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 countrys 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.
我们已经进入了第二十一个世纪，对真理的认识也越来越有争议。政治领袖不应该公开信息是一个最具争议性的问题。有些人可能会说，我们有权知道我们的政府在做什么，所以政治领导人不应该隐瞒信息，不管这些信息是什么。然而只是可靠的观点听起来，这仅是简单的深刻问题的表面。确实，随着民主进程的推进，我们现在被赋予了认识真理的权利。从技术上来讲，政府官员不应该从公众中提取政治信息。信息公开使公众参与到政府事务中，因此公众可以起到监督的作用，这将提高政府的绩效。然而，没有什么是简单的，因为它似乎。与政治有关的事务通常是极其复杂的。在某些特殊情况下，在特定的情况下，领导者应根据社会的总体情况来决定是否公布信息的信息。为了支持我的立场，我将探讨以下问题。在民主社会，从理论上讲，公众有权查阅有关他们感兴趣的资料。作为一个著名的格言说，绝对的权力导致绝对的腐败，在绝对。故意退出了公共信息的公共官员可能构成违法甚至严重罪行和不可挽回的损害结果。政府绩效信息公开是防止政府腐蚀的一种有效途径，对社会产生不利的影响。事实上，隐瞒或歪曲政府绩效信息是一种滥用权力，这是腐蚀和其他一些经济犯罪的根源。正如所知道的，市民可以作为政府的主管。因此，政府官员必须谨慎对待他们的行为，并做更有效的工作。例如，许多政府腐蚀的罪行被公众揭露。政府信息公开政策的结果，政府的腐蚀犯罪率明显降低。此外，政府的公众形象是由信息发布行动提高。尽管如此，在某些特定的情况下，要密封一些特殊的信息是必要的和明智的。首先，如果信息是关于国防领域，追踪罪犯和其他秘密行动，信息应该被关闭，直到成功完成。公众的知情情况可能会阻碍这种行为的正常进程。其次，如果信息太糊涂或公布这些资料会误导公众，信息的发布应谨慎甚至回避。例如，将引起人们之间的骚乱的信息应被视为意识。因此，有时它是必要的政治领袖，让公众知道的东西，如一个国家的顶级机密。最后，推迟发布某些信息有时也是必要的和有益的。例如，如果对新的国防武器的实验，信息不应该是同步的实验。在大多数情况下，政治领导人应该公开信息，因为它会促使政府和公众之间的互动，因此提高政府的有效性。许多城市政府都在网上建立网络，以宣传信息，提供特殊的答案和问题系统来收集反馈信息。这些行动使政府能够通过政府的反馈，这些有益的建议将有可能提高政府的绩效。同时，市民的需求也可以反映，政府亦会更好地为市民服务。公共和政府不是相互排斥的，事实上，他们互相支持。只有合作才能保证国家的繁荣。而信息公开是政府应该做的第一。这是真的，还有一些其他方面的问题也应占。不幸的是，我没有足够的时间来分析他们的细节。然而，基于上述事实和推理，在很大程度上，我可以令人信服地说明政治领导人应该公开的信息公开。然而，在某些情况下，一些特殊的信息应该在被宣传甚至是密封的情况下才被处理。我要指出的是，政治领导人是否应该从公众中隐瞒信息取决于是否这样做对公众有好处。