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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers