In today’s contemporary era, targets in using financial support have raised controversial debate. Whereas some cite that the governments should pay attention to art restoration as well as the cultural heritage preservation, the others believe the government budget should be spent on more crucial issues. In this essay, I will dissect both views and give my own opinion.
Our greatest politician leader, Uncle Ho once said: “Cultures enlighten our paths.” There is no disputing the fact that arts, or cultural heritage is a part of the nation’s identity, especially when it comes to patriotism. Spending budgets on restoring and preserving cultural works is equal to strengthen the national spirit, which is obviously crucial in today’s international integration. The investment in preserving cultural heritage can never be redundant due to the promotion it contributes to creativity, as well as the enrichment in education. Furthermore, cultural roots the country in its past, and forming the country in its future, this explains why the authorities should consider pouring money into it.
However, there are still numerous issues among the society, such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, public transportation,… that require the officials to spend the budget on it. Prioritizing these needs over arts can offer better public services, better conditions, modern facilities,… and so on. This could significantly enhance the citizen’s life quality, making it more accessible, more convenient, and develop the community on several grounds.
In conclusion, both perspectives are reasonable based on many grounds. The most practical, also effective way is that the governments should balance their budgets on both fields.