Semester Preparation

 Kai KENSAVAONG will never again walk along the muddy lanes of Sop On, the village in southern Laos where she was born. Her old home now lies at the bottom of a reservoir of brown water created to feed a hydroelectric power plant, the first to be funded by the World Bank for over twenty years. 'I'll never forget that place,' says the 41-year-old villager. 'It was my home. I picked my first bamboo stalks there.'

 

The World Bank stopped financing hydroelectric dam projects in developing countries twenty years ago because of criticism that such projects were harming local communities and the environment. But Nam Theun 2-a 39-metre high dam on the Mekong River that generates over 1,000 megawatts of electricity - is the showpiece for the bank's new policy of supporting sustainable hydropower projects. For Laos it is part of a longer-term strategy to revitalise the economy and become the battery of South-East Asia.

 

The bank says that lessons have been learnt from the projects of the sixties and seventies when people were forced to resettle and whole areas of forest or agricultural land were flooded. When it comes to clean sources of energy, the bank thinks hydropower is the pick of the bunch, offering the best solution in a world where 1.5 billion people have no access to electricity.

 

In 2010 the dam brought $5.6 million in sales of electricity and it is estimated that during the next 25 years Nam Theun 2 will generate around $2 billion in revenue to Laos, one of Asia's poorest countries, since most of the electricity will be exported to its power-hungry neighbour, Thailand. The government has promised that this money will be spent on reducing poverty and both renewing and improving the country's infrastructure.

 

Seventeen villages in the flooded area have now been rebuilt and the 6,200 people - mostly farmers - who lived in them have been retrained to make a living from the reservoir.

 

The power company has promised to double their living standards within five years. According to the World Bank, 87 per cent of those resettled believe life is much better than before as they now have electricity, sanitation, clean water, new roads and greater access to schools and health care.

 

 'In the old village things just weren't convenient,' said Tiea, 25, one of the relocated villagers. 'It wasn't a pretty place, the houses weren't very nice and we didn't have power. In the new village we have electricity, we can see better.'

 

But the old criticisms have not gone away. Environmental and human rights groups warn that the dam will have a negative impact on water quality and fish and that the local people who were relocated after the area was flooded may not be able to support themselves economically in future.

 

'People are happy with these new amenities, but the real problem is how to restore sustainable livelihoods for communities who used to rely on the natural resources - forests, fish and grazing lands for their animals - now that they've lost these,' says Ikuko Matsumoto, programme director for the environmental group, International Rivers.

 

As well as the 6,200 villagers already rehoused, activists also point out that there are over 110,000 people in riverside villages downstream from the dam whose lives will have to change because of the new river ecosystem. They claim that these people will have to deal with issues like flooding, decline of the fish population and poor water quality. How quickly they will pick up new skills is uncertain.

 

But the World Bank says it is responsive to these problems. A 4,100-square kilometre protected area has been established around the dam to safeguard flora and fauna. It admits though that rebuilding the lives of the villagers is not a short-term process and everyone is trying to learn and readjust as they go along

 

 Why did The World Bank want to  help build the hydroelectric dam projects in Laos?

• KENSAVAONNG

• Nam Thai

• Laos

• Nam Theun 2

• Nam Theun 1

Kai KENSAVAONG will never again walk along the muddy lanes of Sop On, the village in southern Laos where she was born. Her old home now lies at the bottom of a reservoir of brown water created to feed a hydroelectric power plant, the first to be funded by the World Bank for over twenty years. 'I'll never forget that place,' says the 41-year-old villager. 'It was my home. I picked my first bamboo stalks there.'

 

The World Bank stopped financing hydroelectric dam projects in developing countries twenty years ago because of criticism that such projects were harming local communities and the environment. But Nam Theun 2-a 39-metre high dam on the Mekong River that generates over 1,000 megawatts of electricity - is the showpiece for the bank's new policy of supporting sustainable hydropower projects. For Laos it is part of a longer-term strategy to revitalise the economy and become the battery of South-East Asia.

 

The bank says that lessons have been learnt from the projects of the sixties and seventies when people were forced to resettle and whole areas of forest or agricultural land were flooded. When it comes to clean sources of energy, the bank thinks hydropower is the pick of the bunch, offering the best solution in a world where 1.5 billion people have no access to electricity.

 

In 2010 the dam brought $5.6 million in sales of electricity and it is estimated that during the next 25 years Nam Theun 2 will generate around $2 billion in revenue to Laos, one of Asia's poorest countries, since most of the electricity will be exported to its power-hungry neighbour, Thailand. The government has promised that this money will be spent on reducing poverty and both renewing and improving the country's infrastructure.

 

Seventeen villages in the flooded area have now been rebuilt and the 6,200 people - mostly farmers - who lived in them have been retrained to make a living from the reservoir.

 

The power company has promised to double their living standards within five years. According to the World Bank, 87 per cent of those resettled believe life is much better than before as they now have electricity, sanitation, clean water, new roads and greater access to schools and health care.

 

 'In the old village things just weren't convenient,' said Tiea, 25, one of the relocated villagers. 'It wasn't a pretty place, the houses weren't very nice and we didn't have power. In the new village we have electricity, we can see better.'

 

But the old criticisms have not gone away. Environmental and human rights groups warn that the dam will have a negative impact on water quality and fish and that the local people who were relocated after the area was flooded may not be able to support themselves economically in future.

 

'People are happy with these new amenities, but the real problem is how to restore sustainable livelihoods for communities who used to rely on the natural resources - forests, fish and grazing lands for their animals - now that they've lost these,' says Ikuko Matsumoto, programme director for the environmental group, International Rivers.

 

As well as the 6,200 villagers already rehoused, activists also point out that there are over 110,000 people in riverside villages downstream from the dam whose lives will have to change because of the new river ecosystem. They claim that these people will have to deal with issues like flooding, decline of the fish population and poor water quality. How quickly they will pick up new skills is uncertain.

 

But the World Bank says it is responsive to these problems. A 4,100-square kilometre protected area has been established around the dam to safeguard flora and fauna. It admits though that rebuilding the lives of the villagers is not a short-term process and everyone is trying to learn and readjust as they go along.

 

 

 

What did the people who had lived around that area before the reservoir was constructed?

• The fresh and the nice condition

• The animals

• The forests

• The houses

• The people

 Kai KENSAVAONG will never again walk along the muddy lanes of Sop On, the village in southern Laos where she was born. Her old home now lies at the bottom of a reservoir of brown water created to feed a hydroelectric power plant, the first to be funded by the World Bank for over twenty years. 'I'll never forget that place,' says the 41-year-old villager. 'It was my home. I picked my first bamboo stalks there.'

 

The World Bank stopped financing hydroelectric dam projects in developing countries twenty years ago because of criticism that such projects were harming local communities and the environment. But Nam Theun 2-a 39-metre high dam on the Mekong River that generates over 1,000 megawatts of electricity - is the showpiece for the bank's new policy of supporting sustainable hydropower projects. For Laos it is part of a longer-term strategy to revitalise the economy and become the battery of South-East Asia.

 

The bank says that lessons have been learnt from the projects of the sixties and seventies when people were forced to resettle and whole areas of forest or agricultural land were flooded. When it comes to clean sources of energy, the bank thinks hydropower is the pick of the bunch, offering the best solution in a world where 1.5 billion people have no access to electricity.

 

In 2010 the dam brought $5.6 million in sales of electricity and it is estimated that during the next 25 years Nam Theun 2 will generate around $2 billion in revenue to Laos, one of Asia's poorest countries, since most of the electricity will be exported to its power-hungry neighbour, Thailand. The government has promised that this money will be spent on reducing poverty and both renewing and improving the country's infrastructure.

 

Seventeen villages in the flooded area have now been rebuilt and the 6,200 people - mostly farmers - who lived in them have been retrained to make a living from the reservoir.

 

The power company has promised to double their living standards within five years. According to the World Bank, 87 per cent of those resettled believe life is much better than before as they now have electricity, sanitation, clean water, new roads and greater access to schools and health care.

 

 'In the old village things just weren't convenient,' said Tiea, 25, one of the relocated villagers. 'It wasn't a pretty place, the houses weren't very nice and we didn't have power. In the new village we have electricity, we can see better.'

 

But the old criticisms have not gone away. Environmental and human rights groups warn that the dam will have a negative impact on water quality and fish and that the local people who were relocated after the area was flooded may not be able to support themselves economically in future.

 

'People are happy with these new amenities, but the real problem is how to restore sustainable livelihoods for communities who used to rely on the natural resources - forests, fish and grazing lands for their animals - now that they've lost these,' says Ikuko Matsumoto, programme director for the environmental group, International Rivers.

 

As well as the 6,200 villagers already rehoused, activists also point out that there are over 110,000 people in riverside villages downstream from the dam whose lives will have to change because of the new river ecosystem. They claim that these people will have to deal with issues like flooding, decline of the fish population and poor water quality. How quickly they will pick up new skills is uncertain.

 

But the World Bank says it is responsive to these problems. A 4,100-square kilometre protected area has been established around the dam to safeguard flora and fauna. It admits though that rebuilding the lives of the villagers is not a short-term process and everyone is trying to learn and readjust as they go along.

 

What are the good impact of the reservoir to the people who lived and resettled around the reservoir. All the answers are correct except

 

• Flood

• Clean water

• Sanitation

• Greater roads

• Access to electricity

 Kai KENSAVAONG will never again walk along the muddy lanes of Sop On, the village in southern Laos where she was born. Her old home now lies at the bottom of a reservoir of brown water created to feed a hydroelectric power plant, the first to be funded by the World Bank for over twenty years. 'I'll never forget that place,' says the 41-year-old villager. 'It was my home. I picked my first bamboo stalks there.'

 

The World Bank stopped financing hydroelectric dam projects in developing countries twenty years ago because of criticism that such projects were harming local communities and the environment. But Nam Theun 2-a 39-metre high dam on the Mekong River that generates over 1,000 megawatts of electricity - is the showpiece for the bank's new policy of supporting sustainable hydropower projects. For Laos it is part of a longer-term strategy to revitalise the economy and become the battery of South-East Asia.

 

The bank says that lessons have been learnt from the projects of the sixties and seventies when people were forced to resettle and whole areas of forest or agricultural land were flooded. When it comes to clean sources of energy, the bank thinks hydropower is the pick of the bunch, offering the best solution in a world where 1.5 billion people have no access to electricity.

 

. In 2010 the dam brought $5.6 million in sales of electricity and it is estimated that during the next 25 years Nam Theun 2 will generate around $2 billion in revenue to Laos, one of Asia's poorest countries, since most of the electricity will be exported to its power-hungry neighbour, Thailand. The government has promised that this money will be spent on reducing poverty and both renewing an and improving the country's infrastructure.

 

 

 

Seventeen villages in the flooded area have now been rebuilt and the 6,200 people - mostly farmers - who lived in them have been retrained to make a living from the reservoir.

 

The power company has promised to double their living standards within five years. According to the World Bank, 87 per cent of those resettled believe life is much better than before as they now have electricity, sanitation, clean water, new roads and greater access to schools and health care.

 

 'In the old village things just weren't convenient,' said Tiea, 25, one of the relocated villagers. 'It wasn't a pretty place, the houses weren't very nice and we didn't have power. In the new village we have electricity, we can see better.'

 

But the old criticisms have not gone away. Environmental and human rights groups warn that the dam will have a negative impact on water quality and fish and that the local people who were relocated after the area was flooded may not be able to support themselves economically in future.

 

'People are happy with these new amenities, but the real problem is how to restore sustainable livelihoods for communities who used to rely on the natural resources - forests, fish and grazing lands for their animals - now that they've lost these,' says Ikuko Matsumoto, programme director for the environmental group, International Rivers.

 

As well as the 6,200 villagers already rehoused, activists also point out that there are over 110,000 people in riverside villages downstream from the dam whose lives will have to change because of the new river ecosystem. They claim that these people will have to deal with issues like flooding, decline of the fish population and poor water quality. How quickly they will pick up new skills is uncertain.

 

But the World Bank says it is responsive to these problems. A 4,100-square kilometre protected area has been established around the dam to safeguard flora and fauna. It admits though that rebuilding the lives of the villagers is not a short-term process and everyone is trying to learn and readjust as they go along.

 

What was the negative impact of the reservoir to  that area?

 

• Dirty environment

• Nobody wanted to live there

• No water

• No life

• Bad water quality and the decline of fish

 Kai KENSAVAONG will never again walk along the muddy lanes of Sop On, the village in southern Laos where she was born. Her old home now lies at the bottom of a reservoir of brown water created to feed a hydroelectric power plant, the first to be funded by the World Bank for over twenty years. 'I'll never forget that place,' says the 41-year-old villager. 'It was my home. I picked my first bamboo stalks there.'

 

The World Bank stopped financing hydroelectric dam projects in developing countries twenty years ago because of criticism that such projects were harming local communities and the environment. But Nam Theun 2-a 39-metre high dam on the Mekong River that generates over 1,000 megawatts of electricity - is the showpiece for the bank's new policy of supporting sustainable hydropower projects. For Laos it is part of a longer-term strategy to revitalise the economy and become the battery of South-East Asia.

 

The bank says that lessons have been learnt from the projects of the sixties and seventies when people were forced to resettle and whole areas of forest or agricultural land were flooded. When it comes to clean sources of energy, the bank thinks hydropower is the pick of the bunch, offering the best solution in a world where 1.5 billion people have no access to electricity.

 

In 2010 the dam brought $5.6 million in sales of electricity and it is estimated that during the next 25 years Nam Theun 2 will generate around $2 billion in revenue to Laos, one of Asia's poorest countries, since most of the electricity will be exported to its power-hungry neighbour, Thailand. The government has promised that this money will be spent on reducing poverty and both renewing and improving the country's infrastructure.

 

Seventeen villages in the flooded area have now been rebuilt and the 6,200 people - mostly farmers - who lived in them have been retrained to make a living from the reservoir.

 

The power company has promised to double their living standards within five years. According to the World Bank, 87 per cent of those resettled believe life is much better than before as they now have electricity, sanitation, clean water, new roads and greater access to schools and health care.

 

 'In the old village things just weren't convenient,' said Tiea, 25, one of the relocated villagers. 'It wasn't a pretty place, the houses weren't very nice and we didn't have power. In the new village we have electricity, we can see better.'

 

But the old criticisms have not gone away. Environmental and human rights groups warn that the dam will have a negative impact on water quality and fish and that the local people who were relocated after the area was flooded may not be able to support themselves economically in future.

 

'People are happy with these new amenities, but the real problem is how to restore sustainable livelihoods for communities who used to rely on the natural resources - forests, fish and grazing lands for their animals - now that they've lost these,' says Ikuko Matsumoto, programme director for the environmental group, International Rivers.

 

As well as the 6,200 villagers already rehoused, activists also point out that there are over 110,000 people in riverside villages downstream from the dam whose lives will have to change because of the new river ecosystem. They claim that these people will have to deal with issues like flooding, decline of the fish population and poor water quality. How quickly they will pick up new skills is uncertain.

 

But the World Bank says it is responsive to these problems. A 4,100-square kilometre protected area has been established around the dam to safeguard flora and fauna. It admits though that rebuilding the lives of the villagers is not a short-term process and everyone is trying to learn and readjust as they go along.

 

What is the main idea of the last paragraph?

• It admits though that rebuilding the lives

• A 4,100-square kilometre protected area has been established around the dam

• everyone is trying to learn and readjust as they go along.

• the villagers is not a short-term process

• But the World Bank says it is responsive to these problems

 Kai KENSAVAONG will never again walk along the muddy lanes of Sop On, the village in southern Laos where she was born. Her old home now lies at the bottom of a reservoir of brown water created to feed a hydroelectric power plant, the first to be funded by the World Bank for over twenty years. 'I'll never forget that place,' says the 41-year-old villager. 'It was my home. I picked my first bamboo stalks there.'

 

The World Bank stopped financing hydroelectric dam projects in developing countries twenty years ago because of criticism that such projects were harming local communities and the environment. But Nam Theun 2-a 39-metre high dam on the Mekong River that generates over 1,000 megawatts of electricity - is the showpiece for the bank's new policy of supporting sustainable hydropower projects. For Laos it is part of a longer-term strategy to revitalise the economy and become the battery of South-East Asia.

 

The bank says that lessons have been learnt from the projects of the sixties and seventies when people were forced to resettle and whole areas of forest or agricultural land were flooded. When it comes to clean sources of energy, the bank thinks hydropower is the pick of the bunch, offering the best solution in a world where 1.5 billion people have no access to electricity.

 

In 2010 the dam brought $5.6 million in sales of electricity and it is estimated that during the next 25 years Nam Theun 2 will generate around $2 billion in revenue to Laos, one of Asia's poorest countries, since most of the electricity will be exported to its power-hungry neighbour, Thailand. The government has promised that this money will be spent on reducing poverty and both renewing and improving the country's infrastructure.

 

Seventeen villages in the flooded area have now been rebuilt and the 6,200 people - mostly farmers - who lived in them have been retrained to make a living from the reservoir.

 

The power company has promised to double their living standards within five years. According to the World Bank, 87 per cent of those resettled believe life is much better than before as they now have electricity, sanitation, clean water, new roads and greater access to schools and health care.

 

 'In the old village things just weren't convenient,' said Tiea, 25, one of the relocated villagers. 'It wasn't a pretty place, the houses weren't very nice and we didn't have power. In the new village we have electricity, we can see better.'

 

But the old criticisms have not gone away. Environmental and human rights groups warn that the dam will have a negative impact on water quality and fish and that the local people who were relocated after the area was flooded may not be able to support themselves economically in future.

 

'People are happy with these new amenities, but the real problem is how to restore sustainable livelihoods for communities who used to rely on the natural resources - forests, fish and grazing lands for their animals - now that they've lost these,' says Ikuko Matsumoto, programme director for the environmental group, International Rivers.

 

As well as the 6,200 villagers already rehoused, activists also point out that there are over 110,000 people in riverside villages downstream from the dam whose lives will have to change because of the new river ecosystem. They claim that these people will have to deal with issues like flooding, decline of the fish population and poor water quality. How quickly they will pick up new skills is uncertain.

 

But the World Bank says it is responsive to these problems. A 4,100-square kilometre protected area has been established around the dam to safeguard flora and fauna. It admits though that rebuilding the lives of the villagers is not a short-term process and everyone is trying to learn and readjust as they go along.

 

Why was the construction of the reservoir stopped?

• Because the communities didn’t need it

• Because the project caused a lot of money

• Because the communities there supported

• Because it finished

• Because the project harmed the communities and the environment

 Kai KENSAVAONG will never again walk along the muddy lanes of Sop On, the village in southern Laos where she was born. Her old home now lies at the bottom of a reservoir of brown water created to feed a hydroelectric power plant, the first to be funded by the World Bank for over twenty years. 'I'll never forget that place,' says the 41-year-old villager. 'It was my home. I picked my first bamboo stalks there.'

 

The World Bank stopped financing hydroelectric dam projects in developing countries twenty years ago because of criticism that such projects were harming local communities and the environment. But Nam Theun 2-a 39-metre high dam on the Mekong River that generates over 1,000 megawatts of electricity - is the showpiece for the bank's new policy of supporting sustainable hydropower projects. For Laos it is part of a longer-term strategy to revitalise the economy and become the battery of South-East Asia.

 

The bank says that lessons have been learnt from the projects of the sixties and seventies when people were forced to resettle and whole areas of forest or agricultural land were flooded. When it comes to clean sources of energy, the bank thinks hydropower is the pick of the bunch, offering the best solution in a world where 1.5 billion people have no access to electricity.

 

In 2010 the dam brought $5.6 million in sales of electricity and it is estimated that during the next 25 years Nam Theun 2 will generate around $2 billion in revenue to Laos, one of Asia's poorest countries, since most of the electricity will be exported to its power-hungry neighbour, Thailand. The government has promised that this money will be spent on reducing poverty and both renewing and improving the country's infrastructure.

 

Seventeen villages in the flooded area have now been rebuilt and the 6,200 people - mostly farmers - who lived in them have been retrained to make a living from the reservoir.

 

The power company has promised to double their living standards within five years. According to the World Bank, 87 per cent of those resettled believe life is much better than before as they now have electricity, sanitation, clean water, new roads and greater access to schools and health care.

 

 'In the old village things just weren't convenient,' said Tiea, 25, one of the relocated villagers. 'It wasn't a pretty place, the houses weren't very nice and we didn't have power. In the new village we have electricity, we can see better.'

 

But the old criticisms have not gone away. Environmental and human rights groups warn that the dam will have a negative impact on water quality and fish and that the local people who were relocated after the area was flooded may not be able to support themselves economically in future.

 

'People are happy with these new amenities, but the real problem is how to restore sustainable livelihoods for communities who used to rely on the natural resources - forests, fish and grazing lands for their animals - now that they've lost these,' says Ikuko Matsumoto, programme director for the environmental group, International Rivers.

 

As well as the 6,200 villagers already rehoused, activists also point out that there are over 110,000 people in riverside villages downstream from the dam whose lives will have to change because of the new river ecosystem. They claim that these people will have to deal with issues like flooding, decline of the fish population and poor water quality. How quickly they will pick up new skills is uncertain.

 

But the World Bank says it is responsive to these problems. A 4,100-square kilometre protected area has been established around the dam to safeguard flora and fauna. It admits though that rebuilding the lives of the villagers is not a short-term process and everyone is trying to learn and readjust as they go along.

 

Who promised  to double  the standard of living around the reservoir within 5 years?

• The writer

• The government of Laos

• The Project Manager

• World Bank

• The Power Company

From reality to fantasy

 

   There once was a Sheikh with big dream. His land was a sleepy village occupied by pearl divers, fishermen, and traders who docked their boats along a small creek, through the town. It was there that Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum imagined creating a gateway to the world. It was a dream he could not afford to realize. So in 1959 he asked a neighbor to lend him many millions dollars. He made the creek wider, built roads, schools, and homes. With his young son, Mohammed, by his side, he walked along the empty waterfront and painted his dream with words. And some years later, it was as he had said. He built it, and they came.

 

   Then it was his son’s turn to carry on developing his father’s vision. Sheikh bin Rashid Al Maktoum transformed Dubai into an air – conditioned fantasy world of 1,5 million people. No project seemed to be too ambitious for him. He built the world’s tallest high-rise building, the 828 meter BurjKhalifa, the world’s biggest shopping mall and the world’s largest motorway intersection. He helped little Dubai become the shopping capital of the Middle East. In the last 5 years, it has attracted more tourists than India. Its most landmarks, the Palm Jumeirah, an artificial island built in the shape of palm tree, provide holiday villas for the rich and famous.

 

     But in the financial crisis in 2008 made people think again and Dubai failed to sell many of its new luxury apartments. Up to then property in Dubai had been increasing in value and it had been easy to get people to invest. These days, investors risk losing money.

 

      The rest of the world looks on with a mixture of wonder and suspicion. Is this a capitalist model that people want to copy or do they fell Dubai has decided to abandon its true heritage and become instead the Las Vegas of the Middle East.

 

What is the text mainly about?

• The condition of Dubai at the present

• The problem of Dubai

• The transformation of Dubai

• The condition of  Dubai in the past

• The beauty of Dubai

From reality to fantasy

   There once was a Sheikh with big dream. His land was a sleepy village occupied by pearl divers, fishermen, and traders who docked their boats along a small creek, through the town. It was there that Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum imagined creating a gateway to the world. It was a dream he could not afford to realize. So in 1959 he asked a neighbor to lend him many millions dollars. He made the creek wider, built roads, schools, and homes. With his young son, Mohammed, by his side, he walked along the empty waterfront and painted his dream with words. And some years later, it was as he had said. He built it, and they came.

 

 

 

  Then it was his son’s turn to carry on developing his father’s vision. Sheikh bin Rashid Al Maktoum transformed Dubai into an air – conditioned fantasy world of 1,5 million people. No project seemed to be too ambitious for him. He built the world’s tallest high-rise building, the 828 meter BurjKhalifa, the world’s biggest shopping mall and the world’s largest motorway intersection. He helped little Dubai become the shopping capital of the Middle East. In the last 5 years, it has attracted more tourists than India. Its most landmarks, the Palm Jumeirah, an artificial island built in the shape of palm tree, provide holiday villas for the rich and famous.

 

 

 

    But in the financial crisis in 2008made people think again and Dubai failed to sell many of its new luxury apartments. Up to then property in Dubai had been increasing in value and it had been easy to get people to invest. These days, investors risk losing money.

 

 

 

     The rest of the world looks on with a mixture of wonder and suspicion. Is this a capitalist model that people want to copy or do they fell Dubai has decided to abandon its true heritage and become instead the Las Vegas of the Middle East.

 

What happened in Dubai in 2008?

• There was political problem

• There was monetary crisis

• There was world war

• There was revolution

• There was an expansion

From reality to fantasy

   There once was a Sheikh with big dream. His land was a sleepy village occupied by pearl divers, fishermen, and traders who docked their boats along a small creek, through the town. It was there that Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum imagined creating a gateway to the world. It was a dream he could not afford to realize. So in 1959 he asked a neighbor to lend him many millions dollars. He made the creek wider, built roads, schools, and homes. With his young son, Mohammed, by his side, he walked along the empty waterfront and painted his dream with words. And some years later, it was as he had said. He built it, and they came.

 

 

 

  Then it was his son’s turn to carry on developing his father’s vision. Sheikh bin Rashid Al Maktoum transformed Dubai into an air – conditioned fantasy world of 1,5 million people. No project seemed to be too ambitious for him. He built the world’s tallest high-rise building, the 828 meter BurjKhalifa, the world’s biggest shopping mall and the world’s largest motorway intersection. He helped little Dubai become the shopping capital of the Middle East. In the last 5 years, it has attracted more tourists than India. Its most landmarks, the Palm Jumeirah, an artificial island built in the shape of palm tree, provide holiday villas for the rich and famous.

 

 

 

    But in the financial crisis in 2008made people think again and Dubai failed to sell many of its new luxury apartments. Up to then property in Dubai had been increasing in value and it had been easy to get people to invest. These days, investors risk losing money.

 

 

 

     The rest of the world looks on with a mixture of wonder and suspicion. Is this a capitalist model that people want to copy or do they fell Dubai has decided to abandon its true heritage and become instead the Las Vegas of the Middle East.

 

How was Dubai before 1959?

• It had big rivers

• It was a sleepy village occupied by pearl divers

• It was full with sky    scrappers

• It was full of modern buildings

• It was full of office buildings