Is the Diet aware that it is supposed to thoroughly debate issues having an important bearing on the nation's future and try to reach a general consensus? We have strong doubts about whether it does following the enactment of a revision to the Japanese immigration law to increase the number of foreign workers in the country.
Legislators spent just 38 hours discussing the revision to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act in the judicial affairs committees of both chambers of the Diet. This is less than the amount of time lawmakers spent debating a bill to introduce integrated resorts with casinos into the country, which topped 40 hours. Considering the ramifications of the immigration revision, this is far too little time.
The bill faced complications starting from its advance screening within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). The party's Judicial Affairs Division met six times to iron out the details. It was obviously aware that the bill bore heavy weight. Yet the perfunctory way the legislation was handled in Diet deliberations makes us think that the party had no intention of getting involved in deep debate.
As for the reasons, the first factor that comes to mind is the existence of the right wing element of society that is opposed to boosting the number of foreign workers accepted into Japan. As this element forms a core layer in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's support base, it appears that the prime minister wanted to limit his own testimony in the Diet to the greatest extent possible.
Another factor is the structural deficiency of the legislation itself. As nationwide local elections approach in April next year, the LDP wants to stress that it has implemented measures to combat a lack of workers in Japan. But if the revision to the immigration law is perceived as a turn in the nation's immigration policy, then members of Abe's support base could drift away from the party. This is likely why the party slapped together a system based on the Technical Intern Training Program (TITP), though problems have been reported with the program.
One LDP executive in the House of Representatives Judicial Affairs Committee stated, "If we enter debate, there'll be no end to it. Any number of problems will surface." This probably represents their true feelings on the legislation. The ruling coalition abandoned one hour of the time allotted to the bloc to ask questions on the bill in the House of Councillors Judicial Affairs Committee.
As Abe continues to go unchallenged within his administration, the trend for the ruling coalition to place priority on the prime minister's intentions and make light of the Diet has been growing stronger year by year. But the fact that legislators are not embarrassed that deliberations were so blatantly hollowed out this time represents a clear crisis for the legislature.
The very fact that the concrete details on the design of the system to be implemented in line with the latest revision have been left up to ministerial ordinances is a fatal mistake. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tadamori Oshima, unable to just stand by, requested that a full outline of the new system be presented to the Diet before the revised legislation comes into force. It is one thing to do this -- but it is not a satisfactory answer to the problem.
The government should gradually phase out the TITP, and unify statuses of residence for the purpose of work. We call for the government to quickly draw up a bill on a comprehensive policy package that provides social support for foreign workers along with Japanese language education, and thoroughly debate it during the regular session of the Diet next year.

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has been in a rare confrontation with the Japan Investment Corp. (JIC), a public-private fund overseen by the ministry.
The row has its roots in confusion over the salaries for executives and employees of JIC, which was launched in September. Industry minister Hiroshige Seko determined the development as a case of mishandling by bureaucrats, and announced that he will return his pay for one month to take responsibility as the top manager of the ministry.
The rivalry between the two entities still remains unresolved. Perhaps we should question the very existence of public-private investment funds from their foundation.
JIC came into existence after a shakeup of the former Innovation Network Corporation of Japan (INCJ) as the government orchestrated the reorganization to shore up public-private funds, which have faced heavy criticism. JIC aimed to strengthen its management of funds through new leadership.
However, JIC's proposal for salaries, based on a ministry plan, faced criticism as being "too high" and failed to gain approval. The corporation is vehemently critical of the ministry, and now the relationship between the two parties seems to be beyond repair.
This case shows fundamental contradictions inherent to public-private funds.
Of the 14 public-private funds, 12 were launched under the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and were regarded as a dependable force leading the growth strategy under the "Abenomics" economic policy mix pushed by the administration. But six of the funds posted losses as of the end of fiscal 2017, and Board of Audit inspections found problems within the organizations.
At the core of the unsuccessful performance of the funds lies the contradictory nature of those organizations with public and private faces. As public bodies, those funds are expected to play a role of supporting high-risk businesses that private entities would refrain from investing in. While as private bodies, the funds have to be efficient and achieve results with no regard for public responsibilities such as salvaging or supporting businesses.
This contradiction leads to their salary arrangements. To make risky investments successful, talented people need to be attracted with salaries equivalent to those offered by top-notch private funds. But most of the salaries are paid out of public coffers, sparking criticism for excessive payments.
The government apparently wants to integrate other public-private funds such as the Cool Japan Fund, into the newly-launched JIC. But the new president and other executives at the corporation place top priority on the success of new investments. A head-on clash with the government over how to run the organization would have been inevitable, in addition to the salary fracas.
Superficial measures cannot solve this impasse. The government should start considering shuttering or cutting down on public-private funds before their losses become even larger.

Japan should be an open country. It is rational for us to accept foreign workers willing to take up jobs here when there are corresponding demands for them exist. Yet making this arrangement sustainable requires a well-planned system.
The Diet is entering its final phase of deliberations on revising the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act to accept more foreigners to alleviate the country's labor shortage -- a major turnaround in Japan's policy toward foreigners. The administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the ruling coalition snapped short discussions on a bill to revise the law in the House of Representatives, and rammed the legislation through the chamber on Nov. 27. They intend to pass the bill through the House of Councillors into law by the end of this week.
The main pillar of the bill is the creation of new residency statuses for foreigners with "specific skills" who can be accepted in industries suffering from lack of workers. But the focus of Diet deliberations so far has been the Technical Intern Training Program, which was introduced in 1993. This is because the government expects some 260,000 trainees to obtain the new statuses and continue to work in Japan.
--- False premises causing contradictions
Reports abound that technical trainees have been forced to work with low pay and in terrible conditions, ostensibly to transfer technological expertise from Japan to developing countries. Despite the tough conditions, they have managed to learn the Japanese language and obtain skills in a matter of a few years of staying in this country.
Rather than sending them home upon completing their training courses, the Japanese government wants to keep them in Japan for at least another five years by encouraging them to change their residency status. This is the core concept of the new system, which is being built on a shaky foundation. It is no wonder that the foundation -- the technical trainee program -- has come under rigorous debate.
The government, however, continues to insist that the technical trainee program has no links to the immigration law changes introducing the new residency statuses. At the same time, it has eagerly defended the trainee program, which is nevertheless rife with problems, and pretended that the new immigration program is something different from the trainee system, even though they share the same roots. These two attitudes come from a premise that is not in step with reality -- namely, the immigration policy that foreign workers must not engage in mere menial labor.
Officially, Japan has only allowed foreigners with special expertise, including medical doctors or university professors, or spouses of Japanese nationals, to work in the country. It says removing this cap "will cause deterioration in public security," or "will not be accepted by the people of Japan." In other words, the government's formal position has been to bar non-experts or those doing simple labor from entering the country for work.
In reality, however, foreign students working at convenience stores in cities, and trainees sweating along production lines at factories in depopulated regional communities, are in both cases workers doing simple labor -- and Japan needs them. Calling them workers with "specific skills" is just an excuse to insist that they are not simple laborers.
We should stop adding new contradictions to already contradictory practices. We propose that Japan create a single "regular worker" residency status covering foreign workers with no expertise.
The trainee program should be abolished in phases over several years, and trainees should be admitted as entry-level or intermediate-level "regular workers." At the same time, the government needs to crack down on malicious job placement companies or employers forcing harsh working conditions on their foreign employees. Getting rid of the false premises will make the system much healthier.
Reviewing the distorted immigration system must go hand in hand with a social integration policy for foreign workers that recognizes them as members of Japanese society and supports their daily lives.
--- Guaranteeing Japanese language education
As flesh-and-blood human beings, foreign workers need guaranteed access to inexpensive housing and medical care to live and work safely. They are also required to learn local customs and rules for neighborhood associations in their communities. Educating the Japanese people around them is of vital necessity, too.
Among such supportive programs, Japanese-language courses bear particular importance. Foreign workers without the command of the simplest daily phrases would become isolated in the communities they live in.
Therefore, a public system to guarantee a certain amount of Japanese-language education for foreign workers should therefore be introduced at an early date. A multiparty group of lawmakers is proposing a law to promote Japanese-language education for foreigners, and this should be defined specifically as legislation for foreign workers.
However, the government-sponsored bill to revise the immigration law completely lacks programs of such a nature. We are appalled by the Justice Ministry's irresponsible attitude that it will put together such programs after the bill is passed into law, based on the opinions of experts.
The new immigration system will require the government officials involved to process massive workloads. The current arrangement to expand the Justice Ministry's Immigration Bureau of Japan into a leading immigration control and residency management agency needs a complete overhaul. The agency has its roots in the management of foreign residents in Japan, and having it play various new roles, including supporting foreigners, is beyond its current capacity.
Failure to smoothly integrate foreigners as workers and members of local communities will only result in an increase in residents staying in Japan illegally, in the shadows of society. Cracking down on them, or addressing conflict between them and local communities, would inflict substantial social costs on Japan.
The Diet must face the problems of the government-proposed bill and make fundamental amendments so that the upcoming policy change will not leave serious trouble for future generations to deal with.

In a press conference before his 53rd birthday, Prince Akishino questioned the use of public funds to pay for the "Daijosai" rite to be performed after his brother Crown Prince Naruhito ascends to the Imperial Throne in May next year. He indicated that the cost should be covered by funds set aside to pay for daily expenses of the Imperial Family.
These remarks have sent ripples throughout the nation, but we would like to perceive them as an effort to raise a question, so the people of Japan think about this as their own issue.
In the Daijosai rite, the new emperor prays for a rich harvest. The government decided to treat the ceremony not as a "matter of state" but as an Imperial Household event, and decided to pay for it using public "palace-related expenses" set aside for the Imperial Family's official duties, as was the case with the current Emperor who carried out the rite in 1990.
In doing so, the government is following precedent without conducting an in-depth examination about how to cover the ritual's cost -- despite strong opposition to using public funds for a religious event like Daijosai. This decision by the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, it can be said, triggered Prince Akishino's remarks.
The cost for the Daijosai held in 1990 after the beginning of the Heisei era hit some 2.25 billion yen, including the payment for the construction of the site for the main "Daijokyu no Gi" ritual. Prince Akishino said the rite was originally intended to be carried out in a way "matching our wherewithal." Discussions should continue with a view to simplify the rite in accordance with the times.
It has been pointed out following Prince Akishino's statement that Article 4 of the Constitution states that the Emperor "shall not have powers related to government." In this vein, Imperial Household members have traditionally refrained from making political statements in principle.
Prince Akishino has in the past expressed his opinions about the Imperial Household system, calling, for example, for the introduction of a retirement system to ease the burden on the Emperor. This time, he stated he conveyed his opinions to the Imperial Household Agency, but said "they didn't listen to me."
Prince Akishino will become first in line to inherit the Chrysanthemum Throne from May next year. His remarks have a far-reaching influence on society, and he is required to exercise caution. Some people have complained that the Prince was making a "political" statement. But the distance between the Imperial Household and the people of Japan is changing, and having Imperial Household members refrain from any expression of personal opinions would only distance the household from the public.
The question of how the Imperial Household should stand has been a target of national debate since Emperor Akihito announced his apparent intention to retire two years ago. As the Heisei era draws near to an end, the public, who have sovereignty in this country, are being asked to think about the Imperial Household in the new era, possibly prompted by Prince Akishino through his statement.

The government says it will advance its foreign policy by seeking the understanding and support of the citizens of Japan. This statement was uttered during Diet deliberations on ongoing negotiations with Russia about the Northern Territories -- four islands off the northernmost prefecture of Hokkaido claimed by Japan but controlled by Russia -- and sounds like nothing but a hollow vow.
"The Japanese government's stance has remained consistent, and we will solve the territorial dispute and conclude a peace treaty (with Russia)," Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told a House of Representatives Budget Committee meeting earlier this week. "This policy remains unchanged."
But it is unclear if the prime minister will truly be able to make his promises a reality. The statement is his first in the Diet after agreeing with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Nov. 14 during a meeting in Singapore to focus future talks between the two leaders on concluding a peace treaty based on the 1956 Joint Declaration between Japan and the Soviet Union. However, Abe's recent declaration in the Diet is, actually, a retreat from earlier government positions.
The joint declaration states that Moscow will hand over two of the four Northern Territories islands -- Habomai and Shikotan -- to Tokyo after the two countries sign a peace treaty. In October of this year, a month before the meeting in Singapore, Abe said that he would "solve the problem of the attribution of the four northern islands and conclude a peace treaty," making specific reference to all four islands of the Northern Territories.
Following his meeting with Putin, however, Abe stopped emphasizing all four islands when referring to the territories. President Putin has stated that it was not clear who held the right to sovereignty over Habomai and Shikotan, and is said to be refusing the return of the remaining two bigger islands of Kunashiri and Etorofu.
When asked about the number of islands he intends to demand Russia return, the prime minister said, "I will withhold comment on the islands that are the subject of the negotiations." Abe even avoided clearly stating the principle view of prior administrations that Russia is "illegally occupying" the four islands.
The Northern Territories issue continues to remain deadlocked over 70 years after the end of World War II. Territorial negotiation is indeed delicate, and it is understandable that the prime minister does not want to raise tensions ahead of full-fledged discussions.
Yet, remaining vague does not help the people of Japan to understand Abe's thinking. He said he will seek a "solution acceptable to both countries," but it is only natural for people to worry about the possibility of Russia holding the upper hand during the talks or Japanese participants lacking negotiation skills.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Taro Kono told the same lower house Budget Committee meeting that it is "not in Japan's best interest to publicly mention the government's thoughts or negotiation policy before talks begin." Without presenting even a basic framework of how the government plans to proceed with the negotiations, garnering the understanding of the people is an impossible task.
The Foreign Ministry itself is the government body calling for "diplomacy that stands with citizens." But reflected in Kono's statement is his apparent attachment to an "old diplomacy," in which professionals dominated negotiations regardless of public opinion.
Even though carrying out foreign diplomacy is the prerogative of the Cabinet alone, it is the Diet that has the final say on the conclusion of treaties. Without the support of the people of Japan, the negotiations will not come to fruition.
To truly make progress over the Northern Territories, the government needs a sense of balance to sincerely explain its stance to its citizens and reflect their opinions in the negotiations.

The bill to revise the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act to accept more foreign workers is now being discussed in the Diet. The proposal includes more than 30 sections which only say that details "will be determined by ministry orders."
As for the two new residency statuses to be created by the bill, category 1 status is defined vaguely as being for foreign nationals who have "skills requiring substantial knowledge or experience," while category 2 is for those with "high-level professional skills."
The maximum length of stay for category 1 holders is five years, while category 2 holders can extend the period of stay, according to the government's explanation. These conditions, however, are not specified anywhere in the bill. The Cabinet is also said to work out a "basic policy" on judgment and management criteria for choosing candidate industries for foreign labor introduction and required skills for foreign applicants at a later date.
These arrangements mean that the core portions of the bill are up to the ministries concerned. This effectively gives the administration free reign in determining those important factors. The administrative branch can effectively design Cabinet decisions and ministry orders as it wishes according to the framework of the legal changes approved by the Diet.
Demanding Diet deliberations over such a bill is tantamount to asking restaurant diners to order their meals without first showing them a menu.
There can be arguments that writing specific industries that would be accepting more foreign workers or the quotas of laborers those industries can accept into the law would make the management of the new rules inflexible. But the administration apparently made those arrangements utilizing ministry orders and Cabinet decisions in a bid to skip Diet deliberations as much as possible.
The government has indicated that about 340,000 additional foreign workers would be accepted by 14 industries over a five-year period under the new legislation. Although the bill does not stipulate any limits on the number of additions to the workforce thereafter, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe once testified in the Diet that the government would keep that number as the upper limit in the updated immigration system.
The government, however, edited the prime minister remark. Instead, it was said that the number of foreign workers accepted by candidate industries would be incorporated in management policies to be determined after legal revisions are passed through the Diet. This case clearly shows that the administrative branch changes its stance arbitrarily.
Diet deliberations have so far focused on important issues such as working conditions and the living environment for foreign workers. Allowing ministries to make decisions on these issues would simply give too much power to the administrative branch.
For example, the law aimed at reforming the technical intern trainee program which was introduced last year includes a provision that sets pay levels for trainees at a similar level to those for Japanese workers. Yet, the bill currently in the Diet lacks such an important provision.
Using ministry orders to manage the new immigration system creates greater need for Diet oversight on how to implement those orders. As long as members of the administration continue to respond to questions by saying that the matter will be "provided for in ministry orders," Diet deliberations will not be able to achieve any depth.
The ruling Liberal Democratic Party is now poised to propose a vote on the bill, which only entered into Diet deliberations last week. Such a move is nothing short of making light of the institution of the legislative branch.

For the new residency statuses the government plans to introduce to succeed, it is vital to create an environment in which foreign workers can thrive as members of local communities, and with the acceptance of other residents.
The task of creating this environment through the implementation of support programs will be entrusted to a new immigration control and residency management agency, to be established by upgrading the Justice Ministry's Immigration Bureau. The agency would be launched in April 2019, should a bill amending the Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Justice be passed during the current extraordinary Diet session.
However, the mission of the agency as stated in the bill is to fairly manage immigration control and residency of foreigners in Japan. The text makes no mention of support or promoting coexistence.
More than 1.28 million foreigners are already working in Japan. Many of them not only work but play important roles in their local communities. The sole focus of the legal provision, however, is management, and one has to wonder what the government really means to do.
The Immigration Bureau's main task is to confirm if foreigners are residing in Japan with proper statuses, through immigration control and residency checks. The office pursues those staying in the country illegally, and deports violators or places them in detention facilities.
The bureau is also responsible for approving Japanese language schools. As many foreign students work illegally, the bureau is tightening up screening procedures for residency applicants.
The bureau should continue closely monitoring illegal stays to counter terrorism and maintain order.
However, supporting new foreign workers is a completely new and different mission from keeping tabs on them. Support entails a wide variety of services, from making sure the workers are registered in the pension and social security programs, to promoting Japanese language education, conveying information on daily life in Japan, and providing consultations. This policy needs to be advanced through dialogue with relevant government offices and local bodies.
But the Justice Ministry has never tackled these issues, nor accumulated relevant know-how.
The government says it plans to hire new people or bring staff from other ministries and agencies into the Justice Ministry on loan, but it is doubtful that they can properly handle the rapidly increasing number of foreign workers in the coming years.
Challenges presented by this new mission involve education, employment, medical services, and other issues, all linked together. They need more than immigration policy handled by the Justice Ministry. A new government office incorporating necessary functions from a variety of ministry and agency departments should be envisioned for the long-term support of foreign workers.

The December 2015 agreement between Japan and South Korea on the issue of "comfort women" was a product of long, arduous efforts designed to meet respective domestic requirements. The latest decision by Seoul rendered that agreement meaningless.
The administration of President Moon Jae-in on Nov. 21 announced it would dissolve the foundation designed to support those women forced to provide sexual services to Japanese soldiers during World War II. The entity had been established using 1 billion yen provided by the government of Japan based on the bilateral agreement.
President Moon has criticized the agreement and sought renegotiation even before he came to power, and didn't show any respect for the accord.
South Korea says the country will not conduct a renegotiation or discard the agreement at this point in time. The country explained that the foundation is being shuttered because former comfort women opposing the agreement are not accepting money paid out from the Japanese fund, and foundation board members are resigning one after another.
But more than 70 percent of former comfort women have received the money. Yet strangely, the South Korean side made no mention of the role played by the foundation in its dissolution announcement. The Japanese government has every right to lodge a complaint against Seoul, and it did so.
The South Korean government justifies its action with a "victims first" approach, in which the victims' voices are respected. But the situation requires an alternative proposal, not criticism alone, to move ahead.
An effort to settle the issue of comfort women triggered controversy in the 1990s. Back then, Japan set up the Asian Women's Fund and provided former comfort women with "atonement payments," but the arrangement was criticized because the money used was not coming solely from Japan's state coffers.
Yet another attempt to solve the problem failed this time due to domestic opinions in South Korea, making a diplomatic solution more difficult to achieve.
It should not be overlooked that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a very conservative leader, signed the deal in 2015 by suppressing opposition from the right. A unilateral refusal by the South Korean side to meet at a middle ground will make it difficult to get domestic Japanese opinion behind a viable solution.
Last month, the South Korean Supreme Court ordered a Japanese employer of former forced laborers to compensate them. One has to wonder if South Korea believes this notion that as a "victim" of modern history in connection with Japan, Seoul can make whatever demands it desires to the "aggressor" Tokyo.
On the other hand, Tokyo lacked the delicacy to handle this sensitive issue. Prime Minister Abe strongly denied the possibility of writing a letter of apology to those women during a Diet session, unnecessarily triggering a negative reaction from South Korea.
The number of political leaders understanding each other is on the decline in both Japan and South Korea. That is the very reason to avoid raising tensions between the two countries over historical issues.

A group of opposition lawmakers has put together a counterproposal to a government-sponsored bill to revise the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act to accept more foreign workers into Japan.
The counterproposal calls for the abolition of the government-run Technical Intern Training Program, which the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe intends to maintain. Instead, the opposition plans to establish a new system for the acceptance of general foreign workers.
The training program was originally designed as a means of technological transfers from Japan to developing countries. However, trainees have been accepted to make up for worker shortages, with a widening gap between the ideal situation and the reality.
More than 7,000 trainees left their workplaces last year alone citing low pay and long working hours. Under the current arrangement, trainees cannot change their instructors or the industries they train in, and those who go missing are treated as illegal residents.
Despite this situation, the government envisions those trainees with language and other skills to obtain new residency statuses to be created for foreign workers. There is no guarantee that their working environment will improve, and local communities accepting them are concerned about dealing with the unstable trainee program.
The opposition counterproposal, meanwhile, plans to introduce a system to support foreign workers including Japanese language education courses and a social security program. In addition, it calls for the establishment of a multicultural co-existence agency that would transcend bureaucratic turf battles and be responsible for supporting the lives of foreign workers.
The government-sponsored bill includes the upgrading of the Justice Ministry's Immigration Bureau to an immigration and residency management agency, but this measure is to strengthen the immigration management of foreign workers. Preparing supportive programs for foreign residents is put on the back burner, with little consideration for helping them.
The opposition package lacks details such as conditions for allowing foreign workers to live in Japan with their family members, or standards for capping the total number of workers from overseas. The direction it is heading, however, is understandable. Comparing it to the government plan clarifies the problems of the administration's intended system.
Yet it is unfortunate that there is no pathway for this opposition package to reach the Diet. The proposal was compiled by a group established four years ago with 38 lawmakers who once belonged to the now-defunct Democratic Party of Japan, including former education minister Masaharu Nakagawa. The members now either belong to two political parties or are independents. Of the two parties, the Democratic Party for the People is positive about submitting the plan to the national legislature, but the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDP) is slowing down the process of shaping the package into a formal bill.
The CDP appears to fear that the counterproposal would be seen as a step to advance deliberations on the government's bill. But the opposition idea includes important points of contention and should be subject to careful Diet discussions.

Mistakes were found in data submitted by the Justice Ministry to the House of Representatives Judicial Affairs Committee in connection with the planned revision of Japan's immigration law to accept more foreign workers.
The mistaken information pertained to interviews the ministry's Immigration Bureau conducted with technical intern trainees who disappeared from their training locations but were later located. The submitted data erroneously stated that approximately 87 percent of 2,870 interviewees who were asked about the reasons for their disappearances left their jobs "seeking better wages." The actual figure was 67 percent.
The ministry explained that its workers added up answers that should not have been tallied. The survey evaluation was clearly nothing but a slipshod job.
Technical trainees cannot change job categories or training locations freely, as doing so means losing their residency status. As many as 7,814 former trainers are staying illegally in Japan as of July 1.
It should be realized that the trainees are fleeing because of flaws in the technical intern trainee program. The program's stated purpose is the transfer of technical know-how to developing countries by "training" people from those countries so that they can use the expertise and experience after their return home. In reality, however, an increasing number of trainees are ditching their places of work to escape low pay and long working hours. This is partly because the task of extending assistance to trainees has been left up to corporate mediators and other such bodies.
Preparing proper working and living environments should take priority over the introduction of new residency statuses for accepting more foreign workers.
The government bill being debated in the Diet, however, would leave the trainee program as it is, and envisions ushering trainees who have completed their training periods into the regular workforce with new statuses of residence. The government apparently thinks that this arrangement would be cheaper for firms, because those workers would already possess Japanese language and technical skills, meaning costly new training would be unnecessary. But it is unacceptable to leave distortions in the program.
The mistaken interview results surfaced in Justice Ministry data that was supposed to serve as the basis for Diet deliberations on the issue of foreign workers. The emergence of the errors has prompted the government to delay discussions on legal revisions within the lower house Judicial Affairs Committee. Such data should be checked before starting deliberations as a matter of course, considering that the bill is a very important one that would bring substantial changes to the nation's immigration policy.
In the previous ordinary session of the Diet, the government was forced to give up on expanding the discretionary work program after irregularities were found in the results of surveys on working hours.
This raises suspicions that the current administration has a tendency to push bills without first properly examining the data backing those bills. This time, too, the government provided the Diet with data about the estimated number of new foreign workers only after the bill revising the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act was submitted to the national legislature. This practice of rushing to prepare data leads to absurd mistakes.
The Justice Ministry survey data should include real voices from trainees. That data should not be wasted a bit in Diet discussions.