http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,179858,00.html?
THE BUZZ
Time to abolish radio and TV licence fees?
By Reggie J
October 13, 2008
TNP FILE PICTURE
MORE and more countries have abolished the archaic radio and TV licence fee in the last 10years.
But here, some are paying for a cable set-top box from StarHub and perhaps another from SingTel. And on top of this, they, like everyone else, have to pay the Media Development Authority for TV shows they may never watch.
A number of other countries including Australia, Belgium, India and New Zealand - and even Malaysia in1999 - have abolished radio and TV licence fees.
The reason was simply that commercial channels would have to earn their keep from advertising. This ensures that TV and radio organisations are run efficiently. It's the drip-feed from taxpayers' money that can make organisations act like dinosaurs.
Interestingly enough, 11 other countries, including the US and Canada, never ever had a TV licence fee.
In the UK, the licence fee goes directly to the BBC, which is commercial free. But it does not stop the BBC from wide use of merchandising, sale of programmes, books and television rights, to bolster its revenue.
However, it seems it won't be long before this goes the way of the dodo.
Yet homes here have to pay $110 a year (and another $27 for each car) though MediaCorp is a commercial entity, and its revenue comes from advertisers. Even their newsreaders wear watches, clothes and maybe even undergarments, from advertisers.
So, is it still really necessary to have this stealth tax?
Letters to newspapers have repeatedly argued against it. But those who don't pay face the threat of a fine and perhaps even jail.
$111 million in past year
It was reported that the Media Development Authority collected more than $111 million in radio and TV licence fees in the past year. It has repeatedly argued that the fee is necessary to provide and fund the more than 3,000 hours of public service programmes, including those in the minority languages, and coverage of events like the National Day celebrations.
Yes, we need some worthy programmes to build community alongside the commercial fare. But can this be done better via a public broadcasting service - a non-profit operation? The PBS in the US and the BBC World Service are trusted institutions.
Whereas a government-controlled MediaCorp earns no kudos from being both a public and commercial broadcaster. Mixing the two can create doubts about its 'real' agenda.
MediaCorp should inform, educate and entertain the masses in a commercially viable way. If their programmes are hugely popular, advertisers will want to support them. And if they are bad, put them out of their misery, instead of putting them on a life-support system funded by ordinary taxpayers.
Someone once said we get the radio and TV we deserve. Should we not then have a say in what programmes we want and can see? When was the last time, if ever, we had a public consultation on the free-to-air range of shows that viewers want?
Abolishing the fee, especially in these difficult times, will give cash-strapped Singaporeans access to the information and entertainment content television offers, without the burden of an additional tax. It's enough that we have to pay for cable TV. But there we have a choice of what we want to watch and pay for.
The writer is a former Singaporean marketing professional
THE BUZZ
Time to abolish radio and TV licence fees?
By Reggie J
October 13, 2008
TNP FILE PICTURE
MORE and more countries have abolished the archaic radio and TV licence fee in the last 10years.
But here, some are paying for a cable set-top box from StarHub and perhaps another from SingTel. And on top of this, they, like everyone else, have to pay the Media Development Authority for TV shows they may never watch.
A number of other countries including Australia, Belgium, India and New Zealand - and even Malaysia in1999 - have abolished radio and TV licence fees.
The reason was simply that commercial channels would have to earn their keep from advertising. This ensures that TV and radio organisations are run efficiently. It's the drip-feed from taxpayers' money that can make organisations act like dinosaurs.
Interestingly enough, 11 other countries, including the US and Canada, never ever had a TV licence fee.
In the UK, the licence fee goes directly to the BBC, which is commercial free. But it does not stop the BBC from wide use of merchandising, sale of programmes, books and television rights, to bolster its revenue.
However, it seems it won't be long before this goes the way of the dodo.
Yet homes here have to pay $110 a year (and another $27 for each car) though MediaCorp is a commercial entity, and its revenue comes from advertisers. Even their newsreaders wear watches, clothes and maybe even undergarments, from advertisers.
So, is it still really necessary to have this stealth tax?
Letters to newspapers have repeatedly argued against it. But those who don't pay face the threat of a fine and perhaps even jail.
$111 million in past year
It was reported that the Media Development Authority collected more than $111 million in radio and TV licence fees in the past year. It has repeatedly argued that the fee is necessary to provide and fund the more than 3,000 hours of public service programmes, including those in the minority languages, and coverage of events like the National Day celebrations.
Yes, we need some worthy programmes to build community alongside the commercial fare. But can this be done better via a public broadcasting service - a non-profit operation? The PBS in the US and the BBC World Service are trusted institutions.
Whereas a government-controlled MediaCorp earns no kudos from being both a public and commercial broadcaster. Mixing the two can create doubts about its 'real' agenda.
MediaCorp should inform, educate and entertain the masses in a commercially viable way. If their programmes are hugely popular, advertisers will want to support them. And if they are bad, put them out of their misery, instead of putting them on a life-support system funded by ordinary taxpayers.
Someone once said we get the radio and TV we deserve. Should we not then have a say in what programmes we want and can see? When was the last time, if ever, we had a public consultation on the free-to-air range of shows that viewers want?
Abolishing the fee, especially in these difficult times, will give cash-strapped Singaporeans access to the information and entertainment content television offers, without the burden of an additional tax. It's enough that we have to pay for cable TV. But there we have a choice of what we want to watch and pay for.
The writer is a former Singaporean marketing professional
