|
On August 11, DPJ Policy Research Committee Chair Masayuki Naoshima held a press conference at party headquarters to explain about the supplementary sentences that have been added to the party Manifesto in order to clarify its meaning. He also pointed out issues that the DPJ has with the LDP manifesto.
Naoshima reported that since the DPJ announced its Manifesto on July 27, ten explanatory meetings for the Manifesto had been held nationwide in various regions of Japan, and the party had also visited Nippon Keidanren, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Japanese Trade Union Confederation and the Congressional Forum for New Japan (21st Century Rincho) to explain its contents. He also revealed that following extensive reporting of the Manifesto in the media and via the Internet, the party had received many questions and comments from members of the public.
Naoshima said, “Amongst the comments that we received were those calling for us to use more clear and thorough expressions in order to convey the DPJ policy stance to the electorate.” He explained that as a result of such calls, the party had decided to add supplementary sentences to clarify some parts of the Manifesto in order that the public and the electorate would find it easier to understand the policies that the party intends to implement.
Furthermore, Naoshima added “We are intending to show this Manifesto, including the supplementary clauses, to the Japanese people when we distribute it during the official election campaign period.” He went on to say, “These supplementary sentences do not change the policies in the Manifesto that was recently announced, but they are a clarification that is intended to help people understand policies that have already been decided.”
Naoshima cited the following criticisms of the LDP manifesto: (1) disparities in the content of the simplified and detailed versions of the LDP manifesto, (2) pledges included in the 2005 LDP election manifesto had been once more included in this manifesto, “without any explanation of why they had not been realised in the last four years”, (3) the inclusion of clauses that seemed to be impossible to realise in actuality, which amounted to nothing more than “election slogans”, and (4) policies for which no sources of funding were displayed.
|
.jpg)
