These days, giving a post a title like this can quickly prompt someone to say, “This guy is an unpatriotic opponent of the number system.” How is everyone doing? 😀
Those close to me probably know this well, but I am not opposed to a national ID system or a common number. What I am skeptical about is how overly broad the discussion is, as seen in arguments suggesting that “a number will solve everything.”
For example, it is said that in the recent public consultation, a Swedish-style common number used across all operations received broad support. But even if such a number were created, that certainly would not immediately produce a Swedish-style proactive government.
There are several prerequisites.
1. Identity verification must have been completed, making it easy to distribute credentials.
2. The various databases within government agencies must hold that number as a key.
3. A position such as a privacy commissioner must be established, with preparations in place for independent third-party privacy determinations.
In fact, Japan satisfies none of these 3 conditions.
Moreover, items 1 and 2 above require enormous time and effort.
Item 1 will probably take 10 years. Item 2 may take just as long, or perhaps even longer.
After all, even reconciling pension records alone has required this much money and time.
(Incidentally, it appears that even within social security there are more than 90 numbers that must be reconciled in this way.)
That does not mean I am saying we need not do it.
It is impossible to do everything at once, so we have no choice but to set priorities and proceed in sequence.
At the same time, we cannot put electronic government and private-sector services on hold until all of this is complete, so we must consider other means in the short and medium term.
Specifically, we should start promptly in areas such as taxation, coordinating national and local taxes. What I call “national and local tax coordination” here is a common number for national and local governments within a workflow such as “national tax authority → various checks by the local government, including household status → national tax authority.” Local governments already manage numbers, so people could simply be required to enter them during year-end adjustment or when filing final tax returns. That alone should greatly improve administrative efficiency and, in turn, contribute to better public services.
Consideration of the medical and social-security fields should also have advanced considerably in the past, and that work should be pursued vigorously.
Meanwhile, online access by residents to government services should be opened up through the portals citizens ordinarily use, rather than insisting that they access a government portal using the public personal authentication service.
In short, I am making 2 points: it is unacceptable to do nothing while saying either “nothing can be done until the entire system has been decided” or “full-scale implementation cannot begin until adoption has spread,” and broad arguments that omit their premises lead to wrong conclusions.
I am probably far more supportive of a number system than those who casually say they support it on the basis of a vague discussion. Because I take it seriously, I think seriously, identify the challenges, and seek solutions.