Japanese are the least likely to fight for their country out of the countries on the list due to pacifist policies set post-WW2 by USA, and also derive from a sense of isolationism in part due to geography. That doesn't mean they aren't capable in waging a limited war or deploy troops overseas (they have overseas bases), they are just intrinsically much less motivated for conflict and that affects their long term decision making. Individually Japanese youth are more preoccupied with their own lives to care about politics or national matters that much, when compared to Chinese and Koreans. Japan had been changing prime minsters every year from 2007-2012. Abe was the first prime minster in a while to have stayed for such a long time. Japan in fact has no term limits for its prime minsters.
Japan as a nation had been pacified, they also lack a cohesive deep state. It had been mostly dismantled, though it is possible they rebuild such a system with various right leaning institutions under a favourable environment. The funny thing is that some hawks in the PLA are not against (some even give approval to) Japanese nationalism, it is a long term play. The lack of individual motivation just lessens the volunteer spirit and social uproar during times of crisis but due to Japan being a highly organised society, even pacified people can be mobilised and utilised(motivation or morale might be lacking).
Chinese individually are much more motivated to volunteer for individual sacrifice during times of crisis without being mobilised by the state. Immediately after the Wenchuan Earthquake in 2008 that killed more than 80,000 people, highways and roads to the damaged sites were blocked and or jammed for hundreds of km by contractors who own heavy machinery or vehicles hurrying to save people. The state had to tell them to go home so that the government can organise the situation. Same thing with the Donglang tensions in 2017. Every city in China was organised to donate blood and people lined up without being explicitly told what it was for to not upset any nations. The news might tell you other stories, I base my supporting evidence on personal experience. Many young people made it a trend to donate blood to mobilise society. Chinese are not interested in fighting most wars but in certain situations are willing to sacrifice nearly all individual luxuries. Yes, Chinese people like materialism today but such a one dimensional understanding can be too simple. Under certain conditions, most Chinese from young to old will willingly donate blood and even personal assets (most likely buy war bonds) that they would otherwise protect vigilantly. Funding won't be an issue, even if the state can't afford it, technology would be the only limiting factor. Some might think this is an exaggeration, but after talking many wealthy Chinese I don't think this is the case. I was a bit surprised to hear them say such things. If they think the existence of China is under crisis, no luxuries and personal assets have any meaning anymore.
Thank you TaiShang. Sorry I've been pre-occupied recently, thus the late reply to some of your tags. Typing and editing on the phone isn't convenient.
Some errors of your post.
First, there are term limits for the Prime Ministers. It has been a limit of only 2 terms for a long term, each term being three years. It was increased to 3 terms last year. So total length now possible is 9 years.
Your analysis on Japan's will to fight is missing some critical points. With the pacifist's constitution, there was no need for Japan to maintain a will to fight. It also meant that Japanese soldiers could not shoot weapons, even on UN peace keeping missions. And it also meant no exports of major military equipment. So no upkeep in will was maintained and materialism, business, entertainment, took priority and any talk of war fighting would be counter productive to that.
But things are now changing because Japan has an interest to safe guard Taiwan's defense for the sake geographical strategic posturing. Interest to keep the SCS free from ownership. And the recently signed CPTPP will need a security insurance, so without the US, Japan gains further strategic importance in that. And of course the uncertainty of North Korea, such as launching the missiles over japan twice last year. All these new realities are more recent than what is reflected in the 2015 survey. So to some extent, what your say is true but your argument is 3 years late. A lot has happened in three years.
So some actions that reflect that change.. in the 2014, the constitution was reinterpreted to to enable "collective self-defense", new defense laws on that concept were passed in 2015, and the laws have entered into effect in 2016. Since then, logistics and ammunition exchange treaties with various countries like the US, Australia, the UK, have been signed. Laws now enable Japanese soldiers the ability to fire weapons during UN PKO. Japan now seeks to export military weapons, the biggest examples gave been the sub bid to Australia and the US-2 to India. There are considering handing down P-3Cs to ASEAN countries and are looking to export radars to Thailand. They have already donated patrol boats to Vietnam, the Philippines, and Palau. And have donated Patrol aircraft to the Philippines with considering donating more. A new amphibious rapid deployment brigade has been in formulation in the last few years, receiving training from the USMC, and that brigade will go live either this month or next. For amphibious vehicles, they have already ordered and payed for about 50 AAV7s, so those will be coming in soon.
It should also be noted that a lot of military tech is Japanese developed. Yes there are some US examples. F-35A, F-35B, the Osprey, and patriot missiles. People debate about the F-35, I'm not going into it. Although, China has yet to come close to deploying something like the Osprey.
Japan makes their own navy surface ships and submarines, their own ground vehicles such as tanks, APCs, they are developing a new amphibious assault vehicle. Two new aircraft types have recently entered service, the P-1 maritime patrol aircraft and the C-2 transport aircraft, both major improvements over previous types.
There are two main arguments often presented from the China's side. Both are extreme points, which to my suggest an agenda driven argument rather than just saying how things just are. One is the whole Japan is evil and "re-militarizing". The other one is the one that seems to be in fashion these days, such as your post "Japan has no will power". Well which ever the user pick ups on, the conclusion is the same "endorse the always correct super big China".
Something interesting to add is that I was listening to a talk, and one former JMSDF admiral said that even though there seems to be an attempt by both China and Japan to improve relations, it doesn't go from Japan changing or bending its stance on several issues. But rather that Japan has always maintained its position regarding things like the Snekaku islands.