Print

Mail

wiki links

Academia Sinica's president believes in people power

Sunday, Jan 18, 2004, Page 3

Lee Yuan-tseh on the tenth anniversary of his inauguration as president of the Academia Sinica. PHOTO: CHIEN JUNG-FUNG, TAIPEI TIMES

Taipei Times: After the 2000 power transfer, members of the opposition parties and some social groups criticized you for meddling in affairs outside the Academia Sinica, saying you were not concentrating on your job. How do you respond to the criticism?

Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲): People think that I am involved in a lot of social issues, but this is because the media does not like to report on development and reform within the Academia Sinica. The media is more concerned with education reform and post-921 earthquake rehabilitation, but I am not involved in these projects at the moment, although I have been at some point during the past 10 years. These issues outside the Academia Sinica have taken less than 20 percent of my time.

TT: In 2000, you published an article, "The Key Five Years: Crossing Over Taiwan's Future Rupture." Now, three-and-a-half years later, do you think that Taiwan is capable of facing the last one-and-a-half years?

" As long as the civil power keeps growing, there is hope for Taiwan. If the civil power is great enough, and people stir it up, then it doesn't matter who the president is, or that the two main political camps keep competing for sloppiness."

-- Lee Yuan-tseh, president of the Academia Sinica

Lee: The media has perhaps given the impression that Taiwan has retrogressed over the past few years, but I don't think so. Taiwan's civil strength has kept pushing for improvement in all fields, such as the establishment of the National Synchrotron Radiation Research Center, which brought Taiwan's achievements to international attention.

Taiwan is not retrogressing, but transforming. It is a painful process. Ten years ago, my entrepreneur friends told me that when they went mountain climbing, all they saw was garbage. Birds, bugs and snakes were nowhere to be seen. But when they go climbing now, they find that the garbage is gone, and birds, bugs and snakes have all returned.

The slowest rates of improvement over the past three years have been in the legislature and the media. Everyone considers these two factors the sources of social chaos.

There is a drive from the civil sector to pursue improvement, but the legislature is dragging the country down. Meanwhile, the media is always using a biased judgment to mix things up. These are the two things that need reform most urgently.

TT: What do you think of the performances of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) in the election campaign so far? What are your expectations?

Lee: When you ask people in academic circles these questions, nobody expects much from politicians. Everyone believes in the people instead. I am involved in many foundations and non-governmental organizations, and I have experienced the great results achieved by those anonymous heroes engaged in social services and reform. For example, they have encouraged more and more young people to pursue a career in the science field, and to participate in the running and construction of their own communities. The media have not reported on these things.

As long as the civil power keeps growing, there is hope for Taiwan. If the civil power is great enough, and people stir it up, then it doesn't matter who the president is, or that the two main political camps keep competing for sloppiness.

For example, people in California recently elected Arnold Schwarzenegger as their governor. Many people were surprised, because there is so much talent in California, and they could not understand why the election ended that way. Many people have thought it was because the electorate was apathetic, but on the other hand, this represents the power of the people. As long as the civil power is strong enough, it doesn't matter who the governor is.

TT: The KMT and People First Party (PFP) have been criticizing you for your support of Chen in 2000. Do you regret this?

Lee: I came forward in the last election because I believed that only by making a power transfer happen as soon as possible, after the KMT had been in power for 55 years, could Taiwan get real help. But the country is still suffering from spells of pain, because Taiwanese have not learned to let go of hatred.

After an election is finished, everyone should sit down and talk about cooperation, but instead everyone has been struggling with each other, as though the losing side were still trying to pull the winning side down. This shows that Taiwan's democracy is immature.

The results of power transfer cannot be seen in one night -- for example, is "black gold" completely gone? Of course that's not possible, but it's indeed going away step by step. This is an impact that comes only with power transfer, and it's meaningful.

The other consideration I had in mind was that Taiwan would face a vacuum period after the KMT had handed over the power it had wielded for 50 years. So I came forward to organize the National Policy Advisory Committee, to monitor the power transfer and stabilize politics, the economy and society after the election.

It was our duty, but we had no power. So after the power transfer had been completed, and the new Cabinet was finalized, we had to back out.

TT: Many people have been attacking you since the last election, blaming you for the failure of education reform. How do you respond to that?

Lee: These criticisms do not offer a logical discourse on things I have done, but essentially they are attacking me to prevent me from using my influences on politics and society. Some people think that I affected the result of the previous election, which is why they formed a team to stigmatize and attack me so that I would not influence the election this time.

I came to know this because there are people in that team who cannot bear that kind of action anymore and told me about it.

Education reform is not a problem -- every country is dissatisfied with its education reform, because it's a long, continuous process.

Appealing to the public with the slogan "education reform has failed, and Lee Yuan-tseh should be responsible" is an approach motivated by the election.

Taiwanese society is not ideal, so we have work to do. If everything is perfect here, then society doesn't need us anymore.

TT: You mentioned the vacuum that appeared after the transfer of power -- do you think it would continue after this election?

Lee: No, I believe after this election people will have learnt something about the spirit of a democratic society. It is a one-on-one competition this time, the winner will have more than 50 percent of the votes, and the loser should be able to accept the people's choice and start to cooperate.

TT: Will you come forward again to show your support for a certain candidate?

Lee: I have already decided who to vote for. I have to stress that as long as you are an intellectual who is concerned about society, you will always want to speak up when you see an unreasonable development. What I am most dissatisfied with is that the candidates are setting bad examples to the public, and no one is being reasonable. The election has degenerated into mud-slinging.

TT: You have said that the major feature of the previous election was to push for a transfer of power. What is the most important aspect of this election to the Taiwanese people? You mentioned the power of people -- do you think the alliance that is urging people to spoil their votes is good for Taiwan's democracy?

Lee: People have not learned to work together to improve the country after the election is over. Now they are still fighting with each other. So the most important thing about this election is not who wins, but whether the country can complete the reform process, especially the legislative reform, which includes the election system and halving the number of seats in the legislature. I hope the role of the president will become less and less important in Taiwan.

Many friends of mine have said that they do not want to vote, and if one third of the electorate does not vote, then no matter who wins the election, he would have to acknowledge that the people in fact do not like him, and that they do not really support the new president. Maybe that way the winner would be more humble.

I am not saying I support this kind of movement, but I am saying we should respect the people's right to make their own decisions.

In this election campaign, some people are saying, "a certain candidate is younger, so it is likely that he is more progressive," and "a certain candidate is older, so he is less likely to bring progress." But I am concerned with the establishment of the system, and it is more important than who wins the election.

So I hope this election would allow the winner to complete reform and establish a framework for the legislature and media, and that the loser would learn to cooperate and accept the results in a reasonable way.

Then look at the political system: it is different in different countries -- the US' presidential system is different from the UK's system. In the US, as long as the proposed bills are good for the country, different parties can support the bills together, but in the UK, the politicians won't support bills proposed by the members of opposing parties. It is clear which way Taiwan should take.

Of course many people think that if the people vote for a conservative candidate, there would be no reform. Some people are reluctant to promote reform unless they are under extreme pressure, sometimes not even then. We hope the winner would be someone who has the strength to accomplish reform, with courage and willingness to push for reform. It is better for society.

TT: Coming back to take over as president of the Academia Sinica, was it very different from what you expected? Have you achieved the goals you set 10 years ago?

Lee: When I knew I was to become the Academia Sinica president, I had three expectations: first, to leverage the institution to an international level, to the highest level.

Second, I won the Nobel prize for research in dynamic chemistry, so I want to push Taiwan's study in this field to an international standard. When I decided to return to Taiwan, many friends said that I would definitely go back to the US six months later, because they thought it was impossible to do first-rate research in Taiwan.

So my second expectation was that if I could not work with a group of young people after I came back to Taiwan to raise Taiwan's dynamic chemistry research to international standards, then my return would be meaningless. At least my own field should match international standards.

Third, I have had a great passion for social reform since I was young. Taiwan was underdeveloped, so when I came back I thought that if I had spare time and energy, then I would participate in social reform, which is how I became involved in education reform.

If a person comes back and does not work hard, then he might regret having had a chance but not using it well. But I can say that I have been working very, very hard during the 10 years since I came back to Taiwan.

TT: If you look back over the past 10 years, have all three goals been achieved?

Lee: If a scientist is so easily satisfied when pursuing the truth and doing his work, then I think he will not achieve anything. The Academia Sinica has indeed made a lot of improvements over the past 10 years. It has become the leading institution in many fields in Taiwan. When the Academia Sinica underwent several international examinations last year, it was said that we were doing the best work in the world in the field of dynamic chemistry.

The Academia Sinica has become an institution that can attract international talent.

TT: Some people interpret the advertisement you published with Cloud Gate Dance Theater's founder and artistic director Lin Hwai-min (林懷民) and Formosa Plastics Group chairman Wang Yung-ching (王永慶), in which you call the presidential candidates to task over mud-slinging tactics, as a change in your political stance. Is this the case?

Lee: I am willing to take responsibility for every word in the advertisement, but how other people will interpret my words is none of my business. Everyone should be able to understand my meaning after reading through the statement a few times.

The advertisement has been published, so now we have to wait and see how Chen and Lien respond. The pressure should be on the candidates, not on me.

The presidential election should return to discussions of public policies. Take the party assets issue for example: investigating the party assets is the right thing to do, but the people in charge should release all information only after they have finished compiling all the details, and have comprehensive evidence. Then people can discuss the matter systematically, instead of getting only bits every day.

TT: Who proposed publishing the statement as a front-page newspaper advertisement?

Lee: This is the result of my discussion with Wang Yung-ching. The content was based on many people's common opinions. Originally many other people wanted to sign the statement, but in the end we decided to use just three names.

TT: Both candidates have responded positively to your statement, but if they are just paying lip service and continue with their mud-slinging, will you issue another statement?

Lee: It depends. I will not say anything for sure now.
This story has been viewed 2736 times.