|
On the afternoon of February 12, DPJ President Banri Kaieda held his regular press conference at party headquarters. He reflected on the recent party convention, as well as criticizing comments made that same day by Prime Minister Abe in the Committee on Budget in which Abe repeatedly made inaccurate references regarding amendments to Article 95 of the SDF Law.
Kaieda said that at the annual party convention, held on February 8 and 9 in Koriyama, Fukushima, the DPJ had been able to confirm two things. These
were: (1) that the party would oppose the Abe administration, by establishing a viable alternative, for example through debate in the Diet, and submitting counterproposals that are easy for the public to understand, and (2) establishing a framework within the party so that it can unite to fight the 2015 nationwide local elections.
With regard to the latter point, Kaieda said that the party regulations had been revised so that it was now possible to create party branches in every town, village and ward around the nation, and said that the party would extend thorough support to local assembly members around Japan as they move to create branches in their local areas. With regard to finding suitable candidates, he stressed that the DPJ would pay particular attention to searching out female candidates and then ensuring they are elected.
In the House of Representatives Committee on Budget on February 10, Kaieda had referred to the way that past amendments of the SDF Law had been undertaken. In the same Committee, on February 12, when replying to questions from the DPJ's Hiroshi Ogushi, the Prime Minister had displayed some strange behaviour, replying to Kaieda, who was in fact not present at the time, by twice making denials to the effect that "no evidence exists that Article [95] has been amended." In his press conference Kaieda criticized Abe, saying: "If you investigate you will soon find out that [Article 95] has been amended on at least two occasions. Once was the revision of 1986. At that time, ocean vessels were included in Article 95.
The second time was in 2001. So the Article has been revised on two occasions. Why should the Prime Minister go to the trouble of making statements contradictory to the facts in a session of the Committee of the Budget broadcast live on television? The Prime Minister's national security arguments are slipshod."
|
