Good evening ladies and gentlemen, honourable guests. May I ask a simple question? What would be the Integrated Resort(IR) to you? Rise in economic, leisure and recreation. These good things have no wrong in them. However, ladies and gentlemen, have you thought about the undesirable consequences that come out of these developments once they are done? Therefore, I stand here today, to share a thought of mine about why, the government should not build the Integrated Resort.
Building the IR encourages gambling. As you have noticed in recent years, the government has been emphasizing strongly to prevent people from becoming gambling addicts. They have taken great steps like mass advertising on television and screening programmes that specially remind against this habit. However, the government had decided to build the IR, which includes a casino. Doesn’t this contradict to all their efforts to put an end to gambling? By building a casino in Singapore, I am definitely sure that many people will be tempted to gamble. I agree that the government has been dealing with this problem by leaning heavily on the media, but ladies and gentlemen think about it, will it really help? They are opening their doors to encourage people into gambling and how many people will really listen to those reminders? I feel that the government has been doing well in stopping gambling so I believe that they should not make this wrong step.
Gambling will bring along many necessaries. A snowball it will be, becoming bigger and bigger the longer it rolls on the ground. Debt-ridden gamblers want to get back what they’ve lost. This exerts stress on the breadwinner of the family. What will happen to their wives and children? Have you not spared a thought about them? Families will be broken apart, poor and unable to make ends meet. Is this what the government wants out of the IR?
As a result, the government will have to spend more money and manpower to solve these problems. They would need to hire more counsellors to counsel gamblers who are addicted to it and cannot kick the habit. Besides, the government will have to start encouraging Singaporeans against gambling again.
One of the things gambling invite is the introduction of loan sharks. When these gambling addicts run out of cash they will look towards illegal moneylender and borrow large sums of money with high interest rates. When they are unable to clear off debts on time, these violent loan sharks threaten him and his family, causing much stress. This will put Singapore in a state of worry, resulting in unrest in the community.
Secondly, Singapore is not the only country with casinos and theme parks. There are many countries depending on them too, like the IR in Singapore, to attract tourist. Why must Singapore jump into the bandwagon too? If Singapore wants to increase tourist arrivals, why can't we use other means to attract them? Why must we go into this competition and Singapore might not stand to benefit because other countries have so much land to build more than casinos and theme parks. An example is Las Vegas. This project might even lead to rivalry between countries. Hence, is having IR so important that it can create conflicts?
In addition, with more tourists from around the world, it will make Singapore a more attractive target for terrorists to plan terrorist attacks. This will cause unwanted problem for us. Not only will it hurt our economy but also threaten to weaken our social cohesion.
Therefore, our decision is clear. Evidently, building IR in Singapore would unmistakably increase the number of tourist visits. However it will cause many social problems for us although the IR may solve our economic needs. Consider this before you decide to build another “tourist attraction” on impulse. Remember, in order for our country to move forward, we need to have a peaceful community too.
Proudly brought to you by:
Sophie, Elizabeth, Lydia,
Ker Yien, Felicia
7 comments:
1. The introduction is quite well done as there is a proper focus. The intended audience is quite vague but the tone is quite formal. There is also a proper thesis statement.
2.The topic sentence is very clear.
3.The elaboration is focused on the topic sentence.
4.Every paragraph contains 1 topic only.
5. The topic sentence does not link with the concluding statements.
Jackinacircle
Introduction:
- audience is clear.
- formal.
- has proper thesis statement.
Body:
= Paragraph 1 =
- topic sentence is clear.
- could give examples.
- elaboration abit " off ".
- beating about the bush. not straight to the point.
= Paragraph 2 =
- un-neccesary
= Paragraph 3 =
- should be in paragraph 1.
= Paragraph 4 =
- can elaborate further.
- vaque topic sentence.
= Paragraph 5 =
- good point. has clear topic sentence. but what is bandwagon?
above comment done by group 5.
The introduction is ok but it is a little awkward that the presenter asks the audience whether he/she could ask a question.
There is a clear thesis statement.
The topic sentence is clear.
On the overall, the elaboration is done well as it is filled with good questions and also the motive of bringing some clear facts about the government's actions.
Each paragraph does have a topic sentence.It links well too.
The topic sentence does link with the concluding statement but there is a little confusion with who this speech is targeted at, the government or the communtity?The last few sentences also have some negativity towards especially the government as it criticizes their judgement.
Create :D
Well done really well done. The introduction is attention grabbing and the topic sentences are very clear. Every paragraph is focused on one topic only and the thesis statement links back to the topic. It is a very convincing speech done.
What is bandwagon?
the above comment is by Haziq rulez
wow what a good one... well done, dudes! really strong, persuasive, and so many good points!clear topic sentence and the elaboration is really detalied. especially liked the snowball thing...
(audrey)
Post a Comment