A newspaper has value only when it reveals facts unknown to its readers. Distorted ideological assertions by editorial writers fall outside the true role of journalism. This article examines the mission of newspapers and Japan’s constitutional tradition.

2016-09-12
The following article also appeared in yesterday’s Sankei Shimbun. Many Japanese know the author’s name, yet few are aware that he is a survivor of the kamikaze units. A newspaper has value because it teaches facts unknown to its readers.
Other than that, distorted ideological assertions by editorial writers fall outside the role of a newspaper. If they wish to assert their own distorted ideology, doing so from a position that offers one of the highest salaries in Japan, complete security in old age, and an exclusive status granted by the state is entirely wrong.
I have been the first in the world to condemn their actions as criminal.
This is because, with the highest level of intellect granted to me by God, I spent many years reading the Asahi Shimbun closely, and the result was disastrous.
When I was forced to begin writing, I realized for the first time what I should naturally have noticed earlier, namely that they were, so to speak, those who ranked in the middle to lower half of my classmates and were not the finest individuals who supported Japan across various fields. God granted me an intellect known to my readers and those around me, yet also imposed trials not given to ordinary people, and because I was compelled to devote myself entirely to overcoming those trials,
I failed to notice this simple fact while continuing my close reading. I, like many Japanese citizens including politicians, was completely taken in by Asahi Shimbun’s calculated tactic of repeatedly featuring so-called cultural figures who sympathized with them, beginning with Kenzaburō Ōe.
The following is from a column titled “Now Is the Time to Reconsider the Constitution” by former Grand Tea Master of Urasenke, Genshitsu Sen, with emphasis mine. The term constitution can be found as early as the Seventeen-Article Constitution established by Prince Shōtoku.
This constitution may be regarded as a statement of principles for bureaucratic governance. Article One, “Harmony is to be valued,” can be understood as having been written from a political perspective as necessary for all people, centered on the Emperor, to build a peaceful nation.
Prince Shōtoku also had to quell political strife among domestic clans, and thus indicated that unless harmony was upheld as the foremost principle, the nation would proceed toward ruin.
The reason neighboring countries have frequently undergone changes in their national systems, as well as the reason for the many transformations in nations around the world, likely lies here. This is an expression of Prince Shōtoku’s enlightenment. The seventeen articles may not have been chosen merely by numerical convention, but rather by combining the largest odd number, nine, and the even number eight, to form seventeen, unifying yin and yang and embodying harmony and reconciliation.
Many Buddhist sutras also consist of seventeen characters per line. The Kamakura shogunate’s Goseibai Shikimoku likewise consists of fifty-one articles through the integration of yin and yang. A constitution, as the fundamental law defining the basic conditions for the existence of a state, should not be changed lightly, yet revising it to respond to the times and seeking understanding is only natural. Emperor Murakami, after the death of Fujiwara no Tadahira, governed personally without appointing a regent or chief advisor and devoted great effort to restoring national finances.
After a long passage of time, postwar Japan also became a democratic state.
Seventy years after the U.S.-led constitution was enacted following Japan’s defeat in the Second World War, calls for constitutional revision are rising in many places.
Some claim that constitutional revision is equivalent to deterioration, and some politicians, incited by such views, speak as though revision would return Japan to militarism. Arguing that revision is unnecessary by focusing on only a portion lacks coherence.
The true principles should be corrected. The United States sought to govern Japan by hollowing out its indigenous traditions and spirit, labeling education and family relations as feudal, and thoroughly imposing democracy while guiding the creation of a constitution intended to rebuild the nation accordingly.
Long history, tradition, and heritage cannot be overturned so easily.
This is fundamentally different from governing a nation like the United States, which is young and composed of a collection of ethnic groups. The American assessment was shallow. Shortly after the war, Helen Mears criticized American policy toward Japan in her book Mirror for Americans: Japan, pointing out the errors in American leaders’ views of Japan and arguing that the United States should learn from defeated Japan. Although publication was immediately halted, it has recently been republished and taken up by American scholars and politicians.
Mears, who was involved in occupation policy as a member of the postwar Japanese Policy Reform Committee, fiercely criticized the GHQ as well as American scientists and business leaders, warned against making Japan a victim of the United States, and was ultimately expelled.
I wish to know how many Japanese politicians are aware of this book.
Today’s Japanese do not regard the traditions and culture handed down to them as mere dreams of past and present. It is certain that Japan has now reached a time to reconsider its Constitution.