In April 1980, all four of Switzerland's television channels broadcast a very important program from 1pm and 8pm almost every day. The show featured discussion of whether the public should continue to pay a "church tax." The discussion of this issue had already gone on for two years with the purpose of letting all citizens express their opinions to their heart's content.
For many years, the people of Switzerland had paid a "church tax." Many European countries -- including Germany, Austria and the Scandinavian countries -- collect this tax, and the revenue is used by the church for spreading the gospel. But in the 1960s dissenting opinions about this tax began to surface because some people neither go to church nor believe in Jesus Christ. So why should they pay such a tax?
Thus reaction followed reaction and discussion followed discussion until the government finally decided to put the matter to a national referendum. The result of the vote in 1970 was that an overwhelming 78 percent of the Swiss people supported continued collection of the church tax, but the attached condition was that the issue should be discussed all over again after 10 years.
The Swiss government's method of preparing for the referendum was to invite representatives from all walks of life -- university professors, workers, farmers and others -- to discuss the matter on television over a period of two years. The public was also greatly concerned about the matter because it related to practical questions of spending and taxation.
The second referendum passed in April 1980, but a friend told me that public support for the tax dropped by 6 percent. Moreover, the condition was still attached that the matter be discussed 10 years later. In other words, this case has already been discussed and put to a poplar vote three times at intervals of a decade.
The Swiss would never relegate the deciaion-making of this kind of matter to parliament. They believe that at times lawmakers are unable to fully reflect popular opinion. Instead, they often represent the interests and ideas of an elite minority. Thus, all important affairs of state are settled through national referendums.
For example, they may hold a referendum to decide whether schools must hold classes in religion. They believe this is an important matter affecting the spiritual development of the next generation and not something that can be decided by lawmakers in parliament alone. Their lawmakers are also very humble and know that their own opinions sometimes cannot reflect public opinion accurately. Although they do their best to fulfill their professional responsibilities by making inquiries and polling the people of their constituencies, they still respect the opinions of the entire citizenry.
The people also clearly recognize the importance of holding referendums on major issues. They don't demand referendums lightly and instead reserve the privilege for issues relating to the national interest and the people's welfare.
In the last few years, some people in Taiwan have consistently pushed for referendums to decide the fate of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, the question of whether to enter the UN, and the recent hot issue of Taipei's bid to gain a place in the World Health Organization (WHO). These voices have become louder by the day and are stirring up larger and larger waves.
But every time these voices cry out, we subsequently see legislators from the KMT and PFP begin to toss around the threat of a Chinese invasion in order to suppress the Taiwanese public's will. They even intentionally link referendums -- whether on the fate of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant or on WHO entry -- with a declaration of Taiwan's independence. In this way, these blue camp legislators have hopelessly muddled what was originally a very clear and worthwhile objective. It really is maddening. In their stance, they seem more like Chinese officials than representatives of the Taiwanese people. How strange.
Actually, permitting referendums to decide major national issues is lesson one in respecting the rights of all citizens. It is not only appropriate but also of fundamental importance. Prior to holding referendums, the legislature could discuss what issues to decide by referendum. If the legislators feel a certain issue could influence national security, they could shelve it temporarily.
I really can't fathom why even such a simple idea can't get in the door. It's all right for legislators to decide on major national policy issues, but public opinion should be sought as much as possible on issues related to the interests of the entire citizenry.
The stronger the popular support for a policy, the greater people's identification with the policy will be.
The people of Sweden held a referendum to decide whether abortion should be legal. The people of Belgium held a referendum to decide on the legality of euthanasia as well as the best way to handle corpses. The people of Austria used a referendum to decide whether religion should be taught in public schools. And the people of Norway decided by referendum whether or not to build nuclear power plants.
None of these issues were decided by lawmakers in parliament. Instead they were decided by the entire citizenry of each nation through referendums, and these are the examples from which we should learn.
We shouldn't bring up politically very sensitive topics -- like the independence plebiscites of the three Baltic countries or East Timor -- every time the subject of referendums arises. There are many other important issues affecting people's lives to discuss.
Why do our lawmakers have to be so authoritarian? There is no need for that. Moreover, quite a few lawmakers have the interests of their own financial consortiums to consider. There are very few truly professional lawmakers. This is what we really cannot accept.
Lu Chun-yi is a minister of the Presbyterian Church.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry