From Li Chia-tung to Lin Yi-hsiung

From Li Chia-tung to Lin Yi-hsiung
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 19, 2010

On the 17th of this month, Professor Li Chia-tung published an article in this newspaper's "Hall of Fame," entitled "South Korea Can Export Nuclear Power Plants. Can Taiwan?" It was reminiscent of Lin Yi-hsiung's frequent appearances during street protests.
Lee Chia-tung and Lin Yi-hsiung appear to have similar temperaments. Both may be bleeding heart humanitarians. But the two have fundamental differences. Li is an intellectual. Lin is a politician.

The differences between Li and Lin on nuclear power generation are intriguing. Lin Yi-hsiung opposes nuclear power generation. He quotes scientific sources to prove that nuclear power generation is a danger to society. He has linked "anti-nuke" with "referendum." He has turned it into an issue of human rights and political justice. The "referendum on nuclear plant no. 4" has become a synonym for "Lin Yi-hsiung." Lee Chia-tung is a scientist. He is familiar with the arguments against nuclear power generation. But in a article entitled "South Korea Can," he characterized South Korea's 40 billion dollar nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates, after winning a competition against the United States, Japan, and France, as a world shaking industrial and technological achievement. Actually, the Republic of China and South Korea began using nuclear power at the same time, about thirty years ago. The ROC was once even in the lead. Today, Lee Chia-tung is demanding to know why we aren't ashamed for lagging so far behind South Korea?

Lee Chia-tung is one of a small number of prestigious "self-made" intellectuals. He has never attached himself to any pressure group or political party. By writing about the issue, one article at a time, he has made a name for himself within the community. At first, his concern was humanitarian. It was the borderless humanitarianism of Mother Theresa and of Shusaku Endo's "Deep River." Later, he became a vigorous advocate of education. He personally taught poor students English. He considers giving people the gift of knowledge an act of humanitarianism. It prevents them from being exploited as a result of their ignorance. More recently, Lee Chia-tung has turned his attention to technology and industry. His article "South Korea's Nuclear Power Plant" is a must-read.

Lin Yi-hsiung is an emotionally intense humanitarian. The difference between Lin and Lee Chia-tung is that Lin's humanitarianism comes packaged with political arguments. Lin Yi-hsiung has three proposals. First, his "Basic Draft Law for the Republic of Taiwan." Lin wants to establish a "Taiwanese national identity" and considers this a humanistic solution. Secondly, his single-member district two-vote system. It was intended to reduce the probability of "Mainlanders" getting elected, thereby reducing "ethnic conflict" (more accurately termed "communal strife") and social friction. This too had a humanitarian aspect. Thirdly, the fourth nuclear power plant referendum. This was also a humanitarian ideal.

As previously mentioned, the biggest difference between Lin and Li is that Lin is a politician, while Li is an intellectual. Lin Yi-hsiung's three propositions, his "Basic Law for the Republic of Taiwan," his single-member district two-vote system, may have humanitarian implications. But his humanitarianism is part of a political package deal. As for his opposition to Nuclear Power Plant No. 4, he finally persuaded President Chen Shui-bian to halt construction in October 2000. Halting construction of the plant however created a political and economic crisis for Chen Shui-bian. Furthermore, construction on the project was halted without resort to the referendum process, i.e,, without public consent. In terms of justice, Lin Yi-hsiung's position on Nuclear Power Plant No. 4 was self-contradictory. Chen Shui-bian never initiated a referendum on the plant. If the decision whether to hold a referendum is made on the basis of political power, then is the decision whether to halt Nuclear Power Plant No. 4 also to be made on the basis of brute political power?

Li and Lin both have ideals and passion. But if one wishes to save the nation, one needs to be realistic as well as idealistic. Besides passion, one needs knowledge. Lin Yi-hsiung dropped his demands for a referendum as soon as Chen Shui-bian acquired the power to halt the project. Those with differing views on nuclear power generation could only bow to the dictates of political power. Is nuclear power generation a question of political power? Or is it a question of scientific knowledge? Lin Yi-hsiung mobilized crowds to oppose nuclear power generation. Lee Chia-tung stayed in bed, reading reader comments posted in the newspapers. Whom should the public listen to? Where do we go from here?

In fact, both Li and Lin play indispensable roles within society. Lin alerts us to the risks of nuclear power generation. Lee offers us a choice based on reality and factual knowledge. Today there is a resurgence of support for nuclear power generation. This will not diminish people's concerns about nuclear power generation. But it shows that knowledge of the anti-nuke position will not necessarily make the anti-nuke position the only policy choice. France's total generating capacity is over 80% nuclear. Belgium's is 60%, Japan's is 34%, and Switzerland's is 42%. Even the United States' total generating capacity is over 20% nuclear. The Republic of China's is only 17% nuclear. Are there no Lin Yi-hsiungs in those countries? Are there no Chen Shui-bians in those countries to halt construction of nuclear power plants on behalf of their own Lin Yi-hsiungs?

South Korea is building more than nuclear power plants for the United Arab Emirates. The Samsung Group has just completed construction on the Burj Dubai, the tallest tower in the world. Does the public on Taiwan wish to continue linking humanitarianism and "love for Taiwan" with ideology? Or should we promote the humanitarian sentiments expressed by Mother Theresa and by Shusaku Endo in "Deep River?" Should we revitalize our educational system, our technology, and our industry to demonstrate our "love of the land?"

Lee Chia-tung puts pen to paper. Lin Yi-hsiung takes to the streets. Both are passionate humanitarians. Both are respected by the community. But idealism must also take into account reality. Passion must also be accompanied by knowledge. In particular, attention should be paid to the hijacking and corruption of humanitarianism by political power. Ideological zealotry plus nativist sentiment will inevitably spell disaster.

從李家同想到林義雄
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.01.19 04:17 am

李家同教授十七日在本報「名人堂」發表專文《南韓能輸出核電廠，台灣呢？》，令人想起林義雄十餘年來為「核四公投」經常在街頭出現的苦行身影。

李家同與林義雄二人的氣質似有相近之處，皆是痌瘝在抱、悲天憫人的人道主義者；但二人也有根本的差異，李是公共知識分子，林則是政治人物。

比較李林在核能發電觀點上的差異，足堪發人深省。林義雄對核能發電持否定及反對立場，引據許多科學論證來證明核能的危險與可能造成的社會負債；且又將「反核」與「公投」聯結，形成一個人權與人道的政治公義論述。「核四公投」與「林義雄」已是同位語，也幾是同義語。李家同則是科學家，對核能的負面論證應亦通曉，但在專文《南韓能》中，將南韓與美、日、法等國競爭下，能取得為阿拉伯聯合大公國總額四百億美元的核電廠建造合約，視為震動世界的工業與科技成就。其實，台灣與韓國在核能發電上同於三十年前起步，且台灣一度曾超前領先；如今，李家同卻問：我們落後南韓如此之多，能不羞愧嗎？

李家同是少數「白手起家」且極具聲望的公共知識分子，他從未依附在社團或政黨之下，憑著伏案一個字一個字地書寫，在社會上建立了自己的旗幟與品牌。起初，他關懷的主題是人道主義，而且是德蕾莎修女及遠藤周作的《深河》中那種無國界無族界的人道主義。接著，他大力鼓吹教育，親自為貧窮學生教授英文；給人知識，使人不受蒙昧之害，即是人道。最近幾年，李家同的話題又轉往科技及產業；若尚未看過《南韓輸出核電廠》一文者，應當一讀。

林義雄的特質亦在強烈的人道主義，他與李家同不同之處則在其人道議論皆與政治綑綁在一起。林義雄有三大主張：一、《台灣共和國基本法草案》，可謂是從人道觀點為台灣的國家定位找出路；二、單一選區兩票制，據稱著眼點之一是為了使「外省籍候選人」減低當選機會，以平緩族群衝突的社會痛苦，亦有其人道觀點；三、核四公投，這當然也是出於人道主義的主張。

前文曾說，林與李的最大差別是，林為政治人物，李是公共知識分子。林義雄的三大主張，《台灣共和國基本法》、單一選區兩票制，雖皆有人道蘊涵，卻是被政治意識綑綁的人道主義。至於反核四，終於在二○○○年十月，挾持總統陳水扁作出停建的主張；但核四停建竟成為陳水扁日後政經危機的肇端，且停建核四又根本未經「公投」同意，更是與林義雄反核的公義訴求自相矛盾（陳水扁執政，從未發動核四公投）。若「公投或不公投」是由政治權力決定，那麼，「反核或不反核」及「停建核四或不停建」，如何可由赤裸裸的政治權力決定？

李林二人皆有理想，有熱情。但救國濟民，除了高擎理想，也須顧及現實；除了懷抱熱情，也須具備知識。當林義雄擱置了「公投」，經陳水扁的權力之手即停建核四；那些對核能發電有相對看法者，只能無言地接受政治權力的專擅。然而，核能發電究竟是一個權力的議題？還是一個知識的議題？在林義雄率眾反核苦行，及李家同向坐在床頭看報的讀者溝通之間，國人該聽誰的？何去何從？

其實，李林皆是社會中不可或缺的角色。林告訴我們對核能的警戒，李告訴大家在現實與知識上的相對選擇。核能發電如今又有回潮的趨勢，這雖不能稍減人們對核能的顧慮，卻也顯示了反核在知識上並未成為政治或政策的必然選擇。法國的核能發電已逾總發電量的八十％，比利時六十％，日本三十四％，瑞士四十二％，連美國也逾二十％，而台灣僅占十七％。試問：那些國家有沒有林義雄？有沒有為林義雄停建核四的陳水扁？

韓國不只將為阿拉伯聯合大公國興建核能電廠，三星集團也已承建完成世界第一高塔杜拜哈里發塔。台灣究竟是否繼續要將人道主義及愛台灣的熱情，與政治的意識形態綑綁在一起？還是應當闡發德蕾莎與《深河》那種無分別心的人道情懷，從振興教育、科技及產業，來愛這塊土地？

伏案振筆的李家同，街頭苦行的林義雄，皆是熱情的人道主義者，都受社會尊敬。但是，有理想，也須顧及現實；有熱情，也須具備知識。尤其應當注意：挾持政治權力的人道主義，極易變質；包藏意識形態的愛鄉土熱情，必定扭曲。