Fourth Meeting

Thursday, November 2, 2006

Meeting Agenda

Bill for Law Concerning Procedures for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan (submitted by Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu and four others: 164th Session of the Diet, House of Representatives Bill No. 30)
Bill for Law Concerning Initiation Procedures and National Referendums for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan and Other Important Matters of State (submitted by Mr. EDANO Yukio and three others: 164th Session of the Diet, House of Representatives Bill No. 31)

Mr. KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party), Chairman of the Subcommittee for Considering Bills on Procedures for Amending the Constitution of Japan, reported on the proceedings and outline of the discussion of the Subcommittee concerning the two abovementioned bills. (Click here)  This was followed by supplementary comments made by members of the Special Committee who are members of the Subcommittee. After this, questions were put to the following presenters of the two bills: Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), Mr. FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. OGAWA Junya (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), Mr. HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito), Mr. SUZUKI Katsumasa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), Mr. EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), and Mr. KATO Katsunobu (Liberal Democratic Party).

Subcommittee members who made supplementary comments:

Members who put questions to the presenters of the bills:


Report of the Chairman of the Subcommittee

KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

I would like to report on the proceedings of the Subcommittee for Considering Bills on Procedures for Amending the Constitution of Japan and to present an outline of our discussions.

The Subcommittee met today and heard from the following informants: Mr. IMAI Hajime, journalist and Secretary General of the Group of Citizens for Making Proper National Referendum Rules; Mr. YOSHIOKA Keisuke, Vice President of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations; Mr. FUKUI Kosuke, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Seikei University; and, Mr. TANAKA Akifumi, Vice President of the Central Executive Committee, Japan Federation of Prefectural and Municipal Workers' Unions (Jichiroren). Statements were heard from the informants concerning the Bill for Law Concerning Procedures for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan, and the Bill for Law Concerning Initiation Procedures and National Referendums for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan and Other Important Matters of State, with special reference to restrictions and penalties pertaining to campaigning in national referendums. This was followed by discussions with the participation of the following additional informants: Mr. MATSUMOTO Mitsutoshi, Vice President of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, and Mr. SUGANUMA Ichio, Chief Secretary, Committee on Constitutional Law, Japan Federation of Bar Associations.

I would like to present the main points of the statements made by the informants so that the contents of these statements may be shared with the Special Committee for Research on the Constitution of Japan.

Mr. IMAI expressed the following views. While civil servants and educators should not be allowed to use their official positions in campaigning in national referendums, restrictive provisions should not be contained in the procedural law for constitutional amendment. Basically, this matter should be left to the operations of the conscience of the Japanese people and to the democratic forces in Japanese society. Mr. IMAI presented the following rationale for this position. Discussions undertaken during this year's overseas research mission revealed that in the countries visited, matters concerning the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaigns were left to common sense judgments. The basic stance in these countries is that excesses will be suppressed and prevented by the process of public criticism. Likewise, although local referendums in Japan do not provide penalties for bribery, this has not resulted in serious problems.

Mr. YOSHIOKA expressed the following views. In national referendums for constitutional amendment, the people are being asked to make a decision on constitutional amendment. For this reason, national referendums are very different in character from elections in which the people are voting for specific candidates. Therefore, the provisions of the Public Offices Election Law should not be directly applied to national referendums. Mr. YOSHIOKA also expressed his opposition to all of the following: [1] the inclusion of judges, public prosecutors and police officers in the group of specified public service personnel whose participation in national referendum campaigns is restricted; [2] restricting the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigns based on the ambiguous concept of "use of official positions;" and, [3] criminalization of organized bribery of large numbers of people and influence peddling.

Mr. FUKUI expressed the following views. In national and local referendums, it is generally said that people vote in opposition to an initiative when sufficient information is not available to them. That is, they will vote to preserve the status quo. There is also a tendency for people to vote in opposition when feeling some uncertainty, and opposition campaigns can be extremely effective. The negative side of this is that it can be very difficult to make necessary changes if opposition campaigning is permitted in excess. The positive side is that such actions reflect the judgment of the people and that the people themselves stand as the "last bulwark." Mr. FUKUI also provided the following explanations: [1] even if a consensus has been reached among political parties and political elites, a significant gap may persist between this consensus and the consciousness of the general public; [2] after an initiative has been formulated, opposition to it tends to increase with the passage of time; and, [3] voting is easily swayed by criticism or popularity of the administration. Mr. FUKUI concluded that, in light of these considerations, national referendum legislation should be conducive to modes of national referendum campaigning that ensure the full circulation of information and the proliferation of debate and discussion.

Mr. TANAKA expressed the following views. Constitutional amendment is an extremely important matter of state. For the people to participate in this process of governance in the exercise of their sovereign powers, the greatest possible respect must be paid to the following: the free exchange of information concerning constitutional amendment; the free expression of views in support and opposition; and, the freedom of expression in conveying information. Therefore, national referendum campaign activities should basically be free and unfettered, and no restrictions should apply as a rule. Mr. TANAKA also advocated the following: [1] the "uniform prohibition" of the participation of specified public service personnel in national referendum campaigns should be deleted; [2] provisions concerning the "use of official positions by civil servants and others" should also be deleted; and, [3] explicit provisions should be written into the law exempting civil servants from the provisions of the National Public Service Law concerning political activities, at least with regard to national referendum campaigning.

In light of these views expressed by the informants, discussions and an active exchange of views were undertaken among Subcommittee members and informants. The following is an outline of these discussions.

Subcommittee members and informants discussed the following subjects from a variety of angles: the pros and cons of responding to inappropriate modes of national referendum campaigning through the imposition of penalties; the risk of abuse and suppressive impact of restrictions on national referendum campaigning resulting from the ambiguity of the concept of "use of official position"; the timing of the enactment of procedural law for constitutional amendment; the need to create a national referendum system to provide for the exercise of popular sovereignty; the public information activities of the Public Relations Council; and, a conceptual image of what constitutes a national referendum.

I would like to comment in greater detail concerning the main subject of this session, which was restrictions on national referendum campaign activities and the imposition of penalties.

One of the basic principles pertaining to national referendum campaigning is that there is an essential difference between voting for candidates in general elections and voting in national referendums for constitutional amendment, which determine the future course of the nation. Therefore, the restrictions on campaigning contained in the Public Offices Election Law cannot be directly applied to national referendum campaigning. For the people with whom sovereignty lies to make a judgment on whether to accept or reject a constitutional amendment, a free and unfettered exchange of views is essential. In light of these considerations, no opposition was voiced to the position that restrictions on campaigning should be limited to minimum necessary levels.

A number of specific issues were also discussed. The first issue concerned the scope of specified public service personnel prohibited from participation in national referendum campaigning. In the ruling parties' bill, ineligibility extends beyond persons engaged in administrating national referendums to include judges, public prosecutors and police officers. On the other hand, in the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan, ineligibility is limited to the administrators of national referendums. A presenter of the ruling parties' bill stated that, in light of recent overseas research conducted, this matter merits further consideration.

The next issue concerned restrictions on participation in national referendum campaigning by civil servants and educators in their official positions. The ruling parties' bill calls for restricting this form of campaigning, while the Democratic Party of Japan bill posits that no such restrictions should be adopted. Presenters of the Democratic Party of Japan bill stated that, in light of the importance of national referendum campaigning activities which are part of the exercise of popular sovereignty, they are considering revising their proposal to include explicit provisions exempting civil servants from the application of the restrictions on political activities in the National Public Service Law. Presenters of the ruling parties' bill concurred that such a revision merits consideration.

The third issue concerned acts of bribery and influence peddling in national referendum campaigns. The ruling parties' bill calls for restrictions on influence peddling and organized bribery of large numbers of people, while the Democratic Party of Japan bill contains no such restrictions on the grounds that such restrictions would be difficult to specify. Presenters of the ruling parties' bill stated that they wished to further limit the scope of acts of bribery and influence peddling to be restricted.

As chairman of the Subcommittee, my impressions of this meeting are as follows. National referendums for constitutional amendment provide an opportunity for the exercise of popular sovereignty. Therefore, the popular and sovereign will of the people must be reflected fairly in the outcome of national referendums. Parallel to this requirement, there is another requirement, which is that voting in national referendums must be based on the public's free and unfettered exchange of views. It is very important to be able to properly balance these two requirements. In this context, the members of the Subcommittee share a common awareness that maximum freedom must be ensured in national referendum campaigns, and that any restrictions adopted must be kept to minimum necessary levels. From this, I have been able to reaffirm that the distance between the positions of various Subcommittee members is shrinking.

I believe that the main subject of this session, restrictions on national referendum campaign activities and the imposition of penalties, is directly related to the question of how national referendums for constitutional amendment should be conducted. In light of the discussions conducted by the Subcommittee, I would like to ask this Special Committee to further deepen its discussions of national referendum campaigning activities and the imposition of penalties from various angles.

This concludes my report.

Statements by Subcommittee members making supplementary comments

FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Mr. IMAI advocated that, as far as possible, no restrictions should be placed on the participation of civil servants and others in national referendum campaigns, and that the matter should be left to the common sense and conscience of the people. As presenter of the ruling parties' bill, I feel the need for a flexible response regarding this matter, and believe that further discussion of this matter should be undertaken.

>> It was reported that Mr. YOSHIOKA reported on the opinions opposing discussing procedural legislation for constitutional amendment before specifying the contents of the constitutional amendment. I do not agree with this position.

>> I would like to emphasize that the purpose of procedural legislation for constitutional amendment is to present the public with a choice on constitutional amendment. That is, constitutional amendment is not the intent of procedural legislation.

>> Mr. FUKUI pointed out that people with insufficient access to information tend to vote in opposition to an initiative, and that people who have concerns regarding a proposed initiative tend to vote in favor of the status quo. For me, these comments underscore the importance of thorough public information activities to be undertaken by the Public Relations Council.

>> Mr. FUKUI argued that the point was not to stimulate public debate on a proposed constitutional amendment, but rather to formulate a constitutional amendment proposal concerning a matter that is already being actively discussed by the public. Is this position not tantamount to putting the cart before the horse?

>> Mr. TANAKA opposes the bills on the ground that a constitutional amendment proposal that would overturn the system of constitutionalism is already being presented and that to enact a national referendum law in such circumstances would promote the adoption of such a constitutional amendment. Nevertheless, he is prepared to join in the debate for the purpose of improving the proposed system. This forward-looking statement by Mr. TANAKA reaffirms the importance of engaging in discussion.


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

>> It is my position that, as a rule, no restrictions should be applied to the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaigns. Related laws and ordinances must be adjusted so that the restrictions contained in the National Public Service Law and other laws do not apply to campaigning in national referendums.

>> Restrictions on the participation of judges and public prosecutors in national referendum campaigning should be left to common sense judgments. No restrictions are necessary if such participation is considered to fall within the scope of the expression of personal views.

>> If bribery is to be criminalized, the definition of what constitutes a bribe will necessarily be ambiguous. If so, then no restrictions should be written into the law, and the matter should be left to common sense. Acts of bribery should be exposed to public and media criticism and left at that. Leaving matters to common sense does not constitute unrealistic idealism.

>> Regarding the use of official positions, the specifications of the ruling parties' bill are ambiguous. Any person who is arrested and indicted will suffer major damage, even if ultimately found innocent even by the Supreme Court. If the scope of such provisions cannot be effectively clarified by Supreme Court rulings, and if the wording allows for expansive interpretation, it would be preferable to avoid explicit restrictions and to leave the matter to common sense.


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> Some of the informants expressed the concern that discussions of procedural legislation for constitutional amendment will result in promoting the amendment of the Constitution. Although this concern is understandable, the two processes should be clearly differentiated. I would ask that people take the courage to separate the two and to participate actively in discussing procedural legislation.

>> Mr. IMAI commented that the question of Article 9 should be finally settled by submitting the matter to a national referendum. In this connection, Mr. FUKUI pointed out that ample thought should be given to the political impact of the possible rejection of a proposed amendment of Article 9 in a national referendum. (Would rejection of an amendment imply approval of the status quo, or would it imply conducting discussions that run counter to the proposed amendment?) This comment has left a very strong impression on me.

>> Mr. FUKUI took the position that in operating national referendums it would be desirable to develop a system that ensures the circulation of information and the proliferation of discussion. This made me keenly aware of the importance of creating conditions where people engage in free and unfettered debate on both sides of a question.

>> Regarding restrictions on the campaign activities of specified public service personnel, considering the difference in characteristics of campaign restrictions contained in the Public Offices Election Law, I felt that the scope of restrictions contained in the ruling parties' bill is too broad. I believe that there is ample room for reconsideration of this point.


ITOKAWA Masaaki (People's New Party and Group of Independents)

>> The voice of the people must be reflected in the Constitution. For this, every individual must be free to participate in national referendum campaigns and to engage in free and unfettered debate. Therefore, national referendum campaigning must, as a rule, be unrestricted. Any restrictions to be adopted should be limited to minimum necessary levels.

>> The basic principle is that "national referendum campaigning activities should, as a rule, be free and unfettered, and any restrictions to be adopted should be limited to minimum necessary levels." However, there are certain matters in the following areas that cannot be left unattended and unregulated: [1] the scope of "specified public service personnel" prohibited from participation in national referendum campaigns; [2] prohibition of use of official positions in national referendum campaigns; and, [3] the imposition of penalties (particularly, the pros and cons of criminalizing bribery). On the other hand, I am very apprehensive of the possibilities of over-regulation. This presents a perplexing dilemma.

>> The significance and position of the Internet in national referendum campaigning requires earnest discussion.

>> Solutions to the above problems should be explored by making maximum use of the insight gained from the recent overseas research mission.


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

>> Mr. YOSHIOKA and Mr. TANAKA expressed a very strong sense of apprehension that the intent of creating a national referendum system is to overturn the principles of constitutionalism and permanent pacifism, and I was deeply moved.

>> The right of constitutional enactment rests with the people, and the will of the people must be reflected to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, national referendum campaigning must be free and unfettered, and the law should not provide for any penalties. All of the informants expressed views in support of this position.

>> Although maximum freedom must be ensured in national referendum campaign activities, the very definition of "national referendum campaign" contained in the proposed bills is predicated on the imposition of restrictions on campaigning. This type of legislative philosophy is in itself highly problematic.

>> The informants from the Japan Federation of Bar Associations and the Jichiroren commented on the risk of unjust restrictions on the freedom of civil servants and educators and the suppressive impact of such restrictions. In their statements, they referred to the suppressive impact on school education, and wrongful police interference in activities unrelated to official positions and undertaken outside of work hours.

>> While reference has been made to the importance of active national referendum campaigns for raising voter turnout, I have very serious misgivings about these bills, which contain broad restrictions on campaign activities.


ABE Tomoko (Social Democratic Party)

>> According to various opinion polls, 66 percent of the people are not aware that national referendum is needed for constitutional amendment. Given these conditions and the vast gap between the Diet and popular awareness, I stand strongly opposed to the enactment of these bills.

>> Fully one-third of the ruling parties' bill is taken up by provisions concerning restrictions on national referendum campaigning. Such a system could lead to a situation in which restrictions could be applied to almost all forms of activities in opposition to constitutional amendment.

>> The definition of "national referendum campaign" is in itself ambiguous and may become subject to loose and expansive interpretation.

>> The scope of "specified public service personnel" prohibited from participating in national referendum campaigns and the ban on the use of official positions by civil servants and others in campaigning must be carefully discussed and further narrowed. In the first place, existing laws that ban the political activities of civil servants are in violation of international treaties. Priority must be given to the resolution of this problem.

>> Provisions for the criminalization of organized bribery of large numbers of people and influence peddling should be deleted. In total, the provisions for penalties are highly problematic.

>> The national referendum system must not be one that allows the constitution to be amended just for the sake of a groundswell or general mood for amendment. We should spend ample time in examining how to develop a national referendum system that provides for the just exercise of the right of popular sovereignty.

Members who put questions to presenters and main points of their questions

SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To the presenters of the bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> Though the two bills differ in the scope of specified public service personnel banned from national referendum campaigns, the two are alike in that they contain restrictions on national referendum campaigns. What interest are these restrictions designed to protect?

>> To maintain the public's trust in the impartiality of civil servants in the execution of their functions, I believe it is necessary to apply certain restrictions to the national referendum campaign activities that judges, public prosecutors, members of the Public Safety Commission and police officers can engage in. What are your views on this matter?

>> The ruling parties' bill forbids educators to use their official positions in national referendum campaigns even when the official position in question relates to the education of small children who are ineligible to vote in national referendums. What is the intent of this prohibition?

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> Regarding organized bribery of large numbers of people and influence peddling, the ruling parties' bill mentions the "provision of money or the provision of goods in amounts sufficient to influence voting behavior." I would like to know what this specifically refers to.

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> The Democratic Party of Japan bill contains no provisions concerning the criminalization of bribery. Is the imposition of a social penalty really enough in cases of bribery?


TSUTSUI Nobutaka (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> The wording of the provisions concerning restrictions on the participation of civil servants and others in national referendum campaigns and restrictions on the abuse of official position is very vague and violates the principle of legality. Regarding the former, it would seem to me that even implicit cases would be subject to restriction. Regarding the latter, doesn't the wording prohibit even the simple expression of personal views?

>> The wording of the provisions is such that it cannot be positively determined that an educator expressing his or her views in the classroom is not guilty of abuse of position.

>> Is it the legislators' intent that an educator expressing his or her views in the classroom should be not guilty of abuse of official position? If it is clear that such an act does not fall under abuse of official position, should it not be explicitly provided for in the law?

>> Even if the wording of the provisions is formulated to reflect court rulings under the Public Offices Election Law, it must be remembered that case law is subject to change. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to include explicit provisions in the law.

>> Provisions against the abuse of official position cover only civil servants and educators. What is the reason for this?

>> If educators are subject to this restriction because of their potentially strong influence, are there no other groups of people who should be similarly restricted? Private school teachers are private citizens. If private citizens are to be restricted, it should be borne in mind that major corporations can wield far greater influence. Why don't these restrictions extend to them?


OGUCHI Yoshinori (New Komeito)

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> What is the difference between election campaigns and national referendum campaigns? What is the basic thinking behind restrictions that apply to national referendum campaigns?

>> Under the Public Offices Election Law, specified public service personnel are banned from participating in election campaigns. Similarly, specified public service personnel are banned from participating in national referendum campaigns under the national referendum law. However, there is a difference between the scopes of "specified public service personnel." In many foreign countries, there are no restrictions on the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaign activities. I would like to ask the presenters of this bill to explain their thinking on the scope of "specified public service personnel."

>> Regarding the prohibitions against the use of official positions by civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigns, we need to consider what kind of behavior may actually undermine fairness in voting. From this perspective, I believe the scope of the prohibitions should be narrowed. What are your views on this matter?

>> Can the interpretations contained in the court rulings on the abuse of official positions by civil servants and educators under the Public Offices Election Law be directly applied as interpretations of the national referendum law?

>> I would like to know why the ruling parties' bill contains provisions for the criminalization of influence peddling and organized bribery of large numbers of people.

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> In your opinion, what problems would arise if provisions for the criminalization of bribery were not included in the law?


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> Prime Minister ABE Shinzo has presented a concrete timetable for constitutional amendment to the American and British media. This indicates that we are no longer in a stage where we can engage in calm and quiet discussion of the enactment of a national referendum law. Given the present environment, I believe the bills that have been submitted are intended for the purpose of pushing through specific constitutional amendments. What are your views on this matter?

>> Where is the guarantee that police authorities will not abuse the provisions against the use of official positions by civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigns?

>> Suppose a child or a child's guardians ask a teacher what his or her views are on constitutional amendment. Depending on how the response is received, can the expression of the teacher's views be construed as national referendum campaigning using an official position? As seen here, the provisions banning the use of official positions in national referendum campaigns is vague and abstract. What are your views on this matter?

>> I believe the provisions prohibiting the use of official positions by civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigns will have a suppressive impact. What are your views on this matter?

>> According to the bill, national referendum campaign activities are to be free and unfettered as a rule. On the other hand, the bill restricts campaigning by criminalizing and penalizing influence peddling and the organized bribery of large numbers of people. Is the introduction of penalties compatible with the principle of freedom in campaigning?

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)
>> Previously, Mr. EDANO stated that national referendum legislation should be enacted before specific constitutional amendments are formulated. At that point in time, Mr. EDANO stated that, "If we act now, we have just enough time left, but may actually be a little late." I would like to know what he thinks the present situation is.

>> I would like to ask Mr. EDANO the following question. Do the prohibitions of your bill extend to national civil servants acting on their freedom of thought and conscience to distribute newspapers and leaflets bearing articles concerning the national referendum?


ABE Tomoko (Social Democratic Party)

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> Did the overseas research mission find any laws prohibiting educators from participating in national referendum campaigns? In light of this fact, why does the ruling parties' bill contain such a prohibition?

>> Why are educators subject to harsher penalties than specified public service personnel? Does this not carry the risk of creating an even bigger suppressive impact in the educational setting?

>> How is education on the Constitution of Japan currently being carried out? Can the enactment of a national referendum law expose education on the Constitution to charges of "use of official position in national referendum campaigning?" It is a great misfortune for the people that enactment of a national referendum law is being discussed, even though the people do not have a full and sufficient awareness of the Constitution. I believe that deepening the public's awareness of the Constitution complies with the intent of ensuring popular sovereignty as implied in Article 96. What are your views on this matter?

(To the presenters of the bills submitted by both the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> Once ratified, a constitutional amendment will have a long-lasting impact. Hence, I believe it is necessary to reflect the views of as many generations as possible. The minimum voting age is 20 in the ruling parties' bill and 18 in the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan, with the proviso that a minimum voting age of 16 may be considered in certain cases. How do you view the question of the voting age from the perspective of the process of developing an awareness of the Constitution?


ITOKAWA Masaaki (People's New Party and Group of Independents)

(To the presenters of the bills submitted by both the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> The voice of the people must be reflected in the Constitution. For this, national referendum campaign activities must be free and unfettered as a rule, and any restrictions that are adopted must be kept to minimum necessary levels. What is your basic thinking concerning restrictions on national referendum campaign activities?

>> There are certain differences between the ruling parties' bill and the Democratic Party of Japan bill on the matter of penalties. What is your basic thinking on the matter of penalties in general?

>> The ruling parties' bill prohibits judges and other specified public service personnel from participating in national referendum campaigns. What is the reason for this? On the other hand, in the Democratic Party of Japan's bill, the only persons banned from campaigning are the members of the Central Election Management Council. What is the reason for this?

>> Why does the ruling parties' bill prohibit civil servants and educators from participating in national referendum campaigns in their official capacities? Why does the Democratic Party of Japan's bill not prohibit civil servants and educators from participating in national referendum campaigns in their official capacities?

>> In the previous meeting of the Special Committee, the presenters of the ruling parties' bill indicated some interest in lowering the minimum voting age. If the voting age is lowered, this would increase the importance of education concerning the system of national referendum campaigning. What are your views on this matter?

>> Unlike the Public Offices Election Law, the two bills contain no restrictions on campaign activities using the Internet. For instance, suppose false information is disseminated from the blog of a highly influential person. It is wrong that no provisions have been made for demanding the deletion of such information. On the other hand, the Internet may contain information disseminated from foreign countries, making it very difficult in practice to regulate the Internet. What are your thoughts on matters related to restrictions of campaign activities using the Internet?