July、 2010、My Opinion of this week
My opinion of this week(686):
Reimbursment plan of consumer tax is in question
The support rate for Kan Cabinet dropped almost 10 points from very high
rate 60% when it was born in early June. Main reason for the drop is
obuviously due to announcement of possible consumer tax increase to 10%
level at some future date by Kan Cabinet.
But according to my idea, there exists more important quesition in
connection with this consumer tax increase plan. Observing that big
reduction of support rate for the cabinet, Prime Minister Naoto Kan and
Secretary General Sachio Edano of MPJ started mentioning introduction of
reimbursment plan for comsumer tax for low group of people. It seems that
they try to comfort lower income people by mentioning such income
reimbursment plan. The question is that definition of low income differs
from time to time whenever they mention such reimbursment plan. Some times
they say 2 to 3 million yen is in low income group. Other time they say 3
to 4 million yen is in it. The argument even lacks such very basic
definition about what they mean by low income.
Even after such grouping task is settled, there exists some more difficult
jobs to calculate amount of reimbursment for each individual people
concerned and to distribute reimbursed money to each individuals. There
is no such model at all at the present and any of such study has not
started yet at all at any office level of concerned ministries. Why did
Naoto Kan and Sachio Edano mention that kind of difficult plan so easily
without any concrete plan?
Is this reimbursment plan for consumer tax another manifest of DPJ? If so,
this will be another trigger for failure of Kan Cabinet as we see the
case of Futenma which became failure of Hatoyama Cabinet. I think both
Naoto Kan and Sachio Edano seem to say so easy about consumer tax increse
plan and reimbursment plan for lower income people. A lot more deliberate
study and road map is very necessary on such plan in connection with
increase of consumer tax.
When it comes to reimbursment for consumer tax, I think we have to come back
to more basic problem in question. Most of politicians both in ruling fronts
and oposition fronts say consumer tax is no good for it's regressiveness in
nature. Group of lower income people suffer more for its even rate for
any consumption to keep their lives. Many politicians say that's not fair.
People generally think same way. But I don't necesarilly think so.
When it comes to many other taxes for indivisual people, most of them
including income tax, inhabitant tax and so forth, are progressive in nature.
Higher tax rate is applied for higher income for sure. I generally agree with
that principle. But I don't see any reason why consumer tax rate should be
progressive in nature such as income tax and inhabitant tax. I see some reason
that consumer tax rates differ depend on type of goods such as daily life goods
or luxury goods. I agree with different consumer tax rates is set for type of
goods concerned. But I don't see any reason why government must reimburse
consumer tax collected from lower income people.
When it comes to the issue of minimum life security, there already exist such
plan in this country. For any weak of the society, there definitely exists a
certain social security plan. The argument is going on integrated plan is
necessary for such minimum life gurantee plan and pension plan at the present.
The big question rised up that minimum life gurantee exceed minimum pension
value sometime under the current social security system. DPJ promissed to
revise the present pention plan so that many of such social security plan
including pension plan will be integrated into a totally reasonable system.
There is no such argument on total security scheme since the change of power
happened last August. It is one of the most important manifest of DPJ as I
understand.
Without showing any of such total package of social security plan, it does not
make sense to arugue the necessity of increase of consumer tax to 10% and
reimbursement plan for lower income people which mentioned by two top leaders
of DPJ adminisration.
2010/7/3
Tadashi HAYASE
My opinion of this week(687)
A digital textbook
"Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology decided to
carry out a experimental class with the electronic teaching materials "digital
textbook" which use information and communication technology at some public
schools from 2011. The functions of terminals that are necessary for effective
teaching will be tested in such experiment." July 7, Nikkei Shimbun
With an appearance of iPad, new media named the electronic book has begun to
spread out all over the world. Many critics say all books as conventional
printed ones will be replaced by such digital books so soon. But I don't think
so. Paper print culture started in 15th century by appearance of printing
machine developed by Gutenberg that lasted almost 600 years since then. That
will not disappear so easily.
Nevertheless, it is also sure that print culture will be replaced drastically
by digital culture in next 100 years. The fact that many famous newspaper
publishing firms have stopped printing newspaper and shifted to digital
reporting in these days is a clear evidence of such change.
Regardless you like it or not, digitization of information distribution is
unavoidable and distribution of information by paper printed materials will
disappear on a massive scale in next hundred years. Furthermore, that is a
process of global energy and resource saving which is desirable model of
economic and social development today.
From that point of view, I think the policy of introducing an electronic
textbook into school by Ministry of Education is extremely appropriate
at this time. But it must be to raise so-called computer or information
literacy of students at schools rather than just a use of digital teaching
devices. When it comes to this matter, the biggest concern is whether or not
teachers and principals at schools really understand the meaning and contents
of information literacy education. I have some big questions about it.
I write this concern from my experience as a volunteer PC teacher for several
years at a local elementary school where I live. Among several extracurricular
classes, PC class is very popular among children for they can enjoy playing
games in the class which I allow to do in the last 20 minutes of total 90
minutes lesson. My first and biggest concern in the class is to teach children
how they can use and apply PC when they learn any of those subjects such as
Japanese, math, science, social study, art, music and so on. I have tried a
number of lessons in the class so that children can learn pleasure and
interest to use PC in various learning process of those important subjects at
school and home. It is indeed a very difficult task, though.
Today, all public elementary schools have PC rooms where 40 sets of PC are
installed connected with internet. But it seems that there exists no total
integrated PC and integrated information technology education is being done
at school. They don't even teach very basic techniques and software of PC
as a matter of fact. There is no such objective at all to raise information
literacy at national level as such in the present school curriculum.
We can't do anything now about the fact that any schools lack teachers who
are versed in PC teaching. However, the biggest question is that how many
teachers and principals at school really understand necessity of education
on information literacy in the present social environment.
The good use of digital board is just a part of such total information literacy
education required to be done at school today. As written in Nikkei article
mentioned about, it is most desirable to distribute PC to all school children
and to perform overall PC literacy education at each school. But teachers in
general do not seem to have such recognition at all as a matter of fact. Some
express concern about effectiveness of using digital teaching materials
including PC by sticking to conventional hand-writing methodologies to learn
any subjects as read in Nikkei article. Many express distrust to use digital
devices to teach various subjects in class.
I never deny the importance of any of conventional way of learning by using
hand writing. But at the same time, I believe students are now requested to
lean a good use of any of such digital devices including PC, of course.
LDP and Komei Party coalition decided to introduce electronic bulletin board
at elementary school last spring. DPJ administration stopped introducing them
for the reason that they are not quite effective tools to conduct IT
education at school after the change of power last summer. I agree with DPJ
action. I don't think electronic bulletin board is any good and effective
digital teaching devices.
But I wonder what is then a total information literacy education to be
presented by DPJ administration. The use of digital text book as reported by
Nikkei article is just a part of such total information literacy education
which should be started now to attain long range economic development plan
announced by Naoto Kan cabinet.
2010/7/10
Tadashi HAYASE
My opinion of this week(688):
Question on independent judicial panel
'An independent judicial panel has concluded that former Democratic Party of
Japan Secretary General Ichiro Ozawa should be reinvestigated over false
financial reporting by his political fund management body in 2007, according
to its decision unveiled Thursday.
The No. 1 Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution said in its decision dated
July 8 that it was "unjust" for prosecutors not to indict Ozawa over the fund
management body's alleged falsification of its 2007 report, meaning the prosecutors
will have to reopen the case but the process will end if they again decide not
to charge the powerful politician.
But Ozawa may still face a mandatory indictment if another panel dealing with
his Rikuzankai fund management body's alleged falsification of its 2004 and
2005 funds reports -- the No. 5 Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution --
recommends for a second time that he should be indicted, a decision that will
not be forthcoming until at least August.
Under the revised inquest of prosecution law that came into force in May last year,
indictments are mandatory if an inquest panel decides twice that the accused
should be indicted.' Mainici Daily News July 16
’Kensatushinsakai' The inquest of prosecution is a kind of incomprehensible
system. The total sytem is hard to understand for me. I referred rather long
parts of the article of Mainichi Daily News as above to start this argument.
What is different between 'kiso-soutou', case of forcible prosecution and
'fukiso-futou',injustice case of non-prosecution? I really don't understand
their difference but can roughly understand their difference so far as I read
the news of Mainichi Daily News as I referred above. 'fukiso-futou',
non-prosecuton injustice seems to be that non-prosecution is fixed leagally
if public prosecutor offices decide not prosecute the case again. But In the
case of 'kiso-soutou', case of forcible prosecution, a man in suspect will
be indicted mandatorily by the vote of an inquest prosecution party regardless
of any decision by public prosecutor office.
Ichirou Ozawa almost cleared the case of No.1 inquest of prosecution group
regardless their decision on 'fukiso-futou' for it is very probable that
Tokyo distirict prosecutor office will not prosecute Ozawa again due to
insufficient evidence of the case. But Ichiro Ozawa faces to another forcible
indictiment case by vote of No.5 inquest of prosecution group. If two third
of their members vote for the foicible indictment, he will be prosecuted
mandatory for a court.
The decision by No.5 inquest of prosecution group takes more time in another
two months or so probably after the election of representative of DPJ party.
The timing is so delicate as a matter of fact. It is sure that the existence
of such inquest group is providing a big effects on politics of this county
in many ways.
It provides several attacking points for opposition parties against ruling
party. That kind of legal matter should not be argued and used for
political issues. But it is very obvious that they are used politically
in various ways.
There exists a number of concerns and quesitons on this inquest of prosecution
system itself. My basic question is concerned with very basic and primitive
questions on the symtem itself.
How are those members of inquest of prosecution selected? How do they select a
charperson in charge of discussion? Who else do other members of inquest of
prosecution attend the session? How do they collect and get evidences of the
case concerned? What kind of evidence could have they got to decide whether
or not they go ahead to prosecute man in suspect? How do they take testimonies
from witness concerned ?
Once they decide to go ahead for foricible prosecution, how do their lawyer
on their side who is in charge of prosecution collect evidences and witness
necessary to main judgement in a court? How do public prosecutor offices work
or coorporate with those inquest of prosecution group in the court? There
are an hundred of such very basic questions in connection with this inquest
system.
I have never heard of any positive reactions on those questions from lawmakers
who made this system and laws in the diet. I don't know why this is. They
should argue more about resonableness and necessity of such system in various
points of views. There obviously exists some very basic problems on the
sysytem as I pointed out.
Why don't they argue more about this? They don't urugue any of those issues
at all right now.. Some should say: 'Yes, it's a meaningful and good system.'
Some should commment on some problems occured since this sytem start. Their
job is to discuss the evaluation of the sytem itself, rather than their use
for political matters.
2010/7/17
Tadashi HAYASE
My opinion of this week（689）
Abandonment of design to establish National Strategic Bureau
When Hatoyama Cabinet started last September, there was a plan to establish
National Strategic Bureau that functions to make total coordination to
prepare annual budget and to create a long range economic growth plan of the
country. They establish National Strategic Room to start with so that the
room will be expanded as Bureau in next two years or so while DPJ is in power.
The idea of such bureau was presented by Naoto Kan himself, the then vice
Prime Minister of Hatoyama Cabinet. He went to England to learn such political
system just before the change of power happened last summer.
Soon after the defeat of DPJ in House of Councils election on July 10, Prime
Minister Naoto Kan announced the abandonment of design to establish National
Strategic Bureau last week. He mentioned even the idea to scale down present
National Strategic Room itself so that Yoshito Sengoku, Chief Cabinet
Secretary and Kouichirou Genba, Policy Research Council Chairman will take
initiative to function as strategic bureau. Satoshi Arai, named as a minister
in charge of Strategic Room was removed even from such key role.
It is very natural that Hajime Matui, former vice secretary of Hatoyama Cabinet
and Seiji Maehara, Minister of land, infrastructure and transportation raised
voice to express their concern and doubt on the change of very important
manifest of DPJ. They said that is a big breach of commitment that their party
had made against people of Japan. I fully agreed with them. That's concerned
with the breach of very basic promise that the party had made at the last
summer general election. That is more than manifest they were talking about
during the election. It is the basic line and principle of the party.
It is generally said that the reason for the defeat of DPJ in the House of
Councils Election is a careless word of possible increase of consumer tax by
Prime Minister Naoto Kan. I don't think so. People did not express their concern
about increase of tax itself. They expressed their concern about such easy
change of very basic principle and line of party they promised to people of
Japan. The party even indicated the possibility to increase consumer tax in
the future. People believed their word that tax increase would come after the
overall drastic cut of waste which exist in this country. I personally agree
with it again 100%. But the word mentioned by Prime Minister Kan sounded
like he forgot that very basic promise or principal of the party. How could
LDP win in the election by saying increase of tax more definitely during
the election?
Increase of tax itself was not an issue to argue about. The biggest reason for
the defeat of DPJ is the change of their mind, change of the principle or line
of the party. Several change of individual manifests is not really so
important. The serious issue is the change of principle and line of the party.
Prime Minister Naoto Kan seemed to have made the same mistake again by
abandonment of design to establish National Strategic Bureau. It is the symbol
of the most important principle of the party to change Japanese political
system so that they can prepare annual budget and long range growth plan fully
guided by cabinet members rather than by bureaucrats as in the past years.
People believed the word and supported the party for that reason.
Why then did Naoto Kan abandon such very important principle again? Is this
because of lack of funds, lack of staffs or lack of time? No, they are not. He
might have thought that any bills to change the present political system is
not possible any more due to loss of majority vote at the Upper House.
If that is the reason for abandonment of National Strategic Bureau, we are
quite disappointed with Naoto Kan, his capacity as a national leader of Japan.
He should challenge to establish such political system regardless any
objections of opposition fronts.
2010/7/24
Tadashi HAYASE
My opinion of this week（690）
A ripple of the execution
In ex-government of Liberal Democratic Party, it became the problem that
Minister of Justice Kunio Hatoyama signed so many execution. The Asahi
Shimbun criticized it in a column and aroused a lot of controversy. It
seemed that Minister Kunio Hatoyama did not make any arbitrary judgment.
He just singed execution under the provision of law. I did not understand
why it provided so much problem.
At this time, Minister of Justice Keiko Chiba of Kan cabinet signed
executed capital punishment on on July 28 and several lawmakers of
opposition fronts and critics criticized it for a couple of reasons.
・Why did Minister of Justice Keiko Chiba who principally objects capital
punishment system go ahead for execution?
・Minister Justice Keiko Chiba lost the election of House of Council on July
11th. Is it fair for such Minister to sign execution?
I am surprised with the fact that there exists so many law makers and critics
who insist such silly logics as professionals. I don't think it reasonable
at all.
I understand that there are group of people who support a capital punishment
system and another group who do not allow a capital punishment system. When
it comes to my personal opinion on it, I really don't have any definite answer
on it. I rather admit capital punishment under the current social environment
from realistic point of views. But I believe capital punishment should be
abolished in a long run in various meaning.
There exists a number of arguments concerning capital punishment but there
definitely exists capital punishment law at the moment. Minister of Justice
Kunio Hatoyama was the man who probably support capital punishment itself. But
he never singed so many execution just because he is strong supporter of the
system. He just did it in accordance with the definite rules and procedures
under the current law. Minister of Justice Keiko Chiba who is not a supporter
of principal punishment performed just the same way as Kunio Hatoyama did.
What a silly criticism it is! They criticized Minister Keiko Chiba's execution
sign regardless the fact that she is originally against capital punishment. She
is also criticized for the fact that she just lost seat at the recent House of
Councils election. But her appointment as Minister of Justice was confirmed
by Prime Miniser Naoto Kan soon after election. She is now a minister elected
from private citizen as law determine it. What's wrong about it? There are
no problem at all on her accountability.
When it comes to accountability, many commentators of mass media said Minister
of Justice Keiko Chiba is responsible to explain the case at this time. I don't
see any reason why she has to do it especially at this time. Her general
announcement and general explanation on the execution is good enough as
far as it is done as the current law requires.
2010/7/31
Tadashi HAYASE
Home Page