‘Heritage is worth preserving at all costs.’ Do you agree?
Heritage is an important aspect of each country’s identity. It is what makes a country stand out from others, and it is what gives its citizens a sense of identity and patriotism. Heritage can be both intangible and tangible. However, very often, preserving heritage means preserving heritage sites, as heritage is tied to tangible things such as locations and architecture. While heritage is important, a country also needs to progress for its long term benefit of growth and development. Thus, I disagree with the statement and believe that heritage is not worth preserving at all costs, especially at the expense of losing its relevance to society today and hindering the development of a country. Firstly, ensuring the relevance of heritage to people is more important than preserving it. While preserving heritage and its associated places in the short term fosters national pride and appeals to older generations who have safeguarded these traditions, clinging to heritage solely for preservation purposes may fail to engage the younger generations who view it as irrelevant or unimportant. Thus, sometimes, the better alternative would be to accept that some heritages no longer need to be preserved. Instead, invest the efforts in worthier ones. For example, being a heritage site, Kampong Glam houses heritage trails. However, as it experiences gentrification, some areas in Kampong Glam are refreshed, and new cafes and restaurants are introduced to the area. This injected life into Kampong Glam, where relevance was once fading. Instead of merely preserving the place in its original state, Kampong Glam is making the area more relatable to Singaporeans of all ages by supporting heritage businesses while still ensuring its vibrancy in terms of the tenant mix. As Kampong Glam stays relevant, it retains its practical purposes for the locals while continually attracting tourists to the area to learn more about its heritage. This goes to show that staying relevant to the people is more beneficial than preserving heritage at all costs. Rather than forcefully preserving heritage at all costs, letting go parts of heritage that have lost their relevance and introducing more relevant places in the area will help keep the place vibrant. At the same time, this allows heritage to be experienced in a natural and authentic way, where people experience and learn about it out of genuine interest when visiting such areas. Furthermore, the physical development of a country is more important than the preservation of heritage. Singapore is a small country with limited land space 100 CHIJ St Nicholas Girls’ School (Sec)
geographically. This can be clearly seen in the status quo, where new housing areas have been springing up, and buildings are getting higher and higher in order to maximize land space. However, constructing taller buildings would soon not be enough for Singapore to progress and meet the demands of a growing population. Hence, this means that heritage cannot always be preserved as the spaces that heritage sites occupy can be used for development and the heritage sites will need to be replaced. Expansion and development become more important than the preservation of heritage, availing more homes for people to live in, workspaces so that people can have an income, as well as spaces for companies to grow and attract foreign investments. For example, the National Library, a part of Singapore’s heritage and past, was destroyed in order to build the Fort Canning Tunnel in its stead. While it faced some opposition from citizens, it paved the way for Singapore’s development through the construction of more routes. This has helped people save time in their travel, making life much more convenient for citizens. Therefore, this shows that the preservation of heritage sites is not worth the cost of losing out on development that can benefit citizens. Some people may argue that heritage is important for citizens to be reminded of their roots, past and to cultivate patriotism. Thus, it should be preserved at all costs in order for people to have a sense of identity and be less inclined to immigrate to other countries. While I agree that heritage is important for nationalism, I remain that we should not preserve it at all costs. Keeping heritage sites in their original forms is a fabricated fallacy since it is inevitable that heritage will fade away as time passes. Thus, the heritage that we are preserving loses its meaning, as the heritage that is forcefully preserved is not even relevant to society today. For instance, knife sharpeners are a part of Singapore’s heritage that is slowly vanishing. While it had an important role to play in Singapore’s history, it has sadly lost its relevance as people turn towards buying knives of higher quality instead of waiting for their knives to be sharpened. People in the industry are no longer earning sufficient income to sustain themselves and the knife sharpeners are no longer a part and parcel of people’s lives. In the long run, people will no longer gain any sense of identity from a superficial heritage that is valiantly preserved at all costs, especially since it also slowly affects the people persevering it. In conclusion, heritage cannot be preserved at the expense of causing a country to lose its relevance to people and compromise its development. As a society, it is crucial for us, especially the older generation, to be more open to let go of heritages that are bound to disappear. Even though we do not preserve heritage at all costs, we must be clear that not all forms of heritage will be lost. Heritage can be seen to take new tangible forms that are sustainable and relevant in our current day Expository Essays 101
and age. Moreover, the intangible effects of heritage can continue to linger on to develop a sense of patriotism in people as it is not mutually exclusive to and can exist alongside tangible forms of heritage. Therefore, it is up to us as citizens to be willing to accept change and adapt heritage into something more relevant. While heritage, something our ancestors have fought hard to create, continues to entrench its roots in our history, our country should continue to grow and progress.
Edited by: Ms Tay Li Na
Reflection: Heritage, especially in intangible forms of heritage, is crucial to encouraging patriotism, giving a community uniqueness, and giving a person a sense of belonging. Nevertheless, is preserving this heritage truly worth it in our current day and age of a highly progressive society? Would people find it relevant, or is heritage something we are simply holding on to for the sake of our ancestors, only for it to collect dust and for its meaning to be diluted? Hence, I decided to choose this topic to explore these questions and have gained much insights on how the heritage should not be preserved at the costs of its relevance to society and the development of a country.