Issue:political leaders to withhold information from the public

[sahilshah1987]

 

Hi Oldman and Mickey please do rate my issue.Harsh criticisms will be appreciated.:p

 

 

 

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

 

The speaker contends that it is often essential for the political leaders to conceal information from the public. Many people argue that in a democratic country, where politicians are elected by people ,there must exist a relationship of trust between them. Hence they believe that people have the right to know the information concerning their nation or society. However in my opinion ,it is often necessary to suppress certain information from people for the vested interests of the society.

There might arise many circumstances wherein it is politic to restrain information and prevent it from dispersing to other parts of the country. For example, in a multi-cultural country like India,many cases of communal violence have arise.On the advent of such situations,political leaders must make an effort to avoid the incident from spreading to other parts of country.If they fail to do so,the communal riots may diffuse over entire country until a situation will arise where it is difficult to control the situation.This will ultimately lead to downfall of the nation.The communal riots which had taken place in Godhra in Gujarat illustrate how dangerous such situation be and prove to be detrimental to progress of the society.

I would like to add one more example to elucidate my point. In United States of America, few years ago, a ten year old child was kidnapped and sexually assaulted by a person who was later identified as George Brier.After thorough investigation, George admitted to the crime and confessed that he was influenced by to do such a felony by watching child pornography vidoes on the Internet.Thus,had political leaders taken steps to prevent such information to be freely available to the public ,the incident could have been avoided.This explains why withholding information is so critical.

Also,during the case of war,it is often essential for the government to conceal the defense strategies and secrets from the public.Imagine what would happen if such information had been accessible to the public!There might be some elements in the society who might be spying for the enemy,who would have leaked the information to enemy.Such vital information must be accessible only up to the defense administration.

However,political leaders should not take unfair advantage and hide information which is the right of people to know.The denizens must be aware of major policy decisions taken by the government concerning the fields of education,health and other fields.Also,often political leaders ,who are caught in scandals try to curb the information from reaching the public.The media and police authorities must make sure in this regard that such demagogue leaders be exposed to public.

To conclude,I believe that it is often desirable for the political leaders to withhold information for the better interests of society.Extreme situations such as communal violence must be avoided from reaching other parts of the country.Information concerning defense and military must be confined to concerned administration only.Political leaders should be committed to their principles which will truly contribute towards becoming a better nation.

[Oldman]

Good essay. I'll put my revisions in parentheses.

 

Look up the word "fudiciary". This word can be used in your intro to make it sound more scholarly.

 

 

"The speaker (author) contends that it is often essential for the (remove "the") political leaders to conceal information from the public. Many people argue that in a democratic country, where politicians are elected by people ,there must exist a relationship of trust between them. Hence, (it could be argued) that (citizens) have (a right to full disclosure) of all information concerning their nation or society. However in my opinion ,it is often necessary to suppress certain information, especially in regards to issue of national security."

 

"There might arise many circumstances wherein it is politic to restrain information and prevent it from dispersing to other parts of the country. For example, in a multi-cultural country like India,many cases of communal violence have arise.On the advent of such situations,political leaders must make an effort to avoid the incident from spreading to other parts of country.If they fail to do so,the communal riots may diffuse over entire country until a situation will arise where it is difficult to control the situation.This will ultimately lead to downfall of the nation.The communal riots which had taken place in Godhra in Gujarat illustrate how dangerous such situation be and prove to be detrimental to progress of the society."

 

Interesting point.

 

I'm confused by this paragraph:

 

"I would like to add one more example to elucidate my point. In United States of America, few years ago, a ten year old child was kidnapped and sexually assaulted by a person who was later identified as George Brier.After thorough investigation, George admitted to the crime and confessed that he was influenced by to do such a felony by watching child pornography vidoes on the Internet.Thus,had political leaders taken steps to prevent such information to be freely available to the public ,the incident could have been avoided.This explains why withholding information is so critical."

 

 

This is dealing with another topic called censorship. Censorship is where the government restricts the freedom of speech. In this case, the government is preventing the explotation of children. I think the essay is dealing more with the government not releasing information that has to do with national security. Also, I would try to avoid dealing with taboo issues like child pornography as evidence in my essays.

[sahilshah1987]

Thanks Oldman for your review.I will definitely not use such evidences later on .

[Shalom Ichthys]

I go along with the former reply that sets censorship apart from concealment.

I think that it is an essay that somehow clings onto political-correctness.

To withhold information due to national security is impeccable, and nobody dares to challenge the administration.

However, to withhold information due to public upheaval is tortuous and confounded.

In China, the preemption of information dissemination is too invincible to overhaul.

And still, it alludes to the more fundamental concern of universal freedom of speech.

In the States, a riot is hardly envisaged to be concealed and not letting the rest of the public know.

However, in China, it's the other side of the story, hardly would anyone outside (or even inside) the village know.

And the accessibility of information and the multiplicity of viewpoints are matters of prolonged debate within Sino-US relations.

This said, I would not use the communal chaos to argue for or against the point, rather, I would delve into universal security concerns.

For various matters of civil administration, I suppose you can make an inroad by contradiction, a methodology that I usually adopts in pure mathematics. It is to posit a null case first, then by rejecting the null, you argue for the hypothesis. In this contextual, WHAT IF a political leader veils something of mass interests, say the rejuvenation of the harborside park? If it's released, public hearings can be summoned to generate collective wisdom on the most prevalently accepted way of doing so. If not, then I suppose even more scrutiny would be raised by the watchdogs and the skeptics. Would there be an under-table transfer of pecuniary interests, or to shut the mouth of the nagging dissenters? Even so, would a full-stop be placed at the midst of the politician's career? After all, what if somebody goes to the Court in an attempt to overturn the decision, or the legislators filibustering the bill for financial allotment? All these pragmatically enervate the rationale to withhold information with regard to public interest. Well, no need to quote the First Amendment, just the political life suffices to deal a blow, right?

 

The language is fluent, and the prose demonstrates a certain degree of lexical variety, though more are welcome.

The points are reasonably articulated, though I think a more compelling case could be argued for national security.