GRE写作Issue模拟题7:the Right of Knowing the Truth

As we have advanced into the 21st century, there is more and more controversy concerning the right of knowing the truth. The issue “Should political leaders withhold information from the public” is a most controversial one. Some people may argue that as we have the right to know what our government is doing, so political leaders should not withhold information from the public no matter what the information is. However just reliable the argument may sound, it only skims the surface of the profound problem. It is true that with advancement of democracy we now are granted the right of knowing the truth. Technologically speaking, the government officials should not withdraw politic information from the public. And the openness of the information enable the public join in the governmental affairs and therefore the public may serves as a role of supervisor, which in return will improve the performance of the government. However, nothing is as simple as it seems. Affairs relevant to the politics are usually extremely complicated. To some special information, and under a particular situation, the leaders should decide whether to publicize the information based on the overall well-being of the society. To bolster my stance, I will explore the issue as the following. In a democratic society, theoretically speaking, the public has the right to access any information concerning their interest. As a celebrated dictum says, absolute power results in absolute corruption absolutely. Deliberately withdrawing information from the public the public officials may commit malfeasances or even serious crimes and result in irredeemable damage. To publicize information of the government performance is an effective way to prevent corrosion in the government, which will bring detriment to the society. In fact to withhold or distort government performance information is an abuse of power, which is the origin of corrosion and some other economy crimes. As is know, the public can serve as a supervisor to the government. Thus, the government officers must be cautious to their deeds and do more effective work. For example, many crimes of government corrosion are revealed by the public. And as a result of the openness policy of government information, the rate of corrosion crime in government decreases significantly. Also, the public image of the government is improved by the information publication actions. Nonetheless, under certain particular situation, to seal some special information is necessary and sensible. Firstly, if the information is concerning the realm of national defense, chasing culprit and other secret actions, the information should be closed until the action is completed successfully. The public informed situation may hinder the normal process of such actions. Secondly, if the information is too bewildered or the publication of such information will mislead the public, the publication of the information should be chary or even be evaded. For example, the information that will arouse riots among people should be treated with awareness. Hence, sometimes it is necessary for political leaders to keep the public from knowing something, such as a country’s top secrets. At last, to postpone the publication of certain information sometimes is also necessary and beneficial. For example, if the experiments with regard to the new kind of national defense weapon are being carried on, the information should not be synchronous with the experiment. In most cases, political leaders should publicize information for the reason that it will prompt the interaction between government and the public and therefore improve the effectiveness of the government. Many city governments have built web cites on the internet to publicize information and supply special answer and question systems to collect feedbacks. These deeds enable the feedback of the public could be adopted by the government and those instructive advices will serve to improve the performance of the government. Also the demand of the public can also be reflected and in return the government will serve the public better. The public and the government are not mutually exclusive, in fact, they sustain each other. Only the cooperation of them can ensure the prosperity of a country. And the openness of information is what the government should do first. It is true that still several other respects concerning the issue should also be accounted for. Unfortunately, there is not adequate time left for me to analyze them in detail. However, based on the above mentioned facts and reasoning, to a large extent, I could argue convincingly that the political leader should publicize the information to the public. However, under some case, some special information should be treated carefully before it is publicized or even be sealed. I should point out that whether political leaders should withhold information from the public depends on whether doing so benefits the public.