This essay reexamines the “Moritomo–Kake” controversy, arguing that the core issue lay in alleged unlawful administrative notices by the Ministry of Education rather than political favoritism. It discusses political funding disclosures, the principle of burden of proof, and what it characterizes as double standards in opposition party tactics.

2019-02-19
Rather, the essence of the matter lies in the allegation that the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology issued unlawful administrative notices contrary to existing law, effectively preventing the establishment of new veterinary schools and distorting the administration.

A previous article published on 2019-02-16 questioned whether Yoshida Tsunehiko was involved as a principal actor in the Ministry’s corruption scandal.
The following continues from the previous chapter.

Political funding reports are available for only three years.
What, then, are the actual facts.
Under the current system, only three years of political funding disclosure reports are accessible on the Ministry of Internal Affairs website.
Therefore, it is difficult to directly verify materials referenced in earlier media reports.

Reviewing currently available reports does not confirm certain alleged affiliations.
When operating an independent website, there are limits to obtainable documentation.

Copies of older reports circulate online, but their authenticity cannot presently be verified.
Accordingly, it is inappropriate to assert connections without firm evidence.
Even when the subject is a member of parliament, it is improper to declare guilt without proof.

However, the method of pursuing allegations warrants discussion.
In controversies such as the “Moritomo–Kake” and harassment cases, arguments were advanced suggesting that the accused must prove their innocence.
In a state governed by the rule of law, however, the burden of proof rests with the accuser.
The accused is not obligated to prove innocence.

In the “Moritomo–Kake” issue, it remains unclear which specific law and which provision were allegedly violated.
There exists no statute prohibiting the establishment of veterinary schools.
The core issue may instead concern whether the Ministry issued notices inconsistent with statutory authority.

If one asserts wrongdoing, one bears responsibility for identifying the relevant legal provisions potentially violated.
The same standard should apply to opposition lawmakers.

Circumstantial evidence was discussed regarding potential links between the corruption case and certain legislators.
Yet circumstantial evidence alone cannot establish guilt.
This is why this website has refrained from definitive conclusions.

Nevertheless, demanding that others “prove their innocence” while resisting equivalent scrutiny constitutes a double standard.
Such inconsistency undermines public trust in politics.
To be continued.