An open hearing was held in Kanazawa City, Ishikawa Prefecture, in conjunction with research on the Constitution of Japan. After statements were heard from persons who volunteered to attend the hearing to express their opinions (hereafter, "speakers"), questions were put to them.
1.Subject of the Hearing: The Constitution of Japan (emergency situations
[including security] and the Constitution, the governing structure [including
local government bodies], and the guarantee of fundamental human rights).
2.Participating members of the Commission
- NAKAYAMA Taro (Liberal Democratic Party), Head of Mission and Chairman
- SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), Deputy Chairman
- HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party), Director
- NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party), Director
- KUWABARA Yutaka (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), member
- ENDO Kazuyoshi (New Komeito), member
- ICHIKAWA Yasuo (Liberal Party), member
- HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party), member
- KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party), member
Speakers
- YAMAMOTO Toshio, retired
- SHIMADA Yoichi, Fukui Prefectural University Professor
- IWABUCHI Masaaki, lawyer
- MATSUDA Tomomi, lawyer
- KAMONO Yukio, university professor
*Note: Mrs. HASUIKE Hatsui, who was scheduled to speak, was unable to attend due to the death of a family member, so on the Chairman's instructions the written opinion she submitted during the selection of speakers was summarized and read aloud by a Secretariat staff member.
Summary of the Chairman's opening comments
In his opening comments, Chairman NAKAYAMA explained the purpose of the hearing and presented a summary of the past discussions of the Research Commission on the Constitution.
Main points of statements by speakers
YAMAMOTO Toshio
>> In accordance with its title "Rights and Duties of the People," Chapter 3 of the Constitution should present both the rights and the duties which are inextricably linked, but only the rights stand out and very little is written about the duties.
>> The schools should provide thorough moral education. They should also teach the basics of what religion is and why people need religion.
>> The Preamble states "... we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world." This passage is unnatural in that it goes against the law of nature whereby animals defend themselves, and so it should immediately be removed from the Constitution.
>> Patriotism, love for one's native place, and altruism should be stipulated by the Constitution.
>> The Constitution of Japan is definitely invalid from the perspective of the prior Meiji constitution, and it is also illegal because it violates international law which stipulates that occupying powers may not change the laws of the nations which they occupy.
>> Article 96, which stipulates the procedures for amending the Constitution, should be revised on a priority basis ahead of all other revisions.
>> The Constitution of Japan has many good points, but times have greatly changed since it was written so its role has now ended.
SHIMADA Yoichi
>> Some members of the U.S. Congress have stated that they would back up the imposition of sanctions on North Korea because the kidnapping of Japanese nationals by North Korea is a gross violation of human rights. Given this understanding by the United States, the Japanese government should make a solid response to the kidnapping issue.
>> In the U.S., common sense dictates that if a U.S. national were kidnapped then the president would use military power to rescue the citizen as a matter of course. In Japan a similar response would raise constitutional issues, but we must recognize that when negotiating with terrorists a solution only becomes possible only when a military option also comes into play and military force can be invoked as an ultimate threat.
>> There is a general understanding that the Constitution of Japan states that resorting to the use of force is bad, but domestically the police use force to deal with criminal acts all the time. So it is odd that the use of force is viewed as wrong when it is to resolve transnational issues. Kidnapping is an unforgivable crime even in times of war.
>> Japan should maintain sufficient force for a pre-emptive attack on North Korea in the event that North Korea takes such actions as fueling missiles and makes clear that the actions are aimed at Japan. Moreover, Japan should be permitted to exercise the right of collective self-defense.
>> The present Constitution is like a constitution that permits desertion in the face of the enemy. Rather than wasting our time on philosophical arguments, we should immediately delete the Preamble and Article 9.
IWABUCHI Masaaki
>> The times demand that we should now affirm and bring to life the ideals of the Constitution within the realities of Japan and the world, and certainly not revise the Constitution. We should not resolve conflicts through armed force or war. The positive pacifism of the Constitution of Japan, to make all efforts for peaceful relations with other countries, is more realistic today than ever before.
>> The U.S. attack on Iraq has demonstrated that there is no just reason for war, and that war ultimately sacrifices innocent civilians. The government of Japan supported the U.S., which chose resolution through war, and this violates the spirit of Article 9 Paragraph 1 of the Constitution as well as the right to live in peace recognized in the Preamble. The government's actions are a flagrant violation of the government's duty to respect and protect the Constitution.
>> The North Korean issue can be resolved by following the Constitution in seeking a peaceful resolution, without resorting to force, and making every possible effort in relation with other nations. A military solution would force great suffering upon South Korea, and this is an unacceptable option.
>> The concept that security cannot be guaranteed without resorting to force leads to the possession of the most powerful weapons, including nuclear weapons, invites an arms race, elevates the military tension in Northeast Asia, and actually obstructs the realization of peace. Revising Article 9 would incur a great danger that Japan would then embark on an unstoppable rearmament path, so we must resolutely oppose any revision to the Constitution.
MATSUDA Tomomi
>> Along with the changing times, there has been a growing emphasis on those rights that are essential for one's own existence as "new human rights," but because Article 13 guarantees the right to pursue happiness these new rights are guaranteed by Article 13, and thus I feel that specifically stipulating the human rights guaranteed by Article 13 through legislation would be sufficient.
>> Concerning the right to the protection of privacy, which is one of these "new human rights," the Diet is now deliberating a bill to protect personal privacy. There are several problems with this bill, including: (a) it does not prohibit the collection of information on ideology, creed and other items concerning personal honor and secrets; (b) it allows the use of personal information for purposes other than originally intended under the vague condition of "when there are considerable reasons to do so;" and (c) the monetary and other penalties for the abuse of personal information are too small to be effective. Moreover, the regulations on private-sector businesses state that, in principle, the protections do not apply in cases where personal information is collected for media purposes or for writing books. The bill, however, leaves room for the state to arbitrarily decide whether or not the collection of information is "for media purposes," so I believe that this judgment should instead be made by a neutral third party.
>> Considering all these problems with the privacy protection bill, this bill should be reviewed to determine whether or not it really protects citizens' privacy rights. Furthermore, the necessity of the Basic Residential Register Network System, or Juki Net - which originally sparked the calls for drafting a privacy protection bill - should also be reconsidered from the perspective of whether or not the citizens really need such a system.
KAMONO Yukio
>> Recently it seems that "independent Japanese" are finding it hard to carry on, and I'd like to find ways of supporting such independence in the Constitution, and to start with areas close to our daily life.
>> The fundamental principles of the Constitution - which are (a) protection of fundamental human rights, (b) popular sovereignty, (c) permanent pacifism, (d) the separation of powers, (e) guarantee of local self-government, and (f) cooperative internationalism - are the fruit of many years of human effort, and we cannot permit any backsliding, even in the name of constitutional reform.
>> Among these, if local self-government derives from the residents' right to self-determination (the right to the pursuit of happiness under Article 13), which is a principle for the preservation of human rights, and from popular sovereignty, then local government established based on this is on an equal footing with the national government, which is founded based upon the same principle, and thus the national and local governments must cooperate for the benefit of the citizenry. Moreover, items such as the principle of local autonomy, the essence of the right to local self-government and securing independent revenue sources are therefore the constitutional norm and are legally binding and thus binding on national policies and laws within a certain range.
>> Considering all this, local government bodies possess (a) the local governments' right to existence, (b) the residents' right to direct political suffrage, (c) the citizens' right to appoint and dismiss organs of the local government, (d) the sovereign right of local governments to implement their own business vis-a-vis the state, and (e) the rights of the state and local governments to act in cooperation. If the current legal system is insufficient in terms of these rights, these shortcomings should be overcome through positive law.
>> Local self-government is not merely a system, but rather a guarantee of fundamental human rights and none other than democracy itself.
HASUIKE Hatsui,(summary of written opinion submitted for the selection of speakers)
>> When I hear the theme of this hearing, which is "the guarantee of fundamental human rights," I just feel empty. I wonder if a guarantee of fundamental human rights really exists in this country, and who it is that guarantees such rights. I wondered about these same things for 24 long years as I waited for my son [who was kidnapped by North Korean agents] to come home.
>> Fundamental human rights are the inviolable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but my son had all of those rights stolen from him in a flash on the day that he was kidnapped. The kidnapping of Japanese nationals by North Korea is the ultimate violation of fundamental human rights, and since this means that inviolable rights have been taken away by another country, this is also a violation of national sovereignty. This is an unforgivable heinous crime, and it is state terrorism.
>> I don't understand why this situation was allowed to go on for more than 24 years. Isn't it the duty of the state to protect our fundamental human rights? It is no exaggeration to say that Japan fails to uphold its own Constitution.
Main questions and comments to speakers
NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman(To all the speakers)
>> I think adult society has a great influence on the problems surrounding children, such as the collapse of classroom discipline and the commission of crimes by increasingly younger juveniles. In response, we need to bring up international Japanese who can function in a global context, but at the same time we must also provide a civic education so that the students will gain a solid grasp of the traditions and customs based in Japanese society, and can support one another and maintain good communities. Revisions to the Fundamental Law of Education, which was enacted based on the spirit of the Constitution, are currently being discussed. What is your opinion regarding these revisions and the approach to education?
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
(To Mr. IWABUCHI)
>> What is your perception of the kidnapping of Japanese nationals by North Korea, and how do you think this problem should be resolved?
(To Mr. SHIMADA)
>> I realize that there is growing concern overseas regarding the kidnapping of Japanese nationals by North Korea. What stance do you think should be taken to completely resolve this issue as quickly as possible?
KUWABARA Yutaka (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
(To Mr. KAMONO)
>> Reforms toward the decentralization of authority are considered important in advancing structural reform. In this process, what points do you think are important for the independence of local government bodies? Also, what is your opinion about the approach to municipal mergers and about the introduction of the do-shu system?
(To Ms. MATSUDA)
>> You stated that legislative measures should be sufficient to address the "new human rights." Are there any such legislative measures that you think must be adopted on an urgent basis?
(To Mr. IWABUCHI)
>> Regarding the North Korean issue, I think that we need to devise a Northeast Asia policy because a peaceful resolution to this issue is vital. What is your opinion about this? And what is your opinion regarding the response to the North Korean problem being adopted by the new South Korean administration?
(To Mr. SHIMADA)
>> I think the North Korean kidnapping issue must be resolved for peace and stability in Northeast Asia, and that the resolution will require liaison with China, Russia, and South Korea. Do you agree?
ENDO Kazuyoshi (New Komeito)
(To all the speakers)
>> I believe the question of how the kidnapping issue is resolved is linked to our ideals regarding the shape of the nation and the Constitution. It seems the two approaches to this are (a) to negotiate a solution against the background of military force and (b) to negotiate peacefully, come what may, right to the end. What are your opinions regarding this?
(To all the speakers)
>> Do you think that the principles of the "new human rights" and local self-government should be clearly stipulated in the Constitution, or addressed via legislative measures?
ICHIKAWA Yasuo (Liberal Party)
(To Mr. SHIMADA and Mr. IWABUCHI)
>> Regarding Japan's national security, if Japan were to suffer a direct military attack, I think retaliating with armed force would only be natural, but in other cases we should seek a resolution centered on the UN. What is your opinion about this UN-centered approach?
(To Mr. KAMONO)
>> We should achieve true local self-government via the decentralization of authority. To these ends, some say that the Constitution should clearly stipulate the significance of local self-government and the division of roles between the local and national governments. What is your opinion?
(To Mr. YAMAMOTO)
>> Some say that the concept of the "public welfare" needs to be clarified. Do you agree?
HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
(To Mr. SHIMADA)
>> In responding to the kidnapping of Japanese nationals by North Korea, you stated that we should first impose economic sanctions, and if North Korea answers by preparing for a military attack, we would then have to make a pre-emptive strike. I believe that this would fail to resolve the problem, and conversely just increase the danger to the Japanese people. What do you think about this?
(To Mr. IWABUCHI)
>> I understand that during the 1994 Korean Peninsula nuclear crisis, war was averted through diplomatic efforts. I think this demonstrates the importance of striving for a peaceful resolution. Do you agree?
(To Mr. KAMONO)
>> As a constitutional scholar, how do you think the North Korean problem should be resolved? (To Ms. MATSUDA and Mr. IWABUCHI)
>> Some argue that Japan needs to pass emergency legislation in relation with the North Korean issue. What is your opinion about the national emergency legislation?
(To Ms. MATSUDA)
>> If we accept that the "new human rights" were created by citizens' movements, rather than the Constitution, it may then be society and politics that have fallen behind the flow of the times. Do you agree?
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
(To Mr. SHIMADA)
>> You stressed the importance of force in resolving the North Korean problem, but North Korea, the U.S. and China are negotiating in Beijing and elsewhere, and I think it is important to promote the movement toward a resolution via these discussions. Additionally, South Korea has been emphasizing the importance of the "sunshine policy." What do you think about the possibility of a negotiated resolution?
(To Ms. MATSUDA)
>> I think that legislation on guaranteeing human rights emphasizing national determination and national interests is increasing. What is your opinion about this?
(To Mr. IWABUCHI)
>> I think the national emergency legislation has the objective of restricting human rights, and thus contradicts efforts to guarantee human rights. Do you agree?
(To Mr. KAMONO)
>> The mergers of municipal authorities are taking place under central government initiative, and I believe this distorts the process. With this approach, I think it will not be possible to achieve the ideals of local self-government lauded in the Constitution. Moreover, the movement toward wider areas as the basic units for local self-government under the mergers of municipal authorities will place local government far away from the residents. What is your opinion?
Main points of comments from the floor
Following the responses to the questions posed by the members of the Commission, the chairman asked for opinions and comments from the floor. The following comments were received.
MOROHASHI Shigeichi
>> (a) The Preamble has sentences with two subjects, which are odd as Japanese. (b) The stipulations regarding the property of the Imperial Household in Article 8 and Article 88 are inconsistent. (c) The state should continue to provide subsidies to private educational institutions, but a direct reading of Article 89 indicates that such subsidies are unconstitutional. Considering these and other items, there are clearly problems with the Constitution and so it should be revised as quickly as possible.
KIMURA Yoshinobu
>> When we speak of "squeezing" North Korea economically, we need to consider who it is that ultimately gets "squeezed." The economic sanctions against Iraq have resulted in the deaths of innocent people. We need to resolve the kidnapping problem from the pacifist stance of the Constitution.
SUGENO Akio
>> One of the speakers said that domestic kidnapping cases would naturally be resolved using police force, and that therefore we should accept the use of force for resolving international disputes. However, international disputes are subject to international law, and so the conclusion that the speaker reached is legally unsound. We must remember that our present international community was developed based on the experience of prior wars.
>> Another speaker said that the present Constitution is like a constitution that allows desertion in the face of the enemy, but I think that this is in error. In fact, the resolution adopted at the International Peace Conference held at The Hague in 1999 calls for the nations of the world to clearly incorporate stipulations equivalent to those in Article 9 of the Japanese constitution into their constitutions.
SETO Tamae
>> On the morality issue, I think the worst thing is a failure to feel regret for past errors. In this sense, the Japanese people must develop the ideals of the Constitution based on regret for past wars. Despite this, the government is acting in the opposite direction.
>> As for the North Korean problem, I think that the Japanese government's responsibility for leaving the kidnapping issue unresolved for 24 years and for leaving North Korea isolated from the international community must also be questioned. And I do not believe that any "corporal punishment" of North Korea is going to resolve the problem.