The deregulation debate had been conclusively settled through section-chief level negotiations. Claims of “Prime Minister’s intention” are incompatible with the documented process and represent media-driven misinformation.

The deregulation decision was finalized at the bureaucratic level, leaving no room for any “Prime Minister’s intention.”

2017-07-13

The following continues from the previous chapter.

The deregulation debate related to this matter had already been settled at the level of section-chief administrative negotiations.

Many citizens are already familiar with the background of the author, Yoichi Takahashi.

He is a former Ministry of Finance official and an economist.

He currently serves as a professor at Kaetsu University, chairman of Policy Factory Co., and a member of the advisory board of the NPO “Permanent Opposition.”

He is a leading advocate of structural reform and previously served as a special advisor to Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto.

His research fields include macroeconomics, fiscal and monetary policy, mathematical statistics, financial engineering, accounting, and administrative law.

The conclusion he presents here is based strictly on facts and official documents.

The media ignore the minutes of the National Strategic Special Zone Working Group and cabinet decisions, focusing solely on internal MEXT documents and reporting based on assumptions alone.

This is not journalism but fake news.

By examining the first and third sets of minutes, it becomes clear that the deregulation debate between the Cabinet Secretariat and special zone experts on one side and MEXT and the Ministry of Agriculture on the other ended in a complete victory for the pro-deregulation side.

Using a baseball analogy, it was a 10–0 mercy-rule win in five innings.

Anyone skeptical should simply read the actual minutes.

The cabinet decision shows that MEXT, which holds licensing authority and bears the burden of proof for demand forecasts regarding new veterinary schools, completely failed to fulfill its responsibility.

Moreover, although a deadline had been set to reach a conclusion within fiscal year 2015, meaning by March 2016, MEXT failed to meet even this requirement.

Under these circumstances, a knockout loss for MEXT is unavoidable.

The substantive decision regarding deregulation had already been finalized through section-chief level negotiations.

Accordingly, there was no institutional or factual room for any so-called “Prime Minister’s intention” to intervene.

Nevertheless, the media continued to focus solely on whether the MEXT documents were authentic.

Even if authentic, they were created in late September 2016.

This was after the March 2016 deadline imposed on MEXT and even after the third set of minutes had been produced.

Put plainly, after the outcome had already been decided, MEXT merely recorded excuses.

The phrase “Prime Minister’s intention” appearing in those documents is a fabrication by MEXT.

To be continued.