TV COE
July 3rd, 2009 | 
Author: By George Tan, Guest Columnist
I received a TV Licence Payment Advice from MDA requiring me to cough up S$110 to pay for the annual fees a few days ago. Like any ordinary Singapore citizen, without wanting to argue why it is totally unnecessary for such fees to exist, I surrendered without a fight and went to look for a AXN machine near my house. As I dragged myself to pay, I read the payment advice more closely. The more I read, the more I think and the more I am upset.
First two highlights were that it is an offence to have a TV set at my premises without a valid TV licence. And authorised licensing officers would be conducting inspection for the presence of any TV set.
Next were the late payment fees were $25 and penalties after late payment stage is $200 and above. At the back of the letter is a comic strip with the highlight of why the need for TV licence.
The reason stated was that “Under the Broadcasting Act (Cap.28), it is be an offence to have a TV set at your house without a valid TV licence. Authorised licensing officers would be conducting checks on properties with no TV licence. A fine of $200 shall be imposed if a TV set is found at your home during inspection.”
In the court of law, you are presume innocent until proven guilty. In this case, it is not true. If I buy a TV for home decoration and I don’t watch TV programmes on it, why should I pay for a TV licence which is suppose to be licence for me to watch TV? So isn’t licence like the car COE?
As long as you buy a car, you must pay for the licence to own the car. After 10 years, you must buy the licence again. For the TV, its annual fees is $110 which means its 10 years fee is $1320. But the car is a choice, is the TV a choice?
If the government wishes to speak to the people, can it do it if its people don’t have TV? Furthermore, if I rented a place out to people, and those people bought a TV set, I would be fine for allowing a TV set in my house. But the point is that if i rented out the house without a TV set and on one fine day the tenants decides to buy a TV, why should I be the one responsible?
Another thing. Authorised licensing officers can conduct inspecting for the presence of any TV set implies that they can search any house without a warrant. So if any licensing officers feels that on one fine day, they are irritated with hapless victim, they can go to anyone’s house in Singapore and conduct a search. I should have taken note of such privileges when I was looking for a job. There are many people I would like to irritate if I have the power, boy would I want to get them.
The best part of the letter is this. The payment advice was sent to my new HDB flat whereas the TV licence fees is for my old flat which I handed back to HDB more than 6 months ago.
As I last remember, a person isn’t allowed to own two HDB flats in Singapore. And I have paid for the TV licence fees for my new house a few months ago. And looking at the address of the new flat, can’t MDA conclude that I have moved and is therefore chasing after the wrong man? And can I sue them for causing undue stress for threatening to fine me for not paying up for something I am not responsible for on time? So what I am going to do is to call up MDA soon and tell them to go over to my old flat and search around for a TV. They can’t sue me for asking them to learn from their mistakes, right?
Posted in Opinion
65 Responses to “TV COE”
Loading ...
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Foyce Le Xuan highnote5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing PAP Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League silviu ionescu Singapore Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Vivian Balakrishnan Wendy Chong Y O G Youth Olympic Games
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
More and more mobile phones can used to watch TV. Will the post-paid mobile phone subscibers be slapped with a TV licence fee too?
Welcome to Singapore, where the authorities can screw you even if you are in the right. Just ask Mr. Brown, whose weekly column in Today was banned after his article “Singaporeans are fed. Up with progress” implied that the “progress package” was simply vote-buying (which is why it is only handed out just before elections), and that the price of essential goods and services will go up right after the General Election, along with ministerial and senior governmenal officials’ salaries. And of course, he was proven right in the end.
Precisely, all we have been told is that the fee is required to allow production of some programs, which otherwise will not be produced because of lack of sponsorship or something like that..
But there aren’t any details available on the breakdowns of expenditure, such as how much are used to pay the production staff, etc..
I wonder how much are collected each year??
You can sue MDA, you can even don’t pay the $110 TV tax but at the end of the day you will be punished or lose becos you are going against the infrastructure set up by our brilliant minds.
Nothings is free in this country.
The next time Singaporeans are going to complain about is SCV cableTV and mioTV services – why can’t we pay Radio and TV tax through our enterainment choice and let the Providers pay the Tax for us?
Pay for free to air channels? U must be kidding.
I’d go for cable instead. If I subscribe, to I have to pay MDA licensing fees on top of that? Can anyone tell me?
They used to chased after me years later for the TV licence fees that my deceased mother owed, and I stupidly paid up the $110 for a deceased person. It’s just funny.
TV is NOT a necessity. I’ve not been watching any TV prog for the past two, three years.
I don’t pay TV licence fee, and I’m mostly not at home. So if there are any officers coming to check, I don’t know leh…
Why own a TV when the computer (internet, DVD & stuff) offers so much more entertainment???
I called up MDA today and told them I do not a TV in the mentioned premises. The person who answered said that it would be recorded that on 3th Jul, I informed that I dont have the TV from today. And I need to pay the fee from Jan to Jun. I said that I did not have TV from Jan so why should I pay. She said that the TV fees is together with property tax. But I say I did receive any property tax on that unit. So why am I paying for something I didnt use. I was just told I would be fined and then charged if I still did not pay. Lets wait and see what happens next. I would love to appear in court and see if there is any law that would force me to inform MDA that I dont have a TV.
When TV was first introduced in Singapore, we we told that because we will not have too many advertisement, that is why we havve to pay a licence! Anybody remember that? But now, we seem to get nothing but advertisement!!
Our neighbour, Malaysia, no TV license. Some more, those in the State of Johor, get to watch Singapore TV channels for free. All you need is a tall TV antenna. This week got ad about TV covering Johor. So advertizers can reach Malaysians as well. Why we say PAP, Pay & Pay. Got reason right!
I think the government should abolish the tv licence fee. For the low income, 110 is a lot of money. Why not tax it at 0.1 per cent of income instead. Value should be in relation to what you earned. This would make the ministers think twice.
Mr Tan, stop whining. Just inform them that you’ve moved to a new address.
“But the point is that if i rented out the house without a TV set and on one fine day the tenants decides to buy a TV, why should I be the one responsible?” – You shld have put it in the contract with the tenants – no TV. Such a duh thing.
Sue for undue stress? Are you freaking kidding me? So easy stress ah, lol. If you’ve time to write such rubbish, use the time to instead earn some money and stop kaopehing.
1. Is it because “Costs” have gone sky high with additional MDA Experts you see! and et cetera high paid “A”s in the tax collection regime to boot? So why don’t have to pay TV license too? Brilliant minds up there as we’re told repeatedly. And the Scandinavians can have lesser brains up there somewhere because land mass bigger, population bigger to (but we’re playing “catch-up” with more and more FTs! Kind of funny reasoning isn’t it?
1a. When WDA was then SBA, I slipped in one of my TV license payment like delayed a month plus after 31 jan so-called grace period given as WE ARE afterall paying them 1 year in advance too. KNOW THAT GUYS??? So they insisted I pay up the $40 FINE.
I said “FINE”, I’ll pay it next year with NEXT YEAR’s TV license. They said NO emphatically. I said why? They said it’s the rule aAND the law? I said I don’t care about your rule and law until you have satisfied YOURSELVES, Common & Comparative Sense for the following:
a. That a 36.36% “slap fine is reasonable” is “Fine” and WHY?
b. Since the Credit Cards & even HP interest rates were NOT over 24% per annum!
c. And as I am paying MDA in advance ofr the year, give me a good reason why I must also pay their “fine” In ADVANCE TOO?
I posted them a cheque for $110 ONLY. But making sure with their clerk then that they have relented to time their receiving my cheque on the same day as their short letter to “Forgive-Me”! – Just kidding as they knew better.
Following years they finally reduce their FINE to $25! Bravo to BRILLIANTLy PAID MINDS!!!
Someone also mentioned about mio TV. This will be a separate comments posting about those “MDA Experts”!!!
And repeated multiple times programmes and movies too.
So too MDA when it was SBA used to impose fines of $40 over a license fee of $110.This is 36.36% of $110! Which is higher than Credit Cards and HP interest rates at that time!
And do you know that you are paying $110 in advance too for the FTY you paid the for license fee of $110? So, the grace period FTY of payment to end 31 Jan isn’t really a grace period is it as it is in advance and for the late payment fine too! Question then is, should one be also paying the late payment fine in advance as well? Is it a matter of principle? Or is it a matter of expedience? This the rub with them as SBA then. Which was finally waved. And subsequently reduced to a late payment fine of $25 which was more representative of other comparative rates. It may be argued that a fine is different from that of interest rates charged. But then if this arguement is acceptable to the ‘flow’ of common sense reasonings, then would the “sky be the limit” for fines”?
Dear Mr. Koh Teo Koon, must apologise for the error and my comments looking mistaken like from you again with “Mr.” added only. Sincerely sorry lah!
And repeated multiple times programmes and movies too!
So too MDA when it was SBA used to impose fines of $40 over a license fee of $110.This is 36.36% of $110! Which is higher than Credit Cards and HP interest rates at that time!
And do you know that you are paying $110 in advance too for the FTY you paid the for license fee of $110? So, the grace period FTY of payment to end 31 Jan isn’t really a grace period is it as it is in advance and for the late payment fine too! Question then is, should one be also paying the late payment fine in advance as well? Is it a matter of principle? Or is it a matter of expedience? This the rub with them as SBA then. Which was finally waved. And subsequently reduced to a late payment fine of $25 which was more representative of other comparative rates. It may be argued that a fine is different from that of interest rates charged. But then if this arguement is acceptable to the ‘flow’ of common sense reasonings, then would the “sky be the limit” for fines”?
Dear Mr. Koh Teo Koon, must apologise for the error and my comments looking mistaken like from you again with “Mr.” added only. Sincerely sorry lah!
And repeated multiple times programmes and movies too!
So too MDA when it was SBA used to impose fines of $40 over a license fee of $110.This is 36.36% of $110! Which is higher than Credit Cards and HP interest rates at that time!
And do you know that you are paying $110 in advance too for the FTY you paid the for license fee of $110? So, the grace period FTY of payment to end 31 Jan isn’t really a grace period is it as it is in advance and for the late payment fine too! Question then is, should one be also paying the late payment fine in advance as well? Is it a matter of principle? Or is it a matter of expedience?
Fines were subsequently reduced to a late payment fine of $25 which was more representative of other comparative rates. It may be argued that a fine is different from that of interest rates charged. But then if this arguement is acceptable to the ‘flow’ of common sense reasonings, then would the “sky be the limit” for fines”?
the payment for tv license is so that pap has more $$$ to produce higher quality PROPAGANDA!
I guess the country needs hard cash very very badly. Even my stray dog got fined for late payment of licence fee. The people in authority are misusing their power.
Its a form of tax that I resented….. The MDA says the $110 is lowest among the world, but it the highest in ASIA, same rate with JAPAN which has HDTV.
There is no escape, just pay up lah.
Some people complain they don’t watch TV any more (even if they have a TV set in their living room). They claimed they got their entertainment from DVD, computer or mobile phones.
Please stop complaining. Because one fine day, the Gahmen will decide to tax computer, or DVD or mobile phones instead. Then, you regret your complaining lor.
The Gahmen die die want to tax, you got no choice lah.
$110 a year. Just take it for granted please. They suck you more from the ERP gantries and GSTs, why bother with ten dollars a month for an entire family. Even your kids can pay that amount if they want to watch TV.
Later really like what No Escape said, they charge you coz you use a TV as a computer Moniter, then we all go high.
the local tv market is not a liberalised industry.
“The MDA says the $110 is lowest among the world”, which of cos, conveniently left out that a good many countries have $0. If u factor all the $0/free/nil license in, its definitely NO WHERE near the lowest among the world.
And another thing, I DO have a TV, but i only connect it to a console to play games or watch DVD, since i almost never watch free-to-air channel at home, so why is it that we are taxed for this. So we are actually taxed for POSSESSING a tv in the house, regardless WHETHER we are using it or not then?
PAP is a blood sucking leech.
As Ministars S Raja once said “we want to make every singaporean pay for everything!”
We are all missing the point here. Its the OWNERSHIP if the TV that requires the license, regardless of whether you use it or not.
Pay you feel not worth it for their lousy tv programmes, don’t pay they fine you and threatened you with legal letter or even charge you in court. Pls vote wisely in next election.
to jim007jimmyboy :
Singaporeans paying for everything? The ministers don’t pay for anything.
These people always use these techniques to scare people into paying.
Really hope people stop paying to them to spite them a little.
can someone please explain why in spite of us paying $110 for licence, watching sports programme in singapore is a luxury. if you come from a family that cannot afford cable – too bad no sports programme for you.! singapore, a rich country and our ministers are the highest paid in the world cannot afford to broadcast sports for its citizen..???
sorry, if u look at practices elsewhere in the world such as the UK, its the SAME. btw fine there is 1000 pounds
Hi folks,
I think most of you here are confused. It is NOT ownership but possession that attracts liability. Let me quote the relevant section of the Broadcasting Act.
Licensing of broadcasting apparatus
20. —(1) Subject to this section, no person shall —
(a) install any broadcasting apparatus in any place, or on board any ship, aircraft or vehicle registered in Singapore;
(b) import, offer for sale, sell or have in his possession with a view to sale, any broadcasting apparatus; or
(c) operate or have on any premises in Singapore owned or occupied by him broadcasting apparatus on or by which broadcasting services are received,
except under and in accordance with a licence granted under this section.
The ambit is all inclusive CATCH-ALL legislation. You cannot install “any broadcasting apparatus” on board any ships, aircraft or vehicles registered in Singapore nor can you operate or have on any premises owned or occuped by anyone by which the “broadcasting apparatus” in operation or by which broadcasting services are received unless you paid for the licence.
The law as framed is SILENT on whether broadcasting services are ACTUALLY received…simply by which broadcasting are received through that broadcasting apparatus attracts liability. That is to say, if you have a broken down set of TV – inoperable or operable with frequent viewing collapses of visual discomfort such that you seldom use it, it is still your legal obligation to pay the licence. The law also never specify that the penalty will hit the “owner” of the broadcasting apparatus, it is even cunning of “possession” – just simply being on your premises brings you liability. Quite simply, if you don’t have a television but your tenant brought in a television, you as the “owner” of the premises (not the lawful owner of the televison) is legally liable for the licence payment. And if you rent out the whole apartment, you pay for that licensing liability. Likewise, if your departed tenant left behind a broken “broadcasting apparatus” ( such as a television) and an inspection is chanced upon your premise, you get the fine.
The word “broadcasting apparatus” is also undefined as to restricted to television only – presumably any device capable of receiving broadcasting signal. I beleive a radio or hi-fi set qualifies for this licence obligation. Apparatus is also a very nasty loose term – your HDB receiving cable connected to the roof-top antennae is evidence of “broadcasting apparatus” which they could technically compel you to pay a licence fee. The same goes for your internet access receiving U-tube video.
The ambit is wide but is the application fair and equitable to all?? I doubted very much. One see lot of HDB block void deck has television installed for older folks to watch free to air broadcasting – the same was as TV rooms in private condominium. Of course, these violated section 20(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act… who to fine??? There is no verifiable or identifiable owner of “premise” of broadcasting apparatus of the television set in private condominium. Void decks of HDB blocks are part of building and installation of television set requires a licence, who pay for the licence in that case?? It is almost public. Also is Delgrocomfort pay for A LICENCE of $110 for each broadcasting apparatus it places on SBS Transit buses it registered with a unique vehicle licence plate in Singapore – under section 20 (1) (a)??? I wondered??
And if they extend the licensing requirements to internet, then every computer monitor attracts liability because it is capable of receiving broadcasting tranmission signal. And the problem then is – how to enforce that equitably since the liability is tied to premise where the broadcasting apparatus is found or in use. Is McDonald or Starbuck paying for television licence if I walked in there to buy a coke and surf the net there as well using my laptop? What about the durian stall that use a computer and monitor NOT to view U-Tube broadcasting but for account keeping?? It becomes so ridiculous.
Those who watch paid-television can afford to pay for the licensing fee. The free to air program are watch by the “greying generation” who cannot afford pay to air programmes and they are penalised. Some of the internet savvy greying generation don’t even want to watch MSM of free to air – almost poluting of the same rubbish brainwashing in print MSM. Television is a dead monster of yesteryear and yet I suspect it is inequitably punished on the weakest and most vulnerable section of this community. They should really think of abolishing this licensing fee or modify it to apply on only those who utilised pay television. In any case, pay television already attracts a GST – in short, the Government is taking a double dip for the same service even for the well-to-do consumers of pay television
Do anyone disagree here????
Yo Doob, at least Tan speak up. What about you. Suck it up. Yea 110 may not matter to a lot of people but still good to know and always remind ourselves how we are being sucked out of 1 cent here and a dollar there.
Go earn your money now to pay and pay. Reading rubbish not worth your time lah.
Heard of tree conservation area??? Home Owners get $6000 fine for cutting his trees in his own property…There may be hidden ‘laws” that you have never heard of…You’re sure you don’t want to pay your tv license???
[If I buy a TV for home decoration and I don’t watch TV programmes on it, why should I pay for a TV licence?]
So MDA can subsidise Mediacorpse’s Little Nonya and other propoganda. BTW, a new 42-inch plasma TV costs the same as 6 years of TV licence fee.
What kind of topic is this? If you are so upset, give up TV & just obtain entertainment from the internet & YouTube.
i just saw an ad on tv about the american idol getting broadcast in sg which attracted viewers from sg and JOHOR BAHRU!!! MAYBE THE MONEY SUCKERS CAN CONSIDER FINING MALAYSIANS FROM JOHOR BAHRU FOR WATCHING SINGAPORE PROGRAMS EVERYTIME THEY ENTER SINGAPORE. even malaysians get treated better than singaporeans.
I think this topic is NOT necessarily about people being upset with the precribed licensing fee PER SE. Looking at the contributions to this thread, it seems to be gripes against the seeming inequity of this law application on imposition of fines, lack of realism of in this archaic piece of legislation and generally the unfairness of it all by reason of mere accidental “possession” on premises – NOT necessarily legal ownership nor physical possession ( if it is your tenant’s property for example and the landlord has no real or apparent legal ownership or physical possession, let alone any use).
Times has changed. Technology makes television a monster of yesteryear’s entertainment but law have NOT kept pace. Yet strangely enough, there isn’t one instance of the very bright sparkling brains among elected and unelected representatives raising a protesting voice on this subject-matter in and out of parliament.
The application of this archaic legislation is out of touch with reality and its imposition sometimes are unnecessarily harsh for some sections of the community as viewed from contributions seen in this thread – many of the greying generations are NOT internet savvy and their grown-up children have left the hatching nests. This generation is bored and probably without an income in many instances and the television is their only means of linkage to the sanity or insanity of the outside world.
Of course, the other issue is GST. For those who paid levy of paid television, they are paying GST for those charges, are they not? There is no known equity principle of law that you get tax twice for the same liability object of attention at law, I believe. Why is this double dip?? It is simply a matter of equity at law principle and application.
Even if it is to be applied, regardless, is there any party advantaged by undisclosed exception like or blind deference in wealthy condominiums by MDA? Perhaps MDA should come out with a definitive clarification that all parties must equally pay for licensing including condomimiums, installations on ships, aircraft and public transports like the MRT, McDonalds, KFC Starbuck etc ( if they allow customers to surf their internet there)?? Fairness will gain respect and acceptance.
what kind of logic is this – “Some people complain they don’t watch TV any more (even if they have a TV set in their living room). They claimed they got their entertainment from DVD, computer or mobile phones.Please stop complaining. Because one fine day, the Gahmen will decide to tax computer, or DVD or mobile phones instead. Then, you regret your complaining lor.”
that is like saying, don’t comprain about the 7% gst, becos lagi 11% next time…
don’t comprain abt erp, becos lagi put one outside every hdb estate…
don’t comprain about our 1st class gahmen, lagi you vote in oppo and your mothers/sisters become maids elsewhere…
lollolololoolololol
This is HOW EFFICIENT our government is! You moved and updated your address but they still BLUR LIKE SOTONG! And this kind of bulls**t deserves pay rises? NO!
Now hear me out, complain some more and next time we have license for DVD, VCD and even Conputer.
loop, and your reason for justifying the TV License is?
Farplayplease said: I think most of you here are confused. It is NOT ownership but possession that attracts liability. Let me quote the relevant section of the Broadcasting Act.
So ok, the wording I used was wrong. Its a think line anyway and the end result would be the same.
Having read the Act more precisely, it appears that the MERE POSSESSION OF any broadcasting apparatus in itself attracts the licnese fee.
Having read the Act more precisely, it appears that the MERE POSSESSION OF any broadcasting apparatus in itself attracts the licnese fee.
Whether the apparatus is/was used is irrelevant.
Get rid of the TV set. Get a projector. Now they can’t fine you.
XisD Tay say….”MERE POSSESSION OF any broadcasting apparatus in itself attracts the licnese fee…”
Not quite so precise, I thought. which living person capable of being prosecuted as an available defendant at law for any violation of s.20 (1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act..for any unlicensed broadcasting apparatus in HDB’s void deck, TV rooms of private condominiums, clubhouse of public memberships, SBS Transit buses ( if ommission/s did occur)?? I cannot figure this puzzle out.
Remember s.20(1)(c) reads…
….operate or have on any premises in Singapore owned or occupied by HIM broadcasting apparatus on or by which broadcasting services are received…..
who is the “HIM” in the definition of this law application?? It is invisible to me.
As for the rest of us with living or working accomodation…. “any premises” swallow us completely in the net of legal liability to pay.
This legislation is draconian, open to abuse in public office of MDA and quite possibly DISCRIMINATORY of impact – that it is why some people legitimately feel aggrieved. There are technology available to track its use (just like pay tv), the levy should apply only on the use basis – regardless of frequency used. That is only fair, at least to a certain degree. And I feel that those who pay GST for pay television USE, they should NOT have to pay another television USE or possession levy – it is double dip of taxation by MDA – is this legal at law??? Frankly I don’t know.
FairPlayPlease, 20(1)(c) reads…….operate or have on any premises in Singapore owned or occupied by HIM broadcasting apparatus on or by which broadcasting services are received…..
For a layman like me, this section of the law already cover everything from installation, possession and ownership. WHO can be the one in possession OR the one OWNING the premise on which the apparatus is installed or operated.
So your question of WHO can be prosecuted for the following:
1. HDB’s void deck – HDB and/or the person who put it there?
2. TV rooms of private condominiums – Management Strata or the person putting it there?
3. Clubhouse of public memberships – Owner of the clubhouse if a person or the company that run the clubhouse or the person putting it there?
4. SBS Transit buses – SBS or the person putting it there?
For a layman like me, it appears to cover almost ANYONE who is “connected” to the apparatus that can be prosecuted. This section at least for me, its not as vague as you see it.
However, I do have issue with the apparatus’s usage or non-usage making it subject to license fees since s.20(1)(a) to s.20(1)(c) is not clear on that.
My question is: If the broadcasting apparatus is NOT use but merely “possessed”, is the license fee applicable? My reading is that it is vague on “possession” and “usage”.
My thoughts as follows:
(a) install any broadcasting apparatus in any place, or on board any ship, aircraft or vehicle registered in Singapore;
“install” is different from “possession”. Can placing a TV on a cabinet be taken as having “install”? This part is silent on usage unless “install” is presumed with an intention to “use”.
(b) import, offer for sale, sell or have in his possession with a view to sale, any broadcasting apparatus; or
“possession” is mentioned here BUT “with a view to sale”. So the mere “possession” does not attract the license fee.
(c) operate or have on any premises in Singapore owned or occupied by him broadcasting apparatus on or by which broadcasting services are received,
The catch phrase here is “operate or have on any premises”, which included “possession” since “have” equate “possession” but read on and we get “on or by which broadcasting services are received”.
“on or by which broadcasting services are received” requires that the apparatus is receiving or can receive “broadcasting services”. So if the TV is not used and is an old antique thats faulty and cannot receive “broadcasting services”, WHY and WHICH PART of the act stipulate that such a TV set should pay the license fee?
i await the day PAP ask for oxygen tax because air is not free. must pay tax one.
xiaocookies said: Get rid of the TV set. Get a projector. Now they can’t fine you.
PaPies not stupid, if majority use that, they will amend the act to include any apparatus that can also “project”.
XisD Tay wrote
For a layman like me, this section of the law already cover everything from installation, possession and ownership. WHO can be the one in possession OR the one OWNING the premise on which the apparatus is installed or operated.
So your question of WHO can be prosecuted for the following:
1. HDB’s void deck – HDB and/or the person who put it there?
2. TV rooms of private condominiums – Management Strata or the person putting it there?
3. Clubhouse of public memberships – Owner of the clubhouse if a person or the company that run the clubhouse or the person putting it there?
4. SBS Transit buses – SBS or the person putting it there?
For a layman like me, it appears to cover almost ANYONE who is “connected” to the apparatus that can be prosecuted. This section at least for me, its not as vague as you see it.
On the glimpse of it it covers “almost ANYONE” – that is where the cunning rubs. It cannot be HDB and a person who it there. It got to be either. If it is HDB, then every poor living in HDB block wants one install in his/her block – what criteria applies? If it is the person who put it there, let say, a nice guy like up upgrade to top range plasma and donate your “old” working beautifully set for public use, are you paying one tv licence for YOUR use in YOUR premise or you pay two tv licence under one household name address? If it is put up by some clan association or association of people of any descript on the quiet and MDA sought to clarify compliance of licensing requirement, who does MDA approach – the unknown contractor, the previous unidentifiable owner, or the “I-don’t-know-who-it belongs-to in some association of no fixed address or association of natural person of no descript and no one taking responsibility?
-TV in tv rooms of wealthy condominiums. Some condominium has no tv in TV room which the name is a misnomer – it more of a function room for kids party but come Olympic or National Day celebration, tv set suddenly appear from nowhere – that attracts statutory liability for licensing. Someone in the management strata can easily lied that – oh it is a friend’s used set, I borrowed it for my use and decided that I could share with others, assming he had his own tv licence in place. But if the same tv is stored in my premises and do not watch tv at all, a chance inspection found it and I am fine $200. Is that not vague and discriminatory to fine someone for “mere possession” if possession is a shifting liability??
TV in club-house – does MDA check clubhouse to ensure all pay up or they just hunting down households? Some employers have club-house for their employees at premises in different location from their workplace and have corporate training rooms equiped with tv in the HQ, do they pay separate tv licence for each premises SINCE THE LAW IS EXPLICIT AS TO THE DEFINITION OF PREMISES association with licensing requirement, not usuage or ownership??
SBS transit bus tv – this appear to be commercial venture attracting advertising revenue perhaps on EACH VEHICLE which pasengers/customers board. Each vehicle has a unique licence plate and is i believe a “premise” in its own with different pool of customers on each journey at each specific time. As the licensing is tied to “premise” (never mind who the owner is or who use it or received benefit from its use), is there a licence charged for each bus where a tv is installed or is there one licence paid by DelgroComfort to cover all buses?? Premise as defined in the legislation is SINGULAR WORD not of a plural word and cannot be transferable of licence ( i.e. I cannot borrow your tv licence to cover my liability to pay by temporary swtiching my plasma in exchange for yours for a week if MDA caught me). I beleive, if fairness is to prevail, DelgroComfort should be paying a tv licence for each bus, otherwise I would like to “borrow” my sister’s tv licence and no paying my own!!
On these grounds, I beleive this legislation is vague, unfair to tax on “found on premise” basis when SBS transit bus could be using it to generate revenue but not paying on the same SINGULAR premise found in the legislation. It is open to abuse in application which might lead to discriminatory impact.
The law should be fair, transparent and equitable to all, don’t you agree?
XisD Tay wrote
……“install” is different from “possession”. Can placing a TV on a cabinet be taken as having “install”? This part is silent on usage unless “install” is presumed with an intention to “use”.
The catch phrase here is “operate or have on any premises”, which included “possession” since “have” equate “possession” but read on and we get “on or by which broadcasting services are received”…..
………on or by which broadcasting services are received” requires that the apparatus is receiving or can receive “broadcasting services”. So if the TV is not used and is an old antique thats faulty and cannot receive “broadcasting services”, WHY and WHICH PART of the act stipulate that such a TV set should pay the license fee….?
I checked the dictionary. Install simply means puting an equipment in a place and ready it for use……seems logical as it does not specify HOW one install his tv set. That is to say… put on a TV cabinet, sit in on a big display shelf or nail it to the wall in the master bed room, or put it on ANY vehicle be it aircraft, ship or bus or ANY premises (not multiple premises) etc If it is multiple premises, I can always “borrow” my relative name or my business entity as part “owner” of my private condo and therefore her tv licence covers mine as well and vice versa WHICH OF COURSE IS COMPLETE RIDICULOUS NONSENSE. I suspect that since instal is so vague, the moment the tv is found on your premises, it is said to be “installed” – no need to prove usuage or ownership (legal possession) of that tv, just the “physical” possession hangs you for a fine of $200 if unlicensed I think.
I suspect the words “have on premises” satisfy the implied “possession” even if physical which means that a broken down set is also a liability for licensing. Any one any thoughts on this?? Maybe someone call call MDA to ask. Also the words “CAN” be received of broadcasting services is silent if it is ACTUALLY RECEIVING broadcasting services or receiving these services satisfactorily…which again is the nasty rub. You have to pay licence for a broken down set but any business using multiple sets on the ONE PREMISE for customer advertising like a tv retailer pay one licence only and he/she can write off “cheaper” display set “loss” as tax expenses to boot!!!
How is that for fairness?
Bottomline is – it should be a licensing levy on use because the user gets the benefit from “free to air” broadcasting. If someone – be it a natural person or a business entity is rich enough to own or operate unlimited number of apparatus which “can receiving broadcasting services”, they should be obliged to pay a tv licence FOR EACH SET regardless of premise where the set is installed, located or found. Wioth possible exclusion of tv retailers or those in the trade, NO EXCEPTION if a licence is validly required.
That would be the fairest in my judgement.
new taxes that’re coming up include:
1. body weight TAX on public transport
2. MP3 player TAX
3. calculator TAX
4. computer TAX
5. oxygen TAX
6. divorce TAX
7. graduation TAX
8. public toilet TAX
To Fairplayplease, very logical arguement even for a layman like me. Did the PaPies ever approach you to be appointed the law minister or AG?
Anyway, I do agree that is is vague and the catch-all way its drafted really sucks but then, its meant to be that way, I supposed.
Basically, the law allows for the mere possession of any apparatus termed as a TV (broadcasting apparatus) to be subjected to license regardless of the condition of it, even if you remove the picture tube and place snall dolls in it for decorative purposes.
I would love to go on arguing that S20(1)(c) sets a precondition that “broadcasting services are received or can be received” to legally warrant a license but its pointless since S20(1)(a) – S20(1)(b) already caught that.
Unfair, YES. Don’t Pay, NO.
XisD Tay, That legislation, as drafted and codified, really sucks of equity, archaic in this cyberspace age, likely to be discriminatory of impact ( depending on who MDA is hounding and what is their definition of ANY premises means) and may I say oppressive ( double dipping for those who already paid GST for paid TV services which they cannot receive without a tv).
But who are we, lesser mortals, to complain? Nobody in MDA is listening…they are only interested in collecting your money and mine.. If anyone in MDA, MPs, NMP, NCMP read this blog, do you think they care for us??
I am waiting for them to do the right thing.
XisD Tay,
BTW, thanks for sharing your thoughts with me on this matter in this blog. I enjoy your discussion too.
Fairplayplease, for the purpose of discussion, if I have a TV set at home with picture tube filled with water so I can place small fishes it it, and then I kenna caught and summons to court for not having a TV license, how would you, if you are my counsel go about arguing my case?
XisD Tay, you caught me by the tail AND PULLING VERY HARD AS I DESPERATELY FLEE FOR MY DEAR LIFE!! Ha ha ha.
I am NOT a lawyer, just a layman like you BUT JUST FOR DDISCUSSION AND GOOD HUMOUR of mental gymnastic ( and I am very very DUMB since someone has already categorised me as one of those ungrateful “losers” ) which must alert and FOREWARNED you that as your imaginary counsel, I am going to LOSE YOUR CASE in your hypothetical situation.
Just for academic wayang fun triller of discussion as your hypothetical counsel in your hypothetical situation, I would advise you
a) to take a colour photo with camera with date inscription as evidence of fish hobby rearing and water cannot conduct electrity to receive broadcasting transmission
b) bring that “fish tank” tv set to court as evidence
and then very politely and in good demeanour asked the sitting Presiding judge this question
“Your Honour, my learned counsel died of AIDS yesteday in SGH, so I am unrepresented or have to speak for myself. I am NOT a lawyer, please understand that in respect to law, I am an ABSOLUTE MORON and I beg your forbearance of my ignorance.
This look-like television is my hobby fish tank. My dead counsel, stupid as he was, advised me to plead guilty as charge. I disagree and I will NOT pay him even with funeral money of tonnes of “kim chua”. I am, in your hornourable courtroom, pleading “NOT GUILTY”
I have my reason. My so-called television breached section 20 (1) (c) of the Broadcasting Act because it can received tranmission broadcasting signal if I send it for repair and future use to watch porn movies in my complete privacy when I linked it to my internet. As of now, you can see that it cannot receive tranmission as it is water-filled and cannot connect to any power source needed to operate a television for viewing entertainment. As such, I am presently owning an apparatus NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVING any broadcasting transmission signal.
My dumb counsel says the outdated legislation under which I am charged here for offence is SILENT on actual use, just my possession hanged me for a guilty plea.
So to sum up, I beg your Honour to make a judgement decision to consider only from one of the two perspective
a) fitting fact to law
b) fitting law to fact
Fitting fact to law, I am not guilty. I don’t have a television, only a fish tank.
Fitting law to fact, I am guilty because a television – broken down or used for fish tank is still an apparatus which CAN in future received transmission ( if repaired) BUT NOT ACTUALLY.
You have to decide on equity at law. Thank you very much.
Fairplayplease, I have to take my hat off for you.
Nicely put, sibei tokong, completely speechless but then case still lose cause technically, possession is proven and implied regardless of whether the apparatus can receive broadcasting or not. Also, my “fish tank” is/was a television set, thus ownership of a television (the mere word) itself will pyt the finishing nail on the coffin in a court chaired by kangaroos.
i dont think there’s anything wrong with having a tv licenses. it’s a common practice in a lot of places in the world. so what if malaysia doesnt have? they also have tv shows in malay and make second class citizens out of non-malays. u want that also?
the price is high for the licence. so if u dont want then dont own a tv set. OR complain to mda instead of bitching here. u want to be an online hero is it?
and what the hell kind of logic is buying a tv set for decoration? are u as stupid as u sound george?
@tvlicenceok…Greetings from hell…Sorry if I did grieviously offended on sensitivity but you got ONE BIG CONSOLATION, my most unworthy client XisdTay, already made it known to the whole world that HE WON’T COME TO MY FUNERAL NOR PAY ME FOR ALL MY HARD WORK even by burning some cheap (to him) funeral money!!! How wretched and pathetic soul he is… I am waiting for him in hell to exact my revenge.
If you still have kind thoughts for my soul after offending you, you can still send flowers to my funeral. I can’t contact you in your dream sleep, Xisd Tay may gladly help you. He hates me!
In the meantime I am enjoying myself in hell – there is wine, women, Ministry of Soundblast… it is all free here. Care to join me?
XisD Tay, Greetings…SORRY,…. I WAS JUST JOKING..just like that comedy series I sometimes get lucky to watch travelling on SBS transit bus….
Fairplayplease sometimes do have wicked jokes to spring a humour around the block (spelt as blog).
Have a nice day.
Fairplayplease, just to touch off on the ambiguity issue you were having.
Under such circumstances, shouldn’t a purposive approach be adopted in the interpretation of statutes in order to promote the underlying purpose behind the legislation?
A purposive interpretation requires the court to approach the literal wording of a statutory provision bearing in mind the main purposes of that provision and the Act in question. It is not necessary for the provision to be ambiguous or nconsistent provision before a purposive approach to statutory interpretation is taken.
It is also important that in the interpretation of a any statute, any doubt or ambiguity should be resolved in the accused person’s favour aka Benefit of Doubt?
I believe where ambiguity exist, the judge, at least in some foreign jurisdiction, look at what is the “statutory intent” of the legislation i.e. what was the “intention” of Parliament when they passed the law.
The cunning rub here is – what is the “INTENTION” when parliamentary debate can be so divisive, even explosive, maybe even confusingly moronic.
Let me give you one hypothetical example. Let say you if you were a commercial pilot flying for an airline. There is law in the country which forbid race discrimination. You are hitting your 60th birthday say on 28 October 2009. THE LAW IS SILENT ON WHAT IS TOO OLD TO FLY but you passed your medical fitness test to fly on the 28 October 2008. That must by definition that your annually renewable flying licence (among other considerations also conditional on you clearing medical fitness) is FIT TO FLY UNTIL 28 October 2009. The fitness to fly medical is for aviation safety of crew members and more importantly the airline customers.
The economy had a meltdown like this year and since airline has been losing a lot of money. It is retrenching staff, but not airline pilot as yet. You are a flight captain of 22 years experience – expensive to the airline to put you in the flight cockpit. So what did the airline do? It would NOT schedule you for a single flight since February 2009.
You got really angry because you are paid a nominal salary unless you fly X hours per month. The airline have NOT given you a termination letter or retrenchment notice. You spoke to your lawyer who advised you that the airline did you a dirty job. It is called “CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL” in law. That means they did not sack you but did NOT give you work, so what is the difference of sacking you bluntly?? The airline is smart. Sacking you means redundncy payment. Putting you on “constructive dismissal” means that the effective sacking takes place by law on 28 October 2009 BY NOT SENDING YOU FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
You got furious. You confronted your airline employer. They tell you that you are nearly 60 years old now, why not wait for your birthday to come and then we decide then?? Ha ha ha, they want YOU to USE YOUR BRITHDAY TO SACK YOURSELF, they don’t have to use their knife and leave evidence for a lawsuit against them for age discrimination!!!
You went to court and sue the airline for Age discrimination since you brought a friend as witness to confronted the airline. The airline went to court even admitted that they tell you to wait for your 60th birthday and they are cunning enough to say that they DID NOT INTEND TO SACK YOU on your 60th birthday!! Of course, the court CANNOT assume in judgement that the airline intend to sack you on your coming birthday – it would NOT be fact to assume so. And for the court to decide your 60th birthday is your coming sack day, the airline can win the case by appeal saying the court judgment in your favour made “AN ERROR OF FACT AND ERROR OF LAW” because the law NEVER SAYS 60 is too old to fly.
Yoiu see, 60 may be too old to fly a commercial aircraft but 60 year old is not too old to be a salesman in a book shop selling books!!
S, what did the court do. It ruled in favour of the airline. It did NOT engaged in age discrimination. It has too many pilots now and thinks that other pilots (maybe younger accidentally) may be more usefully employ to fly their aircraft. To rub the salt in, the judge even say ‘ IT IS STATUTORY INTENT of age discrimination law TO PROTECT OLD PEOPLE from exploiting older people and they protect your health by giving you less stresful duty like flying or giving you less flying hours!!!
You got really mad now. Spoke to a Queens Council, who then advise you that you can appeal on grounds of unfair judicial ruling – denying your NATURAL JUSTICE because it is still fact that your employer
a) constructive dismissed your from work until 28 October 2009 and the employer not denying this in court and
b) the judge in awarding the decision in favour of the airline made an ‘ERROR OF LAW” for failing to account for this fact in a) in wrongly interpreting the “Statutory Intent”. There is NO evidence in statutory law legislation that 60th birthday is the age too old to fly since other airlines have older pilots still flying.
Guess what the outcome is – the HIGH COURT OF THE WONDERLAND say, we have
a) check the process of administrative decision and it has been complied with. So your case for appeal is dismissed on the following facts.
First, the judge who awarded againt you follow the law, it listen to your complaint, it look at the law ( never say 60 is too old to fly and you have not reach 60 years so you don’t know your airline will use your birthday to sack yourself. Or put it bluntly the High Court is telling you – GO f$@k yourself!!
Secondly, the judge did consider the “statutory intent” of parliament – that there should be no age discrimination and because of what I explained in the previous paragraph…you have not even reach your birthday, no discrimination took place!!!
YOU ARE VERY VERY VERY ANGY NOW. Why??
The High Court only LOOK AT THE PROCEDURAL STEPS being complied with i.e. hear your case, interpret the statutory intent and correctly tell you go f%$k yourself.
The High Court DID NOT LOOK whether the procedurals which must be followed in court proceedings is FAIR OR NOT TO YOU and did NOT consider that the constructive dismissal is just a dirty ploy to force you into circumstances which YOU USE YOUR BIRTHDAY TO F$#K YOURSELF.
So much for equity and fairness in law.
Got the message now??
The above metaphorical example is called “fitting law to fact”.It look at PROCEDURAL STEPS HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED ( which is, by law application, necessary steps to be followed in ALL COURT PROCEEDINGS) and NOT the fairness of OUTCOME which you are there fighting for.
If it follows the necessary procedural step, the High Court just say you HAVE NOT BEEN DENIED natural justice.
XisDTay.. Oops.. Sorry, the example is called ‘FITTING LAW TO FACT” rather than ” fitting fact to law” – wrong choice of phrase.
The fact is that you got sacked via “constructive dismissal” and the fact is that come your 60th birthday, you “sack yourself” without their help. Past 60th birthday, the employer will say, you are too old to go for medical and you have no flying licence from 23 October 2009. Go f%$k yourself. No retrenchment benefit because we have NOT sack you. You are ‘probably too old” without stating on a retrenchment notice in writing that 60 years old is THEIR CUT-off age as “too old” to fly.
Both the lower court and High Court ignore these facts and APPLY THE LAW of no age discrimination.. they are SILENT on the age of 60 as too old to fly. They perversely apply the law of NO age discrimination to actually discriminate against you by favoring your employers “unfair” decision AND DENYING EXACTLY THE SAME ( that the law discriminates against you as well) IN THEIR JUDGEMENTS DECISION.
See how fitting the law to facts work?? When this applies, the law is basically telling you this “f$#k you!!!