issue8 请大家指教 谢谢

ssskyUID: 204142

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

观点：政治领导人应该根据信息的具体情况决定是不是向公众透露
1 知情权是公众权利
2 有些涉及国家以及大众安全的信息不应透露
3 政治领导人的私人信息，除财政收入信息外，还是不必透露的
------正文------
Is it often necessary for politicsl leaders to keep  information as secret ? The answer of this question is not simple to say 'yes'  or  no", I agree that the political leaders should withhold information to some extent, because undue emphasis on withholding information is contrast to democratic principle. In my point of view, I decline that information should disclose  to the masses selectively, some immediately , some in proper situation and suitable time.

First of all,  laws endow citizen with the right of gaining politic information which refer to their intersets. In modern states, democratic principle endues the masses with rights to  take part in public  matter, and the precondition of using  the public right accurately is people could know sufficient information. Any inaccurate information may lead to a undesired policy or a severe crisis. SARS, a fatal form of pneumonia, pervailed in China in 2003, for example. At the beginning of the public event, the Ministry of Health refuse to publicize the accurate data of the epidemic situation, which has been regarded  as one of the most important reason causing the calamity. Subsequently Chinese government acknowledge the mistake and disclose the actual epidemic situation . When the masses knew the real situation , they had confidence to fight with this disease , at last China controled the prevalence of SARS. The instance of SARS reveals the importance of disclosing proper information concerning interests of the masses.

On the contrary, considering the pubilc safety and national security political leaders have to withhold some confidential information. If this kind of information, such as military secret, data of economic situation and some advanced scientific and technological information, is filched by opponents, national security and public interests will be threaten. Furthermore, in order to gain, and expend leaders' political power, and political influence, political leaders have to withhold some information. For instance, disclosing intelligence about terroristic activities may cause a panic in the public and escape of terrorists. Another example, in diplomatic negotiation any of diplomat's improper words may be harm to national interests, that is, disclosing less information to the opponent could increase bargain chip.  Until the proper time, Manhattan Project, Apollo Program, and many other national plan have been disclosed to the masses even though they were confidential many years ago.

Admittedly, some private information except financial situation of political leaders should be protected. The reason why political leaders should publicize thier financial information is that he should be supervised by the public to avoid corruption. However, political leader, so as it seems to me ,is not a moral leader, and his primary responsibility is to improve national status and standard of people's living rather than to be a moral model. Take Bill Clinton for instance, he did splendid contribution to the develpoment of American economy, despite his sexual scandal.

In sum, whether should political leaders disclose information is a complex issue, and we have to analyse it according to actual situation. Briefly, the most significant precondition , in my opinion, is disclosing information should maitain the interests of nation and the public.

[ Last edited by sssky on 2005-7-25 at 21:47 ]

accoladeUID: 2110746

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

观点：政治领导人应该根据信息的具体情况决定是不是向公众透露
1 知情权是公众权利
2 有些涉及国家以及大众安全的信息不应透露
3 政治领导人的私人信息，除财政收入信息外，还是不必透露的
------正文------
Is it often necessary for politicslpolitics leaders to keep  information as secret ? The answer of this question is not simple to say 'yes'  or  no", I agree that the political leaders should withhold information to some extent, because undue emphasis on withholding information is contrast to democratic principle. In my point of view, I decline that information should disclose  to the masses selectively, some immediately , some in proper situation and suitable time.两次陈述观点？

First of all,  laws endow citizen with the right of gaining politic information which refer to their intersets. In modern states, democratic principle endues the masses with rights to  take part in public  matter, and the precondition of using  the public right accurately is people could know sufficient information. Any inaccurate information may lead to a undesired policy or a severe crisis. SARS, a fatal form of pneumonia, pervailed in China in 2003, for example. At the beginning of the public怎么又冒出个public event event, the Ministry of Health refuse to publicize the accurate data of the epidemic situation, which has been regarded  as one of the most important reason causing the calamity. Subsequently Chinese government acknowledge the mistake and disclose the actual epidemic situation 有点突然这句话. When the masses knew the real situation , they had confidence to fight with this disease , at last China controled the prevalence of SARS. The instance of SARS reveals the importance of disclosing proper information concerning interests of the masses.

On the contrary, considering the pubilc safety and national security political leaders have to withhold some confidential information这只是一个从句，而且从句还有语法问题. If this kind of information, such as military secret, data of economic situation and some advanced scientific and technological information, is filched by opponents,这里有个递进的过程吧thus national security and public interests will be threaten. Furthermore, in order to gain, and expend leaders' political power, and political influence, political leaders have to withhold some information这句话看不明白，而且和后面的例子似乎关系不大. For instance, disclosing intelligence about terroristic activities may cause a panic in the public and escape of terrorists. Another example, in diplomatic negotiation any of diplomat's improper words may be harm to national interests, that is, disclosing less information to the opponent could increase bargain chip.  Until the proper time, Manhattan Project, Apollo Program, and many other national plan have been disclosed to the masses even though they were confidential many years ago.

Admittedly, some private information except financial situation of political leaders should be protected. The reason why political leaders should publicize thier financial information is that he should be supervised by the public to avoid corruption. However, political leader, so as it seems to me ,is not a moral leader, and his primary responsibility is to improve national status and standard of people's living rather than to be a moral model. Take Bill Clinton for instance, he did splendid contribution to the develpoment of American economy, despite his sexual scandal.

In sum, whether should political leaders disclose information is a complex issue, and we have to analyse it according to actual situation. Briefly, the most significant precondition , in my opinion, is disclosing information should maitain the interests of nation and the public
根据观点第一段似乎是公民应该得到什么样的知情权，结构上可能会合理一些。有些句子读不大明白。加油

我的issue8：互拍！
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D101

[ Last edited by accolade on 2005-7-29 at 09:28 ]

ssskyUID: 204142

accolade
抱歉,这两天网络不太好,今天帮你拍,呵呵

accoladeUID: 2110746

Is it often necessary for politicsl leaders to keep  information as secret ? The answer of this question is not simple to say 'yes'  or  no", I agree that the political leaders should withhold information to some extent, because undue emphasis[emphasising] on withholding information is contrast to democratic principle. In my point of view, I decline that information should disclose  to the masses selectively, some immediately , some in proper situation and suitable time.

First of all,  laws endow citizen with the right of gaining politic information which refer to their intersets. In modern states, democratic principle endues the masses with rights to  take part in public  matter, and the precondition of using  the public right accurately is people could know sufficient information. Any inaccurate information may lead to a undesired policy or a severe crisis. SARS, a fatal form of pneumonia, pervailed in China in 2003, for example. At the beginning of the public event, the Ministry of Health refuse to publicize the accurate data of the epidemic situation, which has been regarded  as one of the most important reason causing the calamity. Subsequently Chinese government acknowledge the mistake and disclose the actual epidemic situation . When the masses knew the real situation , they had confidence to fight with this disease , at last China controled the prevalence of SARS. The instance of SARS reveals the importance of disclosing proper information concerning interests of the masses.

On the contrary, considering the pubilc safety and national security political leaders have to withhold some confidential information. If this kind of information, such as military secret, data of economic situation and some advanced scientific and technological information, is filched by opponents, national security and public interests will be threaten. Furthermore, in order to gain, and expend leaders' political power, and political influence, political leaders have to withhold some information. For instance, disclosing intelligence about terroristic activities may cause a panic in the public and escape of terrorists. Another example, in diplomatic negotiation any of diplomat's improper words may be harm to national interests, that is, disclosing less information to the opponent could increase bargain chip. Until the proper time, Manhattan Project, Apollo Program, and many other national plan have been disclosed to the masses even though they were confidential many years ago.

Admittedly, some private information except financial situation of political leaders should be protected. The reason why political leaders should publicize thier financial information is that he should be supervised by the public to avoid corruption. However, political leader, so as it seems to me ,is not a moral leader, andhisprimary responsibility is to improve national status and standard of people's living rather than to be a moral model. Take Bill Clinton for instance, he did splendid contribution to the develpoment of American economy, despite his sexual scandal.

In sum, whether should political leaders disclose information is a complex issue, and we have to analyse it according to actual situation. Briefly, the most significant precondition , in my opinion, is disclosing information should maitain the interests of nation and the public.

句子都蛮好的，没有找出什么大的问题。
加油i！:victory:

ssskyUID: 204142

谢谢了  呵呵