>> The preparation of a national referendum law is essential to these ends. In light of the fundamental duties of Diet members, I think that the present conditions do constitute "legislative nonfeasance" in a political sense and that this "legislative nonfeasance" should not be considered in the framework of state tort liability.
>> Furthermore, I do not agree with those who say that the national referendum law can be enacted together with specific constitutional revisions. Rather than debating a national referendum law together with the merits of specific proposed constitutional amendments, it would be better to enact this law amid normal, calm discussions.
>> The Inter-Party Parliamentary Group for Research on the Constitution is already drafting a procedural bill for constitutional revisions to clear the points of debate concerning Article 96. I feel that each party should conduct internal debate based on this draft, so that a bill can then be rapidly submitted to the Diet.
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I think Mr. HANASHI's comments regarding "legislative nonfeasance" may be based on some confusion between legislative and political theory. The failure to prepare a national referendum law may be called "legislative nonfeasance" in that the Diet has not fulfilled its political duty. Based on the purport of the Constitution, we have a political duty to give concrete form to this law in light of the various issues concerning the lives of the Japanese citizens, and this is not limited to Article 96. So, I think the Diet's failure to act cannot really be called "legislative nonfeasance" in terms of legislative theory.
>> If there were a full consensus among the people on revising the Constitution, the failure to prepare a national referendum law might then be tantamount to "legislative nonfeasance" in the political sense, but I think this is not true at present since there has not yet been sufficient debate among the people regarding items that are believed to require revision, such as (a) clearly defining "emergency situations" within the Constitution, and (b) revising the framework for governing organs, including the relations between the central and local governments.
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I think that Mr. SENGOKU's remarks boil town to two main questions: (a) has the popular debate on constitutional revisions reached maturity? and (b) is the system for constitutional revision properly prepared, as a system? It seems there is a general agreement on point (b), that is, that the system is not sufficiently prepared. As for point (a), I disagree with Mr. SENGOKU's position that acting now would be premature. This Commission has now been discussing constitutional revisions for over three years, and numerous public opinion polls indicate that the popular debate on constitutional revisions is reaching maturity. I think that the people are seeking a constitution that feels close to them, and which they can cherish. I fear that any failure by politicians to act now would only create a gap between politics and the people.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Unlike Mr. SENGOKU, I make no distinctions between the legislative and political theory regarding the purported "legislative nonfeasance."
>> I think this Commission should pay proper heed to Professor TAKAMI's statements that the failure to enact a national referendum law does not presently constitute "legislative nonfeasance."
>> In preparing procedures for revising the Constitution, I think we need to remember that (a) such procedures should ensure constitutional stability and must be rooted in popular sovereignty, and (b) constitutional revision regulations correspond, in some aspects, with the issue of having earlier generations bind the actions of subsequent generations.
>> Overall, I think that there is no need to enact a national referendum law at the present time.
TANIKAWA Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I think that the language used in Article 96 is difficult to understand. For example, the use of the term "initiate" here differs from that in the Diet Law. Before we turn our attention to future issues, I think that we should first deepen our discussions regarding Article 96 itself.
HARA Yoko (Social Democratic Party)
>> I think there is no urgent need to immediately reach a conclusion regarding a national referendum law.
>> Considering Professor TAKAMI's statements, for example, that preparing a law would be the smart approach, as my party's representative stated in the Subcommittee, I think we need to verify that constitutional ideals are reflected in the subordinate laws and to discuss whether the "new rights" are being made to function in laws.
>> From the citizens' viewpoint, the Constitution stipulates the items that need to be observed by those close to power and also places restrictions on the exercise of power. Considering this, I think a stance whereby those who are close to power make an effort to incorporate the voices of those who are far from power is important.
HIRABAYASHI Kozo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I agree with Mr. HANASHI's position that we should rapidly enact a national referendum law.
>> From a common sense perspective, the fact that this law, whose procedure is stipulated by the Constitution, has not been prepared is clearly a defect in the legal system, and this shortcoming should be filled following debate on this national referendum law by this Commission. Moreover, I feel that passing a national referendum law after a specific proposal on constitutional revisions has been prepared would be too late, and that it is the Diet's duty to the people to promptly enact a national referendum law.
ENDO Kazuyoshi (New Komeito)
>> I have doubts about enacting a national referendum law while the debate on the contents of constitutional revisions has not advanced sufficiently. The debate regarding the limits to constitutional revisions including the revision of Article 96 itself has yet to reach any specific conclusions. I also believe that the Constitution is a blueprint depicting the "form of the nation."
>> There are other laws whose enactment is presumed by the Constitution that have yet to be enacted, and so I do not believe that the lack of a national referendum law necessarily constitutes "legislative nonfeasance."
>> The important thing is to build a consensus regarding the "form of the nation" through constitutional discussion. Enacting a national referendum law prior to gaining such a consensus would be meaningless.
HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> I believe Mr. HIRABAYASHI's statement implies that this Research Commission on the Constitution should propose a national referendum law. I should like to remind everyone that based on a clearly stated agreement among all the political parties at the time the Commission was established, that this Commission will "conduct wide-ranging and comprehensive research on the Constitution of Japan and present reports for a period of about five years," and that this Commission "does not have the right to propose legislation." Therefore, the Commission does not have the right to make a proposal such as that advocated by Mr. HIRABAYASHI. I would just like to reconfirm this point.
Report of the Subcommittee on Security and International Cooperation, and
free discussion
Matters concerning international cooperation, especially ODA
Report from the subcommittee chairperson (main points)
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Subcommittee Chairperson)
>> While there were differences of opinion regarding the necessity of constitutional provisions for the implementation of ODA, I believe that a common understanding was reached regarding the need to implement ODA from a multi-faceted perspective in accordance with actual conditions after examining the present problematic points.
>> I would like to continue deepening our discussions on the ideal approaches to Japan's national security and international cooperation, considering the relationship between international cooperation and national interests, international cooperation and the role of the United Nations, and how these relate to the Japan's national security.
Free discussion
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> New Komeito has identified "human security," "sustainable development" and "promoting dialog among civilizations" as the pillars of our diplomatic strategy. We believe that appropriate responses to humanitarian crises, environmental destruction and other global issues will help eradicate the breeding grounds of terrorism. We also feel that the framework of international cooperation centered on the United Nations is especially important for such efforts.
>> As concrete policies to foster human security, we propose: (a) the institutionalization of humanitarian assistance systems, (b) the active utilization of the Trust Fund for Human Security, (c) activities toward the complete abolition of anti-personnel landmines, (d) upgrading the refugee assistance system, and (e) the establishment of an International Peace Contribution Center.
>> As for ODA, we think the time has arrived to shift from Japan's traditional economic-infrastructure centered approach to, in such contexts as sustainable development and human security, implementing a "participatory" and "grassroots-support" type of ODA, emphasizing such fields as the environment and landmines.
>> It is most unfortunate that the use of force is still considered necessary to realize the ideals enunciated in the Preamble to the Constitution. We must work to make the entire international community understand how reckless it is to act illegally or unjustly.
SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)
>> Ideals and directions are what come to the forefront in implementing ODA in order to deal with the population problem that is also related to the environment and energy issues.
>> Given the time gap that results in population increase between the improved scientific and technological knowledge and the ensuing productivity enhancement, Japan should actively implement ODA in educational and related fields to shorten this time gap when working to resolve the population problem.
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> It is clear that terrorism cannot be annihilated through the use of force. Japan should devote its energies to resolving the poverty, wealth discrepancies and other economic problems that are the root sources of terrorism. That, more than anything, would be in accordance with the human security voiced in the Preamble to the Constitution, which states that "all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want."
>> Japan should seek to build up a peaceful world order by reallocating its vast military expenses to poverty-countermeasure ODA and economic assistance, in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution.
SUTO Nobuhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> When the phrase "strategic" is used in discussions of revising Japan's ODA, I understand that this is primarily being linked with the national interest, but as is clear from how problems such as environmental degradation and weapons of mass destruction are directly linked to the peace and human rights of the Japanese people, I think we need to recognize that Japan's national interests are linked with the interests of the international community as a whole. Concerning this, the Constitution fails to clearly state what Japan should do for the peace and stability of the international community.
>> So, when implementing ODA, while considering Japan's national interests, we also need to consider what Japan can do for the peace and stability of the international community and to secure the peace, freedom and human rights of all the people of the world.
HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Japan's future ODA should emphasize humanitarian assistance and the environment, and this is the type of ODA implementation that the Japanese people want.
>> Because the present ODA decision-making procedures lack transparency, we should make this process more transparent through such measures as: (a) form stronger linkages with NGOs and with residents of the areas receiving aid, and having them participate in the decision-making process, (b) establishing a third-party auditing and evaluation system, and publicly disclosing the results, and (c) making the ODA projects and their budgets subject to Diet deliberations.
HIRABAYASHI Kozo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I think we need to recognize that the relationships linking terrorism, poverty and ODA are indirect, and not direct, linkages.
>> Japan should implement international cooperation based on our national interests, and in accordance with our national power, considering that the provision of ODA to any nation that views Japan as an enemy, even from a humanitarian perspective, might be harmful to the Japanese nation.
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> It is true that Japan's citizens are strongly critical of ODA during the nation's economic slump, and that we are implementing ODA amid tight fiscal conditions utilizing funds that are being borrowed from future generations. However, it is also true that it will be impossible to achieve international peace and cooperation without addressing the evils of the global economic, information and environmental gaps that mostly harm those who are economically weak. Also taking into consideration the EU's assistance through subsidies to its economically backward areas, it is important to build global solidarity for combating international economic disparity. Considering this situation, we need to consider how to secure the required fiscal sources and how to explain this to the Japanese people.
SUTO Nobuhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Japan is highly dependent on the rest of the world. The sources of our ODA funds partly derive from exports, imports and other international transactions, and as such they could be considered as part of the common property of the world.
>> Considering how Japan is dependent on the rest of the world, we should positively implement peace education, environmental education and international education, and the Constitution should clearly state that Japan will actively contribute personnel and material resources for international cooperation.
NODA Takeshi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In implementing ODA, we must consider both how on the one hand Japanese taxpayers are expressing criticism of ODA during Japan's economic slump, and on the other how Japan is integrated into the international order and importance must be placed on these international links.
>> The Japanese people seem to believe that all of Japan's ODA is being paid for by their taxes, but yen loans are actually the center of the nation's ODA program. These loans are mostly financed from the Fiscal Investment and Loan Program and will eventually be paid back. We need to provide more sufficient explanations, for example, by displaying the total ODA amounts in a manner that is more easily understood in order to gain people's clear understanding and their cooperation.
ENDO Kazuyoshi (New Komeito)
>> Since total ODA expenditures are inevitably being decreased amid the current economic conditions, we need to devise ways to put these limited funds to better use. To these ends, from the perspective of putting emphasis on human resource development, I think we should focus on education, technology development and related fields in our future ODA projects, and I think this would foster greater appreciation of Japan's contributions by the recipient countries.
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I understand that China has been receiving low-interest loans from Japan and then adding a margin and lending these funds out to other countries at higher rates of interest. Considering this, in supplying ODA and other assistance to developing countries, we should consider not only the recipient countries' needs but also their long-term development and the problems of the world as a whole. We need to establish clear principles guiding what we should do, and what we should not do, in our ODA implementation.
Free discussion and members' comments in relation to the upcoming Constitution Day on May 3 (in order of presentation)
Initial round of comments by representatives of each party
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> After making a distinction between the "locus of power" and the "locus of authority," the role of the Emperor as the symbolic "head of state" should be clearly stipulated in the Constitution.
>> It is also important to discuss current-affairs issues from a constitutional perspective. We should consider establishing a permanent body within the Diet to constantly examine the various issues that emerge from a constitutional perspective.
>> The Fundamental Law of Education should be revised after reconfirming traditions and customs deeply rooted in Japanese society, a sound, mutually supportive community, and in the future, the Constitution should also be revised to reflect this.
>> In considering local autonomy, we should keep in mind the pros and cons of introducing a do-shu system that would integrate the prefectures into a small number of states or provinces, and advance our discussions based on a specific system design. At that time, we should adopt the assumption that the fundamental division of roles between the central and regional governments should be stipulated within the Constitution.
>> At the appropriate time, it will become important for each political party to submit an outline of their proposed revisions to the Constitution, or a position paper explaining their basic stance on the Constitution, to move forward with our discussions.
FURUKAWA Motohisa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> As the basic law of the land, the Constitution should stipulate the "form of the nation." We should begin by discussing the ideal "form of the nation," confirm if the present Constitution matches this ideal, and then debate the necessity for constitutional revisions. We need to consider the Constitution as a whole, and we should not discuss only parts of it.
>> Our bureaucracy-driven centralized government is falling out of pace with the changing times, and we need to shift toward democracy-driven local governance. Based on the concept of local sovereignty, the roles of the central government should basically be limited to such fields as diplomacy and defense. The vesting of authority in local governments should be clearly stipulated in the Constitution, and ultimately we should consider a transition toward a federal state with decentralized authority.
>> I think we need to keep strictly upholding the three key principles of Constitution [sovereignty of the people, respect for fundamental human rights and pacifism], and that the manner in which we embody and realize the three key principles of Constitution is important.
ENDO Kazuyoshi (New Komeito)
>> The Japanese word kempo is a translation of the English word "constitution," but the other nuances of the English word "constitution" can be translated into different Japanese words such as kousei [composition] and soshiki [organization]. Considering this, the simplest way of expressing the English word "constitution" in Japanese might really be kuni no katachi [the form of the nation]. I think we should proceed with our discussions recognizing that the word kempo [constitution] is really a word that expresses kuni no katachi [the form of the nation].
>> How to recover the international order following the attack on Iraq is now a key issue, and Japan's role in the world is being questioned. We should demonstrate Japan's position to the world via the Constitution.
>> Japan has reached an impasse not only economically, but also in as much as there is no clear vision for the "form of the nation." We have arrived at a major turning point into a new era, but the discussions regarding the Constitution have yet to reach sufficient conclusions. We must discuss the Constitution after discerning a basic design for the "form of the nation" in the 21st century, and then present this "form of the nation" to the Japanese people and to the world via the Constitution.
TAKEYAMA Yuriko (Liberal Party)
>> The conditions surrounding Japan have greatly changed compared with those at the time that the Constitution was enacted, and so we should not merely continue with our constitutional debate, but rather proceed to considering specific revisions to the Constitution. The Liberal Party believes that we must not only hand down and further develop the fundamental ideals stipulated in the Constitution, but also enact a new Constitution that stipulates new national objectives. Based on this understanding, the Liberal Party released a paper entitled "Basic Policy for Creating a New Constitution" in December 2000.
>> The main contents of "Basic Policy for Creating a New Constitution" can be summarized as follows. (a) Regarding national ideals, while retaining the fundamental ideals stipulated in the present Constitution, we should respect Japanese culture and traditions and establish Japan as an independent state that is free, creative, and considerate. (b) Education is the basis of nation-building and human resource development, so the Constitution should include a chapter on education and culture, and clearly stipulate Japan's fundamental educational ideals as well as the governmental approach to education and culture. (c) Considering that the environment provides the basis for the continued existence of the human race, the Constitution should include environmental stipulations such as an obligation to make all possible efforts to preserve the global environment.
HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The Iraq war has disrupted the order of world peace. I would like to note the following points regarding the Iraq war. (a) Initially the stated goal was the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. No weapons of mass destruction have been found, and the main stated goals are now the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime and the democratization of Iraq, but I think these cannot justify the war. (b) The great sacrifices suffered by ordinary citizens from indiscriminate slaughter and other barbarous acts of war are unforgivable. (c) Iraq has fallen into a state of anarchy, and this is also extremely grave.
>> Prime Minister KOIZUMI expressed his support for the attack on Iraq, but this is unacceptable as the Constitution of Japan prohibits both the threat and the actual use of armed force. Moreover, the Iraq war has made it clear that the proposed bill to respond to armed attacks threatens to entangle Japan in U.S. wars.
>> Some have voiced the opinion that the Iraq problem has diminished the function of the United Nations, but the United Nations is seeking peaceful solutions, for example, by forcing the U.S. to abandon its plans for a further Security Council resolution approving an armed attack. The role of the United Nations is actually becoming greater.
>> Most of the nations of the world are opposed to an armed attack, and anti-war movements are taking place across the globe. I would like to stress that the Japanese government and ruling parties' support for the U.S. goes against the global tide of opposition to the war.
>> The Charter of the United Nations outlaws war in principle, as well as outside interference in the internal affairs of other nations, based on reflection over World War II, and the Constitution of Japan is at the leading edge of the establishment of such rules for establishing peace. Protecting the Constitution is the path that Japan should take, above all.
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> The attack on Iraq has demonstrated how war inevitably sacrifices innocent people. Moreover, since this is a pre-emptive attack, Prime Minister KOIZUMI's support of the U.S. is unforgivable in light of the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan. The anti-war movement that has emerged among peoples across the world should be Japan's basis for the strength of world peace.
>> The United States has defined terrorism as war, but terrorism is clearly an international penal offense. We should make efforts in non-military fields a main pillar of our foreign policy. Such efforts would include realizing the rule of law by making the International Court of Justice effective.
>> Japan should stand at the head of international efforts to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but the government shows no such determination whatsoever. Japan's arguments for disarmament will remain unpersuasive as long as Japan remains under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. As the first nation to suffer from the use of atomic weapons, Japan should appeal for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons by all nations, including the United States. This is the real path whereby Japan can claim a position of honor in the international community.
>> While movements toward passage of emergency response legislation are presently under way, what we really need to do is to verify what issues the Iraq war has brought up and to make peaceful diplomatic efforts. Pushing Japan's national interests excessively as far as enacting the emergency response bills will lead to efforts to solve conflicts through the use of force, which is inconsistent with the Constitution.
YAMATANI Eriko (New Conservative Party)
>> Because the schools have recently stopped teaching the meaning behind national holidays, many children do not know about Constitution Day. Our schools should properly teach the meaning of Constitution Day, and this commemorative holiday should become well established in our daily lives.
>> Among the approximately 180 nations that have written constitutions, the Constitution of Japan is the 13th oldest. Amid the global trend toward revising constitutions when they come to diverge from present realities, I feel that Japan is a backward-looking society as a whole.
>> Even given the contemporary theory of completely separating law from ethics, I think the avoidance of religious education has clearly gone too far. For example, the interpretations of Article 9 Paragraph 2 of the Fundamental Law of Education and of Article 20 Paragraph 3 of the Constitution have been entirely too broad. I think that our constitutional ideals only come to life in our daily lives when we seriously consider such issues as the ideal form of society and the state, and what it means for people to embody a beautiful way of life.
Comments after the first round
NAKANO Kansei (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I have heard it said that the EU exists so that its member states can achieve their national goals, and that the devolution of authority to the regions in the United Kingdom is also for the achievement of national goals. I think that we should similarly consider relations with the United Nations, the decentralization of authority, ODA and other issues from the perspective of achieving our national goals, and I would like to further deepen this line of thought in our future deliberations on the Constitution.
BANNO Yutaka (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I completely agree with Mr. FURUKAWA's comments regarding how the Constitution should present the ideal "form of the nation."
>> All rules instituted by human beings should undergo "time checks," and as we approach Constitution Day it is an ideal time to check the Constitution of Japan based on the will of the people.
>> Considering that the Constitution should undergo "time checks," I think that lenient revision procedures are desirable. A constitution that remains unchanged even after being reviewed through multiple "time checks" is basically a desirable constitution.
OKUNO Seisuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It is important to think about the future while reviewing the past. The United Nations was formed following World War II, centered on the Allied powers. Despite the great subsequent changes in the international community, the enemy state provisions still remain, and the permanent members of the Security Council still retain their veto powers. In the future, a shift to a decision-making by majority vote of all UN members should be considered.
>> The Japanese people may have misunderstood this because it took the form of indirect-rule government. But Japan was ruled by the Occupation following our defeat in World War II, and so the nation was not then self-governing. The Constitution of Japan was also drafted by the Occupation forces.
>> As evidenced by the differences in the stipulations concerning religious education in the Constitution and in the Fundamental Law of Education, the Occupation policies have brought confusion to Japan's educational system.
>> The Occupation had both good and bad policies, and it is the bad policies that should now be revised. As momentum is gathering, this is our chance for reform. We should begin by revising the Constitution, and those who are engaged in politics must manifest the strength of spirit to create a new Japan.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> I think that the Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education must both be revised along with the changing times, but such revisions should only be implemented based on thorough debate. There is no need to rush forward with revisions to the Fundamental Law of Education.
>> The present collapse of the family and of education in Japan derive from the shift to what may be called an "individualized" society, which has accompanied the transition from a manufacturing to an information-centered industrial structure. The Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education are not directly responsible for all of these problems.
MORIOKA Masahiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Contradictions between the Constitution and the present realities are emerging in all sorts of fields, such as national security and education. As Mr. HANASHI stated, I think it is important that we come up with a single direction for revising the Constitution, considering that the term of this Research Commission on the Constitution is only five years.
>> In his book The Origin of the Constitution, Mr. YAMAGUCHI of the Japanese Communist Party refers to his party's June 29, 1946 "Draft Constitution for a People's Republic," and states that the Constitution is reactionary in that it goes against this "Draft" and should therefore be revised because while the Constitution does include pacifist and democratic clauses, it still stipulates the continuation of the Emperor system. Doesn't this call for revising the Constitution conflict with the Japanese Communist Party's present position that the Constitution should not be revised?
>> While the "Draft" stipulated that all people are equal under the law, it also stipulated that the proposed constitution could not be revised to abolish the People's Republic government or to revive the privileged class system. Aren't these two provisions contradictory?
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> During the Iraq war, there was a worldwide debate regarding the peace rules stipulated by the Charter of the United Nations. Considering this, I think it is import to consider the significance of how the Constitution of Japan was drafted in the aftermath of the horrors of World War II.
>> Despite the grave economic difficulties that the Japanese people are now facing, efforts are under way, for example, to revise labor laws in ways that would change the fundamental principles expressed in Article 25 (the right to maintain minimum standards of living) and Article 27 (the right to work) of the Constitution. I think we must reconfirm the purport of such constitutional provisions from the perspective of "the people's livelihood and the Constitution."
>> The "Draft Constitution for a People's Republic" that Mr. MORIOKA mentioned is one historical document from the time when the Constitution was being prepared, and at that time other political parties also released their own draft constitutions. Regarding the Emperor as symbol system, from the perspective of popular sovereignty, I think this is a historically backward-looking provision. As for the limitations on constitutional revision, as Professor TAKAMI stated, the common interpretation is that there are some clauses of the present Constitution that cannot be revised.
>> This Research Commission on the Constitution has been given the task of implementing "broad and comprehensive research on the Constitution of Japan." I think that the individual specific constitutional issues should be debated within each of the Subcommittees, and that the type of standing constitutional investigative organ proposed by Mr. HANASHI is unnecessary. Moreover, Mr. HANASHI proposed that each political party submit an outline of its proposed revisions to the Constitution as a basis for our further discussions, but I do not agree with this proposal because this Commission is not an organ for coordinating the positions of the different political parties.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The Japanese government's support for the Iraq war graphically demonstrated the gap between the pacifist Constitution and the present realities. We need to fully grasp the facts and think about the significance of this war.
>> Japan's subservient stance toward the U.S. is obvious from reading the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Japanese translations of any UN Security Council resolution.
>> I would like to see our Constitution brought to life in the future by fully realizing the individual freedoms that it upholds.
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Japan is at present in a critical situation, and we need to promptly devise countermeasures. We are suffering from "excessive reliance on the central government" syndrome, so we must build up regional governments that can stand on an equal footing with the central government. Yet, as evidenced by Minister SHIOKAWA's recent "liar" remarks, the central government ministries and agencies are still fighting over their vested interests. We will need to implement bold reforms to create autonomous regional governments, and these will have to include reforms that dissect the bureaucracy of Kasumigaseki.
>> Mr. OKUNO and Mr. MORIOKA are both stating that the U.S. Occupation administration, the Constitution of Japan and the Fundamental Law of Education are the roots of all evil, but if you look at the actions of the leaders in different fields during the bubble economy and after the bubble burst, you may find a different cause of Japan's problems.
MIZUSHIMA Hiroko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I share the sense of crisis that has been voiced by many members regarding the present conditions in Japan. I believe, however, that the cause of this lies in the fact that the ideals of the Constitution of Japan and of the Fundamental Law of Education have yet to become firmly established in Japanese society, and that this is not due to any problems with the provisions of the Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education themselves.
>> I think we should stop discussing whether "freedom is good, or control is good," and move on to a higher-level debate regarding the image of a society where one's own freedoms are cherished while others' freedoms are also respected.
>> The "public welfare" stipulated in the Constitution actually refers to not violating the rights of others. Considering this, I think that present Japanese laws and systems, such as a Civil Code that does not allow married couples the option of retaining their separate family names, are lacking in the spirit of respect for the freedom and rights of others and of minorities. Current laws should be checked for consistency with constitutional ideals, and those that need to be revised in light of this should then be revised.