AS Japan's immediate political crisis ended in an anti-climax, six hours before its Saturday midnight deadline, Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa had by his own admission given in to the demands of Yohei Kono, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). But a close examination of the 10-point Hosokawa-Kono agreement on the reform bills shows that the concessions were less than many had assumed. Mr Kono gave away just as much, if not more, than Mr Hosokawa. Japan will certainly change as a result of the political reforms. The biggest Hosokawa concession was in relation to corporate donations to individual politicians. The original bill, seeking to diminish corruption, banned these altogether. The final agreement authorised corporate donations to politicians, providing they first set up ''a fund management group'' to receive them. This procedure will only be allowed for five years, after which only donations to political parties will be permitted. Donations will now be limited to 500,000 yen (HK$35,500) per business per politician. The LDP had sought unlimited donations to two management groups per politician for an indefinite period. Regarding the composition of the next House of Representatives, Mr Hosokawa has given in to Mr Kono over mere numbers. Mr Kono has made the far larger concession of agreeing to single-seat constituencies and proportional representation to replace the oldsystem of 130 multi-member constituencies. The ratio of single-seat constituencies to proportional representation seats will now be 300 to 200. The coalition proposal had been 274 to 226, while the prior LDP position had been 300 to 171. How the new single-seat constituencies are delineated will be crucial, if the rural bias is to finally end. The Hosokawa-Kono pact accepts that ''a third party organ within the Prime Minister's Office'' will draw the new boundaries. In the allocation of PR seats, the LDP demanded that parties must obtain two per cent of the vote to secure a seat, whereas the coalition set the minimum vote requirement at three per cent. Mr Hosokawa's insistence upon two votes, one under each system, remains in place. The insistence is important because it means that a voter can still vote for his favourite party, even if that party has no candidate in his constituency. All told, the assumption that Mr Hosokawa gave away too much does not stand up. The reform offering the greatest prospects for change is the radical alteration of the electoral system, and that remains firmly in place, with only marginal changes.