Your views: Dogs are 'useful, 'not like babies'
Dogs are useful
I agree with the points raised by Tan Yi Chyin in "If you can tolerate kids, why not dogs?" (The New Paper, Dec 14).
The writer was reacting to an earlier article, "Don't allow dogs for flat dwellers" (The New Paper, Dec 12) .
Many dogs are already facing difficulty getting adopted.
Shelters are full, so some get euthanised, which is sad.
Also, many people don't understand that big breeds (especially labradors and golden retrievers ) are less noisy than small breeds.
Dogs are useful, like in police work or guide-dog therapy. If people are made aware of all this, why would there be a need to make rules to ban pets?
Dogs aren't kids
Comparing dogs to babies is downright ridiculous.
Babies are babies to everyone. Dogs are babies only to their owners.
The writer says most dog owners are responsible folk, which is like saying most smokers are responsible and do not litter.
The facts, however, are quite the contrary. Talk about getting the facts right.
Dogs are 'durians'
Saying that flat dwellers can't keep dogs implies that only those living in private houses can.
That is like the rules for public transport, which implies that only people in private cars can eat durians while commuting.
So, you don't need a companion that gives unconditional love to the lonely, especially the elderly. You don't need help to see or guide you, listen for the doorbell or phone.
But please understand that there may be people who do.
E-mail your views and photos to firstname.lastname@example.org
You can also write to us at The New Paper, 1000 Toa Payoh North, Level 6, Annexe Block, Singapore 318994
For verification, we need the writer's full name and contact number (preferably a cellphone).