In fact, there is a big difference between the two. For example, the performance of tax obligations generally does not directly involve the interests of others, but the performance of the obligation to testify directly involves the interests of others: if the court accepts the testimony of the witness, then the party who cited the witness's testimony will be in an advantageous position, and the other party The parties will be at a disadvantage. Precisely because the performance of the obligation to testify directly involves the interests of others, the consideration of case insiders on whether to testify is often influenced by emotional factors. Therefore, some case insiders are unwilling to testify out of concerns (worry about being retaliated against), some case insiders are unwilling to testify out of retaliation against the parties involved (hoping they will be wronged), and some case insiders are unwilling to testify out of fear of retaliation. "Hate" by the judiciary and reluctance to testify, etc. If you just use the answer "Because the law stipulates that people familiar with the case have the obligation to testify." This almost formulaic answer is very unconvincing except for the implication of state coercion. I think the answer to this question should be found in terms of the value of the obligation to testify. As far as a specific case is concerned, if witness A truthfully testifies, party B receives a fairer verdict and his legitimate rights and interests are protected by law, then party B should be said to be the beneficiary of the testimony, and in There will be an element of grace in A's inner evaluation of testifying. But on another occasion: A is involved in a lawsuit, C also testifies truthfully, A gets a fairer verdict, then A is the beneficiary of the testimony, and there may be elements of favor in C's evaluation of the testimony... But If we do not look at the testifying behavior in individual cases in isolation, but look at all the cases that have been fairly adjudicated because the testifiers testified truthfully as a whole, in fact, the beneficiaries of testifying are not just the parties to the case themselves, but the entire society. Because the act of testifying indirectly and objectively produces the social effect of maintaining judicial fairness. From this perspective, we can find that the obligation to testify is actually based on the basic requirement of socialist morality of "one for everyone and everyone for one". As Mr. Zhang Hengshan said: "Moral obligations and rights are the source and blueprint of legal obligations and rights." Since ancient times, people have pursued social fairness and justice, but they have failed to realize that testifying is exactly what they should do to achieve this goal. Behavior. If everyone can actively testify, it will be a harmonious society with clear legal systems. By then, no one should ask "Why should I testify?". Even if they do, the answer must be much simpler: "Because you know the circumstances of the case!" At this point, we can draw the conclusion that the creation of the obligation to testify is both The requirements for the construction of socialist democracy and the legal system are also the basic requirements for socialist morality. The performance of the obligation to testify is conducive to safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the parties to the case and promoting judicial justice. In the legal provisions on the obligation to testify, the above-mentioned values ??of the obligation to testify should be reflected. Only in this way can the majority of citizens be guided to establish correct testimonial values ??and correct testimonial consciousness.