Press Conference by the Chief Cabinet Secretary (Excerpt)

Opening Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga

(Abridged)

Q&As

REORTER: I have a question regarding the Japan-ROK Director-General level talks. A short while ago, Director-General Kimihiro Ishikane of the Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau arrived at the Prime Minister’s Office. Today, talks took place on the “comfort women” issue, among other matters. What did the two sides discuss with each other? Was any progress made toward the swift conclusion of the issue?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: Japan-ROK Director-General level talks were held in Tokyo, and wide-ranging talks took place on the various issues that exist between the two countries. I would like to refrain from commenting on the details. The two sides agreed to continue to hold discussions on the various issues and to arrange an exact date for the next round of talks. In any case, the talks were adjourned, with the agreement that the talks would be accelerated.

REORTER: I have a related question. I believe at last month’s summit meeting, the two leaders agreed to accelerate the talks, making a point of stating that this year was a milestone year of the 50th anniversary of the normalization of their diplomatic relations. Since then, two rounds of talks have been held. Will it be difficult to bring this issue to an end by the end of this milestone year? In addition, what is your outlook for bringing this issue to an end? Do you have high prospects for bringing the issue to an end?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: In any case, the two sides discussed a variety of issues, including overall Japan-ROK relations, the “comfort women” issue, the indictment of the former Sankei Shimbun Seoul Bureau Chief, the trial over the requisitioned civilians from the Korean Peninsula, the Takeshima issue, and the ROK Government’s regulations on Japanese marine product imports. I would like to refrain from disclosing any further details.

(Abridged)

REORTER: I have a question regarding the system of reduced tax rates. Reduced tax rates will be introduced for the first time. There is a risk that confusion will arise among businesses and consumers over the delineation of foods and beverages to which a reduced tax rate will apply and foods and beverages served at restaurants to which a reduced tax rate will not apply. What outreach efforts is the Government considering to prevent such confusion?        

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: First, the system will go into effect in April 2017. This is when the reduced tax rates will be introduced. It is critically important that we introduce the new system by then without causing any confusion. Therefore, the Government will carry out efforts to ensure that the public at large is aware of the system, in consultation with the ruling parties. We will be implementing concrete support measures for businesses that need to make preparations, such as reviewing their services or developing systems. Therefore, we will make all possible efforts to ensure that the new system can be introduced without causing any confusion.  

(Abridged)

REORTER: Tomorrow, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the lawsuit regarding the use of separate surnames by married couples. What is the Government’s opinion on the use of separate surnames by married couples?  

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: First of all, with respect to the use of separate surnames by married couples, the situation surrounding families has changed in various ways—whether it is changes in the family structure, the diversification of lifestyles, or changes in the public perception. With regard to this choice, and with regard to the system of using separate surnames by married couples, a variety of discussions has taken place on the marriage system and the format of families, even after the Legislative Council submitted its report in 1996. Even now, this matter is still being reviewed. Under these circumstances, tomorrow the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on this system. I gather that the natural thing to do would be to consider the responses, taking into account the judiciary’s ruling.

(Abridged)