Ban sparks debate

Comment on "Beijingers vexed on keeping car ban" (China Daily website, August 31)

Who does the government serve, the majority of the people or the few privileged car-owners? Logic provides the obvious answer.

Don't waste time and money going through the motion of a referendum when the answer is already there.

We love the blue skies and the clean air, and should tell the world that it wasn't just a show for the Olympics. We said what we meant, and we meant what said: keep Beijing and the whole of China green. The odd and even number traffic arrangement is perfect, and should be kept forever.

Obvious

on China Daily website

Calling it a stupid and short-sighted idea is not an emotional burst but a rational judgment.

Do you really think the sky can be bluer and the traffic can be smoother with this odd/even measure? That is a dream!

On the contrary, you will pay more for your goods and services. Those who do not own cars are better prepared for more crowded public transport and less public space.

Moreover, why should car owners suddenly find out that the cars they own have half their value overnight? How about the tax they paid and the compulsory insurances and "road maintenance fees" and commercial insurances?

Why would people subscribe to a policy that will do no good for them? This policy will only benefit the car makers/sellers, and those who have the privilege to own a special license to drive seven days a week.

Beijinger

on China Daily website

The poor need more help

Comment on Li Xing's column "Rural dream of decent sports class" (China Daily, August 28)

More and more I have been thinking that Beijing people are only interested in making money and have no interest in the rural poor.

I live in Nanning, but spend as much time in the countryside as possible. I have been to schools that have no sports equipment. It is a matter of priority, schools that have no books, broken chairs and desks, where the children have no shoes, tend to put sports on the backburner.

I have offered to supply some equipment, but have been turned down by the teachers. I think that years of low pay and very poor living conditions destroy any keenness they may have had. Sports equipment means more work. I cannot blame them.

Ernie

via e-mail

Just a friendly gesture

Comment on Raymond Zhou's column "Embracing a wrong interpretation" (China Daily, August 30)

Having done business in China for seven or eight years I can understand that this particular public gesture would raise eyebrows and start some tongues wagging. It is not customary in China to hug or indeed to allow any part of your body to contact another, hand shaking is a relatively new (Western) form of welcome.

But as an Australian I can absolutely understand Lauren Jackson's gesture as nothing more than childish exuberance and joyfulness.

There is (in an Australian sense) nothing to be communicated by such a public display, except joy and happiness. In fact I would even go so far as to say that Lauren's reaction and hug indicates generally how Australia felt towards China for the excellent competition, games and friendliness displayed by the people of China.

There is nothing more or less to be indicated in Lauren's gesture.

Bruce

on China Daily website

Readers' comments are welcome. Please send mail to Letters to the Editor, China Daily, 15 Huixin Dongjie, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029 China. Send faxes to (86-10) 6491-8377. Send e-mail to opinion@chinadaily.com.cn or letters@chinadaily.com.cn or to the individual columnists. China Daily reserves the right to edit all letters. Thank you.

(China Daily 09/04/2008 page9)