by 老建中 2006/9/24
蕭新煌在五年間，從博士升到教授，而後兼職中央研究院，繼而成為國策顧問等，成為學官兩棲的風頭人物。
學者被延攬為政府官員，或政務官退職後到學術機關，是正常現象。然而，重點在於他們是否夠資格就任？是否有能力貢獻？
在總統府資政顧問言論專欄 (2005年)，蕭新煌的著作提供一些參考與檢驗的資料。其中包含<民主再難也要走下去>，<兩岸結，用一代來解>與<兩岸衝突的四個弔詭>。最後一篇是基於他在布拉格的發言。摘錄於此。
『我應邀到捷克布拉格參加由前總統哈維爾主辦的「二０００論壇」
『我原先準備好的講稿是要談多邊主義（multilateralism）與解決國際和區域衝突的途徑
『但 我臨時起意，想藉此一難得機會從全球共存觀點談兩岸衝突和未來和平。我特別指出要了解當前兩岸衝突，得先洞悉四個弔詭，否則就會失真，過於膚淺，甚至落入 只有「統獨」立場，沒有歷史和真相。第一個弔詭：兩岸衝突不是肇因於傳統的不同文明（文化）矛盾，而是同一文明（文化）之內，其起因更是現代的民主、人 權、自決價值，與反民主和極權的衝突。
第二個弔詭：兩岸衝突是起因於一方（台灣）想中止數十年來的內戰矛盾，而另一方（中國）卻堅持要延續內戰衝突，而非兩方都固執想面對面衝突。
第三個弔詭：兩岸衝突也因為是一方（台灣）有了民主，而變得更嚴重，因為台灣民主化了，人民要當家做主，不願再走「一個中國」的「統一」老路，想理性自決，而導致不民主的另一方（中國）的不解和惱怒。
第四個弔詭：兩岸的衝突和共存也可以是同時並存的，前者是政治和理念的矛盾，後者則是經濟貿易的互補和整合，這個弔詭的本質就是：衝突矛盾內部也有和 平共存的一面！如何發揮那和平共存的力量化解矛盾緊張的局面就是要靠雙方的集體智慧與多邊主義的關切和正面仲裁。
『我於是在會中嚴肅呼籲具改革自覺的國際多邊主義來關心兩岸衝突，第一步就是深入理解上述四個弔詭，多聽兩方聲音，不能只聽一方偏見，第二步則是要堅持以民主、人權、自由的普遍理想來化解兩岸衝突，除此之外，別無他路。』
無論我們同意他的論點與否，果真這是當場「脫稿演出」，即使不夠周全嚴密，也值得稱許。以下是轉載自論壇網頁的講稿。且讓我們一同欣賞。
“Mr Hsin-Huang Michael Hsiao: Thank you, Mr Chairman and ladies and gentlemen. I don’t want to add more pain on you when we come from Taiwan and probably most of you expect me to say something about cross-strait relations and that is a pain. But I would like to use the five minutes to give my full observation on the more broader perspective on the global coexistence in the context of Asia, and particularly in the cross-strait relations –My four observations of ironies: The first one: the conflict or tension could occur within one civilisation. It’s not between civilisations. Look at Taiwan and China. We both belong to the Confucian tradition. So it’s not a civilisation that caused a clash, but the modern way of life, the philosophy of democracy and also the people’s choice. So… it could happen. So it’s not inter-civilisation. The second observation I like to provide is this: The conflict could occur when one side decided to seize （sic!）conflict. That means civil war. When Taiwan decide to stop the civil war and certainly it’s now welcomed by the other side. So when one side wanted to stop the long-lasting civil war, it could occur. It could happen. It could cause another kind of a civil war, could occur another kind of a conflict. So it’s not a mutual conflict, it’s when one side would and the other side would not. Number three observation is this: When democracy also could bring about conflict. When Taiwan went through 20 to 30 years of democratisation through the collective effort of the Taiwanese people and cultural awareness in the ‘70s, to bring Taiwan into the cultural picture. Through 1980s, the twenty kinds of a social movement organised by middle class and civic organisations. In ‘90s, on the political and constitutional reforms, and that all then brought about Taiwan’s democracy. And because of democracy, that means that people can make a choice. That means that people can reconsider its future. So that caused conflict across the strait. And that’s number three of the ironies. And number four: If you look at the country since the 1980s, the tension could exist in one aspect, yet coexistence can exist in the other aspect. The former is the political tension. Taiwan is facing 700 missiles. That’s very real. And, on the other hand, the trade volume across the strait is increasing. So capitalist logic can exist in cross-trade – that means coexistence, the capitalist coexistence. But yet the military, the strategic, the threat is still there so that’s my number four irony. Now my one hope – I like to follow the great chairman’s order in five minutes – Now given this, there must be room for the two parties to engage in dialogue. That’s called bilateral. There have been several incidents that could happen but, all in all, as I observed there’s a tremendous lacking of mutual trust and confidence and therefore there is no way the bilateral could continue in a very healthy way. And one as I see, as this morning Kim Campbell mentioned, you cannot have a predetermined outcome, but if one side predicts or dictates only one option then the other side could not accept. I should mention democracy in Taiwan. Democracy in Taiwan means people can have a collective consensus, or collective decision about what the future will be like, so it should be open-ending, open solutions. Now, if one side determines one outcome, and the other side cannot accept. So therefore Taiwan welcomes multilateralism, but in a more sensible way. We liked the multilateral interest. We liked multilateralism to pay attention to the cross-strait relations. To look at the four observations I just cited. We understood very clearly there is a great interest of the market in China. We also understand there is a realism in the geopolitical interest in Asia, in which China has played a role. But don’t forget we also wanted to uphold the values of human rights, we also wanted to uphold the value of democracy. So what if this multilateralism is plotting to the cross-strait to pay attention… Certainly we know we cannot force our friends in the international community to completely ignore the market interest nor the geopolitical considerations, but we only humbly ask, “Don’t sacrifice the values of human rights and democracy,” which I think Taiwan for the last three decades has worked so hard to get it. So the only thing – the multilateralism we welcome – and we also have a dream: the world is big enough, the globe is big enough to accommodate two sides of the cross strait. Thank you very much. ”
http://www.forum2000.cz/2005/transcripts-panel1.php
稍微注意的人們，不難發現他的英文是不夠格的！除去明顯的文法錯誤之外，還有不夠嚴謹，甚至不知所云，例如：
“The conflict could occur when one side decided to seize (sic!) conflict.
“So what if this multilateralism is plotting to the cross-strait to pay attention…
這個論壇雖然使用英文，參與者必然很難在短時間內，明白而吸收以各種腔調、文體、程度發表的意見。而且，由於沒有討論的機會，建立關係顯然是其主要目的。這是千里迢迢（以公費？）前去參與的蕭新煌所應該明白的。
他將講稿以漢文發表於資政顧問言論專欄，應有擴大影響的心願。然而，比較英文與漢文稿件，卻是問題重重！
例如，一些冠冕堂皇而且態度堅強的詞句：「堅持」、「嚴肅呼籲」、「除此之外，別無他路」、「正面仲裁」（？），在英文稿中毫不見相應的蹤影！相反地，卻是相當客氣的請求：
“Certainly we know we cannot force our friends in the international community to completely ignore the market interest nor the geopolitical considerations, but we only humbly ask,…”
而且，一些不通的英文詞句，在漢文中卻被改頭換面。
“And, on the other hand, the trade volume across the strait is increasing. So capitalist logic can exist in cross-trade – that means coexistence, the capitalist coexistence.”
這段英文確實「莫測高深」！大概是指台灣與中國經濟共存的現象。台灣經濟有強大資本主義內容，無法隱藏。尤其是研究社會科學者！而台灣、中國一些資本主義體系互相依存、競爭，與其所蘊含的複雜政治意義，卻被簡化成「經濟貿易的互補和整合」！
使 用不同語言的文稿，容或有不同的外表，基本內容當然必須一致。Forum 2000的參與者顯然有困難了解他的英文報告，當然更談不上由此而支持。然而，在漢文文稿中，他卻儼然以權威的面目出現。學者的能力固然重要，他們的 intellectual honesty （姑譯為學術誠信）更是必須的品質。「兩朝元老」資政顧問、中央研究院研究員的蕭新煌，顯然兩者都缺乏。
改進英文程度誠然需要時間與毅力，但是，對內外的一致卻是個人的基本操守。如此，對洋人與國人的不同處理，無寧是學者應該受到嚴厲檢驗的另一面！
. Two moralities: Reinterpreting the findings of empirical research on moral reasoning in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 211-238.