第一次写 issue一篇 真诚欢迎拍砖，找茬
马晓龙
Online/translation：
政治领导是一项艰苦的工作，甚至是一种艺术。政治家必须要有杰出的智慧和勇气。因而政治领导人向公众隐瞒信息是可以理解的。但是没有限制的过分的隐瞒信息只会适得其反，引起负面效果。
诚然，在一些特殊和敏感的问题面前，政治领导者非常必要有选择性的避免信息向公众的传播，否则一些意想不到的后果反而会增加社会的不安定因素，甚至伤害公众的重要利益。比如说古巴导弹危机前期，肯尼迪总统…因而在必要的时候，向公众隐瞒信息是维持社会稳定的必要措施。
但是，政治领导人不能没有限度的隐瞒重要信息。首先公民有知情权，一些重要的影响国家前途的决定应当让所有的人民都知道，否则就是一种变相的欺骗。这不仅仅是重视人民的基本权利，也是基于这样的事实：很多影响深远的意见想法必须得到人民的有效反馈之后才能被指定为政策或者措施。
而且，政治领导人对信息的过度隐瞒往往会被认为可能与个人的不良企图有着某种联系，甚至破坏已有的民主政治体系。这样的隐瞒可能是在为他们自己巨大个人利益铺路。这样的行径是不符合道德准则和法律要求的。Nixon的watergate就是一个妇孺皆知的例子，Nixon为维护自己而极力掩盖和隐瞒事实，甚至滥用职权罢免官员的行为严重威胁了宪法的权威和民主的地位，并在美国历史上产生深远影响。
除此之外，对信息的过度隐瞒对政治领导人本身的政治前途也鲜有好处。对信息的隐瞒会招致选民对他及其政府公信力的质疑，影响领导人的晋升或者连任。Nixon的下台和watergate scandal后不久Republican Party的式微都是有利的写照（the enormous effect on the upcoming Senate election and House race）。相反，对人民的坦诚则会换来民众的拥戴和支持，Gandhi 和Martin Luther King Jr都因此而深受他的人民的支持。
In the final analysis, 在特殊敏感问题上的信息的保密对实现社会的最终利益是有必要而且有效果的，但是，过分强调对信息的隐瞒是既不合理也不合法的，为实现个人的私利而封锁信息，对民众的欺骗最终于私于公都没有好处。这个复杂问题实际上是要求政治领导人在私利和公利间做个权衡，以及是否需要隐瞒信息以及隐瞒的程度。
Political leadership is a hard occupation and sometimes regarded as a type of art. In the process of leadership, the politicians must be of outstanding wisdom and courage. Based on this view, it’s, to some extent, reasonable of political leaders to withhold information from the public. However, over-withholding information without any limit may only work the opposite and bring about negative effects.
Admittedly, confronted with some special and sensitive cases, political leaders indeed necessitate managing to avoid selective information spreading to the public in order to prevent some unpredictable factors that sway social stability and jeopardize the fundamental interests of the public. For example, in the early period of Cuban Missile Crisis, the President Kennedy blocked up relevant information from the ordinary people to successfully avert great fears. Such measures are essential in such emergent cases.
However, just as the saying goes, “enough is as good as a feast.” Political leaders can’t over-withhold information, even without any restriction, from the public. The threshold question is the citizens’ right to know. Policies and measures which cast tremendous effect on the development of the whole country and society must reach the public, which otherwise would be political fraud. Actually, the open access to information is obedient to the citizens’ right as well as relied on the consideration that only with the permission of majority feedback from citizens can lots of far-reaching and crucial proposes and ideas switch into policies and measures.
In addition, the behaviors of over-withholding information of political leaders are often connected with their aberrant objectives out of their personal benefits and even with the damage to the democracy of political system. It’s obviously beyond the moral and juristic restrictions to render such concealment the contribution to their individual purposes. Watergate Scandal is a famous example of the above. In order to maintain his own political rights, Richard Nixon managed to conceal all facts and, what’s more, took a risk to abuse president rights to compel the resignation of several officials, which posed a spectacular threat to the constitutional authorities.
Another reason to bolster my view is that over-withholding information is, as well, unbeneficial to the political leaders themselves. Concealment of information may give a rise to the increase of objections and queries to them and their governments’ credibility, which subsequently drastically affect their promotion or reelection. Also considering Watergate Scandal, the advance resignation of Nixon and the enormously adverse influences on the Republican Party in the upcoming Senate election and House race are firm evidences to the assertion. On the contrary, leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, who keep their genuineness to the public, win their people’s permanent advocacy and esteem instead.
In final analysis, when encountered with sensitive and emergent cases, limitedly withholding information from the public is necessary for political leaders so as to assure fundamental interests of the majority. Nevertheless, it’s neither rational nor legal to overdo it. In reality, concealment of essential information to the public for individual purposes accomplishes nothing to both the public and the leaders themselves. The complexities in this issue are, as I see it, the extent which the amount of information should be withheld and the balance in which there are both public and personal benefits. Any wise and effective political leader must address this stubborn problem.
--
MSN: mxl3...@hotmail.com
Moblie:13656677805
Frank Ma
Zhejiang University HangZhou
In case I won't see you, good afternoon, good evening and good night.