Q&A: A look at Japan's contentious security legislation


The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

It is amazing to me that in the section on why the changes are so controversial, there is absolutely no mention of the controversy around the METHOD used to implement the changes. Yes, the changes themselves are monumental and controversial. However, as controversial, if not more so, is the method the Abe government is pursuing.

Of course, the AP writer who wrote this may not fully appreciate the concept of constitutionality and the rule of law, as it seems very much in vogue these days for governments to just do what they want to do without regard for the legal framework in which they should operate.


It is not a law or a constitituion which protects the country. It is a military which defends the country from foreign aggressions.

But who protects a country from itself and from its own domestic tyrants? It is the law. And, where the law includes the constitution, the constitution.

I am reminded of something James Madison once said:

The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

The public recognizes the threats, but remains uncomfortable at best with the changes. Those opposed outnumber supporters by a wide margin in media polls, and rallies against the bills and Prime Minister Abe himself have swelled into the tens of thousands in recent months, unusually large for Japan.

Now if the opposition or someone would please take advantage of this unrest and topple the LDP and repeal these stupid laws we can get back to the business of peace.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Contentious? More like 'illegal'.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

And I thought Abe was the one that stirred the pot in China cunningly by provoking here and there to get the support for this legislation.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

zones2surf SEP. 19, 2015 - 08:17AM JST It is amazing to me that in the section on why the changes are so controversial, there is absolutely no mention of the >controversy around the METHOD used to implement the changes.

@zone2surf, spot-on, I am too amazed that no mention about altering the meaning of a written constitution by a single political party to make it preach the opposite is not in the controversial section. How is that law different from pure "revisionism" ?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Japan is not even a member of The Security Council!

I think the World is in a really dangerous place at present and it is all very worrying. Terrorism is global, but different ideologies have different interpretations of what it is, often for their own political purposes. I am not convinced that we can beat Daesh with only bombing. I think it will take boots on the ground AND a great deal of work to counter ideologies. But we have to do it. Japan,s boots will be included now.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Abe just walked all over the constitution at the USA's urging so is this really democracy vs communism or us vs them? We know the USA has invaded nations as they pleased and for their own self interest Japan is now firmly on a similar path. They are less admirable for it

2 ( +2 / -0 )


Because Japanese expect it's protectorate (US) to shoulder any military conflict in and around Japan on it's own.

Sounds ridiculous huh. But Japan pays millions annually to host US forces, one might say. Yet, these same people protest base relocation efforts in okinawa and are against having mainland Japan share the burden by hosting forces.

Classic case of: "Can't have ur cake and eat it too."

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If Abe, LDP and Komeito really respect the principle and spririt of democracy and the want to heed the voices of the Japanese people whom they have sworn to serve, they would have held a national referendum on the vitiation of Article 9 of the Constitution, as any responsible government of a 'democratic nation' would have done. After all, it is the first major amendment of the Consituion in 70 years. But instead, these dirty poltical crooks chose the easy but unconstituional way of ramming the vitiation through the Diet where they held majority votes, despite nationwide protests and condemnation by the Japanese people. This is 'democracy' in Japan!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What a load of BS! They are staring they want to ensure peace by having a more aggressive military? What sort of a backwards logic statement is that? If these fools take an aggressive stance against China they will be swatted like flies. Furthermore, if Japan starts it the U.S. will not back them.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Additional questions

What all this unconstitutional nonsense really about?

The LDP wants to please the United States. When the U.S. starts a war it wants Japan to be there.

What will be the result of that?

All of the U.S.'s enemies will now be Japan's enemies.

Is that all?

Well, SDF personnel will be killed and maimed hideously. Japan may also get bombed.

Doesn't the LDP worry about this?

Why should they? They'll hide somewhere and have a party while the rest of us will get bombed and have to survive on weeds.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

the change the new bill will bring have both pros and cons..if japan's diplomacy is strong enough, that can perhaps ward off the need for this bill. people to people ties and the ties between cultures, that is what needed more than people to machine guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"...that a budget-constrained United States" This is laughable. I'm curious as to how much money goes into the US military and black projects that isn't in the books.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is Tibet an ally? Can the JSDF parachute in and try to liberate them? That would be truly noble but probably suicidal. They only seem to care about uninhabited islands! Supposedly only a handful of refugee migrants were accepted in Japan last year. Steps towards a peaceful world? Daiesh/IS and Assad can both be beaten if there are no men and boys (and women and girls) left to be forced to fight for them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is not a law or a constitituion which protects the country. It is a military which defends the country from foreign aggressions.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

The only thing in this bill that makes any real sense is that Japan can fire a missile that is headed to the US from North Korea and even a minesweeper patrol doesn't sound too bad if its to only protect trade lanes. Now everything else about this I'm pretty much confused or against. I know times are changing rapidly in the region but isn't there a better way? Any way this can be repealed by the next administration or hell even narrow it down so that the government can't use the vague words to get what it wants?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Disillusioned you really should read the article before posting such nonsense like "if Japan starts it". They aren't changing he constitution or article 9. And if you read the article you'd see that what you call a "more aggressive military" is still restricted and far less "aggressive" than every other countries' military.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

It's about time that Japan pulled it's weight commensurate with it's economy and position among the developed countries. We been trying to get Japan to do this since 1950, even forcing then to create the JSDF in 1954. But they've fallen back on the constitution and it's Interpretation to constantly resist. But all it took was a few years of China showing it's true colors to get this done. Xie Xie!! And what's funny is that the nations that fought Japan, the United States, UK, Australia, Asian nations that were invaded by Japan over 70 years ago all welcome Japan's move. And the country that caused it all China complains...LOL

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites