JCP Chair Shii questions prime minister's policy

Japan Press Service Co., Ltd. is the only news agency providing information of progressive, democratic movements in Japan

JCP Chair Shii questions prime minister's policy

Japanese Communist Party Chair Shii Kazuo took the rostrum in the House of Representatives Plenary Session on October 3 to question the prime minister's policy speech. The following is the gist of his remarks.

Questioning prime minister's historical view in particular

I will question Prime Minister Abe on behalf of the Japanese Communist Party.

Let me begin with your attitude toward historical questions. Former Prime Minister Koizumi Jun'ichiro drove Japan's Asia diplomacy into a stalemate by continuing his visits to Yasukuni Shrine, which represents his lack of remorse for the past Japanese war. Many Japanese people and most Asian peoples want to see Prime Minister Abe Shinzo fundamentally break away from this arrogant behavior. Mr. Prime Minister, I want to point out that your view of history raises the following three questions.

First, concerning your attitude toward the Yasukuni Shrine interpretation of history. As the exhibits in its military museum show, Yasukuni Shrine maintains a view of history and wars that regards all past Japanese wars - the Sino-Japanese War, the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese war of aggression against China, and the Pacific War - as "just and noble wars for the liberation of Asia and for Japan's survival and self-defense." Mr. Prime Minister, do you accept this view or reject it? If you accept the Yasukuni Shrine's view of history, you are not qualified to be prime minister because that means you reject the foundations of the postwar world order. Conversely, if you reject the Yasukuni view of history and say that your position is different from Yasukuni Shrine's position, you should state clearly that you will stop visiting Yasukuni Shrine.

In July last year, in a one-on-one discussion with Mr. Abe on a commercial TV program, I asked your view on this question and your answer was: "It should be left to the judgment of history." But you should know that the judgment of history was already passed 61 years ago to the effect that the past Japanese war was a war of aggression for territorial expansion and dominance over other countries. As the Prime Minister of Japan, you are not allowed to continue to deceive the public by stating, "It should be left to the judgment of history." I ask you to make a clear statement of your position on this question.

Secondly, Mr. Prime Minister, what is your attitude toward the Japanese government's stated view of history? In 1995, the Japanese government issued Prime Minister Murayama Tomiichi's statement on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. It said: "During a certain period in the not too distant past, Japan, following a mistaken national policy, advanced along the road to war, only to ensnare the Japanese people in a fateful crisis, and, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations," thus expressing his "feelings of deep remorse" and "heartfelt apology."

This statement is not completely sufficient from our point of view, but it marked a milestone in the Japanese government view of history. But, Prime Minister Abe, you just refer to this as a "historical statement" instead of promising to follow the position of the "Murayama statement." I ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, will you succeed to the "Murayama statement" as your own view of history? In particular, please state clearly whether or not you share the Murayama statement's view that Japan followed a "mistaken national policy and advanced along the road to war"?

Thirdly, Mr. Prime Minister, what is your attitude toward the Japanese government's official view on the question of the so-called "military comfort women" who were used as sex slaves. The Japanese government in the 1993 statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei, officially admitting that "[T]he then Japanese military was, directly or indirectly, involved in the establishment and management of the comfort stations and the transfer of comfort women," and that "[T]hey lived in misery at comfort stations under a coercive atmosphere." The statement expressed "sincere apology and remorse" to the victims and resolved to prevent the recurrence of similar crimes through history education and on other occasions. But, Mr. Prime Minister, in your questioning in the Diet in 1997, you insisted that the "Kono statement" has lost any justification and went as far as to call for it to be amended. Mr. Prime Minister, please state clearly whether you still believe that "the Kono statement has lost its justification."

The Japanese government has conducted a study on the issue of wartime "comfort women" and concluded that they were called up against their will from the Korean Peninsula in a crime against humanity committed by the former Japanese Army. It is unconscionable to overturn this conclusion.

In early September, I visited South Korea for the first time in my life and discussed many issues with the ROK National Assembly Speaker, ruling and opposition party leaders, and other political leaders. I acutely felt that a deep-seated sense of humiliation as well as anger persists among the people of South Korea, which for 35 years was colonized by Japan. At the same time, I also strongly felt that many South Korean people earnestly want to establish a true friendship with Japan, and that they are requesting that the Japanese government stop distorting history.

Even though it is a history that Japan does not want to face up to squarely, it must face up to its past and sincerely admit to committing wrongdoings. That's the way for Japan to have friends in heart-to-heart relations. Mr. Prime Minister, you are strongly called upon to take this position of reconciliation.

Constitutional revision for turning Japan into a war-fighting nation

Next, I will ask questions about the issue of constitutional revision.

Mr. Prime Minister, in your policy speech you stated that you will "study individual, specific cases" to make it possible for Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense under the present Constitution. Could you expand on this? In your speech in August you referred to the Self-Defense Force activities in Iraq and said, "Do we have to be onlookers when other foreign forces in Iraq are attacked? This is a question we need to consider seriously." In your recent book, you stated, "A military alliance is an alliance 'bound by blood'. But according to the interpretation of the present Constitution, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces at least will not be asked to give blood when the United States is attacked." Does the "study of individual and specific cases" mean changing the Constitution to turn Japan into a country that will give blood together with the United States when the latter is attacked in, for example?

In the first place, exercising the right of collective self-defense means obliging Japan to take part in wars started by the United States, even though Japan has not been attacked. Mr. Prime Minister, you have said that you want to get the Constitution revised within five years. Isn't the purpose of the constitutional revision you want to realize to turn Japan into a country that fights wars abroad alongside the United States?

The Japanese Communist Party firmly opposes any move to remake Japan into a "war fighting country" and will make every effort to defend Article 9 of the Constitution, which we treasure as a pride of Japan in the world.

Revision of the Fundamental Law of Education raises question about PM's view of education

Let me move on to the issue of the Fundamental Law of Education.

The government bill will force the public to display "patriotism" in violation of the Constitution that guarantees the freedom of conscience, allow the state to interfere with education without limits in violation of the constitutional guarantee of freedom and autonomy of education. Today, Mr. Prime Minister, I want to take this opportunity to ask questions about your fundamental view of education.

On September 21, the Tokyo District Court ruled that it is unconstitutional and illegal to force schools to hoist the Hinomaru flag and sing Kimigayo, which is practiced in Tokyo. In Tokyo, "Hinomaru" and "Kimigayo" are forced on graduation ceremonies and entrance ceremonies at schools. Teachers who refuse to comply with the order have been punished, which is extraordinary. The Tokyo District Court ruling said that whereas it is natural to respect the national flag and the national anthem, it pointed out that opposition to the "Hinomaru" and "Kimigayo" is expressed by many people due to their historical baggage. The ruling pointed out that the Constitution calls for mutual understanding between opposing world outlooks, ideologies, and opinions. It also pointed out that forcing a particular outlook on every citizen is in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution that guarantees the freedom of thought, conscientiousness, and conscience and is in violation of Article 10 of the Fundamental Law of Education that precludes power's "improper control" of education. I believe this is a conscionable ruling.

The government has defended the Tokyo Metropolitan Government's ongoing practice of forcing schools to hoist "Hinomaru" and sing "Kimigayo" as based on an "appropriate judgment." Don't you think the government should change its attitude on this question?

Another issue I want take up in this connection is your call for "rebuilding education". Mr. Prime Minister, you have proposed holding a national academic proficiency test and making its result public. You call for freedom to choose the school to attend to be extended nationwide. You have said that supervisors should be stationed throughout the country for the oversight and assessment of schools and teachers, and that schools with high ratings should receive more tax money but that schools with poor ratings should be closed down. The principle that runs through these measures is that children should be driven into a fiercer competition so that they will be classified into "good performance students" and "poor performance students" and that the state will interfere in education without limits, thus placing education under state control.

We must remember that this is precisely the concept that contributed to the devastation of Japan's education in the past. Finland, which again came out top in the recent international study of learning skills, has removed competition oriented education and made it a principle to respect the freedom and autonomy of schools and teachers. In Finland, the government fulfills its responsibility in all the necessary areas such as reducing the class size as much as possible. Shouldn't we learn these lessons from Finland? Please state your view on education.

How should the government respond to the widening social gap and increasing poverty?

Finally, I want to question you concerning how the government should respond to the issue of the widening social gap and the increasing poverty rate. Mr. Prime Minister, in your policy speech you called for "building a society open to everyone and giving each individual a chance to take on challenges." But you did not offer any concrete examples.

Recently, the "NHK Special" TV program featured the problem of Japan's "working poor." Today, the number of working poor is estimated at 14 million. They account for about 10 percent of the nation's households. They are forced to live with living standards that are even lower than the level that qualifies for public assistance even though they are working full time. In the case of urban young people, they may be able to find only part-time jobs if they are in their early 20s. But even in their 30s, they have difficulty finding a job. Without income, they become homeless. The reporter concluded the program by stating, "There are some people who complain about the lack of efforts on the part of these people (classified as working poor), but none of the people who I interviewed showed a lack of effort or willingness to work."

Mr. Prime Minister, who do you think is responsible for this state of the working poor? Don't you think that Liberal Democratic Party government policies must be held accountable for the destruction of workplace rules through, for example, promoting the liberalization of the use of temporary workers? You propose "Challenge Again Assistance Measures" Isn't this a cowardly way of shifting the responsibility for the wrong policy onto the people?

The need is to carry out a major change in economic policy instead of taking such a devious path. The task is to establish rules for humane working conditions and adequate social services that ensure every citizen a right to a life without fear, to stop forcing people to pay more in taxes, including the consumption tax, and force large corporations which are making record profits to share in the tax burden according to their ability to pay.
- Akahata, October 4, 2006