Government funding of the arts, such as music and theater, has been a controversial issue for many years. People believe that the tax money they pay to the government should be invested in something more useful to the people, which is public services. Personally, I believe that both art and public service bring different benefits to society, so the government should invest in both.
On the one hand, it is important to note that art plays an important role in presenting national identity. Without government support, some traditional art forms, such as Cai Luong, may be lost because the young generation prefers pop music and no longer listens to Cai Luong as much. Art is like a portal to the past; through it, it helps connect today’s generation with previous ones. That is why many European governments continue to fund museums and exhibitions in their countries, many of which cannot operate on a commercial basis because they can showcase their own heritage and culture and inspire future generations. Investing in arts celebrates our nation’s history and culture.
On the other hand, spending on public services seems to be more beneficial for people, and more people think of it as a priority. The government has a responsibility to ensure all citizens have access to quality health services. Investment in hospitals, medicines, and community health programs should be a priority. Contrary to art, citizens should enjoy good public services based on the taxes they pay to the government. Unlike public services that have clear benefits, the impact of art is often spiritual and abstract, difficult to measure.
In conclusion, each aspect has different benefits, and to ensure fairness for the people and give people the best, I think the government should invest in both.