RVHSCID2- Beh Wan Ting (01)

Personally, I feel that tourism actually have both positive and negative effect on the heritage icons. Firstly, tourism add value to the heritage icons as the tourists who visit these icons have a better understanding of these icon and learn more about the country's history and culture. But these heritage icons are significant and represents the country, this adds value as the history and culture are spread and may have influence on the western culture. But tourism devalues the heritage icons as man western food are introduced to ensure the comfortability of the tourists, which are insignificant and does not represent the country. Despite ensuring that the tourists are comfortable in these places, but we must not forget that they are unique because of the significance it holds in that country. Thus I conclude that there are pros and cons to what tourism have on heritage icons.

I think that Mr LKY's house should be demolished. I think that it should be demoslished as it is stated in his and his wife's will that if they pass away, the house should be demolished. Since it is stated in their will, i think we should respect their decisions and therefore not keep the house. Even though keeping the house may be good for the younger generations to learn and study about our history and our founding father. But i think that we should then placed the significant artefacts in the museum instead for it is more efficient for the students to carry out learning. Then this woupd create a win-win  for both the public and the house. Learning about significance of the house is important but j think we should not disrespect their decision, hence the house should be demolished.

Personally, I think that it is a dilemma and one that is serious as sacrifices would be made. First, we consider about our natural greenery and the other to consider is our industries that is concerning our economic growth.  I think that instead of having a dilemma to focus on one, we can balance both economic growth and protection of environment at the same time. Firstly, a country like Singapore is a small island surrounded by water, and if we focuses on the economic growth, more space would be used to build factories and more trees would be cut in order to create space for the building of factories. But doing this also causes Singapore to not have enough trees to take in the carbon dioxide, moreover this would then lead to global warming which is what every country is trying to avoid. Moreover, the factories that are built and the products that are made may not be popular and the companies would suffer great loss and the environment too. Although focusing on industries and econo

Standard of living is the degree of wealth and material comfort available to a person or community according to Google. In my opinion, high standard of living can have positive and negative effects. Having a high standard of living in the country, first the people will have things of a wide variety, better quality, but that is also dependant on whether the people have the ability to afford them. Even with the country having high standard of living, the families which cannot afford may suffer. Higher standard of living means that the amount that the people need to pay for is more thus the amount of income that they have may not be sufficient and thus need to find more jobs to maintain the standard of living. To add on, finding jobs is very difficult as they require qualifications and skills thus making their lives tougher. But this also have a positive effect on the people as they learn to spend money wisely, on what they need and not what they want. According to 'Today", Singa