(a voice calls "Chairman, No.59")
Chairman �Mr.Katsuhiko Nakamura No. 59 Mr.Toshihiko Yasui.

Mr.Toshihiko Yasui speaks:

It was so abstract. More questions were left unanswered than were answered.

I think the authority transfer problem is related to self-government autonomy but the Mayor has answered about the residents� autonomy.

As the Mayor said, from ancient ages the residents� autonomy developed as people gathered and naturally made the rules. The city government was then created to guard the rules. If we switch the discussion to the Mayor's theory, then problem is which the direction shall we make the rules? In other words, it is completely different topic to make the rule in the direction that people can not understand compared to what the government will do if we leave it unchanged.

In the Japanese case, rules are made with the premise that the government thinks the people are unable to govern themselves and need government to control them This premise starts with the national government and goes down to the local. It is completely different from the European premise that government cannot govern well without the people leading the government.

If I shift to the Mayor�s theory, I still must say that, in this Interpellation, the Mayor have given almost no answers. Since the Interpellation and answers have missed each other so completely, it makes it almost it impossible to find a basis to continue.

In addition, in the Mayor�s theory, you request the budget each time. However, your budget requests are never met, right? Not only are budget requests refused but request for authority transfer also gets an empty answer: result zero. The interpellation asked about this point, but his answer was only, "we are doing it." This answer is incomplete.

Additionally, the Mayor said we have demanded our budget, but my information shows, for example, the allocations to the ordinance-designated cities from the government are:

13.4% to Sendai, 8% to Kawasaki, 6.8% to Nagoya, 18.4% to Kyoto, 7.2% to Osaka, 21.2% to Kobe, 55.1% to Kitakyusyu, 22.8% to Fukuoka, and 13.8% to Yokohama.

At this point, Kobe does well and has good value from the refund. But, judging from this result, when the central bureaucracy is transferred into local governments, then it is possible to increase these allocation percentages. These numbers indicate this clearly.

About half of the Governors are from civil bureaucracies in Japan. Kobe City keeps pure in personnel policy almost the same style as the bureaucratically elected Governors. We can hear many kinds of opinions regarding this. However, I think Mayor Sasayama stands in a place that allows him to talk about this clearly. This is because Kobe City keeps purism in the separation of the three branches of government (The administrative, legislative, and judicial branches). Accordingly, would you please answer again?

Next, I requested a clear answer in my interpellation that at a time when the exchange rate is $1.00 US to �100, citizens cannot get a favorable exchange rate because of regulations. How, then, Mr. Mayor, can these rules be corrected?

Our Mayor has not answered this. I understood the sound of "when people bring this up, then the administration will..." or that the "administration will support the residents. This is the public office." But, basically I was not asking that�(unable to continue speaking)

One more thing. The Prefecture proposed a law to prevent concentration of power. In addition, the prefecture announced that it would also be transferring its the authority to the cities and towns. However, regarding ordinance-designated cities, the Mayor says he didn�t hear about this.

It is absolutely true.