 |
2014/07/14
Kaieda speaks to press after budget committee session, says DPJ “will respond to public’s discontent”
|
On July 14, DPJ President Banri Kaieda spoke to reporters inside the Diet building following the intensive debate with Prime Minister Abe in the Committee on Budget in the House of Representatives.
Asked for his impression of his exchanges with the Prime Minister, Kaieda replied, “We now know that Prime Minister Abe has no intention of explaining either accurately or honestly to the public. If new responsibilities [for the SDF] are added, then defence spending will balloon and it may lead to an arms race. If ‘brakes’ are to be applied by ‘the government reaching a overall decision’, then that cannot be said to be applying the brakes at all. The debate is still inadequate and I would like discussions to be continued in the Diet. We will continue to call for this.”
Kaieda was asked how he viewed former DPJ’s Diet member Taizo Mikazuki’s victory in the Shiga gubernatorial. He responded, “Rather than reflecting support for the DPJ, I think that it was a protest vote against the Abe administration.” He emphasized that he had sensed there was a way to check the out of control behaviour of the ruling coalition, stating: “Things have changed since the Cabinet decision on July 1. Although this was just an election for one prefecture’s governor, the way that a resounding ‘No’ has been delivered to the government’s way of going about things is extremely significant. Further deepening the debate about the use of the right to collective self-defence and clarifying our stance on this issue will lead to the DPJ winning back the trust of the Japanese people. I gained the strong feeling that we, as the main opposition party, should properly respond to the discontent which the public are showing towards the LDP-New Komeito ruling coalition.”
Asked how he intended to broach the subject of the right to collective self-defence on his upcoming visit to China, scheduled to start July 15, Kaieda stated, “Even we do not feel that we have received an adequate explanation from the government, so I am sure that the Chinese have also only received an inadequate explanation. We would like to accurately convey the information we have garnished from the debate up until now. There might be a lot of past history between us, but I would like to engage in forward-looking discussions.”
|
|
|
 |
|
