I8求互拍 【留链必返】

everimmortalUID: 2960189

TOPIC: ISSUE8 - "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."
WORDS: 541        

Nowadays, many leaders inclined to withhold information rather than publish them, when they confront some emergencies. But I don't think it's a rational behavior, that is to say i  disagree, to a large extent, with speaker's statement that advocates its righteousness, altough i concede it is sometimes necessary.

Normally, withholding information from the public is violating their rights to get the information from the government as a citizen, which is unjustifiable even somewhat evil. According to the constitution of many nations, citizen's rights to get the information from the government is included, in other words, it is indispensable. Imagine that if a political leaders of the government choose to withhold the information of some emergency which may threaten public's security of their health or possessions, what will the public react afterwards? A feeling of wrath or incredulous of the government. These horrible impact is bound to negetively affect the image of the government and even bring about turmoil of the politics. In addition, what the most important is that people's life changed badly or even ruined. For instance, when the notorious Chenobyl nuclear power plant melt down, the leader of the city and of the SU government refused to inform the public about the detrimental aftermath it will result in and failed to solve the problem, which directly lead to an irretrievable tragedy and make the city a ghost town till now.

Although withholding information from the public is not recommended, there is also some circumstances we have no choice but withhold. The most frequent case is withholding something related to homeland security, namely military secret. It is surely ridiculous to tell the public such question as how is our army deployed? How to make a atom bomb? Concerning to this secret items, they should never be published. If publishing them, it's a good news for their countries, especially to the enemies and some crime will take advantage of them as well, which will considerably threat people's security of life. After all, nothing is more essential than one's life.  

However, most controversial topic stands on the issue of some political scandals. Politicians always endeavor to conceal their " crime", such as corruption, sexual scandal etc. Many people tend to doubt the righteousness of the concealing, while I advocate it. If you do something wrong, the most smart way is to keep silence rather than blurt out. I concede it sounds disguesting somehow and we all want politicians of integrity, but concealing the scandal should be distinguished from the scandal itself. In other words, I believe that the scandal itself is sordid in a sense but concealing it is not. However, this logic has it inherent fallacious that if we disconcern about self-control, no politician will be of integrity without scrutiny. That is to say, if politician can withhold all their scandals sucessfully, they can't resist it. In game theory, concealing scandals is the best way for the politicians, but for the public the best way is to muckrake.

In sum, political leaders should not withhold information in most circumstances to ensure the stable of the nation and the trust
of the public to the government. But when it comes to some situations like military secrets, it should still keep confidential.