Prime Minister Shinzo Abe did not even bother to argue that the security legislation proposed by his administration has won public support just before the bills were railroaded through the special Lower House committee on Wednesday — perhaps because various media opinion polls have clearly indicated otherwise, no matter what he and other members of the administration insist. He conceded that the legislation has not yet been "fully understood" by the people — which did not stop his ruling coalition from pushing the bills through the Lower House on Thursday as much of the opposition camp boycotted the vote.
Earlier Abe had said popular opposition was likewise strong when the Japan-U.S. security treaty was revised in 1960, under the administration of his grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, and when the law paving the way for the dispatch of Self-Defense Forces to United Nations peacekeeping operations was enacted in 1992, but that both steps have since won sufficient public support. He appeared to be implying that he's confident that the security legislation, which lifts Japan's self-imposed ban on acts of collective self-defense under the war-renouncing Constitution and significantly expands the scope of SDF's overseas missions, would similarly be endorsed by the people once it's enacted and implemented.
The problem with the security legislation is not that it's unpopular among the public, but that it doesn't appear to be what the Abe administration says it is — along with its questionable legal foundation under the Constitution. The government kept saying that the legislation will enable Japan to take military action in collective self-defense in minimal, limited ways only when the nation's own survival is threatened. But the bills fail to set clear parameters on the scope of such actions that Japan can take, leaving it to the discretion of future administration in power.