【kaleidoscope】第四次作业 ISSUE70 by 网兜妮妮

网兜妮妮UID: 2612538

提纲
观点，权力的执掌应该有界限，但不同意5年久一定要换。
1 政治领域，五年的重新选举时明智的。比如克林顿的选举上台就适应了大局。
2 教育领域，需要更长的时间，比如十年去更换掌权人。
3 商业领域，应该由公司内部来规定是否要更换掌权人，这是公司内部事务，应该公司自决。

It is necessary to let the person who was in power step down after some years, and new leader can surly correct some falseness of the previous person or add new ideas to make advance. After all, no one was perfect; I agree with the claim insofar as we need a system for any enterprise to revitalize, that is, through new leadership. However, I disagree that five years is always a proper period for the power to renew in any position.

When it comes to the politics and government, five years to reelect is wise. Any politicians cannot guarantee a wonderful policy forever, nor can he promise to make decisions fair enough all the times----without the considerations of personal interests, especially when he was long in one position. Along with the rapidly changing world, we need new leader to well meet the needs in new era, while the old one always keeps a stereotype. For example, Bill Clinton, represented of the baby boomers, which was well-understand the new world and the dilemmas of his generations, once be elected, had certainly satisfied his people at that time, such as the welfare reform. As a politic leader, he is elected by his people, in turn, he should for his people. Surly, a new leadership is the best way to revitalize the party as well as the country. Furthermore, from the history, five years is a good period to reelect, as people can well judge whether his policy was proper or not; also, it is the very time for any decisions----to choose a new leader or trust the previous one for the next five years, any of them are not late at that time. The only thing left is, the law should limited the final time one was in power, ten years or fifteen years.

In education realm, five years to stop power seems too short. Education is a long time procedure, and a policy of school reform can hardly see any result within five years. If we elect other one as the head of a school, he would likely to stop the old policy but for a new one. Yet five years is too short to the previous policy to expose its advantages, such as the adding courses of computer skills in primary schools, which once seems costly and useless but at last proved to be very useful after years. Simply choose a new head and stop the old policies do harm to the school as well as the society as a whole. Therefore, longer period, maybe ten years is the proper time for the leader of education to renew its leadership.

Thirdly, when we considered five years to change the leadership in business, it seems unfair to some company leaders. We know in commercial realm, some company was invested by a man, I mean, only one man give money to keep the company run and he himself is the leader. In this case, the company is belonging to one person, as his private property. So, he can be the leader forever, and five years to change the leadership seems unreasonable as well as not well-accepted. Although to some big corporations, they have a period to change the leadership to enhance the productive because of the new policy, as the famous corporations did for its flourish. After all, whether to change a leader is a company’s own business, which can be decided by the inside rules of an enterprise. Accordingly, five years is not proper for all the corporations.

In sum, we should decide this question in a case-by-case study instead of any simply answers----as to change the leadership after five years in any position. Insofar as in political area, it is a proper period; when it comes in education area, it should be longer; and in business area, it should be decided by the rules of diverse corporations.

azoiUID: 2636348

1# 网兜妮妮
It is necessary to let the person who was in power step down after some years, and new leader can surly correct some falseness of the previous person or add new ideas to make advance. After all, no one was perfect; I agree with the claim insofar as we need a system for any enterprise to revitalize, that is, through new leadership. However, I disagree that five years is always a proper period for the power to renew in any position.

When it comes to the politics and government, five years to reelect is wise. Any politicians cannot guarantee a wonderful policy forever, nor can he promise to make decisions fair enough all the times----without the considerations of personal interests, especially when he was long in one position. Along with the rapidly changing world, we need new leader to well meet the needs in new era, while the old one always keeps a stereotype. For example, Bill Clinton, represented of the baby boomers, which was well-understand the new world and the dilemmas of his generations, once be elected, had certainly satisfied his people at that time, such as the welfare reform. As a politic leader, he is elected by his people, in turn, he should for his people. Surly, a new leadership is the best way to revitalize the party as well as the country. Furthermore, from the (perspective of) history, five years is a good period to reelect, as people can well judge whether his policy was proper or not; also, it is the very time for any decisions----to choose a new leader or trust the previous one for the next five years, any of them are not late at that time. The only thing left is, the law should limited the final time one was in power, ten years or fifteen years.

In education realm, five years to stop power seems too short. Education is a long time procedure, and a policy of school reform can hardly see any result within five years. If we elect other one as the head of a school, he would likely to stop the old policy but for a new one. Yet five years is too short to the previous policy to expose its advantages, such as the adding courses of computer skills in primary schools, which once seems costly and useless but at last proved to be very useful after years. Simply choose a new head and stop the old policies do harm to the school as well as the society as a whole. Therefore, longer period, maybe ten years is the proper time for the leader of education to renew its leadership.

Thirdly, when we considered five years to change the leadership in business, it seems unfair to some company leaders. We know in commercial realm, some company was invested by a man, I mean, only one man give money to keep the company run and he himself is the leader. In this case, the company is belonging to one person, as his private property. So, he can be the leader forever, and five years to change the leadership seems unreasonable as well as not well-accepted. Although to some big corporations, they have a period to change the leadership to enhance the productive because of the new policy, as the famous corporations did for its flourish. After all, whether to change a leader is a company’s own business, which can be decided by the inside rules of an enterprise. Accordingly, five years is not proper for all the corporations.

In sum, we should decide this question in a case-by-case study instead of any simply answers----as to change the leadership after five years in any position. Insofar as in political area, it is a proper period; when it comes in education area, it should be longer; and in business area, it should be decided by the rules of diverse corporations.


.


分成不同种类来讨论，思路清晰，中规中矩，总的来说还可以，不过这篇Isuue我认为并不是要探讨究竟几年合适，而是要表达一种究竟领导人按时更换是否必要的观点，lz可以参考一下其他范文做一些修改