Prompt: Many countries spend a lot of money in art. Some people think investment in art is necessary, but others say money is better spent on improving health and education. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Spending the money for art and public service to be the controversial topic in some countries in which many opinions says that art is compulsory in society while other opinions say that the public service such education and health are obligatory. In my point of view, there are benefits effects in society, both of two statements. Ċ To begin, the advantages of the government fundIing of the art and museum is education history. Because in those places, people can learn many things about the history or artwork include for the next generation. For example, in Jakarta city, there are some museum and art gallery in which it have education function, such as Ceramics Museum or Batik gallery. Moreover, that places also have memorial aspect, in which is one function to remember who or something in society. For instance, the Sudirman or Sukarno-Hatta statues. As a consequence,  the payment for art has a beneficial In knowledge side. Ċ On the other hand, the government also has an obligation funding in social public such education and health, because those aspects are crucial things by citizen increasing their prosperity. For example, the Brunei Darussalam government spending much money gives the scholarship for the family poor and also in this country is giving the free payment in medicine treatment and hospital. As a consequence, the welfare social and life expectancy  of citizen is guaranteed. Finally, the purposed by government funded health and education is affluence the citizen Ċ The aforementioned evidence shows that both of funding for art in one side and education and health. on another side is the essential aspect of society, while in my opinion, financing of education and health are more primary before defraying the other aspect.