For advertisement

Sample

6/19/2006

myth 18

'All Singapore households own a TV' For a super rich Singapore where all household gadgets are part and parcel of life, owning a tv, radio, fridge, washing machine, hifi etc is now taken for granted. Every household should have these equipment. And so the story goes. This guy was fined by MDA for not reporting that he did not own a tv set. And the onus is on Singapore resident to inform MDA or else they will be fined. Why is there such a regulation? Isn't it enough when asked to pay for the licence, for the house owner to confirm that he does not own a tv set? This must be the problem of a super rich country. Maybe next time they will fine people for not owning a tv set. Maybe...below is copied from Singaporesurf. RECENTLY I received a summons sent by the Media Development Authority (MDA) for having a 'broadcast television receiver without a valid licence'. I called up Licensing Services (Broadcasting) to inform the staff that I have not had any television set in my house from at least last year, so how could I be guilty of the offence? An officer from the licensing unit told me: 'You did not inform us that you did not have a television set, so you have to pay the fine.'.... N. Stanley Jeremiah

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is such a regulation because 66.6% of eligible voters last month gave the mandate for such a regulation to be put in place. Even, if this poor sod was not among the 66.6%, he still has to accept the verdict of the majority. That is how democracy works.

redbean said...

i think MDA is right. they know that all singaporean households have tv and so this chap must be fined for not having one. oops, sorry, for not reporting to them that he cannot afford to have one.

Anonymous said...

The household without a TV is definitely in the minority. So, it is right that the onus be placed on the house occupant to inform MDA and not the other way round.

redbean said...

i am glad that you share this logic.

people who are corrupt are in the minority and it should be their responsibility to report to the authority when they eat money. : )

Anonymous said...

Yup, whole heartedly agree with that.

Anonymous said...

Next time u must apply online to the govt that you do not have a e-mail address and computer internet access.

redbean said...

then you may be fined for not having one and not informing them. everyone is supposed to have one right?

Anonymous said...

this is the usual obnoxious rule that stifle creativity and perpetual fear. just remind me of the traffic rule in the USA and ours do not u turn if there is no u turn sign





t

abao said...

Technically, the person can not own a TV and still be able to watch TV programs through the cable.

The person can have a computer equipped with a TV tuner card so TV signals can be received.

Note: that person is using the computer not the TV :P

redbean said...

not sure whether licence fee is paid for owning tvs or viewing tv programmes.

Anonymous said...

If I read the letter correctly, this guy originally had a Tv. That means he used to pay the licence fee. If he had since disposed of his TV, then I think it is right that he should be the one to inform MDA that he no longer owns one as you can't expect MDA to know this. It is different if he never had one in the first place, in which case MDA would never have any record of him owning one in the first place. Tio bo ?

Anonymous said...

I think it would but I suspect he did not do that. He must've ignored the notice to renew the tv license thinking he can because he no longer owns one. If my theory is right, then he is clearly in the wrong.

redbean said...

tiok. very tiok.

but would it be sufficient when told to pay the licence fee to confirm that he had no tv anymore, and given some proof for that? should he be fined for not reporting that he had stopped having a tv?

(sorry for the typo errors.)

June 20, 2006 12:07 PM

Anonymous said...

My wife works in MDA. She confirmed that the house owner or occupant has the responsibility to inform MDA if he no longer has a broadcast receiver device like a TV in his dwelling. MDA will assume that a TV is still present in the house and so will bill the owner for renewal of the licence when it expires, unless it is informed otherwise. You also don't need to show any proof that one has disposed of the TV. MDA is magnanimous enough to takes it ast face value. It is not, repeat not alright, to just ignore the notice because one no longer has a TV.

redbean said...

i agree that once a tv licence is issued to a household, it is reasonable to expect the household to continue to have the tv unless informed otherwise.

not sure the details of this case. but once the occupant has informed mda, even late, case should be closed. why the fine for not informing or informing late?

or they need to charge some administrative fee for wasting all the manhours to communicate with the household and need to be compensated?

Anonymous said...

Talking through your arse again, I see. Like that you should also tell your clients they don't have to pay your invoices on time. Tell them they can pay you whenever they want, at their own convenience be it a month, 3 months, 10 years from when you invoice them. Then we see what happens to your business.

Anonymous said...

Hahaha, confirmed from the MDA reply in ST Forum yesterday that this Jeremiah guy is indeed the one at fault for having ignored the notices to renew his tv licence. So the shit he tried to throw at MDA instead deflected and landed smack on his face. Moral of the story here: before you even think of engaging any govt agencies and insinuating that they are wrong, make sure you are even whiter than white.