Bipartisanship on Canal

Science, Reason Should Prevail Over Politics, Emotion

Overhauling a nation's geography and its educational system are both huge projects that require very careful, far-seeing approaches. Once completed, it is all but impossible to undo these works with their effects not limited to the present but also future generations. Most of the current social and political turmoil is due to the hastiness of President-elect Lee Myung-bak and his transition team's hurry to finish these long-range tasks in under five years. People are rightly wondering aloud what the rush is.

In the case of the ``Grand Canal'' project, there is such wide a spectrum of views between pros and cons on almost every aspect that one gets to doubt whether they are talking about the same subject. Its proponents exaggerate the inland waterway's economic benefits while playing down its costs and harmful effects on the environment, and vice versa. Both sides are also citing foreign examples only to their tastes. In short, they set political positions first and cherry-picked backup data later.

It came as a relief that the nation's top science professors gathered Thursday to ``set the facts and truth straight'' about the controversial proposal. Lee and his aides might feel annoyed by the academics' launch of a signature-collecting drive opposing the channel project. Prompting such strong action, however, was the election victor's moves and remarks to break ground next year for completion during Lee's tenure, however strong the opposition might be. It was an emotional tit-for-tat.

One might be justified in doubting whether massive civil engineering projects, which worked in the United States in the 1930s and failed in Japan in the 1980s, would still be effective in Korea in the 2000s as economic stimuli. Experts also say any benefits would be short-lived, while adverse effects will be permanent. Wouldn't that investment be better used for some scientific breakthroughs, like biological research and alternative energy development? Korea needs no more white elephants.

These notwithstanding, it appears fair not to hastily reject the president-elect's long-cherished vision for the same reason Lee should refrain from its hurried enforcement. What's needed now is to make an objective, scientific analysis of its costs, benefits and effects based on ``shared ground.'' They can then come up with a set of scenarios and options for a final choice by the people. The United New Democratic Party's proposal for a bipartisan panel deserves positive consideration in this regard.

Two enemies often take after each other in behavior. Lee should not follow the path of triggering a nationwide speculative property boom in the name of balanced development as President Roh Moo-hyun did. An administrative capital is just a city but a cross-country waterway affects the entire country. Whoever said we just rent national land from our descendants is right.