- 最后登录
- 2004-12-27
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 98
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2002-10-16
- 阅读权限
- 10
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 9
- UID
- 113302

- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 98
- 注册时间
- 2002-10-16
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
发表于 2003-7-23 14:33:25
|显示全部楼层
issue241 我的第25篇
It is often necessay, even desirable for political leaders to withhold information from the public.
The speaker claims that it is necessary, even desirable for political leaders to withhold information from the public. However I believe that act is rather unwise and has much negative influences on the country.
Admittedly, as to information of some kind, the country leaders have the responsibility to keep them secret. For example some facts about the distribution of military forces, a part of foreign policies and etc. Once those kinds of information have been revealed, there will be irreparable damages to the country.
Aside from that, I believe that the public has the right to be informed of the real situations of their country.
The first reason is that by that means, it is possible to prevent malversation. It is accepted that in this era of information , those who hold the information or get information earlier than others are mostly likely to success. For example, if a company which produce air-conditioning equipment is informed beforehand that there will be a torrid weather in the coming summer, then it could increase the output of air-condition and thereby get great porfits. On the other hand, as a mortal, every one by his nature inclines to think of self-interest, political leaders are not the exceptions. The mere difference lies on the extent, some people repress it with the power of altruism, some people could restrict it within social morality, the others indulge in it and are regarded as selfishness. However, once the politicans or government officials are endued with the power to withhold the information from the public, some of them are likely to make use of those unpublished information to attain huge profits for themselves. That behavior not only disobeys equity principle, incurs discontent with the government but the most important has negative influences on social lives and economy of a nation.
The second reason is that to withhold the information tends to cause public suspicion and is harmful to reliability of a government. When the populace are aware or have the feeling that the information they hold is only a small part of the whole, they will doubt the judgement of the whole thing made by the government and believe that the government tend to hide more serious facts. For they don’t know whether the rest of the information will have affirmative or negative affect on the whole, and have to assume that it would have the negative one. Thus all those questions and doubts towards the government comes from the information asymmetry. For example, in this spring, when SARS outbroke in Hongkong, and then spread rapidly in the main land, most of people were skeptical of the number of the patients publicized by the government. That is not surprising since it is the necessary result of preventing the public from the truth in quite a long time.
The third reason is that to let the populace know the fact is conducive to enhance their enthusiasm to concern with the public affairs. If the public is only informed of a part of one event, they are impossible to make correct judgement about the whole thing. Then with the time past, they will become apathic about the national affairs, for all things could be left to the political leaders---the mere excetpion who know the fact. However, if the public is informed the whole thing, they are capable of analysising and making judgements. By that means, their patriotic consciousness is waken up, their enthusiasm is greatly impulsed, and they will actively participate in the communal affairs.
To sum up, I believe as to a democratic regime, there is no better way to keep the government uncorrput and develop the country than to make the information open to the public. |
|