Second Open Hearing

Thursday, April 5, 2007

Subject of the Hearing

Bill for Law Concerning Procedures for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan (submitted by Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu and five 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)

An open hearing was held concerning the two abovementioned bills. After statements were heard from the speakers, questions were put to them.


Morning Session

Speakers:


Members who put questions to the speakers:


Afternoon Session

Speakers:

Members who put questions to the speakers:

Main points of statements made by speakers (morning session)

MOMOCHI Akira

1. Speedy enactment of national referendum law

>> For many years, the Diet neglected to enact a national referendum law without any justifiable reason. There are very good grounds for suspecting that this is unconstitutional, and I therefore very strongly hope for the speedy enactment of a national referendum law.

>> National referendums provide the sovereign people with the sole opportunity to participate directly in the exercise of sovereignty. Failure to enact a national referendum law is tantamount to stripping the people of the opportunity to exercise their sovereignty.

2. Scope of national referendums

>> The enactment of a law concerning general national referendums would infringe upon the constitutional principle of representative democracy.

>> Even an advisory referendum, if its results can be ignored, would not have much significance. On the other hand, if the Diet were to be at all times bound by the outcome of such referendums, that would effectively violate the authority of the Diet.

>> Is it justified to delegate important matters of state to the popular will when the popular will can be very fluid from time to time? In considering this question, many doubts arise concerning the adoption of a general referendum system.

3. Definition of majority

>> Concerning the definition of majority, the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan counts all indeterminate ballots and all persons who fail to respond to be against an initiative. Due importance should be assigned to the fact that the initiation of an amendment requires a two-thirds majority of the Diet, the representatives of the sovereign people. As such, it would be justified and rational to conclude that an initiative has been approved unless the number of ballots explicitly opposing the initiative is in the majority.

4. Restrictions on national referendum campaign activities

>> To ensure fairness in the national referendum campaigns, as a rule, it would be natural to adopt regulations corresponding to those of the Public Offices Election Law.

>> Constitutional amendment affects the destiny of the nation and is highly political in nature. Civil servants are subject to rigorous restrictions on the types of political activities that they can engage in, and should not be permitted to participate freely in national referendum campaigning.

>> It is laudable that the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties prohibits the use of official positions by civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigning, and provides for penalties against violators. However, application of these provisions may differ among various local governments. Further consideration should be given to this point.

5. Restrictions on the media

>> Because television and other broadcast media can be very influential, fairness in political reporting must be mandated. The revised bill submitted by the ruling parties explicitly states that, "Attention shall be paid to the intent of the restrictions contained in the Broadcast Law." While this is highly laudable, it will be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of this provision.


NIWAYAMA Shoichiro

1. Regarding amendments exceeding the limits of constitutional amendment

>> To ward against the initiation of amendments exceeding the limits of constitutional amendment and to preserve the ideals of the Constitution, the procedural law should contain provisions for a process of judicial review to be undertaken prior to a national referendum.

>> If a judicial review system were to be adopted, it would be possible to ensure its practicality through such measures as: to provide for speedy review of highly complicated issues, the judicial review process could be placed under the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; and, to prevent abuse of the legal process, eligibility for initiating legal action could be restricted to Members of the Diet.

>> Assume an amendment exceeding the limits of constitutional amendment has been initiated. This would require calling a Constitutional Convention into session or taking some other form of action that would bring political intent to the forefront. The presenters of both bills have stated that they have not provided for a general election to be held between the initiation of an amendment and a national referendum. This is exactly why a process of judicial review needs to be included in the system.

>> The Constitution of Japan was created through the formality of revising the Meiji Constitution. In the process, the House of Representatives was dissolved and a general election was held. The Imperial Diet that emerged from the general election can be rightfully referred to as a Constitutional Convention, and it was here that the new Constitution was adopted. As such, in a legal sense, the revolution was validly grounded and was legitimate.

2. Minimum voter turnout requirement

>> Regarding the definition of "majority" in Article 96, this is frequently interpreted to mean the majority of the valid ballots cast, or the majority of all ballots cast. But it is also possible to interpret this to mean the majority of all eligible voters. How should this range of interpretations be understood? What it means is that there are valid grounds for endeavoring to identify the conditions sufficient for confirming that a constitutional amendment has been endowed with proper political weight, as demanded by Article 96, and for confirming that the will of all the people has been truly realized, as demanded by the Constitution. In this context, it is possible to state that the adoption of a minimum voter turnout requirement represents a means for identifying the requisite sufficient conditions. It is also worth considering the adoption of an "absolute approval ratio system" whereby ratification of an initiative would require the approval of a specific percentage of all eligible voters.

>> I do not think boycott movements are very desirable, but this cannot be denied as an expression of opinion and a means of campaigning. We cannot reject the adoption of a minimum voter turnout requirement system for this reason.

3. Preliminary national referendums

>> Suppose preliminary national referendums were to be required for constitutional amendments. Some have argued that this would ap to the burden of requirements stipulated under Article 96. However, I do not subscribe to this position. Rather, I interpret this to be an act of wisdom that would allow us to pass through the vital process of constitutional amendment with due sagacity.

4. Current status of bills

>> Priority should not be given to any political timetable. Thorough deliberation of the bills should be continued until such legislation is drafted as is acceptable to the people.


KOBAYASHI Yohei

1. Why lower the voting age now?

>> The voting age in public elections and national referendums should be lowered for the following reasons. The younger generations will be most seriously impacted by such problems as the aging of society, declining birth rates, fiscal deficits and environmental destruction, which are issues that must be considered from a long-term perspective. Amendment of the Constitution as the supreme law of the nation should reflect the will of the largest portion of the population. For this purpose, the right to vote in national referendums should be guaranteed to as many people as possible.

>> As society ages and the birth rate declines, there will be a relative decline in the number of young people. It is vital to build a society based on solidarity instead of conflict by bringing the views of the younger generations into the political process, thereby rectifying inter-generational disparities.

>> Public opinion polls and surveys conducted by the Cabinet Office indicate that the younger generations are becoming more interested in politics. Moreover, a voting age of 18 represents the global current.

2. Minimum voting age should correspond to completion of compulsory education

>> The purposes of compulsory education in middle school include the development of the requisite qualities for functioning as a member of society, and the nurturing of the ability to make just and fair judgments. Anyone graduating middle school is free to find employment and as a result to become a taxpayer. Therefore, it would be possible to lower the minimum voting age to 16, or to the completion of compulsory education.

>> Some have argued that the enfranchisement of minors over the age of 16 is problematic from the perspective of due maturity in judgment. However, minors are fully equipped to make proper judgments in local referendums where the subject of the initiative is restricted.

>> For example, if a local referendum is being held concerning the amalgamation of municipalities, the turnout of younger generations can be raised by designing more effective methods for the presentation and dissemination of information.

3. Relation to Public Offices Election Law, Civil Code and other related laws and ordinances

>> It is desirable for the minimum voting age in public elections and national referendums to be the same. On the other hand, the minimum voting age does not necessarily have to accord with the provisions of the Civil Code and other laws and ordinances.

>> The Public Offices Election Law should be revised at an early date to lower the minimum voting age in public elections and national referendums to 18. The Civil Code and other laws and ordinances should be discussed independently of this.


TANABE Hatsue

1. On how open hearings should be held

>> It is problematic that the public has not been made fully aware of these open hearings. The purpose of open hearings is to listen to and absorb the views of a broad range of the public. However, under the present system, the public does not have an opportunity to participate.

>> It is highly problematic that the time provided between the acceptance of applications from the public and the holding of open hearings is so short. As a member of the public, I wish to lodge a complaint against this rough-and-ready manner of holding open hearings.

>> I was selected to be a speaker in this open hearing three days ago, and the day before yesterday I received an enormous package of materials covering the proceedings of this Special Committee and the two bills being discussed. In order to make my participation meaningful, I would need more time than this to prepare.

>> I have heard that 124 people applied to speak before this open hearing today. I request that you also hear and take into consideration the views of those who were not chosen to be here today.

>> In addition to Niigata and Osaka, I request that local open hearings be held in other localities as well.

2. Definition of "majority"

>> I feel that "majority of all valid ballots cast" will not provide a true reflection of the views of the majority of the people. As in the draft outline of the constitution produced by the Constitution Investigation Association in 1945, which provided the foundation for the Constitution of Japan, the bills under consideration should make explicit provisions for "majority of all eligible voters."

3. Public relations and advertising concerning constitutional amendment

>> Television advertising can incite public opinion. Therefore, more time should be given to discussing measures that will prevent "buying the Constitution with money."

4. Restrictions on the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigns

>> Japan's five million civil servants and educators should not be prevented from expressing their opinions and participating in national referendum campaigns. Civil servants must not be permitted to abuse their powers. However the greatest risk of abuse does not lie in the campaign activities of individual civil servants. Rather, the greatest potential for abuse lurks in the acts of submitting legislative bills and proposing amendments to the Constitution.

5. Treatment of "matters that are related in content" in initiation of amendments

>> From the provisions of the bills, there is no way of telling what constitutes "matters that are related in content." Even on such basic issues, the bills take a very facile stance of assuming that these questions will be determined later. As such, I believe the bills to be immature and ill developed.


Main points of questions put to speakers (morning session)

HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To Mr. NIWAYAMA)

>> Under the Constitution, is it permissible for ministers of the cabinet to advocate constitutional amendment?

>> Is it permissible for ministers of the cabinet to advocate constitutional amendment in a personal capacity?

>> Is it permissible for the prime minister to advocate constitutional amendment as an individual politician?

(To Prof. MOMOCHI)

>> How do you evaluate the discussions that have taken place in this Special Committee concerning enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment? How do you evaluate the manner in which this Special Committee has been managed?

(To Mr. KOBAYASHI)

>> How old must one be to be allowed to smoke? What are the laws that determine the minimum age of smoking?

>> If the minimum voting age in national referendums for constitutional amendment is lowered to 18, should the minimum smoking age also be lowered to 18?

(To Ms. TANABE)

>> Is it possible to include in legislation certain provisions that are suspected of being unconstitutional?

(To Prof. MOMOCHI)

>> Would it be unconstitutional to enact legislation concerning so-called general national referendums?

>> The supplementary provisions of the bill submitted by the ruling parties refer to "examining the national referendum system for constitutional amendment." Would it be correct to assume that so-called general national referendums would also be discussed in the course of such an examination?


NAGATSUMA Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(Comment)

>> It is my position that a procedural law for constitutional amendment is provided for in the Constitution and is necessary.

>> In deliberating upon a procedural law for constitutional amendment, we should be careful not to sow the seeds of future difficulties. In this regard, it is vitally important to endeavor to hear the views of many people. Compared with the efforts made by other committees in the past, this Special Committee has not made enough efforts in terms of the number of hours spent in discussion, the number of open hearings held in Tokyo and other cities, and the number of speakers and informants appearing before the committee.

(To all speakers)

>> Do you feel that this Special Committee must make further efforts to hear the views of the public, for instance, by holding open hearings throughout all of the prefectures with sufficient publicity?

>> The Constitution of Japan is a product of the war. Therefore, before discussing amendment procedures and specific amendment proposals, I believe it is very important for the government to make a formal statement expressing its views on what it considers to be the specific object and causes of the "a mistaken national policy" referred to in "On the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the War's End" (the so-called "Murayama statement"). What are your views on this matter?

(Comment)

>> The government cannot be trusted because it has not clarified the specific object is causes of the "a mistaken national policy" referred to in the so-called "Murayama statement." This failure has created conditions that have obstructed sound discussions of constitutional amendment, and it is necessary to undertake a general re-evaluation of the war as soon as possible.


OGUCHI Yoshinori (New Komeito)

(To Prof. MOMOCHI)

>> You stated that national referendums should be restricted to national referendums for constitutional amendment. What are your views on preliminary national referendums conducted at an early stage for the purpose of registering the views of the public?

(To Mr. NIWAYAMA)

>> I understand that you have stated that constitutional amendments should be initiated following two separate votes taken before and after a general election. In this connection, what are your views on preliminary national referendums?

>> In order to prevent amendments that exceed the limits of constitutional amendment, you have suggested a process of judicial review by the Supreme Court to be undertaken in the initiation stage. The review of constitutionality by the courts would constitute an incidental system for reviewing constitutionality. Does the Constitution allow delegating the courts with the authority to undertake an abstract system of reviewing the constitutionality of provisions that have yet to be adopted?

(To Mr. KOBAYASHI)

>> You have advocated a minimum voting age of 16. However, there are forces that would intentionally attempt to influence children. So, I believe it would be better to adopt the world standard of 18. What are your views on this matter?

(To Mrs. TANABE)

>> As a mother with children, what are your views on the minimum voting age?

(To Mr. NIWAYAMA and Prof. MOMOCHI)

>> The revised bill submitted by the ruling parties bans spot television advertising for a two-week period preceding the voting day, while it is reported that the Democratic Party of Japan is considering a total ban. How do you view this issue from the perspective of the freedom of expression?


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

(Comment)

>> There are seven speakers at this opening hearing today as compared to 124 applicants. Of these applicants, 108 opposed the enactment of a national referendum law. This indicates how the public currently views the national referendum law.

(To Mr. NIWAYAMA and Mrs. TANABE)

>> What are your views on the recent discussions of constitutional amendment?

(To Mr. NIWAYAMA)

>> What are your views on whether the provisions of the National Public Service Law should be applied to the prohibition of political activities by civil servants?

(To Ms. TANABE)

>> What discussions did you have in your study group on the Constitution concerning the ban on broadcast advertising prior to the voting day?

(To Mr. KOBAYASHI)

>> A minimum voting age of 18 is becoming a global norm, and I believe that politicians should be held responsible for not making this change in the past. What are your views on lowering the minimum voting age in public elections and national referendums?

(To Mr. NIWAYAMA)

>> The presenters of the bills submitted by the ruling parties and by the Democratic Party of Japan have argued that minimum voter turnout requirements should not be introduced because public interest in some issues is not necessarily high. As examples, they have cited the issue of government subsidies to private schools and the reduction of compensation paid to judges. I believe these examples do not provide valid grounds for such an argument. What are your views on this matter?


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)

(Comment)

>> Looking at the people who applied to speak in this open hearing, I was surprised by the large number of persons opposing the bills submitted by the ruling parties and by the Democratic Party of Japan. I felt that a gap exists between the number of seats held in the Diet by various parties and the will of the people.

>> Constitutional amendment requires the careful consideration and consensus of the people. Similarly, a procedural law for constitutional amendment must be impartial and fair so that it does not work to the advantage or disadvantage of both those supporting and opposing constitutional amendment.

(To Prof. MOMOCHI)

>> I wish to ask concerning the exercise of the sovereignty of the people in national referendums for constitutional amendment. I believe this exercise of sovereignty differs from the power of constitutional enactment that is exercised in the post-revolutionary state of confusion in the form of unfettered and "naked power" for the creation of a new constitution. Rather, it is my understanding that this exercise of sovereignty consists of the exercise of the "right of constitutional amendment" in accordance with the provisions of the existing constitution. Am I right in my understanding?

(To Mr. NIWAYAMA)

>> I believe the Constitution of Japan does not provide for a complete revision of the existing constitution or the adoption of a totally new constitution. What are your views on this matter?

>> The bills call for the establishment of a Commission on the Constitution as a standing organ of the Diet empowered to examine amendment proposals at any time after the end of a three-year moratorium period. What are your views on this matter? Some have said that the Commission on the Constitution should be granted the powers to interpret the Constitution instead of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau. But this is an organ whose membership will change from time to time in accordance with changing political conditions. Should such an organ be granted such important powers? What are your views on this matter?

(To Ms. TANABE)

>> Judging from your experiences in your study group on the Constitution, how long should the publicity period be for a constitutional amendment that has been initiated?

(To all speakers)

>> The holding of open hearings should not be considered merely as a prerequisite for voting on the bills. Various views heard in these hearings, such as Mr. KOBAYASHI's statement that the minimum voting age in national referendums should be lowered to 16, must be reflected in our deliberations. I believe that it is necessary to continue a careful process of discussion and deliberation. What are your views on this matter?


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

(To all speakers)

>> A recent public opinion poll shows that 68 percent of the people favor the enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment. On the other hand, only 1.9 percent of the respondents said that enactment of such legislation was the top priority for the second half of the current session of the Diet. How do you interpret these results?

(To Mr. KOBAYASHI)

>> Suppose the minimum voting age is lowered to 18. The challenge remains on how to raise the interest of young people under the age of 19 in the Constitution. What ways can be used to encourage discussion of the Constitution among young people?

(To Prof. MOMOCHI and Mr. KOBAYASHI)

>> The bill submitted by the ruling parties prohibits civil servants and educators from participating in national referendum campaigns in their official positions, and the revised bill attempts to clarify the concept of "use of official position." Suppose a constitutional amendment has been initiated by the Diet. What position would you take concerning educators expressing their support for or opposition to the amendment in a classroom situation?

(To all speakers)

>> Neither of the two bills contains any restrictions on the use of the Internet in national referendum campaigns. What are your views on restrictions on the use of the Internet in national referendum campaigns?

Main points of statements made by speakers (afternoon session)

NAMBU Yoshinori

1. Scope of national referendums

>> The introduction of general national referendums is an issue for future consideration. Efforts should be made to create a broad ranging consensus on the assumption that legislation for national referendums for constitutional amendment will be enacted first.

>> Preliminary national referendums concerning constitutional amendment can be viewed as officially sanctioned public opinion polls. One option would be to gauge the public's negative views by including "The Constitution should not be amended" as a choice in such preliminary national referendums.

2. Period of publicity and public information following initiation

>> Regarding the period of publicity, perhaps the following position can be advocated as the will of the legislators. As a rule, the period of publicity shall be 180 days. However, the period of publicity may be reduced in stages depending on the specific content of the constitutional amendment that has been initiated.

3. Significance and limitations of national referendum campaigns

>> Freedom to campaign in national referendums constitutes an important right that is founded on the principle of popular sovereignty, and must be granted the maximum guarantee. However, even if this right were to be defined in law, this would not necessarily provide a maximum guarantee to acts of active solicitation. Defining this right will give rise to a separate concept of general expression of opinion. The demarcation of the two for purposes of restriction and penalization will be problematic.

>> Restrictions on national referendum campaigning should be devised with reference to the type of actor and the type of activities as follows: (a) national referendum administrators should not be permitted to engage in normal solicitation activities, and should be penalized for violations; (b) employees of election management boards should not be permitted to engage in normal solicitation activities or more active forms of solicitation activities, and should be penalized for violations; (c) civil servants should be exempted from the application of all restrictions on political activities, including normal solicitation activities and the general expression of opinions; (d) civil servants and educators should not be permitted to engage in active forms of solicitation activities taking advantage of their positions, but penalties for violation are unnecessary; and, (e) there is room for introducing bans on broadcast advertising, including the general expression of opinions, but penalties on violation are unnecessary.

4. "Exemption from application" of restrictions on political activities in public service legislation

>> The participation of civil servants in national referendum campaigns can be dealt with in two stages. In stage one, the freedom of participation should be guaranteed to all persons as a rule. In stage two, certain activities that are to be prohibited as exceptions to the rule should be defined. I believe that this is the consensus that was reached last December between the presenters of the bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan. However, the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties contravenes this consensus in that it fails to provide for exemption from application of restrictions on political activities, which is one of the requirements of stage one. Provisions for exemption from application should be revived and reinstated. However, such provisions would not exempt civil servants from the application of provisions pertaining to the prohibition of acts undermining trust.

MATSUSHIGE Miwa

1. Introduction

>> It has been argued that failure to enact a procedural law for constitutional amendment is tantamount to legislative nonfeasance. However, given the decision of the sovereign people that constitutional amendment was unnecessary, this argument does not hold. I am opposed to the enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment undertaken in the absence of the people. Such a course of action will only invite crises in democracy and constitutionalism.

2. Issues related to open hearings

>> The number of open hearings held is smaller than the number of open hearings held for the Fundamental Law of Education. Moreover, no open hearings have been scheduled to discuss the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties. Regardless of the content of the bills, the great haste that is being made to bring the matter to a vote presents various problems of procedure and process. Given the large number of applications received for participation in this open hearing, I believe a series of additional open hearings should be organized.

3. Absence of minimum voter turnout requirement

>> Ratification requirements must be such as to support a judgment that amendments have been approved as a matter of national consensus. A minimum voter turnout requirement is needed to realize the intent of Article 96.

4. Issues related to freedom of expression

>> The bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan contains no restrictions on the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaigning. I find this highly laudable from the perspective of ensuring the people's freedom in participating in national referendum campaigning.

>> The bill submitted by the ruling parties creates the risk of the Constitution being bought with money. The bill will allow the haves to press their own views through television advertising. As for the have-nots, the bill bans civil servants and educators from using their official positions in campaigning. These provisions will promote a society characterized by marked disparities in access to information, and one that does not allow for pluralism in views and opinions.

>> In the process of debating constitutional amendments, television advertising should be banned and the task of informing the public should be delegated entirely to media news and reportage programs. The transmission of information through the Internet, newspapers and various forms of meetings is important because these facilitate independent decision-making.

5. Preliminary national referendums

>> Article 96 stipulates that a national referendum for constitutional amendment must follow the initiation of an amendment. By contrast, the intent of preliminary national referendums is to conduct such referendums prior to initiation of amendments. The idea of preliminary national referendums must be very carefully examined in light of the provisions of Article 96.

6. Conclusion

>> For the sake of the people, we need to enact a procedural law for constitutional amendment that the opposition will find convincing and which does not violate the Constitution. It cannot be said that sufficient discussions have been conducted for the attainment of these objectives. Some have argued that public understanding has not been gained on the contents of the bills, and that the bills have not been sufficiently discussed. For this reason, it is my hope that careful deliberations will be continued.


Main points of questions put to speakers (afternoon session)

KATO Katsunobu (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To all speakers)

>> General national referendums should be considered separately from national referendums for constitutional amendment. However, from the standpoint that the happiness of the people depends more on the level of political participation than economic wealth, I believe it is worth considering the introduction of general national referendums. What are your views on this matter?

>> What should be done to get more people to participate in national referendums? Instead of adopting minimum voter turnout requirements, I believe it is necessary to promote participation by using various available means, including advertising and the mass media, to heighten public interest. If you take a negative position on advertising, what other means are available for undertaking public information activities and promoting participation in national referendums?

>> Civil servants are there to serve the entire population, and this is the source of the people's trust in civil servants. With regard to national referendum campaigning, is it acceptable to apply exactly the same rules and restrictions to civil servants as apply to the general public?


OKAMOTO Mitsunori (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(To all speakers)

>> What are your views on setting the minimum voting age in national referendums at 18? If the voting age is lowered to 18, should the age of majority in the Civil Code and related laws also be lowered to 18?

>> What specific restrictions should be applied to paid broadcast advertising?

>> Do you favor or oppose the adoption of minimum voter turnout requirements, and why?

(To Mr. NAMBU)

>> Suppose a minimum voter turnout requirement is adopted, and this requirement is not met in a national referendum. One interpretation would be that the authorities have failed in their public relations and information activities. If the voter turnout requirement is not met, one option would be to conduct a re-vote. What are your views on these matters?

(To Mr. MORIKAWA)

>> In certain cases, public interest in the contents of a constitutional amendment may remain low. If a minimum voter turnout requirement is adopted, one of the challenges will be how to raise the turnout in instances of low public interest. What are your views on this matter?

(To Ms. MATSUSHIGE)

>> You have stated that Article 9 should not be amended. Are there no other provisions in the Constitution that require amendment? If we decide to enact a procedural law for constitutional amendment when the need arises some time in the future, this would give rise to the risk that, for a certain period of time, we would be left without the necessary procedures for amending the Constitution. What are your views on this matter?


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

(To Mr. NAMBU)

>> When you say that the national referendum law should be enacted as soon as possible, do you mean that it should be enacted during the current session of the Diet?

(To Ms. MATSUSHIGE)

>> You stated that the bills should be rejected for now and a fresh start made later. Are you advocating the drafting of a bill that differs from the bills before us, or do you mean that we have no need for a national referendum law?

(To Mr. MORIKAWA)

>> You stated that we do not need a national referendum law now. In that case, when would such a law be necessary?

>> How did you arrive at the conclusion that the people feel no need for constitutional amendment?

(To Mr. MORIKAWA and Ms. MATSUSHIGE)

>> I believe Prime Minister ABE has repeatedly made statements concerning constitutional amendment because a large part of the public latently supports constitutional amendment. What are your views on this matter?

(To Mr. NAMBU)

>> I believe constitutional amendment through re-interpretation can be avoided by clarifying the wording of Article 9. What are your views on this matter?

(To Mr. MORIKAWA)

>> What do you think of the fact that, as a result of five years of research, the Research Commission on the Constitution came to the basic conclusion that the Constitution needed to be amended?

(To Mr. NAMBU)

>> It is regrettable that the revised bill of the ruling parties does not provide for exemption from application of restrictions on the political activities of civil servants provided for in the National Public Service Law and other laws. However, I believe this problem can be overcome through sufficient discussion during the coming three years. What are your views on this matter?

(To Mr. MORIKAWA)

>> Mr. NAMBU has proposed conducting preliminary national referendums on constitutional amendment with the option for voting for no constitutional amendment to be made. I believe this suggestion is worth considering. What are your views on this matter?


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

(To Ms. MATSUSHIGE)

>> I would like to know what your motive was in approaching the heads of local governments and local assemblies concerning constitutional issues.

(To Mr. NAMBU)

>> Regarding the ban on the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigning in their official positions, you stated that a consensus was reached between the presenters of the bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan to only cover the most extreme cases of abuse. The revised bill submitted by the ruling parties goes no further than to re-word the section on "use of position" without changing its meaning. Can the contents of the law be properly specified merely through a process of re-wording?

(To Ms. MATSUSHIGE and Mr. MORIKAWA)

>> I believe civil servants and educators can stimulate national referendum campaigns by actively speaking out on the Constitution based on their own experiences. What are your views on this matter?

(To Mr. MORIKAWA)

>> What are your views on the establishment of Commission on the Constitutions as standing organs in both Houses of the Diet and the fact that the Joint Examination Committee would be making recommendations to the Commission on the Constitutions of both Houses?

>> In your statements, you referred to the results of a public opinion poll. What were the features of the results? What impressions do you have from participating in activities related to this poll?

(To Ms. MATSUSHIGE)

>> In reference to the sixtieth anniversary of the promulgation of the Constitution, I would like to know your thoughts on the Constitution and any other matters that you would like to convey from the perspective of someone who has interacted with the people of Kochi Prefecture.


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)

(To Mr. MORIKAWA)

>> In your statements, you referred to the results of a public opinion poll. Please give us a detailed explanation of the features and content of this poll.

(To Ms. MATSUSHIGE)

>> You stated that a number of local government assemblies in Kochi Prefecture unanimously adopted policy statements opposing the national referendum bills. Please explain the content of these statements.

>> My understanding of your position is that civil servants should be free to express their views both in opposition to and in favor of constitutional amendment. Am I correct in my understanding?

(To Mr. MORIKAWA)

>> In the Niigata open hearing, a statement was made to the effect that "careful consideration and consensus" are needed in the treatment of the Constitution. Similarly, in the overseas research conducted by this Special Committee, it was stated that conducting national referendums in the absence of a national consensus would only create confusion. It is my understanding that diverse views exist within the Diet concerning the national referendum law. What are your views on the current situation in the Diet?

(To all speakers)

>> I believe that for some types of initiatives, a publicity period of about one year would be appropriate. What are your views on this matter?


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

(To all speakers)

>> There are arguments both affirming and denying the need for a procedural law for constitutional amendment. How do you evaluate the current situation?

(To Ms. MATSUSHIGE)

>> Provisions against the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigns in their official positions are contained in both the original and revised bills submitted by the ruling parties. Do you feel that you will be somehow constrained by the existence of such provisions?

(To all speakers)

>> Regarding restrictions on paid advertising on television and in other media, in the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties, the period of the ban on such advertising has been extended from seven days to 14 days prior to voting. What are your views on this matter?

(To Mr. NAMBU)

>> Regarding national referendum campaigning, it is conceivable that television advertising will be continuously transmitted over the Internet. What are your views on adopting restrictions on the use of the Internet?

(To Mr. MORIKAWA)

>> Suppose no restrictions are introduced on the use of the Internet in national referendum campaigning. I believe this would create an information gap between persons who can use the Internet and those who cannot. What are your views on this matter?

(To all speakers)

>> Once a constitutional amendment has been initiated, I would hope that thorough public information activities would be undertaken both on the central and local levels. In this connection, what are your thoughts on the function and activities of the Public Relations Council?