[i习作temp] 0910AW 个人习作 ISSUE08 by Ga-ROW Sleepingboy [复制链接]

Neptune2010
UID: 2626044

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 4
寄托币: 1035
注册时间: 2009-4-6
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-7-21 00:56:16 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

In principle, for any political leader, career success in democratic society is based on political and moral integrity, thus it seems necessary for him to tell the truth to the public. Yet, under certain circumstances, withholding some important truth benefits a society, just as sometimes a benevolent lie can com achieve desirably good outcome.

To begin with, there are two compelling reasons behinds the justification of political honesty and frankness. Firstly, on the moral grounds, any politician should behave honestly to its serving people, who are willing to lay the trust on their hands. Withholding information that the public ought to known is viewed as no better than deceiving the public. In history, examples like Nixon's Watergate scandals have demonstrated that deliberate political dishonesty led to the forfeit of presidency and the consequential incredibility to the US government in the consecutive years. Secondly, for any democratic society, people should largely be aware of what the government is doing, for there ought to exist a appropriate surveillance between the public and the administration for restraining any kind of power abuse. If a politician hides away the real reasons or procedures of an important political issue, legislation or proposal, he is jeopardizing the transparent and just system of democracy. Upon understanding these two reasons, political honesty, largely in the form of rendering accessible information to the public, would be considered the natural duty for any responsible politician.

However, there are certain rare situations in which revealing truth is not necessarily good for a society, even though it is justifiable to do so. Since messages of reality may be both positive and negative, negative ones tend to create undesirable anxiety and disheartenment among all sectors of a society. Consider the recent period of economic recession. Had political leaders merely reveal to the public how awful their countries' economy had been damaged and to what extent is the seriousness of such damage, in detailed quantitive account, they are trembling the public confidence by creating further panic and mistrust, leading to perhaps even larger scale of disinvestments of all sorts. After all, the restoration of a country’s economic relies on the revitalization of cohesion among general public to overcome difficulties, largely to do with affirmative investments. Therefore, on the contrary, a wise and collected political leader feels responsible to render public courage, stimuli and political commitments more than the mere harsh reality.

Besides, another pragmatic consideration that will restrain politician from revealing information to the public is the nature of confidential information. Just as a corporation thrives to prevent secret data from being stolen by their adversaries, a country also does similar measures for security issues. Among this kind of secret information, data on military defense system is ranked the top confidentiality that only minority of the authorized group has the right to know about. Especially in our times when countries fiercely compete, spying plays a dirty, yet vital role in this ongoing combat. In addition, there is another positive reason for politician to withhold ---- preventing confidential information from being obtained by anti-social group and terrorists. Clearly, making security data open to the public carries a serious risk of leaking them to the hands of terrorists, helping to launch a further tragedy like 9.11’s incidence. For a country's own safety, it is always desirable to hide such confidential information from the public.

In sum, with respect to certain uncommon situations or confidential nature of information, it is better to not reveal it to the public for a stable and secured society. In the otherwise cases of any democratic society, general people have the rights to obtain various critical information that their government holds. After all, they are the people who are most concerned and affected.

回应
0

使用道具举报

hdxhz
UID: 2656940

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 1
寄托币: 604
注册时间: 2009-6-25
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2009-7-23 12:47:49 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 hdxhz 于 2009-7-23 12:56 编辑

In principle, for any political leader, career success in democratic society is based on political and moral integrity, thus it seems necessary for him to tell the truth to the public. Yet, under certain circumstances, withholding some important truth benefits a society, just as sometimes a benevolent lie can com achieve desirably good outcome.

To begin with, there are two compelling reasons behind the justification of political honesty and frankness. Firstly, on the moral grounds, any politician should behave honestly to its serving people, who are willing to lay the trust on their hands. Withholding information that the public ought to known is viewed as no better than deceiving the public. In history, examples like Nixon's Watergate scandals have demonstrated that deliberate political dishonesty led to the forfeit of presidency and the consequential incredibility to the US government in the consecutive years. Secondly, for any democratic society, people should largely be aware of what the government is doing, for there ought to exist a appropriate surveillance between the public and the administration for restraining any kind of power abuse. If a politician hides away the real reasons or procedures of an important political issue, legislation or proposal, he is jeopardizing the transparent and just system of democracy. Upon understanding these two reasons, political honesty, largely in the form of rendering accessible information to the public, would be considered the natural duty for any responsible politician.

However, there are certain rare situations in which revealing truth is not necessarily good for a society, even though it is justifiable to do so. Since messages of reality may be both positive and negative, negative ones tend to create undesirable anxiety and disheartenment among all sectors of a society. Consider the recent period of economic recession（首先，是否公布未经证实。另外，不公布不等于withhold，withhold是在公民想要知道的时候但是不给于知情权）. Had political leaders merely reveal to the public how awful their countries' economy had been damaged and to what extent is the seriousness of such damage, in detailed quantitive account, they are trembling the public confidence by creating further panic and mistrust, leading to perhaps even larger scale of disinvestments of all sorts. After all, the restoration of a country’s economic relies on the revitalization of cohesion among general public to overcome difficulties, largely to do with affirmative investments. Therefore, on the contrary, a wise and collected political leader feels responsible to render public courage, stimuli and political commitments more than the mere harsh reality.

Besides, another pragmatic consideration that will restrain politician from revealing information to the public is the nature of confidential information. Just as a corporation thrives to prevent secret data from being stolen by their adversaries, a country also does similar measures for security issues. Among this kind of secret information, data on military defense system is ranked the top confidentiality that only minority of the authorized group has the right to know about. Especially in our times when countries fiercely compete, spying plays a dirty, yet vital role in this ongoing combat. In addition, there is another positive reason for politician to withhold ---- preventing confidential information from being obtained by anti-social group and terrorists. Clearly, making security data open to the public carries a serious risk of leaking them to the hands of terrorists, helping to launch a further tragedy like 9.11’s incidence. For a country's own safety, it is always desirable to hide such confidential information from the public.

In sum, with respect to certain uncommon situations or confidential nature of information, it is better to not reveal it to the public for a stable and secured society. In the otherwise cases of any democratic society, general people have the rights to obtain various critical information that their government holds. After all, they are the people who are most concerned and affected.
第三段再加强一下~另外语言有很赞的地方
1# Neptune2010

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

Neptune2010
UID: 2626044

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 4
寄托币: 1035
注册时间: 2009-4-6
精华: 0
帖子: 2

板凳

发表于 2009-7-24 01:57:16 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 Neptune2010 于 2009-7-26 15:00 编辑

In principle, for any political leader, career success in democratic society is based on political and moral integrity, thus it seems necessary for him to tell the truth to the public. Yet, under certain circumstances, withholding some important truth benefits a society, for politicians can not risk leaking country’s confidential information to spy and anti-socialists

To begin with, there are two compelling reasons behinds the need of political honesty and frankness in public issues. Firstly, on the moral grounds, any politician should behave honestly to its serving people, who are willing to lay the trust on their hands. Withholding information that the public ought to known is viewed as no better than deceiving the public. In history, examples like Nixon's Watergate scandals have demonstrated that deliberate political dishonesty led to the forfeit of presidency and the consequential incredibility to the US government in the consecutive years. Nixon refused to hand in his telephone record by asserting that the president had the right to do so. Yet the court rejected, for the public demanded the truth not a deceiving trick. Political honesty is one of the premises for establishing mutual trust between the governments and its serving people. Revealing what people ought to know serves to meet such premise.

Secondly, for any democratic society, people should largely be aware of what the government is doing, for there ought to exist an appropriate surveillance between the public and the administration for restraining any kind of power abuse. If a politician hides away the real reasons or procedures of an important political issue, he is jeopardizing the transparent and just system of democracy and lead the country to negative consequences. Tony Blair had a problem of telling his true intention to invade Iraq. Weapons of Mass Destruction immediately come to mind. His government showed little evidence to convince the public that Iraq did have WMD before waging a war. Actually, many British disbelieve its existence, as the Independent Inquiry led by Lord Hutton proved so later. The consecutive result was that the British did not know what Downing Street was planning and when the unjustified war could end, but heard over the news that their soldiers died one after one while the Iraq situation became increasingly complicated over the years. By withholding the real intention of the war from the public, Tony Blair abused his power to the unjustified war that otherwise would have been forestalled by the British people, resulting disastrous impacts upon people’s lives. In contrast, political frankness, largely in the form of rendering accessible information to the public, would be considered the natural requirement for any responsible politician.

However, a pragmatic consideration that will restrain politician from revealing information to the public is the country’s confidential information. Just as a corporation thrives to prevent secret data from being stolen by their adversaries, a country also does similar measures for security issues. Among this kind of secret information, data on military defense system is ranked the top confidentiality that only minority of the authorized group has the right to know about. Especially in our times when countries fiercely compete, spying plays a dirty, yet vital role in this ongoing combat. In addition, there is another positive reason for politician to withhold ---- preventing confidential information from being obtained by anti-social group and terrorists. Clearly, making security data open to the public carries a serious risk of leaking them to the hands of terrorists, helping to launch a further tragedy like 9.11’s incidence. For a country's own safety, it is always desirable to hide such confidential information from the public.

In sum, with respect to confidential nature of information, it is better to not reveal it to the public for a stable and secured society. In the otherwise cases of any democratic society, general people have the rights to obtain various critical information that their government holds. After all, they are the people who are most concerned and affected.

使用道具举报

zhy871029
UID: 2497340

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 5
寄托币: 947
注册时间: 2008-5-24
精华: 0
帖子: 5

地板

发表于 2009-7-26 20:45:41 |只看该作者

Inprinciple, for any political leader, career success in democraticsociety is based on political and moral integrity, thus it seemsnecessary for him to tell the truth to the public. Yet, under certaincircumstances, withholding some important truth benefits a society, forpoliticians can not risk leaking country’s confidential information tospy and anti-socialists

To begin with, there are two compelling reasons behinds the need ofpolitical honesty and frankness in public issues. Firstly, on the moralgrounds, any politician should behave honestly to its serving people,who are willing to lay the trust on their hands. Withholdinginformation that the public ought to known is viewed as no better thandeceiving the public. In history, examples like Nixon's Watergatescandals have demonstrated that deliberate political dishonesty led tothe forfeit of presidency and the consequential incredibility to the USgovernment in the consecutive years.Nixon refused to hand in his telephone record by asserting that thepresident had the right to do so. Yet the court rejected, for thepublic demanded the truth not a deceiving trick.（最后写说NIXON因此下台，就更好了） Political honesty isone of the premises for establishing mutual trust between thegovernments and its serving people. Revealing what people ought to knowserves to meet such premise.

Secondly, for any democratic society, people should largely be aware ofwhat the government is doing, for there ought to exist an appropriatesurveillance between the public and the administration for restrainingany kind of power abuse. If a politician hides away the real reasons orprocedures of an important political issue, he is jeopardizing thetransparent and just system of democracy and lead the country tonegative consequences. TonyBlair had a problem of telling his true intention to invade Iraq.Weapons of Mass Destruction immediately come to（came to his） mind. His governmentshowed little evidence to convince the public that Iraq did have WMDbefore waging a war. Actually, many British disbelieve its existence,as the Independent Inquiry led by Lord Hutton proved so later. Theconsecutive result was that the British did not know what DowningStreet was planning and when the unjustified war could end, but heardover the news that their soldiers died one after one while the Iraqsituation became increasingly complicated over the years. Bywithholding the real intention of the war from the public, TonyBlair abused his power to the unjustified war that otherwise would havebeen forestalled by the British people, resulting disastrous impactsupon people’s lives.（这句说的应该是针对不列颠的国家形象吧） In contrast, political frankness, largely in theform of rendering accessible information to the public, would beconsidered the natural requirement for any responsible politician.

However, a pragmatic consideration that will restrain politician fromrevealing information to the public is the country’s confidentialinformation. Just as a corporation thrives to prevent secret data frombeing stolen by their adversaries, a country also does similar measuresfor security issues. Among this kind of secret information, data onmilitary defense system is ranked the top confidentiality that onlyminority of the authorized group has the right to know about.Especially in our times when countries fiercely compete, spying plays adirty, yet vital role in this ongoing combat. In addition, there isanother positive reason for politician to withhold ---- preventingconfidential information from being obtained by anti-social group andterrorists. Clearly, making security data open to the public carries aserious risk of leaking them to the hands of terrorists, helping tolaunch a further tragedy like 9.11’s incidence. For a country's ownsafety, it is always desirable to hide such confidential informationfrom the public.

In sum, with respect to confidentialnature of information, it is better to not reveal it to the public fora stable and secured society. In the otherwise cases of any democraticsociety, general people have the rights to obtain various criticalinformation that their government holds. After all, they are the peoplewho are most concerned and affected.

总体感觉还是不错的，我觉得第二段还有改进的空间，可以将例子进一步简化，然后增加一个针对正观点的例子就全面了。

使用道具举报