- 最后登录
- 2015-9-24
- 在线时间
- 196 小时
- 寄托币
- 440
- 声望
- 5
- 注册时间
- 2012-2-21
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 78
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 443
- UID
- 3255397
![Rank: 4](template/archy_plt8/image/star_level3.gif)
- 声望
- 5
- 寄托币
- 440
- 注册时间
- 2012-2-21
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 78
|
It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public.
A fundamental criteria of a truly democracy country is that whether it is politically crystal clear. In other words, the government does not withhold information from the public. Political leaders are elected by the mass public to serve as executors of major decisions, which should be decided by the people. So in order to make to right decision, the public must know the truth, this requires the government to release information.
However, there are also some circumstances that could be an exception. While such cases are rare, they do occur, especially during wartime. Try imagining this, if during the eve of the Normandy landings the federal army or the French government decided to release information of this military action, would there even be a victory? Would June 6th 1944 still be a turning point is WWII? No doubt, World War II would last even longer, and the number of death would be even higher. During peacetimes withholding information seemed like a abominable thing to do, but during wartime it seemed curial to withhold information, for the sake of nation security and military advantage.
I do not deny that there is a good intention behind withholding information from the public. However, good intentions might lead to terrible outcome. In order to promote harmony and avoid social panicking and chaos, our government might withhold certain information from the public. This motive is positive, but the result can be negative. In 2003, SARS broke out in mainland China. SARS is a highly contagious respiratory disease caused by coronary virus, which easily spreads in places with a high population dense. At the beginning of the crisis, Chinese health officials decided to withhold the information of the number of infected patient in major cities. So the public was not alert or warn, and no serious precautions were applied. Soon the outburst of SARS was incontrollable, thousands of lives were lost and the public was in total panic. If the government didn’t withhold information from the mass public at the beginning, the SARS crisis would soon be controlled and wouldn’t cause this amount of damage. In this case, Chinese government withholds information hoping to maintain social harmony, and ease the panicking citizens. The best ending would be that the situation is secretly taken care of and nobody has to panic. But what if things don’t follow your created path and turn out the way you planned? Instead of putting the lives of hundreds and thousands at stake, why not just tell the public the truth and cope with the crisis together?
Information withholding can leads to information forging. George Orwell’s famous political fiction novel “nineteen eighty-four “gives a clear description of a how a government manipulates, controls the citizen first by withholding information, then later on developing into creating false information. The mass public does not have the many sources that the government has to the gather information. So in comparison with the ruling class ordinary people seem weak and vulnerable. It could be very easy for the government to use its information advantage to dominate the people.
In sum, except for wartimes and other special situation, political leaders should not withhold information from the public. Knowing is a basic human and citizen right. The people deserve to know the truth. By releasing information to the public, the government can gain public trust, and avoid hostility. Therefore, the government and the people can found a good corporation and cope with social problems together. |
|