Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you support Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's desire to revise Japan's U.S.-drafted pacifist constitution?

56 Comments
© Japan Today

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

56 Comments
Login to comment

No. absolutely not

-9 ( +23 / -32 )

No.

Its not just Article 9, the LDP has a lot of other things in the Constitution which it doesn't like which affects the daily lives of us living here a lot more which I am quite concerned about. Particularly their plans to amend Chapter 3 to make the family the basic unit of society and impose Constitutional duties on individuals to "support" their family is alarming.

It might sound like harmless posturing, but its actually something to be worried about since it means the family rather than the individual will legally be the basic unit of society. To a certain extent thanks to the koseki system this is already the case, but the Constitution as it exists now confers rights on individuals, not the family, and so we do have some protections against the idiots trying to revert Japan to a romanticized Nippon Kaigi vision of how great Japanese society was before the war when everyone was subservient to the head of their household.

Let the LDP have their way and that'll be all over. I shudder to think how bad this country could get as it population gets older and older and the few things that protect young people as individuals get kicked away. Its not going to be pretty if it happens.

5 ( +22 / -17 )

If you voted "No" don't complain about the continued presence of forward deployed U.S. Forces in Japan.

7 ( +23 / -16 )

While there are things that may be due or overdue for amendment, unfortunately, NONE of them is on the list of tentative amendments. On the contrary, pretty much everything currently on offer is scaring the bejeezus out of me!

2 ( +11 / -9 )

No, because the Nippon Kaigi group that now controls Japan wants to remove popular sovereignty, human rights and pacifism from the Constitution. Straight from the horse's mouth:

https://amara.org/en/videos/Sn9Zc0UeRQzF/en/1405913/

13 ( +29 / -16 )

Japan can and will eventually replace the archaic and punitive Article 9 with something more realistic. It's long overdue, and all it will do is allow Japan in fact the sovereign rights to self-defense that is the very cornerstone of any nation-state.

The fact that the extremely unusual and harsh Article 9 was imposed upon an Asian people, while the similarly aggressive European militarist countries (take your pick) did not have any such comprehensively debilitating laws inflicted upon them from outside, speaks volumes as well. West Germany didn't have its constitution hand-written for it by the occupiers, did it? No. Why not? The Germans wrote their Basic Law themselves, and the occupiers "approved" the whole homemade lot with no modifications. Only "aggressive war" was outlawed by the Germans themselves; they certainly did not "forever renounce of war as a sovereign right of the nation..." or even "the threat of force as means of settling disputes" as Japan was forced to do. No constitutional banning of the maintenance of any form of self-defense forces for Germany, either: a truly emasculating punishment imposed by the victors on vanquished Japan in the heat of the latter's complete capitulation.

Was German aggression from 1933-45 any less destructive than the Japanese? One cannot possibly make this claim.

Japan has already signaled its intentions to go 100% into the future with the US as a strategic partner in defense. Korea likewise understands the need to work with not just the US, but also crucially, with Japan. Expect these relationships to grow, not recede. This cooperative move domestically has already been reinforced by treaty, and by law, and one should expect the US will not remain a physical presence in Japan no matter what happens to the Constitutional revisions. Even those now most strenuously in favour of revising the Constitution understand the real, tangible benefits of this positioning partnership, particularly at a time when Chinese aggression is only getting sloppier and more mindlessly chauvinistic with each passing day...

-10 ( +9 / -19 )

West Germany didn't have its constitution hand-written for it by the occupiers, did it? No. Why not? 

Well, whereas Japan was under US occupation when its Constitution was written, Germany was not. Instead Germany was occupied by four different powers each with their own sector. The Federal Republic was formed when three of those (US, France and UK) reached an agreement to do so. The actual political future of the Federal Republic was decided by a 6 power conference (the three occupiers and also BENELUX), which was what initiated the drafting of the Basic Law. So whereas in Japan the US could unilaterally make major decisions, such as what the content of the Constitution was going to be, in Germany it could not and had to work through a different process that precluded it from doing so.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

If you voted "No" don't complain about the continued presence of forward deployed U.S. Forces in Japan.

Why? Nothing in the current constitution prevents Japan from fully defending itself.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

Of course it depends on what is intended to be changed. But in any case, it’s clear that a constitution from 1947 simply is kind of a bit outdated and cannot cover all aspects , changed or new ones, of our era, especially if it is about defense, big data, privacy, freedom of speech, gender issues, environmental considerations, sustainability , virtual realities, crypto, blockchain, new aspects of mixed families , single or community living concepts, sharing economy and all this or similar ones and much more that’s nowadays in the media or on the table of politics, but all couldn’t be estimated or foreseen so many decades ago.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

I would like to see it remain as it is.

I kind of agree with you on the whole, but there are some bits that could perhaps be tweaked to good effect, and I voted ‘It depends’. If it means changing things to basically change the structure of Japanese society, drag Japan into each and every US war as cannon fodder, make it an offence not to worship the Emperor as a god, etc., then of course the vote changes to Hell No.

 it’s clear that a constitution from 1947 simply is kind of a bit outdated

lol

Tell that to the nutters who insist an amendment written over 230 years ago cannot under any circumstances be changed or modernised in any way….

7 ( +11 / -4 )

The pathological Samurai mentality still lives in the heart of Japan's ruling class and saw its full flower in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere which was administered upon its victims by one of the most brutal organizations of recent history, the Imperial Japanese Army. 1500 years of cultural history of war and slaughter and [...] and pillage does not just vanish in a couple of generations but lies dormant waiting for its chains to rot and be gnawed off by the vermin of violence. The Japanese People have attained great stature and respect in the World by speaking softly without the need for The Big Stick. Article Nine has kept Japan safe from ITSELF.

Nihon already has one of the most weapons bristling armed forces in the world, a devotion of resources which shouts the REAL mentality of its leaders. But, this is a different age and the potential opposing players have weapons which would completely destroy a combative, aggressive Japan and its people as a viable country. Japan's best DEFENSE would be to invite the end of the U.S. military occupation and the delusion of 'ally' (sacrificial shield) and become NEUTRAL much as Switzerland has preserved itself through generations of intertribal warfare in Europe. This might require a serious change of ownership of the Japanese people but the alternative is cultural suicide. The Samurai pathology lives. The Koreans know it. The Chinese know it. America knows it and encourages it, an evil 'friend' indeed. But the Japanese people cannot perceive it for the utter destruction it will bring them if allowed free rein. No. No. NO!

Article Nine MUST stay and be made even stronger and the wasted resources now being flushed down the weapons hole devoted instead to the betterment of the Japanese People and to HELP those in the world in need and not as preparation to destroy them.

-7 ( +9 / -16 )

Yes, if the intent is to defend Japan.

No, if the intent is to defend Japan's actions in WW2.

This might seem like splitting hairs...but there are many people in Japan who would maintain that, to choose an example, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a defensive action.

A country that is unclear on the nature of what constitutes a defensive action versus an offensive action shouldn't be given the keys to the car.

If the intent is to revert right back to a pre-WW2 way of running things-then absolutely not.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

we have no idea what did the japanese army did on the middle east war, all reports hidden, all documents blacked out.

we have no idea how much money they are spending in defense, or how is it spent.

to give more power to the j-defense is way too scary.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

Yes, it is time to move on from WW2, unfortunately a lot of the proposed changes seek to implement styles of governance that were extant at that time, so it is relevant to mention WW2-as that is why the current pacifist constitution was drafted in the first place. Any serious discussion of constitutional amendment should not happen in a vacuum.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

No need, just amend article 9 to reject war unless it is to join the wars of our masters the US.

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

Redstorm

Any constitutional amendments will be discussed by the citizens able to vote for them. If foreigners want a vote they should make their citizenship application now.

Personally, I see no need to amend Article 9 but the people of the country will be the ones deciding.

From all places, it's just in from Kyodo.

https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/28fe975a741e73fcfebc0053120da5555aa076ad

[There is no urgency to amend the Constitution: 58 pct, vs 37.5 pct saying it is an urgency.]

And, surprise, it seems that the population is more worried about the economy and rising prices. Who would have thought of that?

We can be all sleep peacefully, knowing that the J-gov will respect the "will of the people". (#sarcasm)

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

I don't support it. I think Article 9 makes the Japanese constitution unique, and should be a model to the rest of the world. Any country should have the means to defend itself. All should dedicate themselves to not attacking others.

It's called civilization.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

If they want to change something, it should be to remove the chain put around their legs and held by the Americans. Japan needs its own foreign policy. As it is, I just tune into Washington if I want to know what Japan's foreign policy is.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

I do not support Jiminto but I support their stance on changing the Constitution Article 9. My country recently changed their tone since the Russian war in Ukraine out of necessity. There are 4 reason I am for changing this constitution.

Peoples Republic of China

Russia, trying to build the Vampire Soviet Union.

North Korea

Just these three alone are the largest of all the threats to Japan.

United States of America. This is not the 1990s, everything you hear out of America over the last 10 years really is just too uncertain to trust this nation in near future. A tilt in the wrong direction and this country can go from world friend to another modern Russia or it can go in a direction not see before a civil war or civil insurgency in a heavily nuclear armed state. This is why a destabilized American is just as great of a threat to Japan and Europe as much as Russia, the Peoples Republic of China, and North Korea. are.

A another reason why the EU also needs a military to balance the power between these 4 threats to the world.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

yes, to protect japan from other aggressive countries.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

yes, to protect japan from other aggressive countries.

They can already do that without changing the constitution.

4 ( +13 / -9 )

YES!!!! Because many things have changed in Asia since WWII. There are new threats that need to be mitigated.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

why not? People's safety is at stake here.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

In a perfect world, nobody would have to worry about defense. In a dangerous world. . . On guard!

3 ( +6 / -3 )

 I think Article 9 makes the Japanese constitution unique, and should be a model to the rest of the world. Any country should have the means to defend itself. All should dedicate themselves to not attacking others.

exactly. if the whole world had the same constitution as Japan has now, we would end all wars. Japan should hold up its constitution as a model for the rest of the world to follow instead of trying to get rid of it.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Yes, a country that cannot strike back is asking to be invaded.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Yes, because no matter what he says he'll claim it is the will of the people. And he can claim that because people here are too weak to go out and vote for what they want -- they need to be told and shrug and say "shouganai". What was voter turnout again? And besides, Kishi is a puppet, and the people pulling the strings either want the economic windfall of pouring even more money into a military machine, or want Japan to rise as a military power again. Or both.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Yes, it should be revised comprehensively, with some progressive thoughts included. The liberal opposition camp should address their own constitutional programmes.

The constitution is not a sacred text.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Article 9 is a No No. No go area.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

M3M3M3July 12  02:27 pm JST

If you voted "No" don't complain about the continued presence of forward deployed U.S. Forces in Japan.

Why? Nothing in the current constitution prevents Japan from fully defending itself.

Why? Because the second paragraph of Article 9 states that Japan can not have a military. This is a contradiction because the JSDF was created in 1950 under U.S. pressure and is considered the 6th powerful military in the world. But because of the constitutional contradiction every overseas deployment of the JSDF is debated ad infinitum in Parliament.

Japan is now upping it's security beyond the US-JPN alliance to include other allied nations, Australia, NATO. In order to smoothly function with these partner nations, there is a need to remove the constitutional restrictions that impede fast decision making.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown that nations can not "defend themselves" in isolation.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

StrangerlandJuly 12  10:58 pm JST

I don't support it. I think Article 9 makes the Japanese constitution unique, and should be a model to the rest of the world.

Japan has had Article 9 for 75 years. How many countries in the world have followed Japan's example?

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Ossan,and another thing American do not care who get attack as long as it not them,the majority of American are tired of paper tigers,open their mouths and try to hide behind American power

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

Ossan,America is NATO,lots of these countries, Russian would go through like butter, through a knife,you based your comment on your ability to protect your own selves,not American people,we decide who and what we will die for

-14 ( +0 / -14 )

Kanji character, because lots of American act crazy,this is a deterrent for some country, because they never know when American will go off on them

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Nope, No, Never, Not at all. Article 9 is special and unique and must be maintained. It's one of the major things keeping the Nippon Kaigi from destroying Japan

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

If your friends cannot support your peaceful laws then they're not really your friends are they?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

If your friends cannot support your peaceful laws then they're not really your friends are they?

How can you be peaceful when you cannot properly defend yourself? If a country does not have offensive capabilities to strike back, it means there's almost zero cost to the attacking country. Currently there are no real tangible risk to any country to invade Japan aside from the invading military units.

The Ukraine invasion have pretty much proven that there's almost no consequences for invading other countries, as Russia suffered almost no economic consequences and may in fact be in a better economic situation due to higher natural gas prices.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yes. Let Japan defend itself if a majority of citizens want that.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

OssanAmerica

StrangerlandJuly 12  10:58 pm JST

I don't support it. I think Article 9 makes the Japanese constitution unique, and should be a model to the rest of the world.

Japan has had Article 9 for 75 years. How many countries in the world have followed Japan's example?

Over the same 75 years, how many world-problems (i.e. wars) did Japan not get itself involved in?

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

Those who can quickly move to other nations which even don't have article-9 , please tone down.

Or come back when entire world becomes the place where no more guns needed, no more psycho, no more

thugs

3 ( +7 / -4 )

blueToday  12:41 pm JST

OssanAmerica

StrangerlandJuly 12  10:58 pm JST

I don't support it. I think Article 9 makes the Japanese constitution unique, and should be a model to the rest of the world.

Japan has had Article 9 for 75 years. How many countries in the world have followed Japan's example?

Over the same 75 years, how many world-problems (i.e. wars) did Japan not get itself involved in?

The question is how much of a "model" Japan's Article 9 has been, as stated by Strangerland.

Your comment doesn't answer that.

Japan would not have gotten involved in any wars in the last 75 years with or without Article 9.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Yes. Japan has improved and changed since it's imperial days. The people are peaceful and want peace so they will no longer throw their lives away because a horrible government tells them to die for the emperor. They are much too smart to fall for that again. Japan needs mutual alliances to be safer than they are right now, like many other nations have or can have if they choose to.

One example is, Australia would make an ideal mutual alliance candidate. Too small militarily to ever start a war, a large land mass for training and to evacuate to if needed. Many natural resources and a small professional defense force with modern weaponry who have proven very useful allies to England and the US for over 100 years in a number of conflicts and world wars around the globe.

Japan could get a number of such allies and benefit from them as much as the other way around.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Changing article 9 will empower Americans to profit off Japanese economy and bring Asia into the new age of chaos.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Wow.... so much arrogance here about defense.

Japan has a self defense army. Japan can and has every right to defend its self. If you think otherwise you need to do a little research before commenting.

Yes WW2 was a long time ago and the fact that the constitution hasn't been changed shows that it is indeed a good document. If it needed to constantly, changed it would be a bad document.

Stop putting western values on what you believe Japan should be. It is not anyone's place to have an opinion other than those that live and pay taxes here. This especially any one here on military duties, you have no say you are here as guest only to preform your orders and nothing more.

The government, despite public disagreeance has wanted to change this for years and it was Abe's father, Shintato Abe who, wanted to removed article 9 and revert Japan to a feudal state.

If you like Japan the way it is, safe and regularly chosen as the best place to live, the answer is a strong NO.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Dan WalshJuly 15  09:03 pm JST

The government, despite public disagreeance has wanted to change this for years and it was Abe's father, Shintato Abe who, wanted to removed article 9 and revert Japan to a feudal state.

Removing Article 9 would not cause Japan to revert to a "feudal state". No other nation on this planet has an Artcile 9 in their constitution and they are not feudal states.

Furthermore, tje LDP want to remove only the second paragraph which prohibits the existence of a military, a clear contradiction with reality since the JSDF has existed since 1950. No one is talking abouy removing the first paragrah which restrains Japan from starting any wars.

If you like Japan the way it is, safe and regularly chosen as the best place to live, the answer is a strong NO.

If you want to keep Japan safe and peaceful, the only answer is a strong YES.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Much of the opinions above from the ‘No’ crowd seem to come more from an imbedded dislike and distrust of the very country and culture they themselves chose to come and live in. I know things are different here guys, and a challenge, but it ain’t a good look. I hope ya’ll don’t speak like that in your local izakaya. Conjuring Nippon Kaigi specters, scary monsters from under your own beds! Get a grip.

With the dark forces on the horizon, and the chaos that is about to be unleashed on the world I think it’s both ridiculous and arrogant to deny any nation the means to defend themselves. Who exactly do you think you are? I guess this is the place to vent it, I recommend keeping it in here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you voted "No" don't complain about the continued presence of forward deployed U.S. Forces in Japan.

I agree.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you voted "No" don't complain about the continued presence of forward deployed U.S. Forces in Japan.

YGH..

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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