[ad_1]
At the House Budget Committee on the 6th, Prime Minister Suga said that in 2017, when half of the members were re-elected, he would speak to the government before the meeting recommended candidates. It was revealed that prior consultation was conducted in.
Regarding the preliminary consultation, the Prime Minister explained: “We discussed the way of thinking (of the government) in the appointment and exchanged opinions.” Mr. Katsunobu Kato, Secretary of State, said: “The academic council issued a list of recommendations at its own discretion based on the exchange of views.”
The Japan Academic Council Law stipulates that the selection of members shall be appointed by the Prime Minister based on the recommendation of the Council. Akira Koike, the Communist Party general secretary who raised the question, criticized that “political intervention (to the recommendation) itself threatens the independence of the academic conference.”
The Prime Minister explained to the Budget Committee of the House of Representatives on the 5th of the day before that there had been no prior consultation on the appointment of members for 20 years, and insisted that “the adjustment before recommendation did not work, and as As a result, some people did not show up. ” (Tetsuto Yamaguchi)
◆ The reason for the exclusion is not firmly explained and the reasons for the denial remain unclear.
The budget committee of both Houses of Representatives, which lasted four days until the 6th, focused on the issue of the refusal to appoint a new member of the Japan Academy of Sciences. Although some parts have been revealed in the background and circumstances surrounding the selection of the members, Prime Minister Yoshii Suga did not explain the reason for the exclusion of six members, and the reasons for rejecting the appointment remain unclear.
“I will refrain from responding because it concerns personnel matters.”
The prime minister repeated this phrase in his reply. He denied the connection to the fact that the six people disagreed with government policies, such as laws related to security, but answered zero on the reason for refusing the designation. Yukio Edano, the representative of the Constitutional Democratic Party, ironically called it a “scratched record.”
On the other hand, a part of the personnel review process has become clear. The Prime Minister explained that in 2017, when half of the members were re-elected, the academic council had a prior consultation with the government before presenting the list of recommendations. “This time, the coordination of the pre-recommendation did not work and we could not name (6 people),” he said, acknowledging that he was the head of the academic conference that did not listen to the intentions of the official residence.
It was also noted that the selection of six people to be excluded was led by Under Secretary of State Kazuhiro Sugita instead of the prime minister. The prime minister admitted in deliberations that he had not seen the initial list of 105 recommendations and did not know the names or achievements of five of the six excluded. On the other hand, it turned out that Mr. Sugita had been arguing with the Cabinet Office before making a list of 99 people who were ultimately appointed, based on the Prime Minister’s conscience on issues like partial membership.
The Law of the Japan Academy of Sciences stipulates that the prime minister is the appointee. If bureaucrats make a practical decision, the right to appoint can be ruined. The opposition party argued that “Mr. Sugita does not have the authority to cut six people” (House member Renji) and demanded that the Diet be invited. He also requested the publication of an internal document that records the content of the discussions with the Cabinet Office, but neither the government nor the ruling party responded.
The reasons for refusing to appoint the prime minister were also focused. At the time of the deliberations of the Diet at the time of the revision of the law, which changed the system of selecting members from an election system to an appointment system in 1983, the prime minister and the ministers in charge in that At the time, they repeatedly replied that the right to appoint the prime minister was “only formal.” Is.
This time, the Prime Minister insisted that “(since 1983) a coherent idea” on the opinion that the government raised to justify the denial of appointment, “it cannot be said that there is an obligation to appoint as recommended.” However, the basis was an internal document compiled by the Cabinet Office in consultation with the Cabinet Office of Legislation in 2018. Prior to that, no records or documents could be shown to demonstrate the same opinion.
Kazuo Shizuka, Chairman of the Communist Party, criticized: “It was clear that we secretly changed the interpretation two years ago. There will be no legal stability.” (Takahiro Kitani)
