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.