(1) I don't think it's correct to say "This is because in order to supplement manpower, technology is important." It would be better to say that our lack of resource had made us vulnerable, thus it is important to ensure that the use of manpower is maximized, in which technology can be used to supplement our manpower.

(2) "since the country is rich in manpower as compared to natural resources" --> Better to say manpower is our only resource since we do not really have natural resource available for use. By saying "rich in manpower" sound weird in Singapore's case though you did say "as compared to natural resource"

(3) "elder Singaporeans that make up most of the population of Singapore" --> not true to say "most of the population" but true that the number of aged population is expected to increase. In fact, it is rising.

(4) "Singaporeans have an advantage" --> Many other countries are also working towards technotopia, so in what sense is it an advantage for Singapore? Are you comparing with those poorer countries that are still lack in technology?

(1) Your stand is seriously not clear. Are you against utopia as a whole or just technotopia? It would be good to have it clear at the start of paragraph, with your concluding sentence having the same stand.

(2) You seems to be looking down on senior citizens ar?

- Senior citizens can come in useful in providing life experience to the younger generation along the way as well as some raw skills at times when technology fails.

- In Singapore, there are ongoing plans allowing senior citizens to upgrade themselves on technology at really low cost. Promoting of life-long learning also had aid senior citizens to keep up with the world too! So they are not exactly that 'useless' as you seems to mention.

(3) Unclear sentence: "Thus, with them securing their jobs and unemployment taking place at the same time,..." If not made clearly, it can be quite contradicting.

(4) Though you did mentioned Singapore, but i find that your points did not really applied it to Singapore context.

- Are you aware that Singapore government have been doing a lot to help the poor to close up the rich-poor gap and that it has been rather successful?

(1) Your topic sentence: it would be better to say utopia, as a whole is an unfulfillable dream. (Btw, i'm not sure if there's such a word 'unfulfillable') By just targeting on technolopia, it will limit your points and that will not really answer the question.

(2) Further elaboration would be good to make clear of your stand. The paragraph is too short.

(3) Singapore's Context not applied. Could have said that Singapore, being a practical country, is clear that perfection (thus, utopia) is unable to be achieved. That is why, Singapore works towards obtaining the best with what we have got by...... Then use it to support your stand.

(1) The stand in your topic Sentence is clear. However, it would be good to qualify your sentence by avoiding extreme words like 'should'.

(2) Most of the points stated in the paragraph were mentioned by the author already, thus it would be difficult for you to really present your argument and show some evaluation.

(3) Your concluding sentence did not reaffirm your stand that we should make do with the world we have got.

(4) It will be good to include some examples to show application.

(5) Most importantly, the Singapore's context is not applied. It could have linked up to the multi-racial and multi-regional society Singapore has.

(1) It would have been better to state clearly in your topic sentence that you favour technotopia because of the great benefits it had brought about rather than to say in your opinion technotopia and green utopia is needed.

(2) There was not much of elaboration on green utopia in the entire paragraph though it was mentioned in your topic sentence. It will be good to separate the 2 points so that you can expand it out more.

(3) Points brought up were mere stating and you went on to talk about the next point. It felt like this is a listing paragraph.

(4) You could have brought up the point that globalisation actually comes along technology, looking at how much the world has progressed with the help of technology to connect the whole world together.

(5) Most importantly, the Singapore's context is not applied.

(1) Topic Sentence is clear.

(2) However, the paragraph lacks of points, examples and a concluding sentence, which are all essential in development of a paragraph.

(3) It would be better to explain why Green Utopia sound nice first followed by explanation that it is not a viable option in Singapore.

(1) Paragraph is elaborated properly and clearly. It can be easily understood.

(2) However, the topic sentence should have directly state your stand that you are against Green Utopia.

(3) Most importantly, the Singapore context have been left out.

(1) Though there is a mention of "in the context of my society", you were just merely stating that "In the context of my society, the use of technology is critical and fundamental to be able to keep progressing at a rapid pace." (some more it's just 1 line only) There isn't much real (and obvious) application to Singapore context.

(2) But there is some sort of strong argument in the paragraph where evaluation can be seen, which is good.

(1) Second idea of the lack in resource is not very clear in bringing about the whole idea.

- Needs further explanation of why green utopia needs resources like natural resources and manpower.

- Contradicting -> "Singapore, herself already has no natural resources. Thus there is a need to use technology to obtain the natural resources to create the idea of a green utopia."

(2) Your last point is not about the dependence on technology (which you state in your concluding statement) but it is more on people's attitude in working towards 'Green Utopia'.

(3) But the paragraph is organised and structured properly. Generally clear.

Well written paragraph (at least i feel so lah). Clear linkage between ideas and clear stand on the issue. However, the Singapore context is not applied.