Imagine that you are the government of Singapore. What would you do with 40 million dollars? Build a new MRT route? Buy state of the art artilleries? Or would you rather improve on Singapore’s most popular shopping district, Orchard Road? That is exactly what the Singapore government did. However, I strongly believe that the 40 million dollars could have been better spent elsewhere. In this essay, I would show why I think the 40 million dollars was not well spent as the makeover was largely ignored and because of the leaf litters at Orchard Road.
The ornaments the government spent 40 million dollars on to beautify Orchard Road went largely unnoticed by many people shopping at Orchard Road. The Singapore Straits time interviewed 100 people along Orchard Road and out of the 100, 60 people noticed some changes. However, out of the 60 people, half could state only one change. Many people who were interviewed said that they “hardly noticed the difference”. This poll conducted by The Straits Times have shown that 40% of the people did not notice any change, 30% noticed only one change, 30% of the people could point out more changes. This goes to show that many people did not notice the new improvement works. Orchard Road is a shopping district and its main purpose is to allow people to shop. Since the new changes were mostly ornamental and unnoticeable and many people did not feel any difference, it can be concluded that the new makeover did nothing much to improve the shopping experience. Moreover, even if people have noticed these changes, they were viewed at in a negative way. A teacher interviewed by The Straits Times said that the many glass panels are of danger hazard to the public as people may get drunk and smash them. Also, a few people commented that the flower totems are annoying as they block their view.
Many people would have argued that since Orchard is the primary shopping district of Singapore and is a tourist attraction, thus by beautifying Orchard, many more tourists would be attracted to it. Henceforth, the 40 million dollars was a good long term investment. I do not agree with this viewpoint. Beauty is defined as “a combination of qualities that delights the aesthetic senses” by Oxford Dictionary. I do agree that since tourists are probably new to Orchard Road, they would most likely notice the new makeover. Although the new ornaments would improve the appearance of Orchard, Orchard is still dirty on the whole. A few locals have commented on the numerous dead leaves littered on the ground and that although the pavements are beautiful, the dead leaves spoil the whole aesthetic appeal. It is well-known globally that Singapore is a ‘garden city’. Tourists come over to Singapore expecting a ‘clean and green’ city. Imagine how disappointed these tourists will be and what impression they would have when they see the filthy pavements at Orchard Road. No matter how pleasant the new ornaments look, they would still be shaded by the unkempt paths. Imagine that you are entering a house decorated by priceless beautiful Ming vases, paintings by renowned artists and exquisite furniture. It would have been a beautiful sight if not for the strewn newspapers all over the floor. That is exactly what the condition is like in Orchard Road.
In conclusion, the 40 million dollars spent on the Orchard road ‘facelift’ was not well spent. Not only did it provide minimal positive effects, it brought about more complaints and worries. It seems that the ‘cosmetic surgery’ had backfired, leaving behind an Orch-hurt Road.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
(Why're you "Bernie"? I was trying to figure out for awhile whether I'd got the URL wrong.)
ReplyDeleteI won't comment on grammar or expression here, though there seems to be a few moments where it's a little awkward.
For your first argument, the main argument seemed to be that "Since the new changes were mostly ornamental and unnoticeable and many people did not feel any difference", but you might want to elaborate on that a little. Sometimes upgrading doesn't need to be noticeable to be good - If StarHub/SingTel lays more underground cables to your house and your internet speed increases, for example, that's not noticeable (by sight) but probably a good thing!
So what I'm suggesting here is to explain that the upgrading was meant to be aesthetically pleasing (if that's where your argument was going), but failed because most people failed to notice it, or even found it worse than before.
I'm also not too sure what the second argument was about - the first point mentions that as a long-term investment for our tourism sector, it might have been a good move. You then go on to talk about the leaf litter. That's valid enough, but you need to link it better.
I'll suggest something like talking about how the money could have been better channelled to other methods of beautifying Orchard rather than adding ornaments - for example, since Singapore is already known as a 'garden city', more money could have been spent on 'green beautification', or even just maintaining the cleanliness of the area and preventing leaf litter from accumulating.
If you don't, it just seems like you're saying "Spending money might be good for tourism in the long term, but I disagree. Observe the leaf litter! It's ugly!" Can you see that more linkages are required?
Hope this helps. Feel free to email/comment on the portal if you have any more queries.