[color=#666666]The Sun, Sat, 31 Jul 2004, Comment & Analysis[/color]

MINISTERS, celebrities and even journalists were part of it. They effectively played the role of judges in contests organised by manufacturers of house-hold goods like soap, soft drinks, toothpaste and the like.

There would be heaps of envelopes in a huge box and they would pick out the winners. Those were the days when winners were picked by the luck of the draw.

But when a 13-year-old schoolboy won a Mercedes Benz in a contest organised by a brewery, the authorities scrambled through the statutes for an answer, and they found one.

The Common Gaming Houses Act deems it an offence in any competition where there is no element of skill.

In 1979, the Finance Ministry deemed such contests as "illegal lotteries", based on the fact that if all get the correct answer, the winners are based on the luck of the draw.

The exception was private parties and functions where attendees are employees of the organiser or members of clubs and organisations.

Exemptions were also granted to private dinners and functions where no charges were imposed to qualify for lucky draws. This prompted a change of rules as far as "public" contests were concerned.

Participants were asked to write slogans, which meant that organisers had to sift through tens of thousands of entries and decide the most "creative" slogan.

It was a tedious job, and costly too.

Then came the modifications. Slogan writing went out of fashion and then came the "most creative signature" which was easier to "judge".

But over the years, with little enforcement, the lucky draws resurfaced and even attendees to launches of housing schemes were lured with promises of "lucky draw prizes".

With the advent of information technology and the computer age, premium telephone numbers came on the scene.

Organisers worked together with telecommunications companies to organise telephone quizzes, with promises of prizes ranging from handphones to cars.

Consumers paid as much as RM1.95 per minute to take part in such quizzes. In many instances, participants had to spend more than RM10 just to get past the preliminaries.

Then came the short messaging service (SMS). Like worms coming out of the woodwork, contests via SMS became the in-thing.

Almost everyone who owned a handphone was drawn into SMS contests and with more organisers entering the market, the prizes started getting bigger.

While the organisers and telcos were laughing all the way to the bank, many consumers felt cheated.

Like in most contests, the so-called judging was carried out secretly.

Organisers were not accountable to anyone and fell back on the small print which read "The decision of the judges is final" or "No correspondence will be entertained".

However, all that changed when a couple sought justice from the Consumer Claims Tribunal. Although they lost the case, it opened the eyes of consumers, and the authorities.

The National Fatwa Council has decreed such contests are illegal. Television stations which were in the forefront of such SMS contests, upon learning of the fatwa, quickly retreated into their cocoons.

They cancelled the contests, but there is no respite or refunds for those who had already sent in their SMSs.

Having said that, time has come for serious consideration be given to introduce guidelines to ensure transparency in the judging of all contests.

In Germany for example, it is compulsory for an accountant or a lawyer to be present when winners are picked.

His task is to certify that winners are picked based on the rules of the contest and to avoid any accusations of a "fix".

As it stands, organisers do not have to have independent people to witness the judging or selection of the winners. So, when one wins a big prize or hits the jackpot, the public are left wondering if he or she is the brother-in-law or the sister of the chief organiser.

To avoid all such suspicion and ambiguity, organisers should take it upon themselves to be transparent in the judging.

I am a firm believer in self-regulation and perhaps, the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers should take the lead in advising its members to self-regulate.

If it cannot, then the government must introduce legislation to protect the consumers.

source: http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=4270