issue 8 第二次作业

chencylx03UID: 2352706

issue 8 "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."

outline:   
1 my viewpoint: 在大多数情形下，plitical leader不应当隐藏信息，而是敢于向公众披露。Transparency and accountability是当前各国政府达成的共识.这不仅是现代社会的对于政府透明和负责的一个基本要求，同时也是有益的。
2 虽然有不同观点,认为plitical leader应当隐藏信息,尤其是在许多公共领域，隐藏信息是必要的，如关键的科技研究，事关公共安全的信息。
3 但是这样只是部分情形，我们可以允许leader隐藏这些信息，而在更多的领域,决不能让其滥用其相机抉择权原因有：
（1）leader为自己谋私利: 政府必须公开其开支(2)即使在公共安全领域,（2）带来猜忌与不满，造成社会动乱。信息公布不慎，后果很更加严重。
4 结论部分，即使是在关键领域，也是可以披露的，只不过是披露方式而已，可以披露大体内容，而隐去细节，这样既能保护关键信息不被窃取，无论怎样必须要保障公众的知情权。
字数（575）two hours，初写，错误较多，请多提意见！
I strongly disagree with the speaker's assertion that it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to conceal information from the public. In my opinion, although it is necessary in certain cases, such as cases involving the public safety, political leader cannot withhold information from the public. And what’s more, speaker’s assertion is detrimental to transparency and accountability principles which are considered as current common consensuses among governments.

Admittedly, there are many cases in which it is necessary for political leaders to withhold information from the public, just as the speaker claims. In many important public fields, once the critical information usually related to country’s safety is disclosed, it will bring disastrous outcomes. For example, if the President were to disclose the government’s security strategies designed for protecting the public, but yet the information would also be obtained by the terrorists, those strategies would be surely fail and the public’s health and safety would be compromised as a result. In addition, in many critical science researches funded by the government, such as inventories of new military weapons and space travel, disclosing the relevant information may put the nation in disadvantageous states. For instance, in the World War 2, even the vice President did not know the Manhattan Project, a secret project to make the first atomic bomb. In above situations, withholding information from the public seems necessary.

However, those are only limited situations which we can entitle the politic leaders discretionary right to determine whether information should be withheld or not. In most public fields, we cannot permit the politic leader to abuse this discretionary right. As discussed below, withholding information is detrimental to modern democratic nations which transparency and accountability principles as current common consensus.

The first reason is that the elected politic leaders who are supposed to serve the interest of the public may use the public resources to enrich themselves. Take the government expenditure for example, the politic leaders may appropriate the public funds or allocate the funds to interest groups who have the close relationships with the leaders. To avoid these situations, a mechanism must be designed to let the populace have the right know and request politic leaders have obligation to disclose the information of public decisions.

The second reason is that withholding the information would bring suspicion and discontent which result great social disorder. For example, in the spring 2003, Chinese government initially withheld the information regarding the epidemic situation of SARS causing hundreds of people infested, but this foolish decision only made the situation more badly. Rumors were bruited widely all over the country and the public was full of great terror. After the central government revealed the true information frankly, doubts and rumors scattered off. All people reunited to fight for the disease and succeed at last.

  In sum, except in some critical situation, it is necessary that the information can be withheld for public advantage. Considering the imperfection of politic leader and possibly bad consequences mentioned above, disclosing to public is imperative for politic leaders and public right to information should be made assure to have good enforcement. In reality, many nations have enacted laws to force their government and politic leader to disclose information to public. For example, United States constituted “The Freedom of Information Act of 1966” and “Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976” in order to constrain the politic leaders discretionary right, which greatly influenced the politic governance of the world.

penny_panUID: 2280804

我看了，可是，没有觉得什么要说的，你写的反正是比我的好多啦

看你的提纲，我的观点比你的多一点，就是说，政府在open的时候，还要讲究一下方法策略，有些事实是要披露的，但是要有合适的时机和方法，不至于引起恐慌……

我要好好加油写啊 ：（

courtyardUID: 2399972

issue 8 第二次作业

issue 8 "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."outline:   1 my viewpoint: 在大多数情形下，plitical leader不应当隐藏信息，而是敢于向公众披露。Transparency and accountability是当前各国政府达成的共识.这不仅是现代社会的对于政府透明和负责的一个基本要求，同时也是有益的。2 虽然有不同观点,认为plitical leader应当隐藏信息,尤其是在许多公共领域，隐藏信息是必要的，如关键的科技研究，事关公共安全的信息。3 但是这样只是部分情形，我们可以允许leader隐藏这些信息，而在更多的领域,决不能让其滥用其相机抉择权原因有：（1）leader为自己谋私利: 政府必须公开其开支(2)即使在公共安全领域,（2）带来猜忌与不满，造成社会动乱。信息公布不慎，后果很更加严重。4 结论部分，即使是在关键领域，也是可以披露的，只不过是披露方式而已，可以披露大体内容，而隐去细节，这样既能保护关键信息不被窃取，无论怎样必须要保障公众的知情权。字数（575）two hours，初写，错误较多，请多提意见！I strongly disagree with the speaker's assertion that it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to conceal information from the public.[句首的论点复述有些单调，最好与原文不同，可以改成倒装] In my opinion, although it is necessary in certain cases, such as cases[ones] involving the public safety, political leader cannot[感觉换成should not会不会好点] withhold information from the public.[这里“领导不能隐瞒信息”与although后面的necessary in certain cases逻辑矛盾了] And what’s more,[用what’s more 感觉不好，毕竟这里没有递进逻辑，after all 我觉得可以] speaker’s assertion is detrimental to transparency and accountability principles which are considered as current common consensuses among governments. Admittedly, there are many cases in which it is necessary for political leaders to withhold information from the public, just as the speaker claims. In many important public fields, once the critical information usually related[relating] to country’s safety is disclosed, it will bring disastrous outcomes. For example, if the President were to disclose the government’s security strategies designed for protecting the public, but [while]yet the information would[can] also be obtained by the terrorists, those strategies would be surely fail and the public’s health and safety would be compromised as a result. In addition,[这是另举例子，不是要表达补充，为什么要addition？] in many critical science researches funded by the government, such as inventories of new military weapons and space travel, disclosing the relevant information may put the nation in disadvantageous states. For instance, in the World War 2, even the vice President did not know the Manhattan Project, a secret project to make the first atomic bomb. In above situations, withholding information from the public seems [are absolutely 这里不要用seems吧，语气会减弱上面的论证效果]necessary. However, those are only limited situations [in]which we can entitle the politic leaders discretionary right to determine whether information should be withheld or not. In most public fields, we cannot permit the politic leader to abuse this discretionary right. As discussed below, withholding information is detrimental to modern democratic nations which [regards] transparency and accountability principles as current common consensus. The first reason is that the elected politic leaders who are supposed to serve the interest of the public may use the public resources to enrich themselves. Take the government expenditure for example, the politic leaders may appropriate the public funds or allocate the funds to interest groups who have the[去the] close relationships with the leaders[them]. To avoid these situations, a mechanism must be designed to let the populace have the[\] right know[the truth] and request politic leaders have obligation[give politic leaders obligation] to disclose the information of public decisions. The second reason is that withholding the[\] information would bring suspicion and discontent which [would] result[in] great social disorder. For example, in the spring 2003, Chinese government initially withheld the information regarding the epidemic [situation of去掉] SARS causing hundreds of people infested, but this foolish decision only made the situation more badly[worse]. Rumors were bruited widely all over the country and the public was full of great terror[horror]. After the central government revealed the true information frankly, doubts and rumors scattered off. All people reunited to fight for[with] the disease and succeed at last. [这两个reason可不可以和上上段合起来？如果跟第二段并列的话感觉有点怪]  In sum, except in some critical situation, it is necessary that the information can[去掉the，虚拟语气] be withheld for public advantage.[这句话逻辑是不是有点问题？] Considering the imperfection of politic leader and possibly bad consequences mentioned above, disclosing to public is imperative for politic leaders and public right to[for] information should be made assure[assured] to have good enforcement. In reality, many nations have enacted laws to force their government and politic leader to disclose information to public. For example, United States constituted “The Freedom of Information Act of 1966” and “Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976” in order to constrain the politic leaders discretionary right, which greatly influenced the politic governance of the world.[最后一段反而加上了例证，感觉不像结尾，这个应该放到论证段里]


1、提纲里面“4 结论部分，即使是在关键领域，也是可以披露的，只不过是披露方式而已，可以披露大体内容，而隐去细节，这样既能保护关键信息不被窃取，无论怎样必须要保障公众的知情权。”没有很好得体现。
2、句子之间的承接词需要再润饰一下，突出逻辑关系。
3、the感觉有用得有点乱，常常不必要的时候也用

[ 本帖最后由 courtyard 于 2007-12-9 23:03 编辑 ]