5/19/2008
Pay up TV licence fee or else...
While the transport companies are going after the small time cheats, MDA is going after those who refused to pay the TV licences for their own reasons. Many just find it ridiculous to pay for things that they do not want. There are many channels, yes, but how many want all those channels that are programmed for them? Many will be contend to live by one or two channels and some may not want a single channel at all.
Haven't technology caught up and be able to monitor which channel people tune in to and charge for usage, and not because the provider wants to provide and the viewers have NO CHOICE but to pay? It reminds me of the Medisave, Life CPF, Minimum Sum retention scheme etc etc, when the people have NO CHOICE.
Who cares if MDA provides for 10 or 100 channels free if those are not what the viewers want? Who cares if MDA thinks it is important or good to provide 'TV and radio programmes that "inform, educate and entertain our multicultural and multiracial society"?' Why are the masses made to pay or subsidise for the effort of MDA to want to cater to everyone?
Personally I only watch one channel. Not even listen to radio and all the craps the rowdy and at times silly DJs are gabbing about. So why should one pay for services and programmes that one does not want? Compulsory woah.
If MDA thinks that they are the one to decide what the people should hear or see, then they should pay for it themselves and not demand that the viewers and listeners pay for them when the people did not want to hear or see.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
It is high time this TAX (yes it is a tax) was repealed and thrown out.
The basis for this tax is when TV stations were all state owned. This is a British idea. The BBC is or used to be funded by a TV/radio license fee. (I don't know what the situation is now with BBC funding)
I agree. Most of the content on TV and radio is absolute crap which will decrease human intelligence if people are exposed to it for too long.
Radio DJ's are particularly embarassing -- where did these AWFUL American accents come from?
We have to pay to watch endless airing of commercials? High time MDA starts charging the Media Companies. The Government need to provide the public with important and timely announcements such as when disaster strikes, NS Recall etc. The TV is an essential requirement for the home and apart from TV programs, families uses it to watch DVD's, play games etc.
MDA therefore need to review this.
Singapore's TV channels are shit, all shit, nothing but shit. It is even worse especially on Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays with mostly third grade repeat movies, repeat golden this and that awards. I hardly bother to watch and feel all those craps doesn't deserve the S$110 licence fee.
what is important now is that state media are being used to dissemble govt approved information and programme and to serve state functions like ns recall and informing the people of govt policies. the entertainment programmes should be entertainment programmes to entertain and not to, as matilah said, insult the intelligence of the people. and the programmes must meet the expectation of viewers, not third grade programmes.
why should people pay for state information and advertisements and third grade programmes?
I dont watch local TV at all. so in theory all i need to pay is for the internet charges, no?
i remember not long ago. i can watch English soccer FA Cup, soccer world cup, etc for free on our public tv. But now it is not meaningful anymore as there are no more screening. Why can't they give us more value if they want us to continued paying the tax. its a long way to add value if they could give us some documentaries Channel such as Dicovery, BBC , National Geog. Our young children and old grandpa and ma could definetly benefit from this. then it is more meaningful to pay this tv tax.
The notion that the $110 (!! I remember it as $10...) license fee (aka tax) is used to fund "public" TV is out-rightly dishonest.
FTA (Free-To-Air) TV in S'pore is hardly "public" any longer. All the FTA broadcaster ORPORATIONS (privatised) now.
They are revenue-positive -- from the income they derive form advertising (no joke, its big bucks). why should they be funded by a $110 fee as well -- privatised govt businesses getting "free money" from the taxpayer?
This is dishonest and unfair, and it should cease. There is absolutely no basis fro taxing the ownership and use of TV and radio, other than to grab people's money (private property earned by labour) under the "auspices" of the state. That's like in the olden days : "I hereby claim your money in the name of The King".
FTA TV sucks ass because it is state run, not free market and subject to the loyalty or disloyalty of viewers. They can pay themselves any salary they like. They can run the show any way they please. There is no market to govern them, no competition to speak of.
Even if you pay for cable TV, you still have to pay the govt TV license. So, either which way, you always lose.
When the state is dishonest and unfair, everyone loses.
would any of the super talents do a rethink on this issue and say, hey, we need to change our mindset on this?
this often repeated argument that the cash rich media merchants should foot the bills for the lacklustre programming, instead of the public, has been there for ages. it is a story that MDA obviously didnt buy.
why, only $110 and you are making a mountain out of a molehill..?
On the contrary Redbean, you do have a choice and that is not to own a television set at all. Voila, no $110 licence fee. I have gone without a television set for the last four years. Every couple of months, MDA will send a letter reminding me that it is an offence to own a television set without a license. Hahaha, always have a good laugh. Even kenna 'raided' by them once, but in the end, they can't make it stick coz I really dont have one in my house.
They are revenue-positive -- from the income they derive form advertising (no joke, its big bucks). why should they be funded by a $110 fee as well -- privatised govt businesses getting "free money" from the taxpayer?
i sensed a confusion. may i clarify? yes the media companies made from the ads and keep their profits. where the difference lies is MDA is a separate entity which collects fees from the public to fund non profitable social/ cultural programmes, such as national day programme, cultural variety shows etc, that helps put together the social fabric in the country. hence the media companies maybe raking in the profits. but it is not the same to say that MDA is making big bucks or is revenue-positive, becos they are different entities. in fact i suspect that MDA is revenue neutral and could possibly even be a loss making entity. I support the efforts of MDA and I regret the bashings that MDA has constantly been (wrongly) subject to. but I believe MDA should tax the media companies in place of the public to fund these social programmes.
Thanks for the clarification.
I will continue to bash MDA (just for fun) as yet another unnecessary state institution -- part of the socialist agenda in "mind control".
I don't abide by any of their silly laws anyway--especially their laws on censorship.
The only people who should be "developing" media are independent content producers.
When a govt produces media content, there is but one word for it: propaganda -- which everyone is forced to pay for.
P.S. You may not own a TV. But it is my understanding that if you have a radio of any kind -- in your car, in your phone or integrated with your digital clock -- you are required by law to pay the license fee.
"why should people pay for state information and advertisements and third grade programmes?"
These are emotional and perennial arguments about the TV licence fee issue. The only things that have changed through the years are more advertisements and more third grade programmes. Policy makers should really consider taxing the media companies instead of the public to fund MDA's social programmes.
i think the people are getting wiser by the day. and they are unhappy about paying to listen to someone's grandfather stories.
MDA should charge Mediacorp for the monopolistic right to the industry and Mediacorp should in turn charge the advertisers for it. the people are passive audience to all the parties who want to tell their stories and should not be made to pay for them. worst, many of the stories are outright offensive and painful to the eyes and ears, and the grey matter as well.
you want your stories to be heard, you pay. by right the people should be paid for their suffering in silence at the barrage of information not to their likings.
On the assumption that Mediacorp's profits goes back to another govt's agency, it may make more sense. That due to possible conflict of interests, MDA and Mediacorp from more or less the same parentage, should not levy charges on the other.
Just in case you've forgotten how much power stat boards like the MDA wield:
Part 1
Part 2
They disrupted PRIVATE peaceful activity. The state has over-stepped the line of liberty here.
The film in question:
One Nation Under Lee
MEDIA CONTROL IS MIND CONTROL!
Using the police -- time and again -- as an instrument of OPPRESSION is disgusting. My response to the Singapore coppers here
However as free to air channels in most countries are now, free, why do they still insist that the public has to pay?
MDA should charge Mediacorp for the monopolistic right to the industry ...
Which is more difficult, collect $110 from laid back uncles and aunties or, charge Mediacorp 9 figures annually?
The public in many FREE countries don't pay for FTA TV -- directly. In Australia there's channels 7, 9 and 10. Channel 2 (ABC) and SBS are FTA state-owned corporations -- taxpayer funded.
The philosophy behind govt-run FTA channels is purely political. Any govt who tries to sink the ABC or SBS will be thrown out of office.
In FREE countries, there is democracy. Under democracy the masses can vote for anything they like.
Tough being Singaporeans
Compulsory to pay TV licence for programmes that you do not want to watch, and sometimes so painful to watch. And because the programmes were so unbearable, they have to pay Starhub cable TV to watch other programmes.
Even if you opt for Starhub cable TV for want of better programming, still you must not forget the TV licence fees. Like it or not, as long as you pass by their side of the turf, you got to empty your pockets or risk losing your teeth.
Post a Comment