issue8 第一篇 痛苦至极

pemUID: 136456

issue8   "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public ."

I totally agree it is occasionally necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public temporarily; but if political leaders often keep the information secret, then many problems may be induced.

                  In some special case, it is advisable to withhold the information which may cause disorder and panic, and sometimes even danger of the country. In the period of war, it is necessary to keep some information about the situation secret, for doing so can avoid not only the disorder and anxiety of the people but also the espionage of the opponent .The healthy of the leaders play an important role in the national activities; when the leader suffers some emergent acute diseases it is wise to keep the information secret and not to announce the information until some measures have been taken. All those actions, obviously, do no harm to people and nation; on the contrary, it benefits to the stability of the country.

                     If the political leader often keeps the information secret, however, then many problems may be induced. Why does he do that; what does he do when the information was withhold; many questions will emerge among the public. If he is irresponsible for his duties and if he has made some wrong decisions; does he use the information to do something benefit to himself or to the clique he belongs to? For example, this will happen when he knows the prices of steel will go up recently, so he or his group is likely to store a mount of steel for substantive unlawful profit. So it is possible that keeping the information secret benefit minority greatly, but definitely endanger the ordinary people’s benefit.

                     In a democratic society, generally speaking, the public should have to right to access to all the information concerning about their interests. The right of know can effectively superintend the behavior of the government. People pay taxes to the country, so they have the right to know how and where the government spends the revenue. If they can not access to information of the taxes, then the political leaders may make some decisions not considering much of their responsibility which may lead to many social problems such as corruption, dereliction of duty, nepotism……

           Although many people used to ignore the right of know, more and more people are beginning to realize it. It is important for the public to strike for the right and they are doing something to strength and improve the right gradually. A few years ago you never heard the individual sue the government, yet now through media you can heard someone do that for the right to know and ask for the compensation for the government’s misplay.

我是菜鸟，刚刚学会修改帖子。

coolwitsUID: 149150

老大,什么题目阿

pemUID: 136456

不好意思，俺自己顶一下。

战友们，快拿砖头呀，让我也听个响，冬冬冬冬。。。

song123456UID: 133578

最初由 pem 发布
[B]issue8   "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public ."

I totally agree it is occasionally necessar..

以下省略...... [/B]

觉得观点不清晰，既然totally agree，为什么又花大量篇幅emphasize the right of know?
而且第一段，不是一个论点极其让步，而感觉是给出了两个完全对立的观点。
个人意见！

pemUID: 136456

谢谢上楼的意见了

主要是想强调偶尔occasionally 特殊情况下对消息保密是可以的，但如果经常发生often就会引起问题。

是不是在词语上强调细微的差别容易引起困惑，如果是这样，以后写作要避免这样了。

stormestUID: 144615

I totally agree it is occasionally necessary, even desirable(acceptable?), for political leaders to withhold information from the public temporarily; but if political leaders often keep the information secret, then many problems may be induced.

(on one hand)In some special case, it is advisable to withhold the information which may cause disorder and panic, and sometimes even danger of the country(even danger of the country sometimes) . In the period of war, it is necessary to keep some information about the situation secret, for doing so can avoid not only the disorder and anxiety of the people but also the espionage of the opponent(good! Reasonable) .(for example ,)The healthy of the leaders play an important role in the national activities; when the leader suffers some emergent acute diseases it is wise to keep the information secret and not to announce the information until some measures have been taken(“it is wise to keep the information that the leader suffers some emergent acute diseases out of the eye of the public” may be batter,). All those actions, obviously, do no harm to people and nation(not exact,so serious ); on the contrary, it benefits to the stability of the country.

(on the other hand)If the political leader often keeps the information(certain information) secret, however, then many problems may be induced. Why does he do that; what does he do when the information was withhold; many questions will emerge among the public. (it will do harm to the society)If he is irresponsible for his duties and if he has made some wrong decisions; does he use the information to do something benefit to himself or to the clique he belongs to? For example, this will happen when he knows the prices of steel will go up recently, so he or his group is likely to store a mount of steel for substantive unlawful profit. So it is possible that keeping the information secret benefit minority greatly, but definitely endanger the ordinary people’s benefit.( the argument is not strong, need go on further)

In a democratic society, generally speaking, the public should have to(the) right to access to all the information concerning about their interests. The right of know(knowing)(may be the process or the reaction?) can effectively superintend the behavior of the government. People pay taxes to the country, so they have the right to know how and where the government spends the revenue. If they can not access to information of the taxes, then the political leaders may make some decisions not considering much of their responsibility which may lead to many social problems such as corruption, dereliction of duty, nepotism……

Although many people used to ignore the right of know, more and more people are beginning to realize it. It is important for the public to strike for the right and they are doing something to strength and improve the right gradually. A few years ago you never heard the individual sue the government, yet now through media you can heard someone do that for the right to know and ask for the compensation for the government’s misplay.

You use the phrase “keep secret” too many times, these like “ keep the public blind” ;”hide”; ”conceal” and so on can be put into thought. The argument is not strong, need go on further, The end should talk two side(may be batter? Be concert with the beginning)