First Open Hearing

Thursday, November 11, 2004

An open hearing was held on matters concerning the Constitution of Japan. After statements were heard from persons who volunteered to speak at the hearing (hereafter, "speakers"), questions were put to them.

Morning:

Speakers

Members who put questions


Afternoon:

Speakers


Members who put questions


Main points of statements by speakers (morning)

ASAOKA Mie

>> Sixty years after the Constitution was enacted, new issues have arisen in relation to human rights that have only recently come to be recognized. These include environmental rights and the rights of consumers. They have been treated as new human rights in judicial precedents and legislative measures based on constitutional provisions such as Article 13, but this treatment is inadequate in some ways; for example, consumer organizations are not identified as having rights under the Consumer Protection Basic Law.

>> Article 97 reflects society at the time that it was enacted, and yet the principle it articulates is recognized worldwide today. Thus, the Constitution of Japan had foresight.

>> It is not acceptable to hold a referendum on a package of constitutional amendments which includes both the revision of Article 9 and the addition of human rights provisions, such as environmental rights, as these are mutually incompatible. It is unacceptable to combine them in a single package because it would interfere with the people's freedom of choice, among other reasons. Also, since opinion polls show that opponents of revising Article 9 are in the majority, the Constitution must not be distorted by political compromises in the Diet.

>> Environmental rights should be achieved by concrete legislative or administrative measures, not by amending the Constitution. Any provision that might be made in the Constitution would inevitably be abstract, and I fear that this would actually increase the discretionary powers of the legislative and executive branches.

>> Full provision should be made for the following points in a Basic Law for the Environment and related legislation:

  1. Environmental rights should be set forth in a Basic Law for the Environment, and their contents should be specified in individual laws such as a Landscape Law.
  2. The right to seek an injunction to protect ecosystems or scenery should be recognized.
  3. To make environmental policies transparent and to increase citizens' participation, the right to request access to information should be recognized not only in the Information Disclosure Law but also in other individual laws.
  4. Environmental organizations should be permitted to seek injunctions and access to information.

>> Since the government interprets Article 9 as permitting the use of force in self-defense, as long as we do not intend to act as an aggressor there is no need for revision. Further, the argument that we should revise Article 9 in order to facilitate international cooperation is dangerous, as this would mean recognizing uses of force that exceed the limits of self-defense and that even verge on acts of aggression. We should maintain Article 9, if for no other reason than that war has a great impact on environmental rights, together with other human rights.

>> Pacifism is very important as a fundamental element of the present Constitution, where it is clearly stated in the Preamble and the main text. To change these principles would exceed the bounds of constitutional revision.


UEMATSU Haruo

>> The Japanese people have been spared the horrors of war since 1945 because Japan has a Peace Constitution. On the other hand, over recent years there has been a growing number of life-threatening developments, such as the rising suicide rate and medical mishaps.

>> The free will of the individual is to be respected, as Article 13 states, but excessive respect for the individual has led to harmful effects. Under these social conditions, we should make the principle of respect for life the foundation of the Constitution.

>> In order to guarantee access to medical care as part of the right to a certain standard of living set forth in Article 25, the universal health insurance system should be firmly maintained in the future. To what extent illegal foreign residents should be guaranteed medical care as a human right under the Constitution is another question that needs to be considered, but basically we should make the same health care available to illegal foreign residents as to citizens.

>> Measures to improve the working conditions of health care personnel and to provide a safe environment free from medical mishaps will help undergird the people's right to a decent standard of living.

>> There is a growing awareness of patients' rights among those directly involved in medical care; for example, the concept of informed consent is becoming widely accepted. There are still problems, however, such as violations of human rights in mental health care and leaks of personal information. We need to educate people about human rights, and we might also consider including a declaration of the principle of reverence for life in the Constitution or in legislation.

>> Since issues concerning the end of life are a matter of public order, the limits within which patients make their own decisions on terminal care should not be expanded indefinitely. Thus, I believe that active euthanasia and assisted suicide should not be permitted, and that "death with dignity" or voluntary euthanasia should be recognized only under strict conditions.

>> Scientific advances such as the analysis of the human genome bring with them a risk of creating new forms of discrimination. We need to provide education that recognizes human diversity, starting from the elementary school level.

>> Respect for human life and mutual acceptance of other people's being different are steps toward world peace. As a medical worker, I am opposed to the use of force, and I want to see an immediate end to the war in Iraq. I am also opposed to medical personnel being required to cooperate in a military emergency, as this would lead to their being a party to the use of force.

>> With regard to whether the present Constitution should be revised, first we should aim to interpret it as impartially as possible within the existing framework. We should then actively think about modifying it in part, but only in those instances where a result compatible with social realities cannot be obtained solely by interpretation of existing provisions. We should also consider making explicit provision for a comprehensive concept of "the dignity of life and the body."


TERUOKA Itsuko

>> We have the Peace Constitution to thank for the fact that the guarantee of human rights, welfare, and environmental protection have been achieved, albeit imperfectly. The guarantee of human rights and Article 9 form an integral whole. This thinking has been criticized as "one-nation pacifism," but the more fully a nation guarantees its own people's human rights, the more able it is to pursue international conflict resolution and diplomacy, as the Scandinavian countries have shown. It is those nations that know how to preserve peace and protect human rights at home that have the most to contribute to others.

>> The government should assist the people to become self-reliant, but instead it has encouraged competition in a way that has widened social inequalities, as seen in the increased rates of unemployment and homelessness and the growing wage gap between part-time temporary workers and regular employees. Excessive competition based on market principles has also been brought into the field of education, where the aim should be well-rounded character development, and this has resulted in an increasingly stratified system and failure to develop students' ability to think. Moreover, the schools conduct moral education of a regimented nature which suppresses children's individuality.

>> Article 24 speaks of the essential equality of the sexes, and there is an international trend toward ending discrimination against women, as part of which Japan has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and enacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Law for Men and Women, among other measures. In its summary of points for discussion, the Liberal Democratic Party's Project Team for Constitutional Revision says that Article 24 should be reviewed with a view to emphasizing the values of family and community. But the family is founded on love and trust between independent persons. The proposed course is anachronistic, heading as it does in the opposition direction to the trend to eliminate discrimination.

>> "The public welfare" exists to enhance the welfare of the individual. The Project Team's summary of points for discussion proposes amending this to "the public interest," but an "interest" tends to be short-term and is liable to be interpreted to suit the authorities.

>> Article 9 has not lost its substance. It bars the way to Japan's joining the United States to make war around the world. The military culture, which turns to force to solve problems, prefers to conceal information, and it leads to the competitive doctrine of "might makes right." The human rights culture, in contrast, promotes disclosure of information, dialogue, and political participation, and Article 9 is a crystallization of these ideas.

>> War and discrimination go hand in hand. If Article 9 is revised, there is also a danger of losing civilian control over the Self-Defense Forces.


Main points of questions to speakers (morning)

KATO Katsunobu (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To Dr. UEMATSU)

>> Based on your own experience as a medical practitioner, please tell us whether patients view life and death differently today compared to thirty or forty years ago.

>> The trend toward the nuclear family has led to a diminished awareness of the reality of death, and as a result it is important to reaffirm the meaning of life in education. I believe that thinking about life may foster a religious sensibility. I would like to hear your views on the relationship between medicine and religion.

>> I think that the social security system, especially health insurance, was created in response to the provisions of Article 25 on a minimum standard of living. Under Article 25, what kind of response do you think is expected in the field of medical care?

>> People in today's more affluent society have increasingly diverse medical needs, and I think that health care can be divided into areas corresponding to the rights of the people and the duties of the state, and areas corresponding to diversified needs. I would like to hear your thoughts on this point.

>> I would like to hear your views on how to reconcile the most advanced medical technology, such as genetic engineering, with the dignity of life and the body.

(To Ms. ASAOKA)

>> Environmental rights set limits on the freedom of economic activity for the sake of the public welfare; unlike other human rights, in some ways they partake of the public interest. In light of this difference, I think there are certainly grounds for providing for environmental rights in the Constitution, but how do you think they should be incorporated?

>> You oppose putting the questions of whether to add environmental rights provisions and whether to revise Article 9 to a national referendum in a single package, but does this mean that you think separate referendums should be held on each article, or are you opposed because revision of Article 9 and environmental rights are mutually incompatible?

>> The strictness of the requirements for constitutional amendments makes it difficult to discuss revision and creates a distance between the Constitution and the people. I think that by making it easier to revise the Constitution and reflect the voice of the people therein, we can bring the Constitution closer to the people. Please tell us your views on the requirements for amendments and the mechanism for referendums, taking such considerations into account.

(To Prof. TERUOKA)

>> Could you tell us how the situation on the ground in Kosovo, which you saw at first hand through your work with an NGO, differed from the image of the conflict created by the media?


MABUCHI Sumio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(To all speakers)

>> Social rights are guaranteed in the first instance to Japanese citizens, but, according to legal theorists, if public finances permit, these rights can also be guaranteed to foreign nationals by means of legislation. However, when we envision a society in which Japanese and foreigners live side by side, it seems to me that various existing institutions designed with only Japanese citizens in mind are suffering from structural fatigue. What are your thoughts on how the social and civil rights of foreign nationals should be guaranteed in such fields as medical care, education, and employment?

(To Dr. UEMATSU)

>> In your view, based on the right to a minimum standard of living, to what extent should medical treatment be provided for illegal foreign residents?

(To all speakers)

>> The Constitution mentions children in only two places, Articles 26 and 27, and it makes no reference to their rights. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Japan has ratified, treats children as having rights of their own, but some people argue that they should be treated as objects of protection who are not fully competent legally. What are your views on this point?

(To Prof. TERUOKA)

>> You say that we cannot talk about the rights of children in Japan as objects of protection in the same way that we do with regard to the developing nations. But even if we define children as autonomous subjects, there are in fact many cases of their rights being violated, for example, by abuse. What perspective do you think we should adopt in addressing these issues?

(To Dr. UEMATSU)

>> Both in terms of bioethics and as a general sentiment, I find it disturbing that, up to the twelfth week, aborted fetuses are at present disposed of as waste. What are your views on this? Also, a person should continue to enjoy fundamental human rights even if he or she develops senile dementia. I think the question then becomes how to complement that person's right to make his or her own decisions, and this includes the possibility of an adult guardianship system. As a doctor, how do you view this issue?

(To Prof. TERUOKA)

>> I was shocked by the recent tragic death of a Japanese hostage in Iraq. Some people have suggested that because the Japanese government's recommendations that its nationals leave a country or region are not legally binding, restrictions that carry penalties should be imposed. What do you think about restricting the freedom of overseas travel, which is guaranteed by the Constitution?


FUKUSHIMA Yutaka (New Komeito)

(To Dr. UEMATSU)

>> With regard to health care and social security, the freedom of access to health care is guaranteed based on the right to a certain standard of living stipulated in Article 25. There is currently a debate over whether to allow hospitals under the public health insurance system to provide certain treatments on the basis of private payment. I think that if we permit this, the health insurance system will face a financial crisis; it will become standard for the public to pay a large share of treatment costs out of their own pockets, and only the wealthy will be able to afford medical care, which will create serious problems for the future. Do you agree?

>> In the event that we incorporate provisions on bioethics in the Japanese Constitution, what form do you think they should take?

>> In the field of reproductive medicine, a few doctors are offering tests and treatments that are not approved by the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, against the Society's consensus. I think that professional bodies must establish their own ethical guidelines. What form is this debate taking in the Japan Medical Association?

>> Article 25 stipulates the right to a minimum standard of living, but some people contend that, given the deteriorating state of the nation's finances, social security spending should be uniformly curbed. Of course, it is essential that we stabilize public finances and prevent their collapse, but I think there is a problem when social security, which affects the public's standard of living, is discussed solely in terms of finances. In this regard, what form do you think the social security system should ideally take?


SASAKI Kensho (Japanese Communist Party)

(To Prof. TERUOKA)

>> President Bush says that the war in Iraq has brought freedom and democracy to that country, but is it possible for a foreign army to bring freedom and democracy by force of arms? Also, how do you view the relationship between Article 9 and international contributions?

(To Dr. UEMATSU)

>> The Japan Medical Association reportedly issued a protest against the Koizumi Cabinet's "trinity reforms," calling them a dereliction of the central government's responsibilities. Could you please explain the thinking behind this comment?

>> As the scandal over a political donation by the Japan Dentists Federation shows, the proper scope of activities by public-service corporations and by political groups has become an issue. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has stated in a notification that a clear distinction should be made between the two in relation to such matters as accepting donations. The Ministry's investigation has apparently also turned up matters that it considered inappropriate in the conduct of the Japan Medical Association, among others. In my view, individual members must be guaranteed the freedom of thought and belief with regard to what organizations they join and to whom they donate money. I would like to hear your assessment of the present situation and your ideas as to the direction that reforms should take.

(To Ms. ASAOKA)

>> I do not think it is appropriate to include more provisions on duties in the Constitution, because this would be a move away from the modern constitutionalist doctrine that a constitution guarantees the fundamental human rights of the people and restricts the exercise of state power. What is your view in this regard?


YAMAMOTO Kiyohiro (Social Democratic Party)

(To Ms. ASAOKA and Prof. TERUOKA)

>> I fear that moves to add new human rights will be used to prime the pump for revision of Article 9 by weakening the public's resistance to the idea of amending the Constitution. You both commented that environmental rights can be recognized under the existing Constitution, and I would like to hear your views on this point in more detail.

(To Dr. UEMATSU)

>> There are a number of problems in the field of medical care; for example, the health insurance system now requires patients to pay 30 percent of treatment costs, and the system for providing treatment is inadequate in sparsely populated areas. How do you think we should put the ideals of Article 25 into practice in the medical field?

(To Prof. TERUOKA)

>> Article 9 has been criticized as "one-nation pacifism," but I believe that, because it obligates Japan to engage in active peace diplomacy, Article 9 can contribute to world peace, and it opens up the possibility of making international contributions by means other than the Self-Defense Forces. What are your views in this regard?


Main points of statements by speakers (afternoon)

NAKASONE Yasuhiro

>> We should examine the present Constitution as a whole and carry out any necessary reforms.

>> I would like to propose the following amendments:

  1. The Preamble should set forth an ideal vision for the future of the nation of Japan as a whole, based on the lessons of the past.
  2. The Emperor should be made "symbolic head of state under the sovereignty of the people."
  3. Paragraph 1 of Article 9 should be maintained as it is; in Paragraph 2, provision should be made for a "defense force," a force for purposes of self-defense which respects the principles of peace; Paragraph 3 should provide for participation in international cooperation activities, which may include the use of force, as stipulated in a Basic Security Law; and Paragraph 4 should provide for civilian control over the defense force by the Prime Minister and the Diet.
  4. Under the rights and duties of the people, new provisions should be established setting forth, among other things, personal rights and rights concerning the environment, freedom of intellectual activity, academic and creative freedom, and the responsibility to protect the peace and independence of the nation.
  5. Among provisions concerning the Diet, the House of Councillors should be given exclusive rights over personnel matters in the executive and judicial branches, and both Houses should be granted the power to impeach the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. Then, with regard to the executive branch, we should provide for popular election of the Prime Minister, and for executive power to be vested in the Prime Minister instead of the Cabinet. In the relationship between a popularly elected Prime Minister and the Emperor, the following distinction would be made: the Emperor would possess the historical and traditional status, and the Prime Minister would have administrative and functional powers of unification. We should also establish a provision allowing bills and other measures to be submitted to a national referendum.
  6. In the judicial branch, we should establish a Constitutional Court superior to the Supreme Court in its nature and functions, and the two should have a different composition.
  7. In the area of public finances, we should establish a provision calling for the realization of balanced budgets.
  8. In the area of local government, the present vaguely worded provision on "the principle of local autonomy" should be revised.
  9. The requirement for initiating a constitutional amendment in the Diet should be changed to a simple majority, and a national referendum should be made obligatory.

>> For the first round of constitutional revision, there is a need for a compromise proposal capable of winning the support of a two-thirds majority, which is the present requirement for initiating an amendment in the Diet.

>> Because the Constitution was enacted under abnormal conditions, that is, under the occupation, coupled with the changes that have occurred in the international situation since the September 11 incident and the fact that defects have been revealed in the existing Constitution, there is a growing movement in favor of constitutional revision in order to set forth a vision for the nation in the 21st century. It is to be hoped that Diet Members will fulfill their responsibility in this great national undertaking.


MIYAZAWA Kiichi

>> As secretary to the Minister of Finance in the months immediately after Japan's defeat in the war, I witnessed the Cabinet's efforts to solve numerous problems. The enacted Constitution was clearly created at the initiative of the occupation forces.

>> Thinking back, however, it seems to me that even though, procedurally speaking, the Constitution was enacted without problems, we might have escaped the criticism that it was enacted under the occupation if we had provided an opportunity for the people to express their will again after Japan's independence was restored. At that time, a Constitution with the same contents would probably have won the approval of a majority of the people.

>> At the time, I felt that the Constitution of Japan was written in a strange Japanese, or what one might call translationese; but in the five and a half decades since its promulgation, the language of the Constitution has come to be accepted as normal. Many Japanese have grown up accepting the words of the Constitution as their own, and it is not only the language that has changed, but Japan itself. I feel that the Japan we know today and the Constitution we know today have taken shape while mutually influencing each other.

>> Looking back over the past five and a half decades, I have a high regard for the role played by the Supreme Court in the interpretation and application of the Constitution.

>> Ever since it was promulgated, the Constitution of Japan has done its work well. Japan owes the growth that it has been able to achieve to the existence of the present Constitution.

>> I take the position that the Constitution of Japan is written flexibly, and that problems arising from various changes, domestic and international, can be dealt with in terms of how it is applied. However, situations may arise in which we have no choice but to change the Constitution; in that case, the matter should be decided by the people.


TAKEMURA Masayoshi

>> The Constitution has taken firm root in our governance, economy, and society; indeed, its existence has made Japan what it is over the past sixty years. In that sense, we should honestly recognize the value of the existing Constitution. In particular, I see no basis for rejecting the three principles of popular sovereignty, respect for fundamental human rights, and the pacifist ideal of the renunciation of war. I call on this Commission, when it presents the issues, to declare to the public that these three principles will be firmly upheld.

>> I hope you will debate the security issue seriously and not be swept along by current events. Japan set a precedent for the rest of the world by incorporating the spirit of the UN Charter into its Constitution in Article 9. This is the image that Japan presents, the banner that we have raised for the world to see, and we should not change it lightly.

>> The question of whether to make explicit provision for a self-defense capacity should be decided by future national debate. Even if explicit provision is made, however, we should clearly establish an exclusively defensive posture, civilian control, and nonnuclear principles, and we should limit ourselves to the minimum possible self-defense capacity.

>> Participating in international collective security is a concrete way to realize the ideal of international cooperation declared in the Preamble of the Constitution, and I hope that an appropriate conclusion can be reached on this question. Nonetheless, the use of force should still be avoided.

>> Cherishing and living in harmony with nature is a fine Japanese tradition which should be stated in the Preamble as the ideal of "environmentalism." I would like to see "environmentalism" treated in a new Constitution as an element of national identity that ranks beside the Emperor-as-symbol system.

>> In addition, in the main text we should create a chapter on "Responsibilities to the Environment." This would declare the duty of the state to guarantee a healthy environment to the people, and would also set forth the responsibilities of every Japanese toward the environment.

>> As a nonmilitary international contribution, Japan should offer a global lead by making provision for "environmental security," pledging active engagement on behalf of the global environment. I urge you to set forth the principles of "environmental security" and pacifism as the image of Japan.

>> Today, fiscal democracy is breaking down. I propose that we stipulate the principle of fiscal democracy and the responsibility to conduct sound fiscal administration, reining in debt, which has exceeded reasonable limits, and requiring that the budget be balanced on an ongoing basis over multiple fiscal years.


Main points of questions to speakers (afternoon)

EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(To Mr. TAKEMURA)

>> I would like to hear your views on local government in light of your experience in a number of posts, including Governor of Shiga Prefecture.

>> You suggested that fiscal democracy is breaking down. Specifically, where do you think the problems lie in public finances?

(To Mr. MIYAZAWA)

>> I would like to ask your opinion on the proper form of public finances, given your experience as Minister of Finance in several Cabinets, among other posts.

>> You did not state clearly whether you see a need for revision of the Constitution; what is your thinking in this regard? Also, do you think that at this point in time, nearly sixty years after it was enacted, conditions have emerged which cannot be addressed adequately with the existing Constitution? If so, how do you think we should respond?

>> Could you explain the background to your feeling that you would prefer, if possible, not to revise the Constitution?

(To Mr. NAKASONE)

>> Why do you think the Constitution has never been revised, from its enactment to the present day?


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

(To Mr. NAKASONE)

>> You predicted that a Heisei Constitution setting forth a vision for the nation of Japan in the 21st century will be created. Summarizing past views of the Japanese nation, I think we can say that the prewar image was an Emperor-centered view of history based on state Shinto, and the dominant perspective for several decades after the war was that of the Tokyo Trial of Japan's wartime leaders. What vision do you think we should have for the Japan of the future?

(To Mr. MIYAZAWA)

>> In a discussion with Mr. NAKASONE published in the Asahi Shimbun, you once said that, in view of the popular energy needed to change the Constitution, efforts to that end are not very productive. Do you still hold the same view?

>> As a vision for the Japanese nation of the future, I think we need a view of history that elevates human capacities such as culture and education. We should revise the Constitution by adding to it on the basis of this view of history, even if it means expending popular energy. How do you view the New Komeito's stance of "adding to the Constitution"?

(To Mr. TAKEMURA)

>> What is your view of the exercise of the right of collective self-defense?


YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

(To Mr. NAKASONE)

>> You propose a complete revision of the Constitution, and you call for establishing provisions in Article 9 to create a defense force for purposes of self-defense and to enable Japan to use force under certain conditions in the name of international cooperation. I would like to ask: (a) why you advocate revising Article 9 when it is your position that the right of collective self-defense can be exercised under the existing Constitution, and (b) whether you think that, if the amendments that you propose are realized, Japan will be able to join with the U.S. military in using force, as Britain has done in the Iraq war.

>> You stated that we should set forth a vision for the nation of Japan in the Preamble. In advocating this, did you have in mind the idea of a constitution according to modern constitutionalist principles, i.e., the idea that the people establish restraints on political power to protect their rights and freedoms?

(To Mr. MIYAZAWA)

>> You said that the existing Constitution is written flexibly and is capable of responding to the changing times. Why do you think that the existing Constitution is so responsive to change, and do you think that it is viable in the 21st century?

>> I believe that in Article 9 there is a line that cannot be crossed: that is, the Self-Defense Forces shall not be dispatched overseas, and they shall not use force. You said that the Constitution has done its work well amid great upheavals in both the international and the domestic environments. Do you think that Article 9 can be evaluated similarly?

(To Mr. TAKEMURA)

>> You commented that, in enacting Article 9, Japan became the first nation to embody the spirit of the UN Charter in concrete form, that Article 9 is Japan's image and banner, and that it should not be changed lightly; but do you think that Article 9 is being honored even under present circumstances?

>> What efforts should politicians and the public make to ensure that Article 9 continues to be the image and the banner of Japan in the future?


DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)

(To Mr. NAKASONE)

>> In a Diet session shortly after the war, you deplored a statement made by then Prime Minister YOSHIDA Shigeru in which he expressed reservations about permanent neutrality. You called this statement highly irresponsible and against the wishes of the people when the Constitution was enacted. Was it then your position that Japan should aim to be a neutral nation?

>> In the past, in answer to a question of mine in a full session of the House of Representatives, you said, "In international relations, the correct course is to pursue policies in line with international common practice or generally accepted ideas," and "We should consider the national interest as a whole, so that Japan does not become isolated from the rest of Asia, and we should demonstrate internationally that Japan has the capacity for self-reflection that democracy demands." Do you still hold these views today?

(To Mr. TAKEMURA)

>> Some people claim that it is necessary to revise the Constitution in response to a great transformation that society is currently undergoing. However, I think it is open to question whether such a transformation is taking place. What is your view?

(To Mr. NAKASONE and Mr. MIYAZAWA)

>> Many advocates of revising the Constitution initially argued that it should be revised because it had been drawn up under coercion by the United States. Recently, however, one often hears the argument that it should be revised in order to coordinate with American foreign policy. This amounts to endorsing a position of dependency on the United States. Isn't that inconsistent with the earlier argument for revision?


NODA Takeshi (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To Mr. NAKASONE)

>> Because the concurring votes of two-thirds of the members of each House are needed to initiate a constitutional amendment, it is impossible to initiate an amendment if the ruling and opposition parties are deadlocked. Accordingly, I think that, if the Constitution is to be revised, we need to form a grand coalition or take some similarly bold action. I would like to hear your detailed views on this point.

(To Mr. MIYAZAWA)

>> You stated that we should proceed flexibly by means of interpretation and application of the Constitution. But if we continue in this way, there will be a growing disconnect between the provisions and their actual application, until in the end the Constitution could lose its normative value. I think we need to set clear limits that will act as a sort of brake. Do you agree?