VZCZCXRO0717
PP RUEHFK RUEHKSO RUEHNAG RUEHNH
DE RUEHKO #3006/01 1830813
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 020813Z JUL 07
FM AMEMBASSY TOKYO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5108
INFO RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHAAA/THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEAWJA/USDOJ WASHDC PRIORITY
RULSDMK/USDOT WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J5//
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RHHMHBA/COMPACFLT PEARL HARBOR HI
RHMFIUU/HQ PACAF HICKAM AFB HI//CC/PA//
RUALSFJ/COMUSJAPAN YOKOTA AB JA//J5/JO21//
RUYNAAC/COMNAVFORJAPAN YOKOSUKA JA
RUAYJAA/CTF 72
RUEHNH/AMCONSUL NAHA 4263
RUEHFK/AMCONSUL FUKUOKA 1847
RUEHOK/AMCONSUL OSAKA KOBE 5427
RUEHNAG/AMCONSUL NAGOYA 0954
RUEHKSO/AMCONSUL SAPPORO 2656
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 7693
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 3751
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 4844

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 11 TOKYO 003006 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR E, P, EB, EAP/J, EAP/P, EAP/PD, PA; 
WHITE HOUSE/NSC/NEC; JUSTICE FOR STU CHEMTOB IN ANTI-TRUST DIVISION; 
TREASURY/OASIA/IMI/JAPAN; DEPT PASS USTR/PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE; 
SECDEF FOR JCS-J-5/JAPAN, 
DASD/ISA/EAPR/JAPAN; DEPT PASS ELECTRONICALLY TO USDA 
FAS/ITP FOR SCHROETER; PACOM HONOLULU FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVISOR; 
CINCPAC FLT/PA/ COMNAVFORJAPAN/PA. 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OIIP KMDR KPAO PGOV PINR ECON ELAB JA
 
SUBJECT:  DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 07/02/07 
 
 
Index: 
 
(1) Editorial -- Defense Minister Kyuma's thoughtless remarks that 
lacked discernment 
 
(2) Editorial: Kyuma's thoughtless remarks appalling 
 
(3) Nine groups harsh in comprehensive assessment of Abe 
administration 
 
(4) Futenma alternative: Pentagon official sees offshore location as 
difficult 
 
(5) Editorial -- Four-party talks: Don't break the "six-party" 
framework 
 
(6) Second in a series of polls on House of Councillors election 
 
(7) Poll on Abe cabinet, political parties 
 
ARTICLES: 
 
(1) Editorial -- Defense Minister Kyuma's thoughtless remarks that 
lacked discernment 
 
MAINICHI (Page 5) (Full) 
July 2, 2007 
 
Incredible remarks came out from Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma. He 
said in a speech on June 30: "The United States dropped atomic bombs 
on Japan to stop the Soviet Union from occupying Japan. Countless 
people suffered terribly, but that put an end to the war. I now 
believe that it could not be helped." 
 
His comments are based on the perception that the US dropped atomic 
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to quickly end the war, 
block the Soviet Union from occupying Japan and limit its 
casualties. Depending on the circumstances, the language "could not 
be helped" connotes that he condones the use of atomic bombs. 
 
Japan has addressed the elimination of nuclear weapons nationwide, 
aiming to make Hiroshima and Nagasaki the last places to suffer 
atomic bombings. Kyuma's remarks, however, violated our nation's 
basic policy. His remarks were simply thoughtless and lacked 
discernment, and threw cold water on Japan's continued efforts for 
the abolition of nuclear weapons. Given his job as the minister in 
charge of our nation's security, his responsibility is very grave 
indeed. 
 
Nuclear weapons are intended for indiscriminate attacks against 
civilians, and the after-effects of radiation are serious. Such 
weapons are an absolute evil. In 1996, the International Court of 
Justice remonstrated, "Threatening to use nuclear weapons or using 
them violates humanitarian principles." Nuclear weapons are too 
serious to be dismissed by such language as it "cannot be helped." 
 
Under the three non-nuclear principles, Japan has emphasized the 
importance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 
(NPT) and has submitted a nuclear disarmament resolution to the 
United Nations every year since 1994 and such resolution has been 
adopted. Needless to say, this move reflects Japan's experience of 
having been atomic bombed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 
 
TOKYO 00003006  002 OF 011 
 
 
 
Last year, senior members of the governing Liberal Democratic Party 
(LDP) mentioned the need for debate on Japan possessing nuclear 
weapons, thereby giving rise to international doubts that Japan may 
want to become a nuclear power. Kyuma's recent controversial 
remarks, as well, could cause a loss of international confidence in 
Japan in its call for the elimination of nuclear weapons. 
 
Japan has stood up to North Korea over its missile launches and 
nuclear weapons' possession. Taking advantage of Kyuma's comments, 
North Korea may now reason that since it was unavoidable for the US 
to have used nuclear weapons, it can use that as an excuse for 
itself to possess nuclear weapons. 
 
How did the victims of atomic bombs who suffered indescribable 
experiences feel when listening to his remark, "It could not be 
helped"? If politicians are unable to imagine their hardship, they 
disqualify themselves to serve as such. 
 
In the past, as well, Kyuma was conspicuous in his careless 
comments. Referring to the Japanese government's announcement of 
endorsing the decision to open the war against Iraq, Kyuma said, "It 
was an informal endorsement," but afterwards he retracted that 
remark. On the relocation of the US Futenma Air Station in Okinawa, 
he mentioned the possibility of adding revisions to the plan already 
agreed on between Japan and the US and incurred objections from the 
US. Recently, he expounded his pet theory that the three weapons 
export principles should be relaxed, and this comment perplexed the 
Prime Minister's Official Residence (Kantei). On the heels of that, 
again he has come out with controversial remarks. It cannot be 
helped that his competence as a cabinet member is being questioned. 
 
At a press conference yesterday, Kyuma apologized, "I am really 
sorry for troubling you," and he in effect retracted his 
controversial comments. This move perhaps reflected the desire of 
the ruling bloc, which is concerned about a possible impact on the 
Upper House election, but his apologizing is not enough to settle 
the problem. 
 
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's response to Kyuma's controversial 
comments was also insufficient. Following Kyuma's apology, Abe 
noted, "He should refrain from making any comments that may give 
rise to a misunderstanding." Abe's initial stance, however, was that 
he did not regard Kyuma's comments as a problem. Usually, this sort 
of problem concerns whether the minister should resign or not. The 
prime minister should inquire of Kyuma about the real intention of 
his comments and rebuke him hard. 
 
(2) Editorial: Kyuma's thoughtless remarks appalling 
 
ASAHI (Page 3) (Full) 
July 2, 2007 
 
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed more than 
200,000 people. Some people are still suffering from aftereffects. 
Shockingly enough, one cabinet minister indicated that the use of 
atomic bombs was inevitable. 
 
The statement was made by Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma. The defense 
minister, referring to the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and 
Nagasaki by the United States in the closing days of World War II, 
said: "I understand that the bombings brought the war to its end. I 
 
TOKYO 00003006  003 OF 011 
 
 
think it was something that couldn't be helped." 
 
He also said: "Considering international circumstances and occupied 
Japan's situation after the war, one should bear in mind that such a 
thing (bombing) could be an option." 
 
The events are still fresh in the minds of those who experienced 
living hell and lost their family members. Akihiro Takahashi, a 
former curator of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, criticized 
Kyuma, saying: "His remarks made me more depressed than angry. Would 
he have made the same remarks if he had been a victim of the atomic 
bomb himself?" 
 
Referring to the use of atomic bombs in the past as "something that 
could not be helped" amounts to endorsing the use of nuclear bombs 
as necessary. It is tantamount to pouring cold water on Japan's 
postwar efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world. 
 
Kyuma is not jut another citizen. He is a native of Nagasaki and 
Japan's defense minister. Regrettably, there are gaps between Japan 
and other countries in perceptions on the dropping of atomic bombs. 
 
Sadako Kurihara, a poet from Hiroshima, has written a poem titled 
"When We Say, 'Hiroshima'," which goes: 
 
When we say "Hiroshima,"/do people answer, gently,/ "Ah, 
'Hiroshima?'"/Say "Hiroshima," and hear "Pearl Harbor."/ Say 
"Hiroshima," and hear "Rape of Nanjing."/ ..... /Say "Hiroshima,"/ 
and hear echoes of blood and fire. 
 
Japan's stance of highlighting its position as the only country ever 
to have suffered nuclear devastation has been criticized by the 
United States and Asian countries, saying that Japan started the war 
and that the bombings helped bring an end to the war. 
 
There is no simple answer. Japan's position is to assert that 
indiscriminate massacre of defenseless citizens must not be allowed, 
while acknowledging Japan's responsibility for starting the war. 
 
We would like to see Japanese lawmakers aim at a direction that 
would allow both victor and defeated countries to share the pain by 
overcoming their barriers. The attitude to describe the dropping of 
atomic bombs as "something that could not be helped" is tantamount 
to pushing a historical event into oblivion and siding with 
America's attempt to justify the atomic bombing. 
 
As a country under America's nuclear umbrella, the government 
apparently finds it difficult to flatly deny the use of nuclear 
weapons. 
 
Still, the government's view is that although the use of nuclear 
weapons might not violate international law, doing so conflicts with 
international law's spirit of humanitarianism. Kyuma's comment was 
clearly a deviation from the government's view. 
 
Kyuma said yesterday: "I'm sorry that my remarks gave an impression 
that A-bomb victims were being made light of." What really matters 
here is not the impression or his explanation but his perception 
itself. 
 
(3) Nine groups harsh in comprehensive assessment of Abe 
administration 
 
TOKYO 00003006  004 OF 011 
 
 
 
MAINICHI (Page 2) (Full) 
July 2, 2007 
 
The National Council for Building a New Japan, composed of academics 
and business leaders, held a convention on assessments of party 
policy pledges (manifestos) at a Tokyo hotel yesterday. There, nine 
organizations announced their assessments of the Abe 
administration's policy achievements and the policy manifestos 
prepared by the Liberal Democratic Party, the Democratic Party of 
Japan (Minshuto), and the New Komeito for the upcoming House of 
Councillors election. In the overall assessment of the Abe cabinet, 
they gave marks of 27 to 65 out of 100 points -- all rather tough 
scores. 
 
Among the comprehensive assessments of the Abe administration made 
by eight out of the nine groups, excluding the National Governors' 
Association, there is the maximum disparity of 38 points, reflecting 
their different focus and priority. 
 
Some groups also rated the administration's approaches to specific 
themes, such as social insurance, the Constitution, education, and 
foreign policy. 
 
The National Governors' Association only assessed its efforts in 
addressing the task of decentralization. Focusing on the prime 
minister's leadership demonstrated in establishing the 
decentralization promotion headquarters, the organization gave a 
score of 75 points, saying that the stance of expediting the 
challenge under political leadership merits appreciation. 
 
In assessing each political party's Upper House manifesto, some 
groups gave somewhat positive evaluations to specific policies, but 
many pointed out a lack of explanations about such details as fiscal 
resources and deadlines. The following critical views were also 
presented: "The manifestos are inferior to those in 2005 in terms of 
content and form;" "They are poor;" and "They should be rewritten." 
 
The convention is part of efforts to have manifesto-oriented 
politics settled down. This was the third one, following the one for 
the 2004 Upper House election and the other for the 2005 House of 
Representatives election. 
(4) Futenma alternative: Pentagon official sees offshore location as 
difficult 
 
OKINAWA TIMES (Page 3) (Full) 
June 30, 2007 
 
TOKYO-Taku Yamasaki, former vice president of the ruling Liberal 
Democratic Party, met yesterday in the Diet with US Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense James Shin, who is a deputy under 
secretary of defense-designate, to exchange views on the realignment 
 
SIPDIS 
of US forces in Japan and other issues. According to Yamasaki, Shinn 
said the United States would like to implement with sincerity what 
has been agreed on between Japan and the United States. With this, 
Shin implied that it would be difficult to install a V-shaped pair 
of airstrips at a site in waters off the city of Nago in Okinawa 
Prefecture as demanded by the city's municipal government over the 
planned relocation of the US Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station in 
the prefecture (to a coastal area of Camp Schwab in the city). Osamu 
Ashitomi, one of the Yamasaki faction's members seated in the House 
of Representatives, was also in the meeting. 
 
TOKYO 00003006  005 OF 011 
 
 
 
Shin explained the planned realignment of US forces in Japan: "The 
US military realignment is a package that resembles building blocks. 
If we fiddle with one, the blocks will tumble down. We will have to 
pour in concrete (complete), and that's my job." 
Ashitomi said: "To make concrete (the blocks), we need water, sand, 
and cement. They won't harden without the feelings (consent) of 
Okinawa." With this, Ashitomi sought a flexible response with 
consideration given to the opinions of Nago City and Okinawa 
Prefecture. 
 
Yamasaki also explained: "The core of the realignment of US forces 
in Japan is the relocation of Futenma airfield. Okinawa Prefecture 
accepts an environmental impact assessment (of the relocation site), 
and Futenma relocation is facilitated. This is the most important 
kickoff for the issue of realigning the US military presence in 
Japan." So saying, Yamasaki stressed that the Okinawa prefectural 
government's future response over whether to accept an environmental 
assessment of the relocation site for an alternative facility will 
be an important phase. 
 
In addition, Yamasaki also said the Defense Ministry is thinking of 
applying to the Okinawa prefectural government for an environmental 
assessment after this July's election for the House of Councillors. 
 
In the meantime, Japan and the United States have concluded an 
intergovernmental special agreement on the Japanese government's 
host nation support ("omoiyari yosan" or literally "sympathy 
budget"). This special agreement, however, is to lose its effect in 
fiscal 2007. Accordingly, the Japanese and US governments will need 
to enter into consultations in order for the agreement to be 
renewed. Concerning this agreement, Shin asked Japan to maintain its 
host nation support at the current level, saying, "We'd like to ask 
for understanding and support." 
 
Yamasaki said, "There are growing demands on Japan to spend more 
money from its defense budget for various purposes." He added, 
"There are also budget constraints due to fiscal reconstruction." 
With this, Yamasaki indicated that it would be difficult to maintain 
the current level of host nation support, given budgetary spending 
on the US military's realignment in Japan and Japan's ballistic 
missile defense (BMD). 
 
(5) Editorial -- Four-party talks: Don't break the "six-party" 
framework 
 
SANKEI (Page 2) (Full) 
July 2, 2007 
 
Concerns are spreading in the Japanese government over a proposal 
floated by the US chief negotiator in the six-party talks, 
Christopher Hill, assistant secretary of state, to hold four-way 
talks among the United States, North Korea, China, and South Korea. 
 
Hill came up with an idea at an official press briefing of the State 
Department. His idea is  that "if the nuclear facility in Yongbyon 
is disabled, the US, North Korea, China, and South Korea will be 
able to start peace talks," and in parallel with the peace talks, a 
dialogue body for Northeast Asia security, which will be taken part 
in by all the members of the six-party talks, would be established. 
 
Those countries that fought in the Korean War signed a cease-fire 
 
TOKYO 00003006  006 OF 011 
 
 
agreement in 1953. Undeniably, they are principally responsible for 
concluding a peace agreement to replace the truce. But we must pay 
attention also to the profound change in the international 
environment surrounding the Korean Peninsula over the past half 
century. 
 
Building a permanent peace system on the Korean Peninsula should 
come after North Korea abandons its nuclear program and the 
peninsula becomes nuclear-free. The six-party talks have been held 
for that end. Unless dangerous nuclear weapons are all removed, it 
is meaningless to discuss how to bring permanent peace to the 
peninsula. The process of bringing peace to the peninsula is not as 
simple as being settled in four-way talks. 
 
Disabling the nuclear facility in Yongbyon is merely the beginning 
of the process. What to do about uranium enrichment plans, which 
North Korea has not clearly referred to, has not been settled? Also 
yet to be set are the means and timetable for the North to 
completely abandon its nuclear weapons-related materials and to 
allow inspection of its nuclear facilities. 
 
Hill's concept gives the impression that at a time when the process 
of disablement starts, four-way talks will be launched, and that the 
stalled Japan-North Korea issues, such as the abductions of Japanese 
citizens by North Korea, would then be put in the hands of another 
dialogue group on Northeast Asia security. If the four-way talks are 
set in motion unilaterally, the fear is that the final disposal of 
the nuclear issue and the abduction issue would be left behind and 
thereby Japan would be "left in the dark," just as the North aims. 
This is a real concern for the Japanese government. 
 
Without giving consideration to Japan's concerns, the US, Japan's 
ally, has floated a proposal in a hasty manner. This is highly 
regrettable. If some countries want to discuss permanent peace at 
this stage, establishing a sub-panel under the six-party framework 
would be one option to consider. This panel should be open to the 
six countries having common interests in peace of Northeast Asia. 
 
"Assistant Secretary Hill" is exposed to "criticism for his making 
concessions unilaterally" even from US dailies. It would be a long, 
bumpy road for us to follow before North Korea abandons its nuclear 
program. Not to make a hasty move out of eagerness for success and 
not to be trapped by a reverse process. 
 
(6) Second in a series of polls on House of Councillors election 
 
YOMIURI (Page 2) (Full) 
June 29, 2007 
 
Questions & Answers 
(Figures shown in  percentage) 
 
Q: Do you support the Abe cabinet? 
 
Yes 34.4 
No 51.8 
Other answers (O/A) 3.0 
No answer (N/A) 10.8 
 
Q: Which political party's candidate are you thinking of voting for 
in the House of Councillors election this time in your electoral 
district? 
 
TOKYO 00003006  007 OF 011 
 
 
 
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) 21.7 
Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ or Minshuto) 24.0 
New Komeito (NK) 5.3 
Japanese Communist Party (JCP) 3.1 
Social Democratic Party (SDP or Shaminto) 1.3 
People's New Party (PNP or Kokumin Shinto) 0.2 
New Party Nippon (NPN or Shinto Nippon) --- 
Other political parties --- 
Independent candidate 0.5 
Undecided 37.4 
None in particular (NIP) 
N/A 6.5 
 
Q: Which political party's candidate or which political party are 
you thinking of voting for in your proportional representation 
bloc? 
 
LDP 20.8 
DPJ 22.2 
NK 5.6 
JCP 3.9 
SDP 1.2 
PNP 0.8 
NPN 0.2 
Other political parties 0.1 
Independent candidate 
Undecided 37.5 
NIP 
N/A 7.7 
 
Q: Which political party do you not want to see increase the number 
of seats it has in the election this time? Pick as many as you like, 
if any. 
 
LDP 35.6 
DPJ 9.9 
NK 12.8 
JCP 16.4 
SDP 6.1 
PNP 1.7 
NPN 1.1 
Other political parties 0.1 
Independent candidate 
Undecided 
NIP 31.1 
N/A 9.4 
 
Q: The LDP and New Komeito, which are the ruling parties, hold a 
majority of the seats in the House of Councillors. Would you like 
the ruling coalition to retain a majority of the seats, or would you 
otherwise like it to lose its majority? 
 
Retain its majority 30.2 
Lose its majority 50.0 
Can't say which 14.1 
N/A 5.7 
 
Q: What would you like to consider in particular when you choose a 
candidate or a political party to vote for in the election this 
time? Pick as many as you like from among those listed below. 
 
 
TOKYO 00003006  008 OF 011 
 
 
Economy 31.9 
Pensions 67.0 
Education 41.3 
Civil service reform 29.8 
Social divide 30.3 
Foreign, security policies 26.2 
Constitutional revision 23.6 
Politics and money 40.2 
O/A 0.5 
NIP 1.8 
N/A 1.4 
 
Q: Which political party do you support now? 
 
LDP 31.5 
DPJ 19.9 
NK 4.8 
JCP 3.5 
SDP 1.9 
PNP 0.3 
NPN --- 
Other political parties --- 
None 34.8 
N/A 3.3 
 
Q: Do you appreciate the government's announced measures for the 
issue of its pension record-keeping flaws? 
 
Appreciate very much 6.4 
Appreciate somewhat 20.3 
Don't appreciate very much 32.1 
Don't appreciate at all 32.8 
N/A 8.4 
 
Q: Do you think the government's announced measures will resolve the 
issue of its pension record-keeping flaws? 
 
Yes 25.8 
No 66.5 
N/A 7.7 
 
Q: Prime Minister Abe has put off the House of Councillors election 
for a week and extended the current Diet session to fast-track civil 
service reform and other bills. Do you appreciate this? 
 
Appreciate very much 8.3 
Appreciate somewhat 18.7 
Don't appreciate very much 29.8 
Don't appreciate at all 31.2 
N/A 11.9 
 
Polling methodology: The survey was conducted across the nation from 
June 26 through June 28 on a computer-aided random digit dialing 
(RDD) basis. A total of 1,652 households were found to have one or 
more eligible voters. Valid answers were obtained from 1,021 persons 
(62 %  ). 
 
(7) Poll on Abe cabinet, political parties 
 
MAINICHI (Page 3) (Full) 
July 2, 2007 
 
 
TOKYO 00003006  009 OF 011 
 
 
Questions & Answers 
(T = total; P = previous; M = male; F = female) 
 
Q: Do you support the Abe cabinet? 
 
 T P M F 
Yes 32 (32) 32 32 
No 52 (44) 54 49 
Not interested 15 (22) 13 17 
 
Q: (Only for those who answered "yes" to the above question) Why? 
 
 T P M F 
Because the prime minister is from the Liberal Democratic Party 23 
(17) 25 20 
Because something can be expected of the prime minister's leadership 
9 (13) 7 12 
Because there's a young, fresh image about the prime minister 40 
(41) 36 45 
Because something can be expected of the prime minister's policy 
measures 24 (24) 27 20 
 
Q: (Only for those who answered "no" to the above question) Why? 
 
 T P M F 
Because the prime minister is from the Liberal Democratic Party 8 
(8) 9 6 
Because nothing can be expected of the prime minister's leadership 
43 (41) 39 47 
Because the prime minister is inexperienced, weak 13 (13) 14 11 
Because I'm opposed to the prime minister's policies 36 (37) 37 34 
 
Q: Which political party do you support? 
 
 T P M F 
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) 25 (25) 30 20 
Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ or Minshuto) 18 (19) 21 14 
New Komeito (NK) 6 (5) 2 10 
Japanese Communist Party (JCP) 3 (3) 3 4 
Social Democratic Party (SDP or Shaminto) 1 (2) 1 1 
People's New Party (PNP or Kokumin Shinto) 1 (0) 1 1 
New Party Nippon (NPN or Shinto Nippon) 0 (0) 0 0 
Other political parties 2 (1) 1 2 
None 43 (44) 39 47 
 
Q: Are you interested in this summer's election for the House of 
Councillors? 
 
 T P M F 
Yes 77 (68) 80 74 
No 22 (31) 18 25 
 
Q: Which political party between the LDP and the DPJ would you like 
to see win in this summer's House of Councillors election? 
 
 T P M F 
LDP 33 (33) 32 34 
DPJ 44 (42) 49 38 
Other political parties 17 (20) 13 21 
 
Q: If an election were to be held now for the House of Councillors, 
which political party or which political party's candidate will you 
 
TOKYO 00003006  010 OF 011 
 
 
vote for in your proportional representation bloc? 
 
 T P M F 
LDP 27 (28) 30 24 
DPJ 35 (35) 41 30 
NK 7 (6) 3 11 
JCP 5 (4) 5 6 
SDP 1 (3) 1 2 
PNP 1 (1) 1 1 
NPN 0 (0) 0 1 
Other political parties 15 (14) 12 17 
 
Q: Then, which political party's candidate will you vote for in your 
electoral district? 
 
 T P M F 
LDP 28 (26) 32 24 
DPJ 33 (30) 38 28 
NK 6 (5) 2 10 
JCP 4 (4) 3 4 
SDP 1 (2) 1 1 
PNP 0 (1) 1 0 
NPN 0 (0) 0 0 
Other political parties 6 (6) 5 7 
Independent candidate 10 (15) 9 11 
 
Q: What do you think is most important when casting your vote in the 
House of Councillors election? 
 
 T P M F 
Social divide 15 (13) 17 13 
Education 14 (19) 12 16 
Constitution 10 (14) 9 12 
Public service personnel reform 8 (6) 10 6 
Politics and money 13 (12) 13 13 
Local community issues 4 (5) 4 5 
Pension 31 (28) 31 32 
 
Q: Do you factor in the government's pension record-keeping flaws 
when you vote in the House of Councillors election? 
 
 T P M F 
Yes 74  71 77 
No 23  26 20 
 
 
Q: Do you appreciate the government and ruling parties for their 
efforts to deal with the pension fiasco? 
 
 T P M F 
Yes 32  32 33 
No 63  63 62 
 
Q: The government and ruling parties extended the Diet session for 
12 days to revise the National Public Service Personnel Law for a 
reform of the public service personnel system. As a result, this 
summer's election for the House of Councillors has been moved down 
from July 22 to July 29. What do you think about the extended the 
Diet session? 
 
 T P M F 
It's needed for the law 22  24 21 
 
TOKYO 00003006  011 OF 011 
 
 
It's good because the election will be delayed 2  2 2 
It's strange because there was no urgent need for the law's 
enactment 37  36 38 
It's strange because they intended to alter the situation to their 
advantage in the House of Councillors election 31  32 29 
 
Q: The revised National Public Service Personnel Law for a reform of 
the public service personnel system features creating a unified 
point of contact under the government for its retirees to find jobs. 
Do you think the revised law will resolve the "amakurari" (descent 
from heaven) practice of retired bureaucrats moving into public 
corporations or private businesses? 
 
 T P M F 
Yes 26  25 28 
No 68  71 65 
 
(Note) Figures shown in  percentage, rounded off. "0" indicates that 
the figure was below 0.5 %  . "No answer" omitted. Figures in 
parentheses denote the results of the last survey conducted May 
26-27. 
 
Polling methodology: The survey was conducted June 30 and July 1 
over the telephone with the aim of calling a total of 1,000 voters 
across the nation on a computer-aided random digit sampling (RDS) 
basis. Answers were obtained from 1,028 persons. 
 
SCHIEFFER