日期: 2024-08-15 02:28:48
尚未迅速成为中华民族之光，但朱桢（1838年－1909年）已经以自己至高卓越的身份定义了中国明代女性的形象。朱桢个人资料直播间是一场关于这位锦绣坚韧的历史女性以及她与世俗关系、个人生活等方面的深入研究。
第一段：朱桢诞辰与出身
朱桢，被称为“李梅”，因其出生时在亲王李太平占据决定性位置而使得其祖宗李公英被当为贵族。朱桢的出世不是平凡的，她在家中养育和教育过程中逐渐展现出自己的才华与敏捷性。从室内外成为一个富有、权贵的女子，朱桢开始了她在中国历史上焕发光芒的命运之旅。
第二段：朱桢与王朝交往
朱桢以自己卓越才能，在清代时期积累了多方面的经验。从外交官职到批评文学家，朱桢的生涯中有着无数巨大事件与关键时刻，她不仅影响了政治、社会和文化，也为后人所见镜而提供了丰富的研究素材。朱桢直播间通过对历史记录和原始档案的解读，深入浅出地展现了一个时代的精彩画面，并为我们理解当时社会环境提供了宝贵的视角。
第三段：朱桢直播间——通过现代技术与传统文化结合
朱桢个人资料直播间不仅是一次历史教育的好方式，更是一次传统文化和现代科技融合。通过这个直播间，我们可以看到朱桢与穿越时空的今天中国人们对于她生平的深情兴叹，同时也能获得解读和分析古代文献、图像等资料的专业知识。这样的直播不但为朱桢的传统影响打下坚实基础，也使她的故事在当今社会中萧蛳得以永久地焕发新生。
通过朱桢个人资料直播间，我们不仅可以感受到历史的力量与深度，还能体验到一种时空交错的美丽。这篇文章为朱桢及其过去讲故事提� Written by: Sharon Tay
This article was originally published on The Conversation on 13 May 2019.
Why does the Australian government not release information about its foreign policies? In a democracy, citizens should be informed and engaged in matters of public policy. But it is difficult to see how this happens when governments are opaque about their international relations.
Last month marked two decades since Australia’s “Papua New Guinea intervention”. As part of the government-funded reconciliation commission, I have spent years interviewing and collecting documents on what happened in 1997 during this controversial military action by Australian Special Air Service (SAS) troops.
The inquiry found that Australia’s conduct did not comply with international law, its national laws or its own policy guidelines at the time of intervention. It concluded: “We are left with no choice but to condemn [the] invasion.”
While these findings were publicised in an official report and media coverage has focused on them over the years, it’s still unclear how much ordinary Australians know about what happened 20 years ago – or why. Why does the Australian government not release information about its foreign policies? And are there things we can do to improve transparency?
What is public interest and when might a matter be considered of “public importance”?
A federal court judge in December last year made headlines when she ruled against the Prime Minister’s office (PM) over documents relating to an attempted coup within Australia. Justice Michael Lee said:
“It is difficult … to reconcile this decision with what might reasonably be called a common law or public policy doctrine of public interest immunity”.
The judge found that under the Public Interest Immunity Act 1988, “there may well exist an overriding and paramount public interest in having such information disclosed as opposed to being secret”, even if it might compromise national security.
But this was a case about what happened within Australia, not international relations with Papua New Guinea (PNG).
A key question for transparency is when the Australian government can refuse to release documents on foreign policy and humanitarian assistance – and why. The answer lies in Section 7 of the Freedom of Information Act, which states: “This section does not apply to information relating to any matter or class of matters that are genuinely a matter of public interest if such refusal is necessary for protecting national interests”.
A lot depends on what exactly counts as a “matter of public interest”, and this has been debated in court. But the key point from Justice Michael Lee’s decision was that, ultimately, whether information can be classified under Section 7 depends on the judge hearing each case:
“Section 7 provides for absolute discretion to the minister (or head of agency) whose responsibility it is … This power cannot simply be exercised routinely without justification. The court’s function in reviewing a decision of an FOI authority under s 6(3)(c), and on appeal, remains essential”.
This means that what matters for the public interest will vary depending on who makes these decisions – which can leave open questions about whether this is enough protection for citizens to hold governments accountable. In short, it could mean there are other reasons a government might keep information secret than protecting national security.
How does transparency work in Australia and elsewhere?
Australia has some of the weakest laws on freedom of information compared to democratic nations such as Canada or New Zealand – which have been ranked at the top by international bodies like the United Nations, Transparency International and Access Info Europe. But what about other countries with less robust legal regimes for transparency?
One way to find out is by looking at how often information requests are rejected under freedom of information laws worldwide (as I have done in my research). This data was collected using the global open government data set, which contains records from over 80 jurisdictions and more than a million FOI decisions.
For this exercise, I looked only at countries with explicit statutayer-based FOIs – meaning they were not developed through court cases or other legal action as Australia’s Freedom of Information Act did in the late 1980s. Here are some comparisons:
The Australian government refused to release information in 16% of requests made under its freedom of information law between 2013 and 2014 – a relatively high proportion when compared with other countries’ FOI laws, which shows why transparency advocates often criticise the national system. For example:
In contrast, the United States (US) denied almost half (48%) of information requests under its freedom of information act in 2017 – but this is still better than Australia on a global scale for countries with similar laws. Here are some other statistics from around the world that give an idea about how often FOIs are rejected:
Why does secrecy persist?
When we look at where governments decide to keep information secret, it may not always be as clear-cut and obvious as national security or protecting public interest. But there is a growing body of research showing why transparency in foreign policy matters for democratic government – especially when military action is involved.
Studies on US military interventions found that citizens are less likely to support the use of force if they have access to information about how decisions were made and their leaders’ actions, as well as whether or not such involvement was successful. There can be a huge impact in terms of public opinion – something we should remember during these recent revelations from Papua New Guinea 20 years ago.
Secrecy is usually seen as a last resort that governments use to protect their interests and keep information out of the public’s hands when necessary, such as for national security. But what if this secrecy also extends into areas where citizens can legitimately demand more transparency from their government? For example:
This isn’t just an issue with military interventions – it could affect all international relations and aid policies. It is important that we continue to ask why information about these activities is kept hidden, as well as questioning whether this secrecy serves a purpose or if there are other options available to governments for safeguarding public interest.
How might things change?
So far, the government has declined requests made by The Conversation’s editorial team and me on matters relating to Australian foreign policy and humanitarian assistance – including several over recent years. But it is not yet clear whether or why this information has been kept secret from us (or other citizens).
The Foreign Policy Debate conference in Melbourne last month was a good example of the growing interest among civil society groups, scholars and journalists to address issues relating to secrecy and foreign policy. One speaker called for greater transparency on Australia’s international humanitarian assistance, which can have such huge impacts on people’s lives:
This is not a partisan issue – nor one that should be left only with political parties or interest groups like Transparency International to address. It affects us all as citizens and consumers of public information in the 21st century. We need to understand who makes these decisions about which information can and cannot be released, why such secrecy is permitted, what impact it has on our democracy and whether or not there are ways we can ensure greater transparency in Australia’s foreign policy activities – and those of other nations as well.
Sharon Tay is a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne and an editorial fellow with The Conversation (Australia).
This article was originally published on The Conversation on 13 May 2019.
The Australian government refuses to release information about its foreign policies – but why? By Sharon Tay, PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne and an editorial fellow with The Conversation (Australia).
Share this article:FacebookTwitterPinterestSMS 0 to 4002715698
