Teachers' union calls for ballot on primary test boycott - BBC Education and Family

Teacher's union calls for ballot on primary test boycott - BBC Education and Family

SUMMARY:
The National Union of Teachers annual conference held in Brighton on Sunday accused the primary school testing system of being unreliable and extremely confusing, especially with the baseline tests being introduced. These test were created to provide a starting point to measure student's future progress through primary school, however, critics argue that "This is not what the first six weeks of school should be about." Additionally, these test are not providing students with an accurate gauge of their abilities, resulting in students leaving school incapable of performing up to the standard middle school students are supposed to perform at. This is largely as the content tested in tests are too high-leveled for students of 6-12 years of age.

OPINION:
Clearly, the topics being taught and tested in primary schools are unnecessary to the success of students at later parts of their lives. Primary schools should be focusing on teaching the basics of languages and mathematics to students, not giving them Math Olympiad level sums to solve. While some students may be intellectual enough to solve these problems without proper understanding of the basics, moving on to do well in middle school, others fall behind due to their inability to master the basics. This in turn results in them suffering when moving on to high levels of education, possibly causing them to be unable to catch up to their peers in middle and high schools. Middle and High Schools are the time when grades become a significant part of their lives, and may affect their chances of getting into their dream university of even pursuing their passion in their dream job. In addition, primary school should not be concentrated on testing students on their abilities, but instead allowing them to learn at their own pace and discover their passion. Although end-year assessments are encouraged, schools should refrain from conducting frequent tests as at the ages of 6-12, students have a lower level of maturity, hence making tests an inaccurate gauge of their abilities. Moreover, it can also be detrimental to a child's health if he experiences too much stress, caused by tests, at such a young age. Therefore, as we believe that primary school should strictly be for learning, not continuous assessment, primary test should be boycotted.

RR tourism by Teckweng

I agree with the writer that mass tourism results in environmental damage. As there is mass tourism in a country, the country needs to provide facilities such as hotels to accomodate to the needs of the tourists. These facilities will need a lot of land and so, as these facilities take up land, plants and wildlife lose their homes. Eco systems and diversity will be damaged and it will never be the same again.
The writer states that in Philippines, "when coastal areas are converted into beach resorts, mangrove areas and corals that serve as fish sanctuaries are damaged or even completely removed" The coastal areas contain homes for marine animals

RR Tourism by Celest Seah

I disagree with the author that mass tourism threatens to destroy a country’s culture and environment and affects the local people negatively. Tourism can bring great economic benefits to a country by raking in additional income from tourists' expenses. When more tourists spend money in the country, the country will benefit economically. According to the writer, “tourism has become an ubiquitous sector in the Philippine’s economy. In 2012, alone, it contributed 6.0% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)”. This shows how important tourism is to a country economical growth. It brings in high revenues, allowing the prosperity of a country. Similarly, the total contribution of tourism to GDP was SGD39.7billionm which is 10.9% of GDP. Therefore, these datas shows the importance of tourism to a country's economy.

RR Tourism by Huiying

  Firstly, I agree with the writer on the point raised about how mass tourism threatens to destroy a country's environment. With tourism, a country is greatly benefitted economically. Hence, if a country would like to continue to prosper through tourism, there is a need for the country to provide facilities and services such as hotels, tourist attractions or they would need to further develop their transport infrastructure in order to cater to the needs of tourists. The provision of such facilities cause a depletion in natural resources as well as land degradation, where wildlife, forests and wetland are affected. The writer states that in Philippines, "when coastal areas are converted into beach resorts, mangrove areas and corals that serve as fish sanctuaries are damaged or even completely removed". Tourism also worsens the air quality as the writer also states that in the Philippines, "carbon emissions and air pollution also significantly increase, as more air and land-based vehicles are needed to transport tourists from one destination to another." In Singapore, tourism has also affected our environment as it worsened the depletion of our water resources. As of 2014, Singapore had 392 hotels and if each hotel uses an average of 21, 537 gallons of water per day, it is obvious that a lot of our water is pumped into these hotels and there is a possibility of Singapore facing water scarcity in the future. Therefore, with the problems that arise due to tourism, I believe that tourism brings about many harmful effects on a country's environment.

RR Tourism by Shawn

  Firstly, I agree with the writer that mass tourism threatens to destroy a country's environment as mass tourism would lead to an increased number of vehicles. As stated in the passage," Carbon emissions and air pollution also significantly increase, as more air and land-based vehicles are needed to transport tourists from one destination to another." This shows that the number of people in a country would increase due to tourism. To cater to the tourists needs, there would be more transport vehicles to transport tourists around the country to different tourists attractions. This would result in an increase of carbon emissions released into the air as these vehicles release harmful gases such as carbon monoxide. This would definately affect the country's health quality. For Singapore, it has contributed 3% of its GDP which has generated a sum of US$ 9.4 billion in 2007 for tourism. Although tourism in Singapore is important, this shows that Singapore's environment would be affected as there would be more tourism infrastructures and this would lead to more air pollution. Therefore, I agree with the writer that mass tourism threatens to destroy a country's environment as it would lead to an increase in the number of vehicles.

RR tourism by Chong Kar Wai

I agree with the writer that tourism causes environmental impact. Tourism increases traffic which leads to environmental destruction. According to the passage, colossal traffic jams are created by unchecked growth that congests many main roads especially junctions. This therefore leads to increase in air pollution due to the exhaust fumes produced by cars, affecting the environment. As tourism increases, number on cars grow and the roads are congested, causing the cars to waste more engine staying at one area. With a target of 17 million visitors, there is a high risk of more air pollution from carbon emissions from planes and land transport. Moreover,  there would be more littering as foreigners may think that they do not need to maintain Singapore cleanliness as it is not their country and will start littering. Therefore tourism leads to pollution in the air and on land.

RR Tourism by Faith Lim

I agree with the writer that mass tourism threatens to destroy a country's environment. Tourism requires a lot of land space as it is necessary to expand successful businesses and commerce to attract more tourists. Thus, habitats for various animal species are cleared to make way for further land development, increasing the loss of biodiversity. The writer stated that "When coastal areas are converted into beach resorts, mangrove areas and corals that serve as fish sanctuaries are damaged or even completely removed." These animals are forced to be driven out of their homes to live in unsuitable environments. They might die due to them not being able to adjust to the new living environment. With these animals dying out, they will soon be endangered might even go extinct. Land reclamation contributed to 17% more land for development in Singapore. However, according to research, coast areas shrunk and mangrove areas have been reduced to only 0.5% of the total land area. This led to the loss of coastal ecosystems as habitats of animals are destroyed. Hence, I agree that tourism threatens to destroy a country's environment due to an increase in the loss of biodiversity. 

RR Tourism by Yi Le

I disagree that tourism threatens to destroy a country's culture, environment and affect the local people. Tourism contributes to a significant portion of economies in both contexts, Singapore and the Philippines. It boosts the economy and contributes to the overall growth of the country. In 2012, tourism contributed 6.0% to the Philippines' Gross Domestic Product (GDP), an ubiquitous sector in the Philippine economy. This is because tourists are attracted to the Philippines hence they travel to Philippines and spend money on various tourist amenities such as hotels, casinos and amusement parks, generating huge amounts of profit. More funds can be allocated to different departments such as healthcare, defense or housing, improving standards of living and contributing to the prosperity of the nation. Likewise, tourism contributed 10.9% of Singapore's GDP in 2012, contributing to the growth of the nation through money channeled to various ministries to improve the nation. Hence, I feel that tourism is not a threat, but is a benefit to countries' economies. 

RR Tourism by Lim Jun Ren

Firstly, I agree with the writer that tourism is a great threat to the local heritage sites and it definitely affects the culture of the local people. Their lifestyles are changed and affected such that they are often uncomfortable with the government's decision on tourism development. As such, locals are not used to these new changes. When heritage sites are being torn down for tourism purposes, the value and culture within it is lost too. There is no longer a form of knowledge of their culture to be passed down to the future generations. According to the passage, historic building sites are demolished to make way for hotels in Manila, and the aim was to provide accommodation to visitors of "Historic Manila". In Singapore, the Bidadari cemetery which served Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Sinhalese communities was cleared for development. The culture of these sites are gone and in the long term, locals do not follow the tradition of visiting an ancestor's tomb. As a result, the culture of locals in Singapore is lost and indirectly affects the future generation. Thus, I agree with the writer that mass tourism destroys the culture of local people.

RR Tourism by Karen Chong

I agree with the writer as mass tourism indeed threatens to destroy a country's environment. Due to mass tourism, the environment has been negatively impacted. In order to accommodate for all the tourists, hotels and resorts, land and forests have to be sacrificed and animals lose their natural habitat. When there are fewer animals and trees, there will be more air pollution and carbon emissions. Animals and plants going extinct as well. This will cause the residents living there will have to suffer as well since they have to breathe in polluted air and have less lands to build their own houses since land are all occupied by hotels and restaurants. From the passage, the writer stated that "coastal areas are converted into beach resorts, mangrove areas and coral that serve as fish sanctuaries are damaged." From Singapore the harm mass tourism have caused can be seen as well. One example is that Singapore produces 141 million tonnes of carbon emission, 33rd highest emitter of greenhouse gases among 215 countries. This shows that mass tourism has caused harm to the environment. Hence, I agree with the writer.

RR Tourism by H'ng Ying Jia

I agree with the writer that tourism has a destructive impact on the environment. For tourism, there will be an increase number of people, especially visitors, in using different kinds of transportation. When there is more transportation used, more greenhouse gases are emitted. Cars emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Cars also produce other harmful air pollutants which contribute to poor air quality such as smog. The passage also stated carbon emissions and air pollution also significantly increase, as more air and land-based vehicles are needed to transport tourists from one destination to another. There is also example in Singapore that show that tourism causes air pollution. For example, with a target of 17 million visitors coming to Singapore in 2015, there is a high chance of more air pollution from all the carbon emissions from planes and land transport. Thus, I think that tourism is destroying the environment by causing air pollution, even in a society like Singapore. Therefore, I agree with the writer that tourism brings detrimental effects to the environment.

RR Tourism by Cheryl Teo

I agree with the writer's view that mass tourism threatens to destroy a country's environment. Mass tourism often leads to the destruction of the environment, as the government has to make more space for infrastructure development and modernization brought about by tourism. As mentioned in the article, when coastal areas are converted into beach resorts, mangrove areas and corals that serve as fish sanctuaries are damaged or even completely removed. Carbon emissions and air pollution also significantly increase, as more air and land-based vehicles are needed to transport tourists from one destination to another. Not only that, mass tourism also affects Singapore's environment. Singapore has lost 90 per cent of its forest, 67 per cent of its birds, 40 per cent of its mammals and 5 per cent of its amphibians and reptiles. Of the original mangroves, less than 5 per cent is left. 39 per cent of all native coastal plants are extinct. A large proportion of the remaining species are endangered and their habitats are threatened by urban development and land reclamation. Thus I agree with the author as this shows that urban development for mass tourism threatens to destroy a country's environment.

RR Tourism by Lu Yan Yang

I  disagree that tourism threatens a country as it contributes greatly to the economy. The writer said in the passage that there were economic benefits brought in by the hordes of visitors, for example, Philippine tourism's current “It’s More Fun in the Philippines” campaign—it has become an ubiquitous sector in the Philippine economy. In 2012 alone, it contributed 6.0% to the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This shows that tourism contributed greatly to Philippines' economy. It is not just so in Philippines. In Singapore, tourism's total contribution to the gross domestic product is 10.9%. This further proves that both countries are heavily reliant on tourism as it contributes a large portion to the countries' economy, and can bring about prosperity and the funds needed for development. Thus, I disagree with the writer that tourism threatens to destroy a country, because it contributes greatly to the economy, hence allowing faster development.

RR Tourism by Foo Kye Loon

I agree that mass tourism threatens to destroy a country's environment as it causes a loss of biodiversity. The writer explains that when coastal areas in Philippines are converted into beach resorts, mangrove areas and corals that serve as fish sanctuaries are damaged or even completely removed. This causes the loss of natural habitats for the fishes and they are either forced to migrate of die off. When more coastal areas are cleared with the rising number of tourists, these fishes would have even fewer places to live and some of the species of fishes may become endangered or extinct. According to research, more than 95 percent of of the estimated 540 square kilometers of original vegetation in Singapore has been cleared since the British first established a presence here. With so much deforestation going on in Singapore, many natural habitats of the animals living here are destroyed, leaving the animals with nowhere to live, resulting in the death of these animals and possibly their entire species. If deforestation continues to go on to clear land for hotels and tourist attractions, more animal species would meet the same fate. Thus, mass tourism destroys a country's environment as it results in a loss of biodiversity.

RR Tourism by Park Shin Young

I agree with the author that masss tourism threatens to destroy a country’s culture and environment and affect the local people.

I think that tourism will bring enviromental harm to the country. Due to tourism, the country might have to change natural habitats and environment into recreational areas. This is a result of the country's attempt to attract more tourist to the country for economical benefits. This causes much harm to the country as if the country is only built for tourism, the locals living in the country will suffer. In addition to the fact that tourism destroys natural habitats, tourism also requires natural resources to be given up. In the passage, the author stated that when coastal areas were converted into beach resorts, mangrove areas and corals that serve as fish sanctuaries were damaged or even completely removed. The clearing of natural habitat and resources caused harm to the living things living in these areas. These creatures living in the habitats may die as their habitats have been damaged or removed. A local example is Resort World Sentosa. When the recreational area, was built, 49 hectares of land was used, clearing 30% of rainforest existed, causing living organisms to die or migrate to other place. 

In conclusion, mass tourism causes harm to the country enviromentally as natural habitats and resource has to be converted to reacreational areas.

RR tourism by Song Jia Xian

I agree with the author as i feel that tourism destroys a country's environment. When there is increased tourism in a country, carbon emissions and air pollution significantly increase due to the construction of tourists attractions and the destruction to animal habitats. When coastal areas are converted into beach resorts, mangrove areas and corals that serve as fish sanctuaries are damaged or completely removed. Thus, animals lose their natural habitats and die eventually as their source of food and shelter is destroyed. Singapore has lost 90% of its forest, 67 percent of its birds, about 40 percent of its mammals and 5 percent of its amphibians and reptiles of the original mangroves less than 5% is left. 39% of all native are extinct due to the harm to the environment. Animals species are already facing extinction or risks of being endangered due to harm to their habitats and homes. Carbon emissions and air pollution also significantly increase as more air and land based vehicles are needed to transport tourists from one destination to another. This contribute to more cars on the road and more results in the worsening of air quality in the environment. This shows that urban development for tourism results in harm and destruction to the environment, resulting in worsening of air quality and loss of biodiversity.

RR Tourism by Alvina Lim

I disagree with the author that mass tourism affects the local people negatively as it provides them with job opportunities. When tourists visit the country, they would visit tourist attractions and stay at hotels. Thus, people are needed to work in the hospitality and tourism industry to cater to the tourists. In the passage, the author states that “In 2011 alone, the tourism industry created more than four million- 11.1% of the country’s total employment.” This shows that tourism in the Philippines has played a significant role in creating many job opportunities. Additionally, in Singapore, tourism has provided around 110,600 to 112,300 jobs. Jobs in the hospitality and tourism industry include travel consultants, hotel housekeepers and casino dealers. This also shows tourism creating many job opportunities in Singapore. Hence, this is an advantage for the locals as mass tourism increases their chances of getting a job which allows them to earn a living. Therefore, I disagree with the author. 

RR Tourism by Tan Xuan Zheng

I do not agree that mass tourism threatens to destroy a country's culture and environment but instead promotes the preservation of cultures. The writer mentioned that infrastructure development are brought about by tourism and I fully agree with this point. Some historic buildings are salvaged and refurnished due to the large number of tourists visiting them. Large amounts of money are even put into preserving these cultural places and hence, I do not agree that mass tourism threatens to destroy a country's culture. In Singapore, one example of the cultural areas that have been preserved would be the Chinatown and Kampong Glam. When tourist visit a country, they tend to visit a site where there is the most culture or history, hence, the government would want to spend large amount of money to preserve them so as to attract more tourists. When there is more tourists, there would be more profit for the country and hence, the government will also benefit from it. These two areas in Singapore are culturally rich and is a must-go location for tourist that visit Singapore, hence Singapore will not demolish it and will instead spend money on upkeeping the place so as to ensure they will look attractive without losing its cultural values. Thus, I feel that mass tourism helped to preserve the cultures of a country instead of destroying it.

RR Tourism by Lau Ying Ru

I disagree with the author that mass tourism threatens to destroy a country’s culture and environment and affects the local people negatively. I believe that tourism is beneficial to the country as it allows it to prosper economically. Tourism such as theme parks brings in larger revenues than any other industries and contributes greatly to the economy.  According to the writer, “tourism has become an ubiquitous sector in the Philippine’s economy. In 2012, alone, it contributed 6.0%the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)”. This shows that tourism plays a vital role in a country’s economy. It allows the country to prosper as tourists are attracted to come here for a holiday, thus spending money in the process. Likewise, tourism has also contributed about 3% of Singapore’s GDP, generating a sum of US$9.4 billion in 2007 and has a high employment multiplier in Singapore. This highlights the importance of tourism to a country’s economy as it is able to bring in high revenues and create more jobs than any other industries. With more job opportunities, more people will be able to work and have money to spend, thus contributing to the prosperity of the county’s economy. Therefore, I feel that tourism allows the country’s economy to flourish rather than bring disastrous impacts.

RR Tourism by Yong Jie Ning

I agree that mass tourism threatens to destroy the environment and affect local people as they create more rubbish and interfere with the local's way of life. According to the writer, " The environment can suffer as well. When coastal areas are converted to beach resorts, mangrove areas and corals that serve as fish sanctuaries are damaged or even completely removed." Thus, this shows that to accommodate the mass tousim, natural heritage sites are destroyed and an increase in air pollution, affecting the locals as well as their heritage begins to fade and their country deteriorate. As mass tourism occurs, tourists usually visit the iconic places in Singapore, namely the Sentosa, Marina Bay and Orchard Road. At these places, there will be an overcrowding of tourists, as well as increase of congestion, not only on roads for vehicles, but also on the pavement. Besides that, many tourist shops and accommodation cluster near such areas for convenience and make them even more congested. When there are many cars on the road, they consistently "start and stop", producing a lot of air pollution. Another impact is the creation of more rubbish which will be incinerated, producing lots of greenhouse gases, harming the environment. Therefore, this shows that mass tourism can destroy the environment and interfere with the local's way of life.

RR Tourism by Ian

Firstly tourism benefits the local people, as it brings about economic developments. When tourists starts visiting a country, it will start generating a need for tourism facilities and infrastructure, such as hotels and resorts. These facilities and infrastructures requires man power for maintenance, hence many of the local people will be hired, in order to keep it running smoothly. With a constant and stable wage, the locals will be able to improve their own standards of living. As stated by the writer, “in 2011 alone, the tourism industry created more than four million- 11.1% of the country’s total employment, which is more than the number of jobs created by the mining industry.” This is very significant as for every 10 person, one of which will be working in the tourism industry. Furthermore, the writer also stated that “in 2012 alone, tourism contributed 6% to the country’s gross domestic product.” This shows the significant amount of revenue tourism can solely bring about. For developing countries such as the Philippines, this amount will be significant, as it will allow the country to build more infrastructures, such as transportation, to further improve the country and the standards of living of the people. In Singapore, tourism contributed to 3% of Singapore’s GDP, which has generated a sum of US $9.4 billion in 2007. This substantial amount, proves explicitly how much tourism means to Singapore. Furthermore, this amount is likely going to be invested into infrastructures for transportation and education. Hence I conclude that tourism benefits the local people, since it brings about economic developments.

RR Tourism by Ng Ying Han

I disagree with the author that tourism threatens to destroy a country's culture.

With more tourists going to visit a country, its culture will in fact be enhanced, as more people will learn about their culture and hence have a greater respect for it. While the author argues that well-known tourists destinations are also hotspots for prostitution and human trafficking, I see otherwise. Most tourists visit countries like the Philippines to learn about their traditions or try their local delicacies, not to look for people who are being made used of. In Singapore's case, tourists from all over the globe who visit us are fascinated by our harmonious multi-racial society, the plethora of food we offer and, of course, our world-class infrastructure. This helps to promote our country's culture to the rest of the world, all while benefiting our country's economy. A similar situation is present in Philippine's case. The promotion of a country's culture has several advantages, including the improvement of the country's economy and increased patriotism and social cohesion. An improvement in economy and increased social cohesion will enable the salaries of the local people to rise and a more close-knit society to be created, therefore benefiting the local people positively. Ergo, I believe that tourism does not destroy a country's culture, but rather, makes it more appreciated by others from all corners of the world, in turn improving socio-economic conditions in the country.

RR Tourism by Chang Xiao Qing

I agree with the writer that mass tourism threatens to destroy the country's architectural heritage. In order to build more facilities and services for tourists to enjoy, many historic building and sites are destroyed or damaged in the process. This would result in the country losing much of its cultural identity and heritage as these old buildings and sites contain many memories and significance in the countries history and heritage. An example from the passage is of the demolishing of historic buildings in Manila, so as to make way for hotels to provide accommodation for tourists visiting "Historic Manila". In Singapore, the Bukit Brown Cemetery was cleared to make way for an eight-way highway in 2013 despite various petitions and complaints against it, resulting in nearly 4000 graves being dug up. This shows that the country is sacrificing their heritage and culture to enable mass tourism and this has severely affected the cultural practices of many local people, up to the fact that now, many people are unable to visit the tombs and graves of their ancestors to pay their respects during tomb sweeping day or to give them a peaceful resting place. Locals in Manila are now unable to enjoy or visit these historic buildings and sites that were torn down, and hence unable to pass down these memories and heritage to the next generation. Hence, I agree with the writer that mass tourism threatens to destroy the architectural heritage of the country as many memories, heritage and cultural were lost with the tearing down of historic and buildings and sites, affecting the cultural of the locals.

RR Tourism by Khong Wye Yee

I agree with the writer that tourism brings harm to the environment as it has an adverse impact on biodiversity. The writer states that in Philippines, mangrove areas and corals that serve as fish sanctuaries are damaged or even completely removed. Tourism endangers the homes of living organisms. Large areas of land like rainforests are cleared to make space for development of tourism. Animals will not be able to find another suitable environment to live in, and their population will start to decrease. A case study revealed that Singapore has lost 90% of its forest, 67% of its birds, about 40% of its mammals and 5% of its amphibians and reptiles. All of these are due to urban development and land reclamation. 70% of Sentosa island is covered by secondary island and is homed to many species of flora and fauna. When the construction of Resorts World Sentosa commenced, over 200 trees had to be replanted elsewhere. Nature had been replaced by tourist attractions, and greatly shows the damage that tourism has done to the biodiversity. Therefore, I agree with the the writer that tourism brings harm to the environment as it endangers biodiversity.

RR Tourism by Damien Wee

I do not agree with the writer as I believe that tourism benefits the local people. It brings about economic development, allowing people to have a higher standard of living. When tourists enter a country, they will spend money and this will bring in revenue for the country. The writer stated in the passage that in 2011 alone, the tourism industry created more than 4 million jobs - 11.1% of Philippine's total employment. It was also stated that in 2012 alone, tourism contributed 6% of Philippine's GDP. Whereas in Singapore, tourism receipts were estimated to be approximately $18.8 billion in 2010. These examples show how much revenue tourism can bring in when tourists spend money in exchange for goods and services provided by the local people. This opens up job opportunities for the locals and they will have a source of income to support their families. With more money, locals will also increase their consumption rate, allowing them to be able to afford better goods and services. Through taxes, the government also benefits as they would be able to use the money to improve public infrastructure, which also benefits the locals. Thus, I believe that tourism is beneficial as it helps people to achieve a higher standard of living.

RR Tourism by Tan Han Yu

I agree with the writer that mass tourism threatens to destroy a country's natural environment. Large areas of land, usually forested areas or coastal areas where there is a rich diversity of flora and fauna, have to be cleared in order to make way for the hotels, theme parks, tourist attractions, to accommodate the tourists. In the passage, the writer stated "When coastal areas are converted into beach resorts, mangrove areas and corals that serve as fish sanctuaries are damaged or even completely removed." This shows that in order to make way for the needs of the tourists, it has an adverse impact on biodiversity, clearing the mangrove trees, the corals. The animals living in these environments will also be affected. As the corals are cleared, the fishes will not be able to survive due to the unsuitable conditions, and thus, might lead to the extinction of species. In Singapore, the mangrove forest cover has been reduced from an estimated 13% in the 1820's to only 0.5% of the total land area. Most of the forested areas in Singapore are being cleared due to urbanisation, for the building of hotels, shopping malls to attract tourists. This can lead to loss of many different species of both plants and animals. Thus, I agree with the writer that tourism threatens a county's natural environment.

RR Tourism by Tan Jun Na

I agree with the writer’s perspective that mass tourism can destroy a country’s environment. Tourism has led to climate change and environment problems. The writer states that it has an adverse impact on biodiversity, causing damage in coastal areas that are converted into beach resorts, mangrove areas and coral that serve as fish sanctuaries. Carbon emissions and air pollution will increase, making greenhouse gases rise and contributing to global warming. Global warming threatens agricultural production, fresh water supplies and the survival of native species and ecosystems. The impacts of a warming world are concerning enough when considered one by one, but the view worsens when you consider them collectively; more cyclones, more droughts, more floods. In Singapore, gazette hotel room revenue was estimated at $1.9 million, and we may have to sacrifice our natural habitat to build those hotels to facilitate tourism. Singapore has little land, with a mere area of 719.1km². We have to clear away precious greenery, harm nature, for urbanization to take place. Worldwide, 90% forest, 67% birds, 40% mammals, 5% amphibians and reptiles are lost for the rapid development for hotels for tourists. It is a pity how animal life is lost to build infrastructure for tourists. Thus, mass tourism has affected the environment adversely.

RR Tourism by Ari Lim

I agree with the writer that tourism threatens a country as it causes negative impacts on the environment. Mass tourism causes many natural areas like forests and coastal areas to be converted into hotels and resorts in order to cope with the rising amount of tourists, which brings about a loss of vegetation areas and a loss of biodiversity. The writer stated that “When coastal areas are converted into beach resorts, mangrove areas and corals that serve as fish sanctuaries are damaged or even completely removed.” This evidence is significant as it shows that due to more coastal land being used for tourism related infrastructures, it affects the flora and fauna occupying these areas, which are the mangrove trees as well as the fishes. It destroyed the habitat of the fishes, and thus the fishes may not be able to survive elsewhere due to the unsuitable environment. Hence this shows that due to deforestation for tourism, it may even result in extinction of an animal species. "Forest area in Singapore was last measured at 3.29% of Singapore total land area in 2011, according to the World Bank." In Singapore, due to our land scarcity, majority of the forested land in Singapore has been converted to form urbanised areas. Tourism in Singapore is one of the factor in contributing to more urban areas, as more shopping centres and hotels have to be constructed in order to satisfy the booming tourism industry. As such, we are losing large amounts of forested land, which affects the environment. Hence, I can conclude that tourism causes negative impact on the environment.

RR Tourism by Ong Kan Wu

The first reason why I agree with this statement is due to the fact that tourism Brings negative effect on the country's environment. I agree with the author whereby he said about tourism having an adverse impact on the biodiversity. As tourism causes deforestation as places need to be made way for tourists to live in and also for tourists attraction, causing certain species to lose their homes. This causes one's country to have certain species to be extinct, causing a loss of biodiversity. For example, one of the research that the author made is that' carbon emissions and air pollution also significantly increase, as more air and land-based vehicles are needed to transport tourists from one destination to another' as you can see from this research, tourism brings many tourists to the country and causes more vehicles to travel on roads or more aero planes to travel in air to the country. This causes a huge increase in the carbon dioxide emission and the increase in carbon dioxide emission causes global warming as carbon dioxide traps heat causing a negative effect on the environment.
According to a research that I made,'About 5% of the land in Singapore has been dedicated to serve as natural parks.' Natural parks are common sites for tourists to go and enjoy the scenery. And 5 percent of Singapore land area is quite a lot of space. 'Singapore holds many bio-diverse ecosystems due to its suitable location near the equator. Singapore has already lost most of its natural environment and biodiversity due to rapid development in the last 30 years'. Due to urbanization, including building of infrastructures for tourism, the biodiversity of our county, Singapore has been lost, hence, affecting our environment in a very negative way. Hence, I feel that tourism like the author says, affects the country's environment and hence, this is one of the factor that causes me to feel that mass tourism threatens to destroy a country's culture and environment and affect the local people.