TOKYO - Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has drawn criticism over a social media post describing five hours of sleep as a rare luxury, as the extended Diet session prepares to begin Upper House debate on a controversial bill to establish secondary capitals outside Tokyo.
Takaichi wrote on social media on July 21 that she had managed to sleep for five hours for the first time in some time. She said she had generally been sleeping between zero and three hours a night since becoming prime minister.
She added that she spent the afternoon ironing clothes and completing sewing repairs, allowing her to secure enough clothing for official duties through the end of the current Diet session. Repeating a phrase associated with her leadership, she wrote that she would continue to "work, work, work, work and work."
Since taking office in October 2025, Takaichi has repeatedly referred to her lack of sleep. During the current Diet session, she has said she usually sleeps only briefly and at one point had gone almost without sleep while dealing with budget deliberations.
In her latest post, Takaichi also said she had been occupied until early morning reading government documents in preparation for Diet questioning.
Opposition lawmakers questioned what the prime minister was trying to convey. One said a leader should concentrate on duties that only the head of government can perform, delegate other work and manage her time appropriately, adding that Takaichi should get more rest.
The debate over her workload comes as the Diet enters an extended session, with Takaichi likely to face another demanding round of parliamentary questioning.
The main focus of the extended session is the secondary capital bill, a priority for the Japan Innovation Party, which is part of the governing coalition.
Takaichi has emphasized the importance of creating an economic center outside Tokyo, saying the proposal would have significant value for the country.
The bill is scheduled to enter deliberations in a special committee of the House of Councillors on July 22. The ruling parties hope to put it to a vote on July 23, but opposition parties are stepping up their resistance.
Opposition lawmakers have warned that rushing through a bill not widely demanded by the public could damage the government. One critic described it as legislation intended to funnel benefits to a particular region.
The proposal is designed to prepare backup locations capable of maintaining key national functions if a major disaster paralyzes Tokyo. It also seeks to reduce the concentration of political and economic activity in the capital.
The bill includes regulatory easing and preferential tax treatment for areas designated as secondary capitals. Osaka, Aichi, Fukuoka and Hokkaido have expressed interest in receiving the designation.
During debate in the House of Representatives, however, opposition lawmakers argued that the legislation was effectively designed for Osaka, the political base of the Japan Innovation Party, which has led efforts to enact the bill.
Critics also questioned whether the system could be used as a tool to advance the Osaka metropolis plan, a long-standing initiative to reorganize the administrative structure of Osaka Prefecture and Osaka City.
The ruling coalition used its numerical strength to pass the bill through the House of Representatives. Its prospects are less certain in the House of Councillors, where the governing parties would still fall short of a majority even with support from Team Mirai, which intends to back the legislation.
The coalition is therefore continuing efforts to secure votes from independent lawmakers.
Potential requirements for a secondary capital include being located far enough from Tokyo to avoid being struck by the same disaster, having sufficient population and urban infrastructure to assume capital functions, and maintaining a high level of economic activity.
The bill could allow multiple cities to be designated, but critics say the system remains poorly defined and question why the government is seeking rapid passage before its details have been fully settled.
They argue that while creating a backup for Tokyo is important because so many national functions are concentrated in the capital, the legislation lacks a clear definition of what the government intends to establish.
Critics also say the government has neither carefully explained the proposal nor provided enough detail to compensate for the rushed timetable, warning that disputes are inevitable once the system is put into operation.
They have called on the government to state clearly whether the proposal is connected to the Osaka metropolis plan and to explain precisely what the legislation is intended to achieve.
