Should Political Leaders Withhold Information from Public?

Today, as our society [has] highly developed, people require that governments should be a transparency [transparent] government system instead of a dinosaurian bureaucracy. There is no secret behind the government due to the capable [widespread availability] of the Internet. The [This] powerful tool will reveal[s] everything what the government has done soon or later [in just a few clicks]. However, [when websites leak out what the authority deems as confidential information, the issue becomes problematic.] when information contains the material which authority called confidential. It becomes tricky. It lets the door opened to politicians who want to [make illegal profits through] benefit themselves by public resources. The abus[e]ing of national bounty will damage the social welfare which belongs to hard-working tax payers. So the authority should disclos[e]sure any information to the public. l The introduction seems OK at the beginning. But the reader feels confused when you suddenly bring in the Internet in the second sentence. To make the sentences flow more efficiently, you would need to add something to explain why the Internet has laid bare the truth behind those governmental organizations. Also, by using modifiers like any, you risk sounding too absolute when making your argument. Is it really the case that the authority should disclose all information no matter the consequences? Common sense tells us that there must be some circumstances in which it would be wise for the government not to reveal the truth. To make your argument/thesis sound more convincing, you may add some reasons to explain why uncovering hidden information to the public is best for the government. [To those maintain the idea that nations interest should beyond peoples welfare.] [?] Political leaders have the rights to keep information beneath the truth [?]. Politicians claim that all those government budges applied to secret activities [such as?] would benefit our country. People should not link government activities as benefiting particular groups. Public should have faith [in] to the governments determination that they try to create better [improve] social welfare. Seemingly, it sounds true in the beginnings. But what those supporters have forgotten [is] that our political leaders [were] selected through fair and opened election. Asking political leaders not to manipulate information is the same thing to the public [?]. l The second paragraph is very problematic. First, it provides hardly any explanation or elaboration of your argument, and is merely a repetition of your introduction at best. Second, you seem to offer some counterarguments at the beginning like people should have faith in the government and something like that. But you fail to provide more reason why your opponents would have such remarks and under why kind of situation do they think so. Also, the last sentences reads awkward, thus barring your ideas from getting across to the reader. Withholding information means people will suffer from consequences. [Why?] If political leaders think their people ahead, [If political leaders have their peoples best interests at heart,] they will not keep information archive privately [?]. They will take the chance to make things right instead of digging a hole to bury more secrets. [?] Taking [Take the] financial crisis [that] happened in Greece in 2011 [for example]. In order to be one of the members of the Eurozone, the Greece [Greek] government creates a phantom [created an illusion] that the growth in domestic demand and foreign investment has [had] boosted the Greece economy. It turns[turned] out the Greece wants [wanted] to drag [the European Union into this so that it could be] all Euro economy as their life ring to cover their [its] tremendous financial deficits. The Greece
1

[Greek] leaders reluctance to assume responsibility and tell public the truth shatter [has shattered] the worlds economy. Those politician[s] bury their great country [?] by manipulating the information [They weren t really manipulating, so to speak.] of their fiscal difficulties. l This paragraph is better structured. But it suffers from frequent erroneous word choice and some other grammatical mistakes. Also, in the last few sentences, you seem to be repeating similar ideas like Greece has shattered world economy because it hid their financial problems to the EU! and Greece jeopardized the EU because it manipulated their information.! All these sentences serve as generalizations at best and fail to provide more specific details of how the Greek government manipulated the information. That said, in order to make your paragraph richer in content, you need to give the reader some lively examples to illustrate how the Greek government has endangered world economy by not telling the truth. In other words, examples, examples, examples. This strategy of writing is called: show, don"t tell. (That is, you provide detailed examples of how Greece hid and manipulated the information rather than telling the reader that yes, I m telling you that Greece manipulated the EU. In my view, since politicians try to benefit our country[, they] . They dont have to be afraid to hearing the different thoughts from the public [discord among the public?]. It also provides a better opportunity for them to rethink a better solution. [Vague Whats the pronoun it referring to? And why was it important that it could provide those politicians an opportunity to rethink a better solution? Whats that solution and hows that important?] Hiding information only jeopardizes peoples feelings. [Only jeopardizes peoples feelings? Its got to be more severe than that, since jeopardize is a word used to describe serious events.] It create[s] [a distrustful] distrust climate to the [in a] country [and can] even make it [refers to?] worst. After all, time will reveal the truth no matter how those politicians manipulate [the] information. l This paragraph seems to be your major argument. But apparently it suffers from some grammar breakdowns. Also some word choices like jeopardizes people"s feelings! has prevented your ideas from getting across clearly to your reader. You need to explicate and provide more examples if you want to argue that hiding information from the public will hurt people"s feelings. You may also need to tell the reader why and how the citizens will eventually find out the truth even if the government has tried to hide it. There are many ways I which people can find out about what the government has lied to them. For example, the Internet or mass media can all play a role in uncovering scandal. Here is how you should write more about the Internet that you have mentioned in your introduction. To recap [this word choice seems rather colloquial] what we have [is] mentioned above.[,] I believe only [with] absolute honesty wins [can politicians win] peoples [long-lasting] trust and lasts long. Sophisticated digits [?] or fancy words addressed by the government are the last thing we need to know. No one has the right to cover it. [it refers to?] l You need to improve your choice of words here. If you do want to argue that it is through absolute truth that the politicians can win over people"s trust, you may explain it in detail in earlier paragraphs. Otherwise, your paragraphs will be full of generalizations (i.e., claims) but lack detailed examples (i.e., reasons) to support those claims.