Former Finance Bureaucrat Yoichi Takahashi publishes a three-column 11-page paper in the monthly magazine Will this month's issue.
The king of revolving door Mr. Maekawa and Asahi coverage, what to do with Maekawa as the spokesperson for justice, who was the master of the "revolving door incident"!
It is a paper that all Japanese citizens must subscribe to and read.
What was regulatory reform?
Mr. Kihei Maekawa, former vice minister of MEXT, criticized Prime Minister Abe as "distorting the administration."
What is the target of "distorted" claim in the first place?
If you do not understand this fundamentally, the essence of the Kake school problem cannot be seen at all.
Many people, including the mass media, think that MEXT's approval for setting up universities was distorted by the intention of the prime minister.
Many experts also comment that Prime Minister Abe’s intervention is "too much".
However, the fact is not so.
From my point of view, the reality is very clear and concise.
Regulatory reform is aimed at the "MEXT Notification" (No. 45) promulgated on March 31, 2003 ("Notification" is the same level as the Ministerial Ordinance, You can get out of ministries).
So, although it is a public announcement of the problem, it is written that if you read the contents carefully, you should not apply for approval to install veterinary faculties, medical schools, dental schools, etc.
Is not it surprising?
Normally, if you decide to newly establish a department at a university, apply to MEXT and judge whether MEXT will accept it and approve it.
As a result, "I will accept applications, but I will not approve for the reason of ○ ○" cannot be helped.
However, MEXT announces that it should not apply.
Will MEXT be allowed to have the authority so far?
From the common sense of administrative law, it is impossible.
The "MEXT Notification" (No. 45) was talked about by officials immediately after being promulgated.
Even at the Central Council for Education, MEXT's council, the voice "This is terrible" came up.
However, MEXT has kept this regulation, regardless of how much it is criticized from the surroundings.
With the notice as a shield, they did not approve the establishment of undergraduate department.
Or, to be exact, they've been telling the university that it should not apply for an undergraduate new construction.
Before 2003 when this announcement was announced, they did not approve the construction for 35 years.
This was "administrative guidance".
Somehow, from the side who wants to establish a faculty department, this announcement was a terrible "rock regulation".
It would be natural that it would like to abolish the public notice as soon as possible and to put it in a situation where it can apply.
This draft continues.
