MDA wants bloggers to declare their income
From our Correspondent
The Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore may implement rules requiring bloggers to declare if they receive gifts or money for their write-ups. (read full article here)
MDA deputy director for development policy, Ms Yuvarani Thangavelu, says such regulations will “protect consumers” by enabling them to make an informed assessment about what they read.
She did not give a timeframe for when such rules would kick in; neither did she reveal the likely penalties for flouting them, nor how they would be enforced.
Given the borderless and anonymous nature of cyberspace, it will be almost impossible for MDA to enforce the rule unless bloggers disclose the information voluntarily.
The real agenda behind the move, however, is probably to deter potential donors from funding and supporting bloggers, especially socio-political blogs with a high readership like ours.
At the present moment, only our site, The Online Citizen and the website of the Singapore Democratic Party accept donations from readers.
We cannot speak for others, but for the Temasek Review, we are not paid for writing articles to promote the product / services of a company or agenda of a political group.
The donations are simply made out of goodwill to support our general operations on a whole such as paying for the server and writers’ fees.
As of now, the rules are still very ambiguous and unclear, but we can never discount the possibility that MDA may extend it to all forms of extraneous income in the future.
If such a rule is indeed promulgated, donations for socio-political blogs will surely dry up because few Singaporeans will dare to have their identities revealed to MDA that they have been supporting sites which are critical of the government.
In the long run, this will have a detrimental impact on the growth and development of the new media in Singapore, especially for popular sites with a sizable readership but hampered by limited funding.
For this reason, we feel it is in our long-term interest to incorporate a company to run the site professionally to reduce our dependence on external donations though they do not amount to much in the first place.
With all our income and spending properly documented and declared to the tax authorities, there will be little room for MDA to find fault with us.
It is for this reason that we hope to eventually unite socio-political blogs with high readership under our umbrella to bypass the administrative hassles.
Without a company to provide some form of legitimacy, credibility and legal safety net for bloggers, it will be an uphill task for their sites to continue growing.
Loading ...
csl on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 4:53 pm
The action is more in lined with looking at bloggers who blog their makan experiences and the other kinds of that stuff that can generate income for others.
Just look at how some unscrupulous stall holders stick stickers of “food programmes” and attract lots of customers who think “they got the sticker, should be quite good”. Net savvy restaurant owners might ask bloggers to come to their place and endorse their food for a fee. I just think we do not need to hit the panic button saying that this is just another form or attempt to censure the local netizens.
As for TOC and SDP their donations are collected to fund their operations. As a political party the SDP will have their income monitored under the political group income acts. As for TOC, I think they got some sort of arrangement going on for them such that they are not a personally run site.
Ah Hum on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 5:02 pm
There is only 1 way out.
Vote of Opposition on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 5:22 pm
Its another way by the MDA to control the bloggers and I think it is targeting anti-PAP blogs.
What a free nation we in.
Mai Hum on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 5:33 pm
Yes, for now, this is the only way out!
Anonymous on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 5:34 pm
Income disclosure is a legal and confidential relationship between a taxpayer and IRA and nobody else business. I have my doubt if the MDA requirement is constitutionally legal.
To give all an analogy, a prostitute have to declare and pay her income tax but she does NOT have to BROADCAST TO the ENTIRE cyberspace every time she receives a penetration. This is serious business, not black humour.
IT IS NONE OF ANYONE’S BUSINESS except her own and IRA. Maybe some tax accountants, lawyer or an IRA advisor reading this blog can offer a constructive opinion or advice here.
2nd class citizen on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 6:32 pm
“The penalty for flouting this rule in blogs or postings in Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube: A fine of US$11,000 (S$15,360)”
~~~ I thought the internet websites not belong to any countries. It’s just like internal waters not belong to any countries. Then why interfere?
“The Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore may implement rules requiring bloggers to declare if they receive gifts or money for their write-ups.”
So to pay Income Tax?
x12831 on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 6:45 pm
This is an attempt by the authorities to ‘control’ discussions in cyberspace. The authorities will tweak the laws to make it constitutional. I doubt there exist any Chinese wall between government departments.
Cpt on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 6:50 pm
it is a matter of time the elite will step in to control the situation. this few websites is gaining readership and recent housing and ft comments has make them look bad.
Darkness on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 7:06 pm
If I understand correctly; this is not an income declaration. It is merely a guide line to facilitate full disclosure. Lets be clear.
The article in the ST is very badly written and contains some serious omissions and is heavily weighed to suggest it is not even an accurate take.
The template, the MDA seems to be using appears to be the same one that is initiated by the FCA based in the US.
From what I understand from the reading of the 81 page FCA report, this is ONLY a guideline and not legislation.
The FCA is yet to go through a consultative process. Maybe MDA should consider doing the same, unless they think, they are smarter than the FCA?
The goal seems to be to make sure bloggers who receive any goodies as a result of “material connections” to the companies whose products they write about disclose the nature of the transaction – even then the FCA states very clearly this will only be RARELY invoked – so again I think it is premature for MDA to jump the gun here.
I will not worry too much abt this, bc whatever the FCA initiates has at least a 5 to 10 year gestation period. If MDA thinks they can do this within less time, then good luck to them.
Besides the guideline has so many loopholes – if you have a good lawyer, you can argue till the cows come home.
So if MDA wants to make a fool of themselves; they are more than welcome to do so.
Go ahead.
Darkness 2009
Don on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 7:17 pm
Most of you are probably not familiar with the precursor to this – http://ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm
Darkness on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 7:21 pm
Only I dont understand. If all our servers are routed outside Singapore and only effect transactions in Sweden in a foreign currency then how can it be under the jurisdiction of the MDA? Go and knock on the door of the Swedish gahmen lah, see where they will tell you to go!
For example. If I operate a gaming outlet based in St.Petersburg in Russia servicing an international clientele. Why should I even be obligated to fully disclose my income to the IRS in Singapore if I dont even repatriate the money back home? What nonsense r they talking about?
If I am lets say Mr Brown getting kick backs to write about F1. Then it makes sense lah. His audience is predominantly local. He should fully disclose his relationship with his sponsors and his income should be made apparent. That makes sense.
Very simple.
Darkness 2009
silenceisgolden on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 7:29 pm
By declaring as a business entity, you will be constantly watched not only by the government but your competitors and the chances of TR survival as it is will highly be unlikely. One wrong move and you will be in court answering lawsuit.
With your identity fully declared even your spouse and relatives will also be screened.
For all you know, the NRIC number of all posters will be required, the next time you post anything.
Anonymous on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 7:45 pm
The intent of consumer protection is so thinly patently hypocritical.
Why don’t all these years they require journalists in MSM to disclose their financial interests every time they writes an article of print which could influence the investors (consumer’s) buying or selling behaviour.
The intrusion of blogger’s privacy is well-targetted, cynical, frivolous and striking of bunker mentality of “fixing” all dissenting opinions besides those of opposition political parties.
If they are genuinely all-embracing of consumers’ informed decision, why don’t they initiate TWO-WAY FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURES LAWS i.e. bloggers have to disclose their financial affairs before blogging AND GOVERNMENT HAS TO DISCLOSE ALL ITS CABINET POLICY DOCUMENTS to enable the citizenry AS CONSUMERS OF GOVERNMENT’S DECISIONS INCLUDING relevant information on MIGRATION LEVEL also to enable us to make informed decisions as to buy our flats as and when and after considering these important information.
And if we agree, the next demand would be to require bloggers to disclose which political party they vote for and why before they blog a political opinion??
Come on, we are not children incapable of making our own informed decision as to the reliability or otherwise of internet-sourced information or any promotional push by aggressive business. If we haven’t got a PHD, we at least passed our kindergarten education. There are existing consumer protection legislation and common law applications.
CUT OUT THE HYPOCRISY OF FALSE CONSUMER PROTECTION AND OWN UP TO YOUR CYNICAL DUBIOUS POLITICAL CHICANERY AT WORK.
Exposer on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 7:56 pm
MDA,
stop your bullshit. If you want money, say so, don’t push the excuse of getting free money onto blogger.
Now the government write claps on their forums and online media, so can we ask the money from government due to ” regulations will “protect consumers” by enabling them to make an informed assessment about what they read.”.
Stop abusing your power. Even the world is laughing at you. Stupid and greedy , ridiculous gahmen.
i don believe it on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 8:24 pm
MDA should not interfere. They can have guidelines but they should not be given the teeth to bite. They should just concentrate on developing the media.
If ppl get paid to write good things on eg food, spa, etc, consumers will know sooner or later. A better developed media will ensure this fake writeups will be exposed. Let the netizens do their own policing.
Can anything be done to block them from implementing this? Can the Opposition MPs say something? I have worshipped the PAPies for many years until now when I can read of “alternative” truths from the internet. Don’t let them snuff this out, pls.
Anonymous on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 9:20 pm
@x12831 …… Your comment…”The authorities will tweak the laws to make it constitutional….” raise my thoughts again.
If they tweak the laws to make it constitutional,then foreign busineses ABC here claiming clients endorsement of X, Y and Z have to furnish disclosure statement to the effect that X, Y and Z received financial inducement from ABC. Bad marketing PR, I think they will simply violates the law and let MDA prosecute if they dare. At most, they pay up, pack up and go somewhere else to do business, Singapore end up big loser on employment. MDA would then made itself a bogey of a stupid tiger driving away foreign investment IF THEY MADE IT A LAW.
Alternatively, they won’t tweak the law, just apply it against blogger even if it is constitutionally illegal. It is constitutionally illegal BECAUSE IT VIOLATE INCOME TAX LAW and international tax treaties – which is universal in every jurisdiction that it is a lawful and mutually binding legal relationship between taxpayer and revenue collecting authorities and that relationship is legally protected of privacy.
So if a taxpayer like US business has income in Singapore and United states, the US Inland Revenue Service has law protecting taxpayer privacy. In which case, the Singapore side will remit all earnings to US and apply for US tax status. If it decline to comply, what can Singapore Government or MDA do? Nothing I bet!! And if they prosecute and demand information from US inland revenue service, the US company will complaint to their tax authorities that its rights have been violated. MDA wants to explain to Barrack Obama this creap???
So I don’t think they will or can tweak the law so easily but apply the law illegally and discriminatorily against Singapore citizen only. You know here, Government can act and will act illegally but not citizenry.
It is all very cynical chicanery. Vote wisely in the next election.
Anonymous Coward on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 9:38 pm
I don’t even think this is about the money. It’s all about _CONTROL_.
ric on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 10:35 pm
All these jerk of elitism from all over the ministries creating all kinds of regulations to score credit.
Exposer on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 11:25 pm
“I don’t even think this is about the money. It’s all about _CONTROL_.”
Money and control are strongly intertwined and correlated in Pappy land. Just ask the old fart.
Brendan on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 11:47 pm
Actually if it’s true, that we are being targeted, then this plan could backfire. Those PAP IB baing paid to bash anti-PAP commentary will also come under pressure to own up. It is not only happening here, TOC and Youtube are full of the IBs.
Anonymous on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 11:50 pm
It has got intimidation intent, you want to blog, tell the whole world your income first but it does not apply to “theirs” – no prize for guessing who are those falling into the category called “theirs”.
How many people who got a free meal once in a life time for a blog on food outlet promotion among the close to a million of Singapore bloggers??? Who tasting the food recommended has got NO independent judgement after that taste test of their own of quality and price?? Does it matter to others if consumers agree or disagree with the blogging promoter of this food outlet??
COMPLETE NONSENSE OF SELF-JUSTIFICATION OF WORST KIND OF CHICANERY IN POLITICS IN ATTEMPTING OF CONTROLLING BLOGGING WEBSITES AND BLOGGERS.
ChaoCheeseBuy on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 12:27 am
MDA, you are a damn bloody joker. Just say it up front that you want to stop Singaporeans freedom of speech even in the Internet. I think the recent backlash from the netizens on the shit PAP policies must have cause those highest paid ministers sleepless nights.
Singaporeans, there is only one way to stop stupid ideas from becoming law. Vote as many oppositions as possible into the parliament to prevent the shit PAP from passing any damn bloody laws as their like.
silenceisgolden on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 12:48 am
Lets not over react in this matter. I think bloggers will probably be required to make a statement somewhere within their site that to say that they are being paid for blogging. May it is not required to declared the income so as to be taxed.
kknd on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 12:59 am
Right on time. Those who remember the last election know that just before the announcement of the polls, there was a similar ‘clampdown’ of online discourse. Not as hardcore as Commie China, but close enough in spirit.
You got a few prominent pappies declaring that politics is SERIOUS BUSINESS, and thou shalt not make fun of it online, especially during this magical period. A few screws tightened here, a few solemn warnings(eg. Singaporeans must make a right choice) and veiled threats issued there.
fpc on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 1:13 am
They want to know how you make your money so that they can kill you when elections come.
btan on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 11:12 am
I doubt this is like the US guideline and more inclined to believe TR that this is another way for government to control cyberspace.
This is the second salvo firing at alternative news now. And if you study closely, this is exactly how the government put roadblocks in front of opposition parties by curtailing donations done to them by requiring those who donate above a certain sum to declare themselves (i.e. no anonymous donations)
Whether you like it or not, TR, you (and many of the news that do not toe the government line) are considered the same threat, if not bigger threat, than the opposition parties. Both your fates will be very intertwined.
My question is : how much courage do you have to continue to fight for a more liberal society in Singapore where all news, even if it is critical of the government, can be aired?
XiSd Tay on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 11:27 am
“The Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore may implement rules requiring bloggers to declare if they receive gifts or money for their write-ups.”
Talk cock and sing song, Under what authority is MDA doing this? They don’t control the internet, do they?
IRA maybe, in the form of Income Tax which is already declared under a person’s income, right?
Now Sinkaporeans are going to be taxed TWICE? How mice, look forward to Millisters getting fat bonuses and pay increases after the Election.
csl on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 11:30 am
@ Anonymous on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 7:45 pm
I think you are going off a tangent here. Tinfoil hat type worries all round from people who are concerned that this is a pretext to go after people who blog about anti-gahment things. I actually feel that those are being sorted out by the Ministry of Home Affairs (the one headed by Mr Wong). There was even a rumor circulating once that they were going after TOC. Its still online is it not?
As for articles on print media, the investment world lives on a 24hr clock. They have access to information and mis-information way faster and in many more ways than just MSM. Articles endorsing certain corporations are marked as sponsored articles even though they may be presented as a normal article.
Through all my years of reading ST, investment related articles are either formed off the official press releases (which are a whole day late, Listed companies normally make such releases early on Saturday or late on a trading day. This way the effect only comes in the next trading day).
Food critic columns on the newspaper may or may not be conducted incognito. I would be concerned of the objectivity if the chef was photographed and all the plates of food laid out nicely in the column. Add in a rating for the establishment and I think its as good as a paid ad. In this case, the newspaper will have to go after their reporters for taking money on the side.
All this seems to be saying is that blogs state that I am writing this on bequest of XXX after they had invited me to try out their XXX. People on the look out for new things to try can then decide whether the blogger just waxed lyrical of the the thing or provided a honest assessment. All this tinfoil hat talk makes me wanna wear one right now.
Anonymous on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 11:56 am
@csl on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 11:30 am. I believe it is YOU who got off the tangent here. One food writer receiving inducement the cause and justification to “fix” all bloggers in cyberspace? There are consumer laws and also common law protection which will do a lot better in taking care of deceptive advertising. There are big lawsuit now going on on matter of even matters of a “exclusive” club membership not just here but other legal jursidictions.
There is no smoke without fire. The tactic employed by MDA is like Chinese proverb – RING THE GONG AS LOUD AS YOU CAN AND THEN WALKED IN NONCHALANTLY AND STEAL ALL YOU LIKE AND NOBODY HEARS ANY SCREAM OF ROBBERY AND THEFT – metaphorically speaking.
If there is real care and concerns for consumers’ welfare, the legislation of consumer protection would have a lot more biting teeth than the present toothless tiger and no claws. I have seen tougher consumer protection legislation elsewhere. For example, Australia has got the Trade Practices Act, plus the Fair Trading Act ON TOP OF THE CONSUMER LITIGATOR AND REGULATOR CALLED THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION.
So let us not kid ourselves on what real consumer protection is and cyberspace consumer harassment via false pretext.
XiSd Tay on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 12:06 pm
silence isgolder said: By declaring as a business entity, you will be constantly watched not only by the government but your competitors and the chances of TR survival as it is will highly be unlikely. One wrong move and you will be in court answering lawsuit.
Not necessary. If you register in Nevada or BVI or Nevis, the identity of the owner is PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL.
joke on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 12:39 pm
Declare income using the internet as a source?? You must be joking MDA. Even the SG government ministries and ministers who are paid with taxpayers $$$ did not declare in full to singaporeans for accountability. Internet doesn’t belong the SG government. Don’t fool singaporeans.
Anonymous on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 12:47 pm
Nobody should ever post their banking details nor income in cyberspace – MILLIONS OF CROOKS ARE LURKING AND WAITING to prey on you. MDA does not knows crooks waiting or are they hell bent on bigger a bigger crook?
MDA wants us to “protect” a few allegedly gullible consumers so that maybe a million cyber bloggers become the victims of internet fraud?
IS THIS CONSUMER PROTECTION OR CONSUMER FRAUD from those who wants your vote of their “lording over over you ” and hypocritical “protection” under that mandate ARE THE BIGGEST MOB OF FRAUDSTERS AROUND???
btan on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 1:08 pm
Regardless of the guideline or law, TR needs to register as a business entity in order to be taken as a credible news site and not just another blogging site. However, I hope they register in a place other than Singapore, as I am sure they will be “fix” just like opposition if they do so in Singapore.
The other thing is, TR needs to get the business aspect right and have income that can sustain their operations and not depend on donations. As mentioned before, you can sell t-shirts and paraphernalia, compiled pdf and paper articles and sell as a book. I hope you have a full-time professional business development manager to do this though.
Anonymous Coward on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 1:32 pm
Can an admin from Temasek review contact me? I may have an idea on sustaining funds.
admin on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 1:48 pm
Hi anonymous coward,
Email us at temasekreview@gmail.com
csl on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 2:23 pm
@Anonymous on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 11:56 am
This to you is the smoking gun and to me is not really the case. In the realms of consumer protection yes what we have currently is not even adequate. Really how much good has CASE been for consumers? I struggle to come up with the instances where they have been very useful. Just during the lehman bro bonds stuff they were already not that great.
The details and other things are not even out there and already the glee of this bad thing and that bad thing happening is spreading like wild fire. I can see a tin-foil hat alert when I see one, considering that over on the US side loads of these things keep coming up.
and one more thing, I think if they register in too far flung locations where TR will be deemed not as a proper news-media provider then TR may be labelled as a collection of people with an agenda. I like how TR examines news in different angles and we have a healthy skepticism which I think society at large has but is not on the media arena. I cannot see how another print media company can sustain a business under the hegemony of SPH. The new media does provide an opportunity though. I do believe that the government has realized that they need to engage with people over the net as well and that people like Mr Brown are here to stay.
I personally believe that freedom of speech is not a free pass. Taiwan has more freedom of speech than we do and yet “ming zui”s like Qiu Yi have been sued countless times for defamation as he had been collecting information that for quite a few times have been correct. The large number of talk show guests exercise their freedom with responsibility. Here we got certain topics that are out of bounds and as long as you are expressing opinion without the accusations then things are fine. (To me at least)
Brendan on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 3:34 pm
I think TR and TOC are the prime targets of this new measure – other free blogs have limited reach and they both have paid commentors.
Darkness on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 3:45 pm
“In the realms of consumer protection yes what we have currently is not even adequate. Really how much good has CASE been for consumers?”
If an organization is no good; you dont use another organization to try to get better results – that is a very stupid idea at best and at worst its even dangerous.
What r u saying if CASE is not good; then you go to the MDA; if the MDA is no good; then what do you do? You go the ISD? If the ISD is no good; then maybe we should all call the army to put it right with the barrel of the gun? No! Think lah!
Smart people dont think like that; if CASE is no good; sack the incompetent people and put in smart people and empower them to do a good job. That is what smart people do.
Darkness on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 3:52 pm
“I think if they register in too far flung locations where TR will be deemed not as a proper news-media provider then TR may be labelled as a collection of people with an agenda”
How the hell can you blame them if they decide to run their servers out from antartica instead of Singapore!
Tell me do you see General Motors, Wall-Mart and McDonalds investing in North Korea?
Do you mean to tell me; you cannot even figure out why that’s so?
Anonymous on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 3:57 pm
@csl on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 2:23 pm .. smoking gun or no smoking gun… If a rat enters your bathroom and cause you irritations even distress, do you call in a sortie of the Republic Singapore Air Force F16s to drop a couple of 500 lbs bombs on your condo block and bring it crashing down in debris???. The rat might still lives and run away but your family all crushed under the smoking fiery rubble.
As for Lehman bonds etc you mentioned, they evidence how skimpily naked of consumer protection the laws in this country is in regards to that protection available. The wolf cries of consumer protection by MDA to oppress cyberspace sites and bloggers illuminates the utter hippocrisy of its cheap shots of public concerns.They are DIABOLICAL FAKES OF TRUTH.
As for where TR should register their domicile – that is their decision to make. We are just bloggers on THEIR WEBSITES. And I am inndifferent to what their preference is.
As for freedom of speech – it is not a free pass BUT NEITHER IT IS ONE OF NO PASSAGE (just like a no through road end) IN OPPOSITE JUSTIFICATION OF OPPRESSION. Without minimum free speech, life is like darkness and a mind of no brain merely existing just like a dumb caterpillar on a schrub eating all its leaves until it is completely gone.
The birds in the neighbourhood can see that easily, comes around next and have you for dinner!! Is this the Singapore you want – short lives and miserable?
Jezebella on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 4:11 pm
Oh? Why don’t the government disclose some information first? For example, matters that are of public interest?
csl on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 5:32 pm
Most attempt to censor the internet end up as futile, USA tried it and China is doing the latest attempt.
Unless the articles have trespassed certain boundaries I find it pointless to have legislation that demands authors of blogs and podcasts to declare where they get their hosting fees from. What if the blogger is a stomper?
As for amount of punishment, I will reserve my opinion until penalties are announced. I do know this sounds bad as that would mean the law was already passed. Sadly, I do not see Low or Chiam having too much of a say on this. Maybe Dr Chee will have different ideas but he is not in parliament to do anything about it.
As for the people running CASE I see no issue with them. CASE itself is not the issue here when it comes to consumer rights. Its the laws that bind business practices and the laws that dictate what is fair play in the free market that is tying CASE’s limbs all at once. They might as well stick a gag-ball so that CASE is a real gimp. The laws simply do not empower CASE enough to help.
Take the whole “exclusive content” from the pay-TV providers. Nothing in the law states that Starhub have to let Mediacorp get their hands on “Heart of greed” drama (Tang Xin Feng Bao) even after they are done re-airing the entire show once on VV drama. What did they do? They let them air it even though they have a very good arrangement in place with TVB on the supply of drama shows. If only such good faith is shown when football is concerned. (but I digress)
I recall that there was mention of ghost-writers in the ST forums. I even recall once that they appeared on TOC. What about the blogosphere? What if there are ghost-writers that are pro-(insert other parties names here). Instead of writing something because they feel for it, they strive to represent the views of one side that may or may not be representing the whole truth. Do we want to not stand against that for fear of being labelled as a pro-pappy? I fear that by saying this alone I might be labelled as one. There are enough places where political hot air is vented as it is… all I hope now is that “fear-mongering” is not rampant so that people who truly wish to change things in our young nation gets a chance to go about it.
sheldon on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 9:56 pm
the tricky part is, if we argue that it is just a wayang, we are actually denying that they are capable of such paternalistic streak.
reiterating, they may well be making not much sense here but does that equate to them having a real motive, or isn’t it normal for them to make not much sense anyway, especially since they don’t seem to have any feel of the ground?
because if the ground is living freely, there’s no need for top down approach like this. whether it’s advertisement or personal review, a consumer will make his or her choice not just on a single review. cyber space is very big and has its own rules. if the feedback system is great, and information runs as free as wolves under a full moon, lousy products will go down the scale as quickly as false reviewers.
are they aware of such ground up openness or are they not?
my feel is, unfortunately, they are not. i mean, how can they know what ‘cyber openness’ means?
so it makes sense for them to want to implement such guidelines.
i have to emphasize though, i am not in any way concluding anything. just that if the argument that they have a REAL motive is based on that they have no real reason to implement such guidelines, then i say , no they do. reasons as deemed reasonable by their top down minds.
Anonymous on Wed, 14th Oct 2009 9:51 am
@csl.. your comment
…. people who truly wish to change things in our young nation gets a chance to go about it…..”
Want to change? Well open up for ALL ISSUES FOR UNRESTRAINED, UNCENSORED AND UNFETTERED debate, THE BEST IDEAS PREVAIL, not the most ruthless and powerful fool’s ideas prevail. Let meritocracy prevails AND NOT IDEOLOGY PREVAILS, don’t you agree???
Why is there fear of ideas challenge – even in cyberspace?????
The paranoia stinks of fear of the truth and the unpalatable.
Opens up and support ideas for the best and not arguing vicariously for “freedom of speech is not a free pass”.
You are arguing in a circus. And now you said..”.people who truly wish to change things in our young nation gets a chance to go about it…..”
Why is this fear of debate OR THE FEAR OD DEBATE IS A SWITCH IN A MOMENT’S FLIMSY THOUGHTS????
Ree on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 2:58 am
Am I being very naive in thinking that the reason MDA wants to implement this is for the benefit of consumers?
To put it very simply, isn’t this just like those long Home Shopping Network ads where there is a disclosure stating that it is a PAID advertisement we are watching?