Interpretation of Former Prime Minister Abe's Preamble to the Constitution - It is necessary to revise the preamble at the same time as the revision of Article ９ of the Constitution.
2022-05-10
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
The following is the preamble to the Constitution of Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe, who appeared on TV as acting secretary general of the LDP in 2005, was talking about the interpretation of the preamble to the Constitution. The preamble to the Constitution is a declaration of peacekeeping on the premise that it has no military power, and it is premised that it will be supported by other countries.
How Japan enjoyed peace during the post-war Cold War, and how to maintain peace in the midst of the rise of China and the runaway of North Korea, should be discussed separately. ..
Preamble to the Constitution of Japan
The Japanese people act through their representatives in a legitimately elected parliament, ensuring the achievements of harmony with the nations and the abundance of freedom throughout our country for our descendants, the government. Decided to prevent the tragedy of war from happening again by the act of, proclaiming that sovereignty exists in the people here, and finalizing this constitution. In the first place, national affairs are based on the solemn trust of the people, whose authority comes from the people, whose power is exercised by the representatives of the people, and whose welfare is enjoyed by the people. This is a universal principle of mankind, and this Constitution is based on this principle. We exclude any constitutions, statutes and imperial rescripts that violate this.
peace-loving nations. We decided to keep our safety and survival. We want to occupy a prestigious position in the international community, which strives to maintain peace and forever remove tyranny and servitude, oppression and narrowness from the earth. We affirm that the people of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and deficiency.
[Interpretation of former Prime Minister Abe]
We have decided to maintain our security and survival by trusting the justice and faith of peace-loving nations. → Leave it to other countries and decide to do nothing (Abe interpretation)
We want to occupy a prestigious position in the international community, which strives to maintain peace and forever remove tyranny and servitude, oppression and narrowness from the earth. → Let's get compliments from the international community that we are working on instead of asking for something (Abe interpretation)
It is a frank opinion that seems to be the former Prime Minister Abe. Many Japanese still think that Japan's peace has been protected by Article 9 of the Constitution, but the interpretation that it was protected by the United States rather than by Article 9 of the Constitution is more realistic. prize.
On the flip side, if the United States does not protect Japan, Japan's peace will be completely destroyed.
POINT The debate on the revision of Article 9 of the Constitution is overheating, but it seems necessary to discuss revising the preamble itself on the premise that it does not have force in the first place.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
State funerals are an exclusive matter of the Cabinet - clearly stated in the Cabinet Office Establishment Act, similar discussions have been made in the past and a conclusion has been reached.
Public opinion grills the perpetrator's motive
Don't politicians have freedom of religion?
State funerals are an exclusive matter of the Cabinet
Certified by Cabinet Office Establishment Act
It is the opposition members who are not based on the law
Public opinion in Japan is still agitated over the issue of state funerals. In the first place, I am appalled by the way the Japanese media is using the claims of the person who murdered former Prime Minister Abe as they are, changing it to a picture of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Unification Church. They are even using the murderer's crazy and erroneous motives to provoke the people.
Shouldn't politicians be religious? Freedom of thought and belief is a legitimate human right granted to all citizens. If there is a problem that violates the Political Funds Control Act, then that would be fine, but in that case, religious groups and companies are completely irrelevant. Former Prime Minister Abe merely offered his greetings. I tried looking for a law that says greetings are a crime, but I couldn't find anything. I would like the definition of the word "involvement" to be clear. But that's it.
The Kishida Cabinet decided to hold a state funeral, but I wonder if there is a problem. Opposition parties and the media are shouting that there is a problem with the decision-making process. Many say that at least the Diet should be involved in decision-making. For a long time after the war, there was no legal regulation regarding state funerals, and according to Yoichi Takahashi, similar points were raised and discussed at the time of former Prime Minister Yoshida's state funeral. In other words, it was not clear at the time who should make decisions, how they should be decided, and what process should be used, which was already discussed in the past.
In 1999, the Cabinet Office Establishment Act was enacted, and in the legislation that clearly stipulated matters decided by the Cabinet Office, Article 4, 3-32 states, `` Affairs related to national ceremonies and ceremonies and events conducted by the Cabinet.'' Regarding ”. In other words, the National Assembly, or the legislative branch, has enacted a law that states that state funerals, which are national ceremonies, are the exclusive domain of the Cabinet.
There is no problem with the process by which the Cabinet made decisions based on the Cabinet Office Establishment Act. If the Diet should be involved now, it means that all members of the Diet have already been involved, the legislative branch has enacted legislation, and the Kishida Cabinet has decided to hold a state funeral accordingly. Don't members of Congress have an obligation to obey the law?
This makes me question whether Japan really is a country ruled by law. Incendiary voices that sound like they are from a special country are corrupting a democratic society.
Which country did Japan invade? - Japan invaded European - controlled areas - Asian liberation and colonial policy.
When considering the aspects of Japan's war of aggression, first of all, the Korean Peninsula was made an independent state by the Treaty of Shimonoseki and was annexed by the Treaty of Annexation, so it is not included in the invasion. Taiwan was also formally ceded under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, so it was not included in the invasion. Southeast Asian countries are already Western colonies and do not have administrative powers. To be honest, Japan invaded Britain, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, and the United States. Would you call this an invasion of Asia? Viewed in this way, if China had dared to invade, it would have been China that was barely maintaining its administrative power.
Now, regarding what Japan's purpose was, if we say that Japan is no different from Western colonies in terms of increasing its national power through colonial rule, the reality is different. Japan did not adopt racist policies and developed laws, and eventually Southeast Asian countries grew to the point where they were able to fight against whites and protect their own countries on their own. War operations are meaningless unless they are linked to national interests. So these things are always related to Japan's national interests.
Historically speaking, Japan was isolated from the rest of the world until the Meiji Restoration. It took only 27 years from the establishment of the new government to its victory over the Qing Dynasty, which was said to be a world power. It would be 37 years until Japan again defeated Russia, which was said to be a world power. Next, it was in 1919 that Japan won World War I and became a permanent member of the League of Nations, so Japan isolated itself from developing countries that had never seen a steam engine, and only 51 In 2019, I will be sitting on a chair at the table at the center of the world. Japan proposed the ''Racism Discrimination Elimination Bill.''
There is probably no one who has not seen the vast area called Asia on a map. On top of that, over a long period of 400 years, the white maritime nation colonized Asian countries one after another. Japan is an island nation floating on the farthest east coast. Japan's opening to the world was related to this movement of white people. The colonization of the vast area of Asia was already approaching Japan.
Japan's Restoration and opening of the country, as well as the energy of the industrial revolution and modernization, were explosively generated during these global movements. If one country or one ethnic group in such a vast region of Asia, where so many ethnic groups live, were to unite and confront the white countries, the white people would never come to such a farthest island nation. It would be a good thing if there was even one country that could stop the invasion of white people, but unfortunately there was not a single country in Asia like that.
The main focus of Japan's colonial policy in Asia is to build a collective security system for people of color in Asia and to spread the results of Japan's Restoration to Asia. This is clearly stated in the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration, which is signed by the participating leaders from each country. If we look at history from a myopic perspective, we will not be able to understand this era.This may seem obvious, but no matter how many times you hear about former comfort women or visit coal mine sites, you will never understand this era.
The United Nations that has stopped functioning due to old - fashioned values - Japan remains an enemy country - Where is the country to be monitored?
Enemy State Clauses in the Charter of the United Nations are set forth in Articles 53, 77 and 107. The enemy country is a country that was an enemy at the time of World War II, and it is permitted to impose military sanctions against re-invasion by the enemy country without passing a resolution of the Security Council. The United Nations is a coalition of victorious nations, one of which is to monitor and control defeated nations. Needless to say, one of the enemy countries is Japan. Among such organizations, Russia, which is currently at war, and China, which aims to expand its power to Asia, exist as permanent members. China and South Korea are the countries that try to lower Japan's international status by taking advantage of the nature of the United Nations as a victorious coalition.
The contribution to the United Nations is determined based on GDP. As for the contribution, Japan, which is stipulated as an enemy country, is in 3rd place, and Germany is in 4th place. In recent years, China has been ranked second due to the growth of GDP, but Japan is still second in terms of cumulative contributions.
In the postwar US-Soviet Cold War era, NATO and the Warsaw Pact face each other. Nevertheless, this victorious alliance will continue to maintain the enemy state clause of World War II. And now, even when witnessing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the United Nations is monitoring Japan and Germany with Russia and China as permanent members. The countries that the world must monitor will be clearly different.
South Korean say Japan is a democratic backward country without direct election of leader.Don't you know the parliamentary cabinet system?
Some Koreans say that Japan, which does not elect a leader in direct elections, is a backward democratic country.Japan has a parliamentary cabinet system.The choice of leaders is similar to that of Britain.Britain's ruling party leader is a candidate for prime minister and is elected prime minister by a majority of the House of Representatives.
UK adopts the same parliamentary cabinet system as Japan.The prime minister, not the president, is elected from Parliament.
Some Japanese misunderstand this, but it is only an internal election to select a leader when the LDP presidential election is held.If elected here, he will be elected prime minister with a majority vote in the Diet.The disclosure of the party's election is only due to the high demand.There is no obligation to disclose it.It is unclear how the leaders of the Constitutional Democratic Party or the Communist Party of Japan became leaders.
Considering how Moon Jae In was elected party leader in Korea, the same can be said.Democrats, who saw Sanders' superiority in the 2020 U.S. presidential election as a failure to beat Trump, persuaded two other candidates to withdraw their candidates and unify them with Biden.It's not about factionalism, but it's about doing the same thing .The Republican Party unifies Trump, but the cause is unclear.In any case, this is just a matter for parties to decide.
This has nothing to do with direct elections, whether they are democratic or not.Both the presidential system and the parliamentary cabinet system are forms of democracy.The essential point is the difference about votes.Lawmakers are elected from one district and the prime minister is one of them.The president is elected by the vote of the whole people.In other words, the content of the vote is different.Based on this, the president has the power to make decisions without the approval of Congress, which is different from lawmakers.On the other hand, we can think of the need for a referendum to give the president privileged power.
To concentrate one's power is to give one certain dictatorship.Whether this is necessary or not is a choice in the form of national democracy.In countries where war and civil war are expected, radical power is often entrusted to the leader.
The presidential system is given great authority for direct elections.The parliamentary cabinet system is selected by parliamentary approval, so the authority is limited.
The political reform outline of 1989 has become a mere shell - What is Prime Minister Kishida's formulation of
One faction after another announced that they would be disbanded, and Prime Minister Kishida also mentioned the dissolution of the Kochi-kai. Looking at the Political Reform Outline drawn up in 1989, we can see that it does little to address the current party ticket issue. This is an outline adopted by the Liberal Democratic Party in the wake of the Recruit Incident. Prime Minister Kishida has said that he will formulate "new rules," but what is the position of the political reform outline that his own party has drawn up in the past? You can read the full text of the outline by clicking on the link, but here we will describe the table of contents and main points.
Excerpt of the Political Reform Outline
Revising and strengthening the Code of Conduct and the Political Ethics Review Board
Enactment of law to disclose assets of members of the Diet to establish political ethics
Strengthening the ban on donations to ceremonial occasions, etc.
Regulations on business card advertisements, New Year's cards, etc.
Strengthening regulations on posters, etc.
Reducing personnel and office costs
Stock trading regulations
Restraint of parties and new regulations
Concentration of donations to political parties and support for member activities
Expansion of public aid to members of the Diet and examination of political party laws focusing on state subsidies
Fundamental reform of the electoral system
Reduction of total constants
Correcting disparities
Fundamental reform of the electoral district system
Exercising the uniqueness of the House of Councilors
Reform of the current proportional representation system
Reducing the total number of constants and correcting the imbalance in the allocation of constants
Enhancing deliberations and easy-to-understand parliamentary management
Respect for majority rule
Achieving efficient parliamentary management
Determination to remove and eliminate the harmful effects of factions
Transition to a modern national party
Reflections of tribal members
Improving the number of winnings system and ensuring that rewards and punishments are mandatory
New rules for determining candidates
Establishment of decentralizationMay 23, 1989 Political Reform Outline
Has anything been achieved in this? Looking at the recent party ticket issue, it appears that it has largely faded away, but Prime Minister Kishida recently announced that he is considering disbanding the Kochi-kai. Mr. Nikai's Shijo-kai has announced that it will be disbanded, and the Seiwa-kai, which started it, will also be disbanded. Was it because of the faction itself? In short, it was probably a matter of not reporting political funds. Looking at public opinion to date, it appears that the majority opinion was that the existence of factions themselves was not a problem as a forum for policy discussion, and the prosecutor's investigation also focused on undocumented issues.
Prime Minister Kishida has said that he will create new party rules while dissolving factions, but first he will create check items from this political reform outline and evaluate each item in stages to see what has been achieved and to what extent. Why not consider it? Instead, they will consider "new rules."
The negative reason for the creation of factions is related to the structure of the parliamentary cabinet system. Personnel decisions within the party are all about internal party theory, and almost everything is shaped by interpersonal relationships. Your treatment will change depending on which trend you go with. Since the prime minister is the leader of the largest ruling party, the choice of leader is based on internal party theory and is determined by votes from party members based on their factions. On the other hand, if we adopt a dual representation system, no matter how many theories we create within the party, the top positions are decided by the people, so there is little point. It is said that in the United States, which has a presidential system, there are almost no cliques like there are in Japan.
It is said that one of the reasons why Japan has adopted a parliamentary cabinet system is to limit the authority of the top government. The reason is that they do not have much authority in the sense of reflecting on past wars after defeat. For this reason, Japanese politics takes a very long time to make decisions. In that sense, it can be said that the system is very vulnerable to emergencies. In a dual representation system, the people choose the top person, so the quality of their votes is different from that of other members of the Diet. Furthermore, the number of votes that would be obtained based on the assumption that all citizens would participate in the vote would be vastly different. Members of the Diet are simply elected in the regions in which they run for office. For this reason, the president is given greater authority than the prime minister, who is elected by members of the parliament. This authority also exerts great power in emergencies.
