Hi ACJC 1ECX05 and 1ECX09 students,
The purpose of the WebQuest is for you to:
1. Identify examples of positive and negative externalities (eg: health care, education, road pricing).
2. Identify that externality is one source of market failure.
3. Illustrate how externalities lead to inefficiencies in resource allocation in the form of over or under production/consumption.
4. Apply these concepts to assess current Singapore government policies on production and consumption of various goods and services.
Please read your the other 5 group projects from your class. Consider these questions:
1. Has the group managed to meet the above objectives in their report?
2. Do you agree with their report? What are the unclear areas in their report?
3. What are some other points that you can add to their report?
Make at least 2 individual comments in response to the other groups' reports on their selected government policies. Remember to include your name in your comments, otherwise I won't know that you posted!
The deadline is Tuesday, 7 August 2007.
Click on the respective link to the reports by your class:
- 1ECX05 (1SC5)
- 1ECX09 (1SC4/6)
Cheers!
Mr Mervyn Sek
ACJC Economics Department
Showing posts with label ACJC 1ECX09 2007. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ACJC 1ECX09 2007. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
WebQuest Report: Cigarette Consumption
We all know that cigarettes are price inelastic, demerit goods, and when consumed, lead to air pollution, which is a negative externality. A negative externality is the cost imposed on a third party during production/consumption of a good, and no compensation is made. The case of passive smoking proves to be a very serious one as recent research carried out by the International Agency for Research on cancer showed that passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers.
In this case, the marginal private cost, MPC, is the cost incurred by the smoker in buying the cigarette, and any accepted risk he is willing to take with regards to contracting lung cancer. The external cost would be that the people around the smoker experiences discomfort, as well as possibility of getting lung cancer. The marginal social cost, MSC, would be the cost to the individual, as well as those others affected by the cigarette smoke.
In the case of negative externality, the smoker always consumes the cigarettes at a quantity greater than that of the socially desired output, over consumption of cigarettes. This would result in the MSC being greater than the MPC, giving rise to an external cost, imposed on the people around the smoker. Consumption of cigarettes by the individual at market equilibrium also results in the society incurring a welfare loss.
Our society currently faces a problem of having many smokers, as stated in the article "Tobacco wars: Singapore the picture of health" that 14 percent of our population smokes. This gives rise to a large amount of external cost, which is not socially desired as production and consumption of cigarettes is not at social output. As a result, the government has to intervene, and lay out measures to reduce the amount of smoking. As cigarettes are price inelastic goods, introducing taxes on cigarettes may not be very effective, as it would not work well in deterring smokers from smoking. Thus, our government has set up various measures such as "having to have up to 50 percent of the front and back covers of cigarette packs bearing any of the six pictures of people who have contracted diseases due to smoking that the Singapore government has chosen to appear on a rotational basis." Also, the government has implemented laws such as the banning of smoking in certain areas so as to reduce the harmful effects of passive smoking.
The use of taxes is good as using taxes to internalize external cost is very appealing. It allows markets to continue operating according to market forces. Although costs have been inflated by taxes, consumption and production decisions are made while firms and households are free to pursue their self-interest. However, since cigarettes are price inelastic, the implementation of taxes may not be very effective in controlling the problem and reducing smoking as an increase in price would not have a great effect affecting the consumption of cigarettes. Laws and regulations, in this case, is more beneficial as it is a command-and-control policy, and is generally accepted that use of compliance standards through laws has led to a reduction in pollution levels. The outcome is predictable, unlike the use of market-based approaches such as taxes. However, there are monitoring and enforcement costs involved in government agencies having to monitor and ensure that regulations are adhered to.
Credits: Chelsea Chang, Shawn Poh, Marcus Foo, Leow Yan Ling and Wang Enshen
In this case, the marginal private cost, MPC, is the cost incurred by the smoker in buying the cigarette, and any accepted risk he is willing to take with regards to contracting lung cancer. The external cost would be that the people around the smoker experiences discomfort, as well as possibility of getting lung cancer. The marginal social cost, MSC, would be the cost to the individual, as well as those others affected by the cigarette smoke.
In the case of negative externality, the smoker always consumes the cigarettes at a quantity greater than that of the socially desired output, over consumption of cigarettes. This would result in the MSC being greater than the MPC, giving rise to an external cost, imposed on the people around the smoker. Consumption of cigarettes by the individual at market equilibrium also results in the society incurring a welfare loss.
Our society currently faces a problem of having many smokers, as stated in the article "Tobacco wars: Singapore the picture of health" that 14 percent of our population smokes. This gives rise to a large amount of external cost, which is not socially desired as production and consumption of cigarettes is not at social output. As a result, the government has to intervene, and lay out measures to reduce the amount of smoking. As cigarettes are price inelastic goods, introducing taxes on cigarettes may not be very effective, as it would not work well in deterring smokers from smoking. Thus, our government has set up various measures such as "having to have up to 50 percent of the front and back covers of cigarette packs bearing any of the six pictures of people who have contracted diseases due to smoking that the Singapore government has chosen to appear on a rotational basis." Also, the government has implemented laws such as the banning of smoking in certain areas so as to reduce the harmful effects of passive smoking.
The use of taxes is good as using taxes to internalize external cost is very appealing. It allows markets to continue operating according to market forces. Although costs have been inflated by taxes, consumption and production decisions are made while firms and households are free to pursue their self-interest. However, since cigarettes are price inelastic, the implementation of taxes may not be very effective in controlling the problem and reducing smoking as an increase in price would not have a great effect affecting the consumption of cigarettes. Laws and regulations, in this case, is more beneficial as it is a command-and-control policy, and is generally accepted that use of compliance standards through laws has led to a reduction in pollution levels. The outcome is predictable, unlike the use of market-based approaches such as taxes. However, there are monitoring and enforcement costs involved in government agencies having to monitor and ensure that regulations are adhered to.
Credits: Chelsea Chang, Shawn Poh, Marcus Foo, Leow Yan Ling and Wang Enshen
WebQuest Report: Compulsory Education
1. What are the governmental ministry and agencies that oversee the policy?
- Compulsory Education (CE) was implemented in Singapore from the new school year commencing 1st January 2003 by the Ministry of Education
- Compulsory Education Act is practiced, under which parents could face fines or jail if they do not send their children to national schools or government-approved Muslim schools.
2. Who are the direct parties involved in the transaction? Are there any indirect (external) parties that are involved or affected by the transaction?
- The first cohort of pupils coming under CE are Singapore Citizen children born between 2nd January 1996 and 1st January 1997 who are residing in Singapore
- Singapore Citizen children born between 2nd January 2001 and 1st January 2002 will be due for Primary 1 for the school year commencing 1st January 2008. The Primary 1 Registration Exercise for this cohort of pupils will take place from July to August 2007
3. Are there any other supporters or critics of the policy? Examine their views.
- Compulsory education is strongly supported by the Committee on Compulsory Education and organizations that they consulted for various reasons:
1. To give the children a common core of knowledge which will provide a strong foundation for further education and training
2. To give the children a common educational experience that would help to build national identity and cohesion.
- There are no critics towards compulsory education.
- However, there are some exceptions for those who attend designated institutions, home-schooling and those with special educational needs
4. Do you think that the good or service is being under or over produced/consumed?
- Compulsory education is under-produced
- Reasons:
1. Compulsory education should not only cover until primary school education, but also include up to secondary.
2. In today’s society, having a PSLE certificate is not enough to earn a living. Statistics have shown that graduates even ave difficulties finding jobs in the society now, what more about those students with their PSLE certificate?
5. Do you agree with the Singapore government’s policy in addressing the issue?
- Yes, we do.
- Compulsory education provides students with the basic knowledge they should obtain. However, it is not sufficient to for the students to enter the work force. A higher education is required to substantiate the higher living standard in Singapore.
- Compulsory education is a positive externality. However, it might give rise to free-riders who do not appropriate compulsory education and take advantage of it. For example, a student studying might play truancy and not get worried as no matter what he/she does, he/she still has a place in school and has to complete his/her compulsory primary education.
- Compulsory education is a means to move Singapore towards a knowledge-based economy.
Credits: Margareth Salim, Reuben Chan, Adeline Goh and Nguyen Quynh
- Compulsory Education (CE) was implemented in Singapore from the new school year commencing 1st January 2003 by the Ministry of Education
- Compulsory Education Act is practiced, under which parents could face fines or jail if they do not send their children to national schools or government-approved Muslim schools.
2. Who are the direct parties involved in the transaction? Are there any indirect (external) parties that are involved or affected by the transaction?
- The first cohort of pupils coming under CE are Singapore Citizen children born between 2nd January 1996 and 1st January 1997 who are residing in Singapore
- Singapore Citizen children born between 2nd January 2001 and 1st January 2002 will be due for Primary 1 for the school year commencing 1st January 2008. The Primary 1 Registration Exercise for this cohort of pupils will take place from July to August 2007
3. Are there any other supporters or critics of the policy? Examine their views.
- Compulsory education is strongly supported by the Committee on Compulsory Education and organizations that they consulted for various reasons:
1. To give the children a common core of knowledge which will provide a strong foundation for further education and training
2. To give the children a common educational experience that would help to build national identity and cohesion.
- There are no critics towards compulsory education.
- However, there are some exceptions for those who attend designated institutions, home-schooling and those with special educational needs
4. Do you think that the good or service is being under or over produced/consumed?
- Compulsory education is under-produced
- Reasons:
1. Compulsory education should not only cover until primary school education, but also include up to secondary.
2. In today’s society, having a PSLE certificate is not enough to earn a living. Statistics have shown that graduates even ave difficulties finding jobs in the society now, what more about those students with their PSLE certificate?
5. Do you agree with the Singapore government’s policy in addressing the issue?
- Yes, we do.
- Compulsory education provides students with the basic knowledge they should obtain. However, it is not sufficient to for the students to enter the work force. A higher education is required to substantiate the higher living standard in Singapore.
- Compulsory education is a positive externality. However, it might give rise to free-riders who do not appropriate compulsory education and take advantage of it. For example, a student studying might play truancy and not get worried as no matter what he/she does, he/she still has a place in school and has to complete his/her compulsory primary education.
- Compulsory education is a means to move Singapore towards a knowledge-based economy.
Credits: Margareth Salim, Reuben Chan, Adeline Goh and Nguyen Quynh
WebQuest Report: Banning of Chewing Gum
"If you can't think because you can't chew, try a banana."
1. What are the governmental ministry and agencies that oversee the policy?
The chewing gum ban was initiated in January 1992 by Goh Chok Tong, who had just taken over as Prime Minister. The restriction on the distribution of chewing gum was enacted in Singapore Statute Chapter 57, the Control of Manufacture Act, which also governs the restriction of alcohol and tobacco. The ban includes importation and sale of chewing gum in Singapore. Chewing gum is banned in Singapore under the "Regulation of Imports and Exports (Chewing Gum) Regulations." Except for chewing gum of therapeutic value, the "importing" of chewing gum into Singapore is absolutely banned.
The proposal to ban chewing gum was brought up to the prime minister then, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, by the Minister for National Development as chewing gum contirbuted to serious maintanance problems such as disruption of train services. This was the main factor for the policy and ban as it had huge economic repercussions to the infrastructure.
The ban was seen as the only solution to the problem since the cost of cleaning and damaged cleaning equipment is expensive to the 5 million infrastructure.
2. Who are the direct parties involved in the transaction? Are there any indirect (external) parties that are involved or affected by the transaction?
The direct parties involved would be the government and citizens of Singapore. Generally, the citizens are affected as they are not allowed to consume the chewing gum. Those who were in the chewing gum manufacturing industry are also adversely affected due to the coercive closing down of the industry. This has also led to the loss of jobs and a certain amount of unemployment.
Indirectly, Singapore has lost one avenue of exportation and revenue. As a result of the ban, the government also received less tax revenue. Jobs then need to be created to cater to who lost their jobs due to the ban.
However, by carrying out the ban, the government was able to save the money which was previously used for maintenance of public infrastructure. Thus, money could then be directed and used elsewhere. For example, the money could be channeled to Research and Development instead.
Applying economic theories, the banning of this demerit good was implemented as the revenue earned from exportation and the chewing gum industry was not able to cover the cost of maintenance incurred by the consumption of chewing gum
3. Are there any other supporters or critics of the policy? Examine their views.
Before our citizens adapted to the ban, they often would travel to neighbouring countries such as Malaysia to purchase their gum. However, Singaporeans gradually got accustomed to the absence of chewing gum as time passed. Surprisingly, no black market for chewing gum in Singapore ever emerged.
International attention
However, it was not the case for other countries. Singapore received intense international coverage and attention from civil rights activists. This was one of the many other factors that created Singapore's "nanny image".
Singapore leaders did not give in and simply defended our own rights to making policies and stated that this would achieve greater benefits in return.
Credits: Germaine Goh, Lim Yong Ern, Chuah Peiyi and Veronica Lee
1. What are the governmental ministry and agencies that oversee the policy?
The chewing gum ban was initiated in January 1992 by Goh Chok Tong, who had just taken over as Prime Minister. The restriction on the distribution of chewing gum was enacted in Singapore Statute Chapter 57, the Control of Manufacture Act, which also governs the restriction of alcohol and tobacco. The ban includes importation and sale of chewing gum in Singapore. Chewing gum is banned in Singapore under the "Regulation of Imports and Exports (Chewing Gum) Regulations." Except for chewing gum of therapeutic value, the "importing" of chewing gum into Singapore is absolutely banned.
The proposal to ban chewing gum was brought up to the prime minister then, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, by the Minister for National Development as chewing gum contirbuted to serious maintanance problems such as disruption of train services. This was the main factor for the policy and ban as it had huge economic repercussions to the infrastructure.
The ban was seen as the only solution to the problem since the cost of cleaning and damaged cleaning equipment is expensive to the 5 million infrastructure.
2. Who are the direct parties involved in the transaction? Are there any indirect (external) parties that are involved or affected by the transaction?
The direct parties involved would be the government and citizens of Singapore. Generally, the citizens are affected as they are not allowed to consume the chewing gum. Those who were in the chewing gum manufacturing industry are also adversely affected due to the coercive closing down of the industry. This has also led to the loss of jobs and a certain amount of unemployment.
Indirectly, Singapore has lost one avenue of exportation and revenue. As a result of the ban, the government also received less tax revenue. Jobs then need to be created to cater to who lost their jobs due to the ban.
However, by carrying out the ban, the government was able to save the money which was previously used for maintenance of public infrastructure. Thus, money could then be directed and used elsewhere. For example, the money could be channeled to Research and Development instead.
Applying economic theories, the banning of this demerit good was implemented as the revenue earned from exportation and the chewing gum industry was not able to cover the cost of maintenance incurred by the consumption of chewing gum
3. Are there any other supporters or critics of the policy? Examine their views.
Before our citizens adapted to the ban, they often would travel to neighbouring countries such as Malaysia to purchase their gum. However, Singaporeans gradually got accustomed to the absence of chewing gum as time passed. Surprisingly, no black market for chewing gum in Singapore ever emerged.
International attention
However, it was not the case for other countries. Singapore received intense international coverage and attention from civil rights activists. This was one of the many other factors that created Singapore's "nanny image".
Singapore leaders did not give in and simply defended our own rights to making policies and stated that this would achieve greater benefits in return.
Credits: Germaine Goh, Lim Yong Ern, Chuah Peiyi and Veronica Lee
WebQuest Report: Childhood Immunisation
In Singapore context, childhood immunisation covers children from time of birth to an age of 12. During that period, a child would have received more than 20 shots of a variety of vaccines to immunize him/her against a multitude of infectious diseases which include tuberculosis, hepatitis B and measles. This has resulted in the dramatic reduction in the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases in the younger population.
Childhood immunisation (CI) is a merit good, in other words, a socially desirable good. CI is considered a ‘private good’ which have the characteristics of being rival and excludable. It is only made available to those who are willing to pay for the good and if the demand is high, others may not get to enjoy it.
However, positive externalities occur when we consume CI. For example: A person who goes for immunization positively affects those around him because there is one less possible carrier of that particular disease. Since consumption of CI is socially benefiting, the government had to make certain vaccinations compulsory for all children. In their view, if individuals were left alone to make decisions, such a merit good will be produced and consumed at sub-optimal amounts. Therefore, they need to intervene to encourage increased consumption of CI.
The government intervenes by providing subsidies so that more people can afford for CI. The subsidy will serve to correct the misallocation of resources arising form positive externalities since it can be easily implemented to increase production and consumption. However, this will require increased government expenditure. This financial burden will be brought over to working Singaporeans who will have to pay higher tax rates. Therefore it will be translated to a higher cost of living.
In conclusion, childhood immunization is an example of a market failure where there the market mechanism fails to supply at a socially efficient level since demand is ever-changing. This is because it is up to the consumer to decide how much he is willing and able to pay for the benefits he is receiving and it can vary. Also, we need to consider the presence of unequal distribution income, thus causing some groups of households being deprived of such a merit good.
Credits: Tan Chin Chuen, Kenneth Wong, Wang Enshng and Mark Lui
Childhood immunisation (CI) is a merit good, in other words, a socially desirable good. CI is considered a ‘private good’ which have the characteristics of being rival and excludable. It is only made available to those who are willing to pay for the good and if the demand is high, others may not get to enjoy it.
However, positive externalities occur when we consume CI. For example: A person who goes for immunization positively affects those around him because there is one less possible carrier of that particular disease. Since consumption of CI is socially benefiting, the government had to make certain vaccinations compulsory for all children. In their view, if individuals were left alone to make decisions, such a merit good will be produced and consumed at sub-optimal amounts. Therefore, they need to intervene to encourage increased consumption of CI.
The government intervenes by providing subsidies so that more people can afford for CI. The subsidy will serve to correct the misallocation of resources arising form positive externalities since it can be easily implemented to increase production and consumption. However, this will require increased government expenditure. This financial burden will be brought over to working Singaporeans who will have to pay higher tax rates. Therefore it will be translated to a higher cost of living.
In conclusion, childhood immunization is an example of a market failure where there the market mechanism fails to supply at a socially efficient level since demand is ever-changing. This is because it is up to the consumer to decide how much he is willing and able to pay for the benefits he is receiving and it can vary. Also, we need to consider the presence of unequal distribution income, thus causing some groups of households being deprived of such a merit good.
Credits: Tan Chin Chuen, Kenneth Wong, Wang Enshng and Mark Lui
WebQuest Report: Implementation of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP)
Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) is an electronic system of road pricing based on a pay-as-you-use principle. It is designed to be a fair system as motorists are charged when they use the road during peak hours.
Externalities:
Negative externalities will result if ERP was not implemented. Serious traffic conjestion would arise if no charges were put into place and with that, a negaitve externality would have to be bourned. Traffic congestion will delay the transportation of goods to their various destinations and result in economic loss and workers may be caught in the jam, reducing the company’s productivity as the workers’ time spent on the roads could be used to earn profit for the firm; investors would pull out from a country that offers low efficiency and income. Furthermore, excess number of cars on the roads would cause air pollution and this may bring about health risks to the public which in turn will bring a decrease in productivity in workers as well as a high cost of medicial fees that has to be incurred by the government.
Other the other hand, the implementation of ERP brought about positive externalities. The public get to enjoy a clear-air environment and hence less likely to fall sick and therefore work productivity can be increased. Furthermore, as traffic congestion is relieved, drivers would not have to wait for long hours and they are likely to be in better mood and therefore they could perform better in their job requirements which would in turn bring about economic growth.
There are other countries with road pricing systems similiar to that of Singapore. Its main motive is also to relieve traffic comjestion, especially during peak hours.
In Norway, road pricing is fully electronic using a system called the Autopass with most local drivers purchasing a tag which is automatically read on passing the detectors. The same system is used throughout Norway for toll roads and congestion charging schemes etc. Motorists without a tag pay a fee at a manual barrier.
Road Pricing is definitely a good way to reduce traffic conjestion. Take Thailand as an example, on the average, 2hrs are wasted everday on traffic jams, which brought about huge economic loss.
Responses of the public on ERP:
An interview was conducted with a group of adults, aged from 25 to 45 who are frequent users of private vehicles to find out their views on the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) in Singapore.
They were asked if the implementation of ERP benefited them in any way, and most gave positive feedbacks. Mr. Tan Chee Leong, a businessman whose office is located in the Central Business District (CBD) said, "Every morning I drive to work, and it is normal to have the CBD crowded with vehicles. However, with the implementation of the ERP, the traffic jam was greatly reduced at the outskirts of the CBD, as motorists are discouraged to use the roads in CBD to get to other destinations. I am seldom late for work anymore."
Another feedback came from Mrs. Goh Li Ming, who said, "During weekdays, I would often go to Orchard Road for shopping. The gantries located on the roads that link Orchard road to the CBD benefited me a lot. Motorists will be charged twice if they use Orchard Road as a shortcut to enter the CBD, which discouraged them and diverted them to use other roads to get to their destinations. As a result, Orchard road is less jammed, making my shopping trip there more pleasant."
Most of the other adults felt the same way. Though they always complain about having to pay for ERP, in truth, they gain a great deal from this implementation. Another benefit of ERP that they mentioned was the level of pollution. When the roads are congested, car exhaust will accumulate in that area. ERP will reduce the amount of traffic in that area, which as a result, lower the level of pollution and allow people to enjoy a cleaner surrounding.
One major criticism is that road pricing would hurt the poor. It would not. The purpose of road pricing is to earn from the richer of the society. Those on high salaries would be happy to pay a few pounds to be able to get to their work at 9am without having to rise at the crack of dawn. Those earning good wages would travel then and pay for the privilege. Those having low incomes would travel at other times of the day to avoid having to pay. However, survey results have shown that nearly 65% of people in the lowest real income category do not own a car. Thus, they would be unaffected by peak charges.
Credits: Gao Ya, Jane Wong, Rachel Pek and Koh Kaiyan
Externalities:
Negative externalities will result if ERP was not implemented. Serious traffic conjestion would arise if no charges were put into place and with that, a negaitve externality would have to be bourned. Traffic congestion will delay the transportation of goods to their various destinations and result in economic loss and workers may be caught in the jam, reducing the company’s productivity as the workers’ time spent on the roads could be used to earn profit for the firm; investors would pull out from a country that offers low efficiency and income. Furthermore, excess number of cars on the roads would cause air pollution and this may bring about health risks to the public which in turn will bring a decrease in productivity in workers as well as a high cost of medicial fees that has to be incurred by the government.
Other the other hand, the implementation of ERP brought about positive externalities. The public get to enjoy a clear-air environment and hence less likely to fall sick and therefore work productivity can be increased. Furthermore, as traffic congestion is relieved, drivers would not have to wait for long hours and they are likely to be in better mood and therefore they could perform better in their job requirements which would in turn bring about economic growth.
There are other countries with road pricing systems similiar to that of Singapore. Its main motive is also to relieve traffic comjestion, especially during peak hours.
In Norway, road pricing is fully electronic using a system called the Autopass with most local drivers purchasing a tag which is automatically read on passing the detectors. The same system is used throughout Norway for toll roads and congestion charging schemes etc. Motorists without a tag pay a fee at a manual barrier.
Road Pricing is definitely a good way to reduce traffic conjestion. Take Thailand as an example, on the average, 2hrs are wasted everday on traffic jams, which brought about huge economic loss.
Responses of the public on ERP:
An interview was conducted with a group of adults, aged from 25 to 45 who are frequent users of private vehicles to find out their views on the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) in Singapore.
They were asked if the implementation of ERP benefited them in any way, and most gave positive feedbacks. Mr. Tan Chee Leong, a businessman whose office is located in the Central Business District (CBD) said, "Every morning I drive to work, and it is normal to have the CBD crowded with vehicles. However, with the implementation of the ERP, the traffic jam was greatly reduced at the outskirts of the CBD, as motorists are discouraged to use the roads in CBD to get to other destinations. I am seldom late for work anymore."
Another feedback came from Mrs. Goh Li Ming, who said, "During weekdays, I would often go to Orchard Road for shopping. The gantries located on the roads that link Orchard road to the CBD benefited me a lot. Motorists will be charged twice if they use Orchard Road as a shortcut to enter the CBD, which discouraged them and diverted them to use other roads to get to their destinations. As a result, Orchard road is less jammed, making my shopping trip there more pleasant."
Most of the other adults felt the same way. Though they always complain about having to pay for ERP, in truth, they gain a great deal from this implementation. Another benefit of ERP that they mentioned was the level of pollution. When the roads are congested, car exhaust will accumulate in that area. ERP will reduce the amount of traffic in that area, which as a result, lower the level of pollution and allow people to enjoy a cleaner surrounding.
One major criticism is that road pricing would hurt the poor. It would not. The purpose of road pricing is to earn from the richer of the society. Those on high salaries would be happy to pay a few pounds to be able to get to their work at 9am without having to rise at the crack of dawn. Those earning good wages would travel then and pay for the privilege. Those having low incomes would travel at other times of the day to avoid having to pay. However, survey results have shown that nearly 65% of people in the lowest real income category do not own a car. Thus, they would be unaffected by peak charges.
Credits: Gao Ya, Jane Wong, Rachel Pek and Koh Kaiyan
WebQuest Report: Film Censorship Issues
1. What are the governmental ministry and agencies that oversee the policy?
A branch of the Media Development Authority called the Film Censorship Board
2. Who are the direct parties involved in the transaction? Are there any indirect (external) parties that are involved or affected by the transaction?
The direct parties involved are; the distributors of the films, MDA, production crew. The indirect parties involved are; the target audience.
3. Are there any other supporters or critics of the policy? Examine their views.
Critics:
- Audience who believe in the freedom of expression
- The production crew
- Foreigners, especially from those countries with more slack rules.
- Cultural fans who believe that the censorship of a film destroys its cultural value and distorts that message it was originally trying to bring across.
Supporters:
- Government
- Audience, mainly parents who wish to protect their children
- Conservatives who wish to preserve moral values.
4. Do you think that the goods or service is being under or over produced/consumed?
It is neither. These goods are for entertainment purposes, as entertainment cannot be properly quantified, it cannot be said that a film is over or under produced. Furthermore, there are many substitutes for entertainment. However, the reason why the government has imposed censorship rules is so as to reduce the negative externalities that certain images would have on a certain audience. Some citizens may feel that the service is overproduced as too much is censored or that as the film is restricted to only a certain age group. The service, to some is under produced as they still see a number of things that should be cut but was not cut by the MDA. It is wise to preserve some of the cultural scenes to make it dynamic and lively, but not overly so such that the negative externalities are too high, costing far more than what it's worth.
5. Do you agree with the Singapore government's policy in addressing this issue?
It is hard to measure the exact external cost; therefore, it is better to be safe rather than sorry. After all, cultural enlightenment can be obtained from other sources; however, it is best to reduce the negative social cost to minimum. This however, encourages to a certain extent, piracy as people look for substitutes to fulfill their desires. There is however, some unhappiness at the fact that the guidelines to what is acceptable and what is not keep changing. It would be better if the MDA were to decide on a set of rules once and for all. They are also not transparent enough when it comes to declaring the guidelines as it is constantly changing.
Credits: Sim Yok Teng, Jane Lau, Kong Yiting and Nguyen Don
A branch of the Media Development Authority called the Film Censorship Board
2. Who are the direct parties involved in the transaction? Are there any indirect (external) parties that are involved or affected by the transaction?
The direct parties involved are; the distributors of the films, MDA, production crew. The indirect parties involved are; the target audience.
3. Are there any other supporters or critics of the policy? Examine their views.
Critics:
- Audience who believe in the freedom of expression
- The production crew
- Foreigners, especially from those countries with more slack rules.
- Cultural fans who believe that the censorship of a film destroys its cultural value and distorts that message it was originally trying to bring across.
Supporters:
- Government
- Audience, mainly parents who wish to protect their children
- Conservatives who wish to preserve moral values.
4. Do you think that the goods or service is being under or over produced/consumed?
It is neither. These goods are for entertainment purposes, as entertainment cannot be properly quantified, it cannot be said that a film is over or under produced. Furthermore, there are many substitutes for entertainment. However, the reason why the government has imposed censorship rules is so as to reduce the negative externalities that certain images would have on a certain audience. Some citizens may feel that the service is overproduced as too much is censored or that as the film is restricted to only a certain age group. The service, to some is under produced as they still see a number of things that should be cut but was not cut by the MDA. It is wise to preserve some of the cultural scenes to make it dynamic and lively, but not overly so such that the negative externalities are too high, costing far more than what it's worth.
5. Do you agree with the Singapore government's policy in addressing this issue?
It is hard to measure the exact external cost; therefore, it is better to be safe rather than sorry. After all, cultural enlightenment can be obtained from other sources; however, it is best to reduce the negative social cost to minimum. This however, encourages to a certain extent, piracy as people look for substitutes to fulfill their desires. There is however, some unhappiness at the fact that the guidelines to what is acceptable and what is not keep changing. It would be better if the MDA were to decide on a set of rules once and for all. They are also not transparent enough when it comes to declaring the guidelines as it is constantly changing.
Credits: Sim Yok Teng, Jane Lau, Kong Yiting and Nguyen Don
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)