COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.

Voices
in
Japan

poll

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who wants to amend part of Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution, argues that the Constitution was created during the U.S. occupation after World War II, and that some parts of it do not fit into the realities of the modern world. Do you agree with that view?

26 Comments
© Japan Today

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

26 Comments
Login to comment

The "realities" of this 'modern world' are the same as they have ever been: National ruling psychopathic cliques vying against each other for dominance and sending their children out in swarms to kill the children of other places and take what they have. Japan has been doing this at home for 1500 years and, after Meiji, exported this behavior over the local international geography and harvested a national disaster beyond any in its rich history. Give Nihon's still militaristic rulers this opportunity again and they will eventually swing Japan's people, Japan's deep cultural 'Samurai' mentality, step by step, back to "Banzai" but also back to Hiroshima on a national scale. Abe is a psychopath to want to return Japan to the ranks of 'aggressor' nations. In our current world, 'Defense' needs no justification, but Abe argues for 'Offense' which, for Japan, is an argument for national suicide. NEUTRAL, BUT NURTURING. That is Japan's best defense and offense in the world that is almost upon us. It must be remembered that when reading Human History, at any point in that history there is WAR in its future. And Japan will NOT want to be nor need it be in our next WAR because there will be little left of so much that was beautiful, not the least, the Japanese People.

-7 ( +14 / -21 )

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who wants to amend part of Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution, argues that the Constitution was created during the U.S. occupation after World War II, and that some parts of it do not fit into the realities of the modern world. Do you agree with that view?

No I don't and neither does the majority of the Japanese people.

-8 ( +18 / -26 )

It's all about the money. War is and always has been about economics. It makes a LOT of money for a very, very few rich people who never see combat and whose only risk is a stock market crash. This applies to "defense," arms, the manufacture of weapons, armies, navies, all military forces. It also includes Abe's plan to restore Japan to its prewar "glories."

What's the point of spending all this money on killing machines to defend "us" from "them" over there when "them" is spending all their money on killing machines to defend themselves against "us?"

The vast majority in any country just want to get on with their own lives. They don't care about ideology. But with media control, false flags and a few tricks here and there, the world can be made to look like a very dangerous place, full of people with fanatic ideologies they don't actually have. The media puts people in fear. And in fear, they are much easier to control. Control is the method, money is the goal.

If the same energy and money were spent on peace that is spent on "defense" and arms build up, we would have peace.

It's our choice.

And so, I personally am against Abe's changing Article 9.

-1 ( +18 / -19 )

Poll responses are dependent on how the question is posed. The question raised, while accurately stating that Abe seeks to change "a part" of Articvle 9, does no as far as to fully describe what he is seeking to amend.

The First Paragraph of Article 9 is the important part, it prohibits Japan from using war as a means of settling disputes, effectively preventing Japan from ever starting any war. It does not prevent Japan from defending itself if attacked. This is part which lends the nomer "Peace Constitution" to the Japanese constitition.

The Second Paragraph is the part which Abe is attempting to change. It states rather clearly that Japan will not maintain any military forces. Starting from 1945 when WWII ended, the Imperial Japanese Military was taken apart in accordance with this wording. However, when North Korea crossed the 39th Parallel and started the Korean War in 1950, the U.S., which had stripped Japan of military capabilty, literally forced Japan to create a military. The rationale on the American side was that the US troops in Japan now had to be shipped to the Korean Peninsula, and there would be no defense if the USSR chose to advance further south than the Southern Kuriles which they had occupied after Japan declared surrender in WWII.

The upshot is that now, for 70 years, Japan has obviously had a land, air, sea military, which has now developed into the world's 6th most powerful military.

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

But in keeping with the first paragraph, the JSDF has never engaged in combat, and it's most useful role has been in disaster relief and assistance, both within Japan and without, and maintainig the ability to interact effectively with the United States.

So the poll question should have gone further to state that PM Abe seeks to officially recognize the JSDF and remove the contradiction that presently exists in the second paragraph of Article 9.

There exists no rational reason to object to this, as clearly the JSDF does and will exist.

The First Paragraph will unlikely ever be changed as not only will the Japanese people object, but it stands as a model for all other nations to follow.

6 ( +19 / -13 )

Poll responses are dependent on how the question is posed. The question raised, while accurately stating that Abe seeks to change "a part" of Articvle 9, does no as far as to fully describe what he is seeking to amend.

True indeed, not hard to "nudge " the respondents towards the answer one seeks by wording the question in a particular way. Look forward to seeing you make a similar observation on an article / poll  results which favor the govt. position.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Yes. I agree with PM Abe. The current Constitution was written by a foreign nation without the best interest of Japan. Its outdated and needs to be changed.

Japan needs to be able to defend herself and come to the aid of allies in wars. If Germany is permitted to enter wars, why can't Japan? No opponent of changing Article 9 of the Constitution can answer this. PM Abe will gain the public's understanding, make no mistake.

5 ( +20 / -15 )

Would it get a two thirds majority in both Diet Houses and a simple majority in a national referendum?

Currently, members of the SDF are not enlisted. They are civil servants who can resign at anytime with a month's notice given.

If there were a change it would require more than just a change to the constitution. The new military would have to become enlisted just as it is in other countries. Can't have civil servants resigning on the battlefield.

The contract between the civil servants and government would become void and requiring replacement by those who agree to be enlisted.

Addition payment for wages of the enlisted troops.

You can't just turn a self defense force into a fighting military and send them off to wars.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Have you ever had a person with a gun facing you and pointing it directly at your face?

I have... at a hotel at that, and for no reason other than I was the manager in charge to handle the threat with nothing in my hands.

What was worse was that the police officers that arrived placed themselves behind the gunman and faced me with three more guns aimed in my direction. Luckily the police and I were able to talk the gunman to handing the weapon to one of the officers.

Similar thing happened when in training during the Vietnam war. During the final days of our training, my commander lifted an unloaded gun and pointed at me and asked, "If an enemy pointed a gun at you, would you be able to pull your trigger?"

One may not start a war, but that war may come to you. Today, that war is "remote controlled" and "instantaneous". You cannot "talk" with words to "defend" in time. You cannot stop any bullets or missiles with words or laws, no matter how eloquent, logical, rational and idealistic. Those that attack , do attack, because they do not "share" the same values and ideas.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

Utilitarian is obviously ‘No’

’Realities ...’ is obviously Yes

Sad when reality gets in the way of a perfect world

13 ( +16 / -3 )

Totally agreed with PM Abe.

The article 9 needs to be changed, so the PM's term must be extended. Majority of the Japanese want that, and even the U.S.

Japan and U.S are now allies, there will be no concern of starting a war because unlike WW2, negotiations will have better results due to the improved mutual understanding between the two countries.

Japan is surrounded by China, North Korea and Russia who want to run an assualt on them at any moment.

During WW2, not only Japan was doing evilness, everyone was evil and thirsty for power. So, it means there should be an ending point to the criticism over war-time events.

We live in a modern era, we face a country of love, pride and Reiwa (Harmony), meaning that Nippon would do good things to the international community, just as they did until now for 70 years.

Speak and think consciously, holding the constitutional law (article 9) would be a term of "Colonization", but removing it will not be a "Freedom of Vengeance".

7 ( +16 / -9 )

The question is simple for me.

Would America defend and fight for Japan till the death vs China or Russia? If not, then Japan should have a regular army, but also a pacifist stance.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

William Bjornson

A nicely written piece

Reality is that Japan is allied with the USA and still must adhere to and do a lot of America’s bidding, if they want to be under its protection and on its good side (rich and needed).

We Japanese are rather opposed I think to your “Banzai” analysis. Most young people here would scoff at what you said.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

I fail to see why he is so determined to change it. Japan can defend itself and give logistical assistance to their allies. The only thing they cannot do is, attack another country. Perhaps this is his motivation.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

So the guy who wants to turn Japan back to the way it was in the 1930s wants a constitution to face up to the realities of the "modern world?"

-5 ( +9 / -14 )

rainydayToday  03:09 pm JST

So the guy who wants to turn Japan back to the way it was in the 1930s 

How is wanting to change the second paragraph to remove the contradiction in the existence of the JSDF turning Japab "back the way it was in the 1930s"? Is the poer of the Emperor going to be restored and the cabinet going to include a Minister of the Army and Minister of the Navy?

It's this kind of false argument that misleads the population (and resident j-haters) into thinking that Japan is abandoning the first paragraph which prohibits war.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

Japan's constitution, Japan's decision. It is as simple as that.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who wants to amend part of Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution, argues that the Constitution was created during the U.S. occupation after World War II, and that some parts of it do not fit into the realities of the modern world. Do you agree with that view?

No without a doubt. Some things are best left alone and this is no different. The younger generation simply does not understand fully what is involved and why. Some things true need and should change but this is not one of them.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Stay pacifist, stay out of wars and remove the remnants of US occupation.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

3 generations of ultra leftist social conditioning will not change into “Pre-war glory days” overnight, or even over several decades because of the revision of a single paragraph.

The pacifistic nature of Japan’s constitution is so embedded into society and law, that according to laws regarding “excessive self-defense,” you may even be arrested for assault for injuring an assailant who attacks you first.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

It probably doesn’t, but the final arbiters should be the people of Japan. Government of the people by the people for the people is a good principle in a liberal democracy, (I will leave others to argue whether Japan is or not).

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I’m liking all the analogies of wisdom here from dudes who assume that Japan is going back to the 1900-1930s mentality.

Perhaps you also fear modern Germans? The Romans and those scary Vikings should also give you pause for thought. Try telling the Italians and Norweigens that.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Perhaps you also fear modern Germans? The Romans and those scary Vikings should also give you pause for thought.

What measures has Japan put into place to ensure that the atrocities of WWII don't happen again? When did they atone for it, and what do they learn about it in school, that would keep people from going in that direction again?

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Our constitution without modification permits Japan to exert self-defense. It does not permit collective offence. No change is needed, and indeed the world would be a much better place if more countries adopted this aspect of our current constitution.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

I am fine with changing it, with one caveat. The people who decide to go to war must send their own children to the front lines. If they have no children, they must go themselves.

That should keep the peace in most cases. Can't imagine Abe strapping on a helmet and landing in North Korea.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who wants to amend part of Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution, argues that the Constitution was created during the U.S. occupation after World War II, and that some parts of it do not fit into the realities of the modern world. Do you agree with that view?

No I don't and neither does the majority of the Japanese people.

I see you're in the 37% who say no, and I'm in the 57% who say yes.

Stay pacifist, stay out of wars and remove the remnants of US occupation.

Yeah, sure, you can do that if you've got the good ol' US of A to come to your rescue if things go awry, though if you "remove the remnants of US occupation," that will make things more difficult.

The pacifistic nature of Japan’s constitution is so embedded into society and law, that according to laws regarding “excessive self-defense,” you may even be arrested for assault for injuring an assailant who attacks you first.

girl_in_tokyo confirmed that yesterday on the chikan article.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Abe's argument is specious. There are much older constitutions out there. So which parts of the US Constitution don't fit into the realities of the modern world for example?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

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