a级毛片av无码,久久精品人人爽人人爽,国产r级在线播放,国产在线高清一区二区

The authorities in Nanjing have just come up with a regulation saying that people receiving government welfare cannot raise pets. The rule was included in the new "regulations for the guaantee of the urban population’s minimum living level", which were passed by the Nanjing Civil Administration on March 7.

Illegally-raised dogs are taken away. [Photocome]

As reported in Beijing Youth Daily on August 8, 90% of the people who rely for their living on the welfare fund are now preparing to give up their beloved pets. The other 10% would rather abandon welfare so as to keep their pets by their side.

The regulation soon sparked a vigorous debate. Some agreed with it, saying the relief fund was to ensure a basic living for poor people and what the people on welfare get should not be frittered away on pets. These people felt that as the fund came from the nation’s tax income, recipients should treasue the limited resource and use it for necessities.

On the other hand, those who don’t agree with the regulation say it has never been specified what the fund should be spent on. They point out that life is not only abut necessities. Also, the regulation doesn’t give a detailed description of what a pet is. Does it include birds, goldfish?

An official of Nanjing Civil Administration who was not willing to disclose his name

Yes, we didn’t give any specific details about the concept of a “pet”, but we won’t be so unreasonable as to take away a poor old man’s little cat. ink of a pet as something requiring expensive maintenance. Some people who are not really that poor ask for the relief fund. And whether they keep pets is one standard to see whether they really need the money.

Anonymous clerk from a Beijing law court

It is the freedom of a citizen to keep a pet, unless he raises an animal illegally like a tiger, a panda or something dangerous to others. I don’t think raising a pet has anything to do with the relief fund. That’s why I can’t understand the reason why this e was carried out. Whether someone keeps a pet cannot decide whether they deserve the relief fund.

Madam Wang, a welfare recipient, Beijing

If they want to take my cat away, they are killing me. I have nothing but a cat. She is all I have. I only talk with her, because I don’t think others are willing to talk to me. So if they take my cat away, I won’t want the relief fund anymore either.

Wang Kaiyu, director of the technology department of Changcheng Machine Factory, Beijing

I think this rule has its reasonable side. But it’s a pity the details haven’t been explained. For example, what is a pet? They should give some standards to differentiaten expensive pet from little animals. Besides, the rule should also classify welfare recipients into different groups. Elderly people may need pets to relieve their loneliness; pets are sometimes an essential comfort to them. As to those who can work but still get money from the government, I think it’s rational to ban them from keeping pets.

Ferry van de Pavert, a Dutch private doctor

I think poor people should get a bit of money to feed their pets. It is important for the animals but also for the keepers. Poor people are more depressed and a pet gives them happiness. For children it is very important to learn and share kindness and love with a pet. If poor people are not happy, they may consider criminal activities to survive and perhaps steal money to eat. A pet gives love and good company. In most countries around the world we train pets like dogs to guide blind people and to find drugs at airports and so on. As we recognize the importance of animals in our lives, we should also respect animals even more and support poor people in feeding their pets.

Zhang Fan, professional worker, Beijing

I think the rule is unreasonable. A dog is not merely a pet for me. My dog “Chouchou” is like a family member. Do you think it’s right to discard him when I’m poor? I’m alone right now, and Cho brings me happiness at home. As to what a pet is, I don’t think a price standard is scientific.

Katy Lee, student at the University of Iowa, US

I really don’t know much about keeping pets in China, but I would say people should be able to do whatever they want with their pet. If they want to keep it, they should keep it. If people on welfare want to hare the limited amount of money they receive from the government with their pet, it’s their choice. The people should be allowed to judge whether they can afford to keep a pet or not.

Close

Today's Top News		Top Lifestyle News
+National economy faces a string of challenges ( 2003-08-26) +Delegations arrive for six-party talks ( 2003-08-26) +China condemns Japanese landing on Diaoyu islands ( 2003-08-26) +Official vows to defend nation's health ( 2003-08-26) +Indigent students struggling to fund higher education ( 2003-08-26)		+A Tax on Pets? ( 2003-08-26) +Mysterious Tunnel Links Shenzhen, Hong Kong ( 2003-08-26) +New church dedicated in Shenzhen ( 2003-08-26) +Female writers probe new areas in Chinese writing ( 2003-08-26) +Tough times for female grads ( 2003-08-26)