I concede that it is sometimes necessary for political leaders to withhold information from the public ,especially when it comes to such issues as national security and military strategy, it is even the government's responsibility to keep information from the public for the reason that political leaders are expected to guarantee the safety of their people. However, in most case, or let's say in principal, the public should not be deprived of their right to access any information concerning their interests.
In the first place, withholding information from the public may breed political corruption. As the manager of society, political leaders are empowered by their citizens to determine the rules of the game and allocation of resources in order to further the public’s ultimate interest. Thus, the public is undoubtedly the only possible and the most powerful watchdog of the government. When a political leader is withholding information from the public, however, he is depriving people's right to inspect his behavior, which is quite likely to lead to the abuse of power. The previous leader of Taiwan, Chen Shuibian, was sent into prison eventually and condemned by its people the shame of Taiwan because of his incredible amount of graft during his 8-years time in power. While in 2000, when he was just elected as the leader of Taiwan, he was praised as the son of Taiwan who had been claiming integrity, democracy and honesty in front of his people. How many political leaders could promise that he could refuse temptation every time, especially when withholding information from the public becomes justifiable and the leaders are allowed undue freedom to use public resource to gain profit for himself?
Apart from that, the political leaders' holding information from the public is to some extent lying to their people and would greatly challenge the government's credibility. The Watergate affairs invoked public cynicism toward a government that had systematically lied to the people and violated their civil rights. And after the scandal, in 1994, a poll asked people how much faith they had in the executive branch of government. Only 14percent answered "a great deal" and 43 percent said "hardly any. The government credibility was confronted with unprecedented challenge. It is not difficult to expect such a result because how could citizens trust any leaders abusing their trust and fool them? Query whether such government can be called a democratic government at all.
The government's willingness to reveal information to the public is more of an attitude of the government—a respect for its people, a courage to face the possible censure from the public and a concern for the interest of the democratic system—which is decisive for a nation’s future. Only by recognizing the substance of holding the information from the public and concerning about the possible outcomes could a politic leader make the right decision.
I concede that 【用观点直接表明你怎样的concession】 it is sometimes necessary for political leaders to withhold information from the public. When it comes to such issues as national security and military strategy, it is even the government's responsibility to keep information from the public for the reason that political leaders are expected to guarantee the safety of their people. However, in most case, or let's say in principle, the public should not be deprived of their right to access any information concerning their interests. In the first place, withholding information from the public may breed political corruption. As the manager of society, political leaders are empowered by their citizens to determine the rules of the game and allocation of resources in order to further the public’s ultimate interest. When a political leader is withholding information from the public, however, he is depriving people's right to guard their own resource and interest, which is quite likely to lead to corruption. The previous leader of Taiwan, Chen Shuibian, was sent into prison and condemned by its people the shame of Taiwan because of his incredible amount of graft. During his 8-years time in power, he had been trying to withhold his shady deal from the public based on a concern for self-interest. If people in Taiwan had been informed of what their leader was really doing with the power given by them all the time, it is at least possible that people would deprive Chan of his power promptly. Thus, never would Chan have such a chance to gain so much profit for himself. It might be unnecessary to fully disclose every personal details concerning the political leaders’ personal life, when it comes to the public interest, however, the disclosure of information is definitely precondition for the public to guard their own interest and prevent corruption. The political leaders' withholding information from the public would greatly challenge the government's credibility. People’s confidence and trust is built up on the basis of the government’s integrity—total transparency. Nobody would like to be cheated, especially by someone they used to and want to trust. The Watergate affairs invoked public cynicism toward a government that had systematically lied to the people and violated their civil rights. People were so disappointed because their leaders never told them the real facts—their leaders used lies to conceal their real crimes ? And after the scandal, in 1974, a poll asked people how much faith they had in the executive branch of government. Only 14percent answered "a great deal" and 43 percent said "hardly any. The government credibility was confronted with unprecedented challenge. It is not difficult to expect such a result. How could citizens trust a government who abuses their trust and fool them? Query whether such government can be called a democratic government at all. Moreover, withholding information from the public would even bring significant losses to the whole nation. In many circumstances, a government tries to conceal information due to their fear for the possible blame and hysteria from the public. This hesitation, however, often result in missing the best time to solve problems and cause even more serious consequences. The spread of SARS in China is greatly due to the concealment of the public leaders. The political leaders had being trying to cover up the scale of the disease before it eventually became a nationwide pandemic and killed thousands of Chinese people. If, according to medical experts, the government had informed the public in time, effective preventive measures would be taken and the spread of the disease could be stopped. It can be said without exaggeration that it is the political leaders’ concealment of information that killed those people. Revealing information to the public reflect an attitude of the government—a respect for its people, a courage to face the possible censure from the public and a concern for the interest of the democratic system—which is decisive for a nation’s future. Only by recognizing the substance of holding the information from the public and concerning about the possible outcomes could a politic leader make the right decision. 我把第二段大改了一遍,觉得me那个例子挺好的,所以用自己的话新写了一段,觉得这个例子比较好说一点··· BEN: 好处是观点清晰。不足是你的三个main point都在说withhold info的坏处---此处的问题是没有考虑withhold有时保密的必要性或合理性。若得分低是因为没有考虑complexity。 请再改。 |
Although political transparency is advocated by more and more people calling on democracy, political leaders are still withholding all kinds of information from the public, either in the name of national security or out of concern about self-interest. Sometimes, it is necessary for the government to withhold information from the public. In most cases, however, the public should not be deprived of their right to access any information concerning their interests.
The political leaders' withholding information from the public would greatly challenge the government's credibility. People’s confidence and trust is built up on the basis of the government’s integrity—total transparency. Nobody would like to be cheated, especially by someone they used to and want to trust. The Watergate affairs invoked public cynicism toward a government that had systematically lied to the people and violated their civil rights. People were so disappointed because their leaders never told them the real facts—their leaders used lies to conceal their real crimes ? And after the scandal, in 1974, a poll asked people how much faith they had in the executive branch of government. Only 14percent answered "a great deal" and 43 percent said "hardly any. The government credibility was confronted with unprecedented challenge. It is not difficult to expect such a result. How could citizens trust a government who abuses their trust and fool them? Query whether such government can be called a democratic government at all.
Moreover, withholding information from the public would even bring significant losses to the whole nation. In many circumstances, a government tries to conceal information due to their fear for the possible blame and hysteria from the public. This hesitation, however, often result in missing the best time to solve problems and cause even more serious consequences. The spread of SARS in China is greatly due to the concealment of the public leaders. The political leaders had being trying to cover up the scale of the disease before it eventually became a nationwide pandemic and killed thousands of Chinese people. If, according to medical experts, the government had informed the public in time, effective preventive measures would be taken and the spread of the disease could be stopped. It can be said without exaggeration that it is the political leaders’ concealment of information that killed those people.
Despite people’s right to be informed of information concerning their interest, sometimes, it is necessary for the government to withhold certain information from the public. When it comes to the national security and military strategy, it is even the governments’ responsibility to maintain secrecy. During World War Two, the Allies’ successful landing on Normandy is greatly due to Germans’ ignorance of defence in that area. If, for example, the United States had informed its people that Allies would land on Normandy, Germans would know it at once and dispose troops beforehand. If so, whether Allies would land on Normandy successfully remains a question, not to mention the success of the World War Two. In this case, withholding the military strategy is responsible for the security of the whole world and is definitely necessary.
Revealing information to the public reflect an attitude of the government—a respect for its people, a courage to face the possible censure from the public and a concern for the interest of the democratic system—which is decisive for a nation’s future. Only by recognizing the substance of holding the information from the public and concerning about the possible outcomes could a politic leader make the right decision.
欢迎光临 寄托家园留学论坛 (https://bbs.gter.net/) | Powered by Discuz! X2 |