A common question
▼What kind of person is affected?
▼The number of people considered to be heresy?
▼Who is it to have suggested the text?
▼Who agreed in the assembly?
▼Who is it to have objected?
▼Does only the Democratic Party take responsibility?
▼The bad point in the law?
▼How is it acquired basic knowledge?
▼Is high school gratuitousness that one of becoming it does not have similar problem?
▼Why is such a big problem overlooked?
What kind of person is affected?
■Because a junior high student of the school age excess is not really a provision object unlike announcement, about the issue of manifesto notation, I become the form deceived by the Democratic Party.
■About the issue of age expression of the text, I will give legitimacy for the social pressure on person (high school students 19 years or older) who does not fulfill the description of the text. Oneself notices that it is said that I am heretical from the nation if I read the text above all and will have unpleasant feelings.
■People (in brief, majority of Japanese) to believe meet the damage without reading the original of the child allowance method about the problem of the trap of the application guidance in the household where a child is falling under them without doubting the guidance of the government office. When it is past (September 30, 2010) in a fixed date, I sail in principle it up, and it seems not to be provided.
The number of people considered to be heresy?
■In the national census of 2000, in the primary and secondary student 16 years or older, approximately 50,000 people, a high school student 19 years or older are approximately 130,000 people. In addition, there are a lot of people who do not go to school at those age, but it is removed in this text.
Who is it to have suggested the text?
■The bill of the times when there was not the text which joined age and educational background together has the name of Dietman Mieko Kamimoto and others as a presenter, but it is with "a cabinet", and a member of the Diet name is not written in the bill of the existing law. There is a possibility that Cabinet Legislation Bureau played its part for writing. In addition, it is recognized that the original of the bill was made by Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.
However, a member of the Diet performs those final checks. The Democratic Party in particular advocated the word "political leadership", and it was the party which it was strong, and insisted on a Diet member taking an important role. Naturally the responsibility of the member of the Diet who approved this should be pursued even if I think about the point.
Who agreed in the assembly?
■Because it is not found even if it searches the result of the House of Representatives, it is data of the House of Councilors, but it is Democratic Party, nation new party, New Komeito, Communist Party, Social Democratic Party and Keiko Itokazu, each him of Iwao Matsuda.
Who is it to have objected?
■It is Liberal Democratic Party and Ryuhei Kawada, each him of Tamon Hasegawa. But a problem taking up in this site may not be the objection of the reason.
Does only the Democratic Party take responsibility?
■In fact, the Liberal Democratic Party does similar thing, too. As for "the elementary school graduation, there was the text of 12 years old", but this was made for the Liberal Democratic Party government era by the children's allowance method. In this respect, an opposition party and the media, the well-informed person who did not criticize Liberal Democratic Party and this have the problem. However, it is the Democratic Party to have included to a junior high school and high school. I think that I understand weight of the responsibility if I think in common-sense terms how it is to be strange to standardize until a junior high school, the school-leaving age of the high school.
The bad point in the law?
■I assume a case to be in the elementary school to at least 15 years old in the School Education Act. In addition, there is not the law that prescribed the upper limit of the attendance at school age of the Article 1 school (besides a kindergarten). The child allowance method contradicts such an educational regulation. If the laws of the same country contradict it, I will deny the authority of the law.
How is it acquired basic knowledge?
■At first, about the principle of age, I will read the principle of age and the principle of of Wikipedia course. I understand how a student except the at least age is excluded by a school and the general public. If I read this article and understand contents enough, power to understand correction of errors of various information will stick to the body.
Is high school gratuitousness that one of becoming it does not have similar problem?
■As for the high school student 20 years or older, gratuitousness was it in a rule that I did not become a target of becoming it in a bill original high school gratuitousness at the first day in the year. This is deleted by the new bill, and there is not the age limit by the enforced law now. But I reported it when the Democratic Party wrote gratuitousness with the advertising documents such as manifestoes as if an object of becoming it did not have an age limit and could stream down the mass media about a former bill again as if all high school students were objects at all. I am identical to the issue of this child allowance, and such a composition should be criticized equally. It has been approved with an age limit being hidden at the real House of Councilors.
Why is such a big problem overlooked?
■I do not understand it.
Will a heart be polluted with hitting on a reason that there "is not a pressure group?"