The Different Solutions between Japan and Singapore

Japan and Singapore are two of the most well-known countries in Asia. As the reputation of these two countries, there are various nationalities of people who come and invest in these countries. As a result, pollution is an inevitable problem to people because the faster the industrial growth increases, the higher the pollution people get. The main factors that cause pollution are generally automobiles, power plants, and factories. Although Japan and Singapore are dissimilar in terms of solving air pollution and noise pollution, but they share one major similarity which is the solutions for water pollution.
The first noticeable difference in solving air pollution between Japan and Singapore is the way they solve the problem. Japan is clearly seen that the government will tend to concentrate mainly on stationary sources. Firstly, the Japanese government starts to control emission standards for factories. To begin with, factories, power plants, and incinerators are enforced to set up smokestack scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and other filters in order to reduce the amount of pollution released into the atmosphere. In addition, factories will be given penalties if they do not follow the rules or fail with air quality standards. At the same time, the Japanese government will use energy sources and various types of transportation engines which are empowered by electricity and steam. Moreover, they will also get rid of fossil fuels and the internal-combustion engines which are the main factors of causing air pollution (Solutions to Air Pollution, 2007). On the other hand, Singapore’s solutions are completely different from Japan as the government of Singapore focuses directly on urban traffic congestion due to its rapid industrial growth. To decline this problem, the government of Singapore has got four new policies. Firstly, people who want to purchase motor vehicles have to pay higher taxes. Secondly, public transportation will be modernized in order to encourage its use. Thirdly, the Singapore’s roads will be enhanced. Finally, an area licensing policy will be entered to force. The details in the policy are mentioned that only cars showing a license are allowed to pass the central business districts from 7.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. However, buses, service vehicles, carpools with four or more people, and taxes will not be included (Air Pollution/Transportation, n.d.). As a result, vehicles causing air pollution will be reduced. As you can see, Japan will mostly control air pollution by regulating emission of stationary sources and using energy sources, whereas in Singapore, the government tends to alleviate urban traffic congestion.
Solving noise pollution is the second remarkable difference between Japan and Singapore. Japan has continuously faced an increasing number of vehicles, and mufflers of some vehicles are changed, so this will lead to noise pollution. As the fact above, the Japanese government has set three motor vehicle noise regulations which are accelerated running, steady running, and exhaust proximity. Firstly, for passenger cars with no more than ten people, accelerated running has to be 76 dB, steady running has to be 72 dB, and exhaust proximity has to be 96 dB. Secondly, for motorcycles, accelerated running has to be 73 dB, steady running has to be 72 dB, and exhaust proximity has to be 94 dB (Tightening of Measures Against Motor Vehicle Exhaust Noise Pollution in Japan, 2007). However, the solutions of Singapore are totally different from the solutions of Japan. Due to the development of technology and urbanization in Singapore, the main factors of causing noise pollution are normally vehicular traffic, the mass rail transit system (MRT), and the light rail transit system (LRT). In order to manage this problem, the Singapore government has four policies. Firstly, the government will construct buildings as obstacles between expressways and residents to minimze noise levels (Commuting sustainably, nd.). Secondly, the government will limit noise emission standards for vehicles. For example, a noise emission standard for the MRT trains is 86 dB at a speed of 80 km/h (Environment, Energy, and Resources, 2003). Thirdly, Singapore’s expressways will be constructed by using porous asphalt. Finally, the MRT trains will use noise-damped rail tracks and wheels while the LRT trains will be set up rubber wheels, and both of them will be operated on concrete tracks (Commuting sustainably, nd.). As you can see, the ways Japan and Singapore solve noise pollution are entirely different.
However, both Japan and Singapore share one similarity in solving water pollution. Japan has suffered polluted rivers due to its rapid industrail growth. Therefore, the government decides to build water catchment for water supply. In addition, the government prescribes every factories to use and store chemicals away from water catchment areas in order to prevent chemicals to blend in the water. Like Japan, the solution of Singapore is to build water catchment. Polluted rivers are the main problem that Singapore has been facing for a long time because of various commercial, industrial, hawking, and farming activities. To handle this problem, the government of Singapore will firstly build sewerage systems in order to collect rainwater. Also, these systems can also prevent water from being contaminated by dangerous and deleterious chemicals. Secondly, rainwater will be gathered and sent to drains, canals, and 14 reservoirs including others in the urban and built-up areas for consumption. As a result, there is approximately half of Singapore where it is currently water catchment (Singapore International Water Week, 2007). As you can see, with regard to water catchment, the solutions of Japan and Singapore are quite similar.
In conclusion, although Japan and Singapore are different in terms of solving air pllution and noise pollution, they share one major similarity in terms of solving water pollution. However, both Japan and Singapore provide a lot of benefits to all their residents, so I think that the solutions of both countries are suitable for Thailand if our country adapts and uses systematically.