Tobacco companies are making profits at the cost of people's health and thus it has the obligation and responsibility to pay back society. If they are really interested in charity and social responsibilities, they should quietly leave the money behind and then quietly go away. As for the extremely lucrative tobacco companies, to build several primary schools is a piece of cake. If stringent restrictions do not come in time, they will be able to change schools into vivid advertisements of tobacco products.

A ban on tobacco sponsorship of education is necessary. Even if concerned schools confront temporary financial difficulties, it is more important to prevent the young generation from being "poisoned."

Timely help

Li Qing (Youth Times): China really needs to increase its anti-tobacco efforts and strictly forbid tobacco advertising. However, I believe that a tobacco company, like any other individual or company, should enjoy the right and be encouraged to donate to charitable causes. Education in underdeveloped areas is in need of financial support from big companies. Thus banning economically strong tobacco companies from building Hope primary schools will cause losses to local education.

What we are concerned about is not tobacco companies donating schools, but the forms of their donations. The introduction of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control defines "tobacco sponsorship" as "any form of contribution to any event, activity or individual with the aim, effect or likely effect of promoting a tobacco product or use either directly or indirectly." As far as I understand, as long as the donation of a tobacco company does not directly or indirectly promote the use of tobacco products, we should not ban this charity. We should not enlarge the scope of "tobacco sponsorship" and cling to the prejudice that we cannot accept any donation from tobacco companies.

Tobacco companies may have hoped to make the most of the sponsorship of education to improve their image and eventually promote their products, as tobacco control activists have pointed out. But this problem can be solved. For example, we can welcome a tobacco company's offer to build a school, but the school should be named by local education authorities after discussing it thoroughly and soliciting opinions from the public. The company would not be allowed to name the school, let alone display offensive promotional boards on campus. In any case, a simple ban on tobacco sponsorship is the worst choice.

Before there is a major change to policies on the industry, tobacco companies' operation and non-operation activities just have to obey existing laws and regulations. It is the responsibility of government departments concerned to prevent companies from illegal marketing.

Long Minfei (Nanguo Morning Post): According to statistics released by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in 2004, 126 million children in the world were deprived access to education, of whom 56 percent were girls and more than one third had never walked into a classroom. That is to say that one in every six children in the world is not receiving education and most of them are from developing countries. As the world's largest developing country, China is also plagued by the shortage of education funds.

In this scenario, the opening of primary schools funded by tobacco companies is a positive thing since otherwise some children will be deprived of their rights to receive education. Like anything in the world, these schools have positive and negative effects. But we need to see whether negative effects outweigh positive ones. It is obvious they play an important role in improving education in underdeveloped rural areas, which should be encouraged rather than banned. Meanwhile, the government should enhance regulation on tobacco companies to ensure that they operate lawfully.

Education is a country's foundation. A country can only become prosperous when its education becomes advanced. For the time being, as China's government investment in education falls far below the international standard, it is wise to absorb social capital to fill the gap. As for the primary schools concerned, we should allow the tobacco companies to offer financial supports while monitoring its advertising campaigns.

Cao Lin (Chengdu Business Daily): Our society hasn't developed to the stage where tobacco should be banned. Therefore, we still have to be realistic on this issue.

Since we allow the tobacco industry to exist and develop, why can't we allow companies in this industry to fulfill their social responsibilities? On the one hand, we allow these companies to make handsome profits. One the other, we forbid them from using revenue to improve social welfare. It doesn't make sense. This stand can only satisfy anti-smokers' needs to claim the high moral ground, but offers no help in solving practical problems.