UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA KAMPUS ALOR GAJAH

FACULTY OF ACCOUNTANCY
BACHELOR OF ACCOUNTING (HONS)
SESI 2023/2024

ENGLISH FOR CRITICAL ACADEMIC READING

(ELC501)

ARTICLE ANALYSIS

PREPARED FOR : PROFESOR MADYA DR GERALDINE A/P JOHN PHILIP DE

MELLO

PREPARED BY :
NAME STUDENT ID

SITI NUR ADILLAH BINTI FAIZUL ASARI 2022851488

NURSYAMIMI BINTI ZAILAN 2022612876

 The topic of the passage is the use of the TikTok application has sparked a global
debate and regulatory actions expressing various concerns. The author states it very clearly in
the title of the article “The TikTok Ban”. The issue discussed whether TikTok should be banned
in some countries. The multifaceted nature of the problem spans across national security
concerns, societal harmony, economic implications and cultural impacts. Primarily, the author
talks about concerns regarding TikTok’s national security risks due to its Chinese ownership.
Many countries, like the United States of America (USA), Europe, Canada, Nepal, Indonesia,
and Malaysia have responded with actions, such as giving directives to agencies or banning
TikTok on government websites. Based on paragraph III, the author feels that Nepal banned
TikTok due to worries about its impact on society and youth. It highlights a clash between
technology and traditional values, showing broader challenges posed by social media. Next,
based on paragraph V, the author states very clearly that Indonesia banned TikTok Shop over
claims of unfair pricing and rule violations, revealing a struggle between promoting local
businesses and overseeing online markets. This article has a concerned and critical tone when
the authors listed the weakness of TikTok apps based on extensive evidence from research
done. The authors used words such as spy, manipulate, harmful, and influx to express concern
for younger generations.

Moreover, the first reason is concerns about security, with the fear that China could
potentially use TikTok to spy on users and manipulate public information. This reason helps to
explain the author’s argument on why TikTok needs to be banned. The author supports the
reason by referring to strong evidence like TikTok could pose security risks. In fact, Western
officials, including those in the USA, France, the United Kingdom and Australia worry that the
app may be used by the Chinese government for espionage activities, potentially collecting
sensitive information from users. Besides, the author's other reason is Nepal’s decision to ban
TikTok stems from concerns about its impact on social harmony, family structures, and youth
well-being. The author was successful in explaining by using strong evidence such The Minister
for Communications and Information Technology, Reka Sharma, cited the consistent sharing of
content that disrupts these aspects. Also, the government had previously issued guidelines for
social media, prohibiting hate speech, sexual exploitation promotion and terrorism-related
content. Furthermore, the author’s next reason based on paragraph V is that Indonesia banned
TikTok Shop is to protect the country’s 64 million micro, small and medium enterprises
(MSMEs). The author begins to support the strong evidence like the Indonesian Trade Minister,
Zulkifli Hasan, accuses TikTok of facilitating predatory pricing practices, allowing an influx of
cheap imported goods, and being non-compliant with the law as well as the concern is centered
on economic threats posed by the platform, with a focus on safeguarding traditional retailers
and MSMEs. Meanwhile, this move has triggered mixed feelings among users and non-users,
highlighting the complex balance between supporting local businesses and acknowledging the
role of digital platforms in business growth.

Additionally, the next reason written by the author is questions asked by Sandeep
Joseph: the success of American-owned social commerce platforms in comparison to TikTok’s
limited market share is the disparity in market dominance, prompting concerns about fairness
and regulatory aspects. However, the author failed to use strong evidence to support the issue
that TikTok needs to ban. This is because the success of these platforms underscores the
importance of guiding small independents to leverage them for reaching new markets and
audiences can be an evidence to support this reason. Moreover, in this article, the author uses
many types of supporting details. Firstly, the type of supporting detail used by the author in
paragraph X is statistic. There is evidence to support such the growth of TikTok has grown
immersely from US$0.6 billion in 2021 to US$4.4 billion in 2022 and has over 1.677 billion users
globally. Secondly, the author has used supporting detail of personal experience in paragraph
VI. This can be seen in Golda Pradeksa, the founder of Alya the Label, a Bali-based women’s
clothing retailer said “TikTok has helped built my business. Now, I have to redo all my content
and use Shopee. I don’t know if it will work because Shopee doesn’t have the same interactivity
between sellers and buyers as TikTok.” Thirdly, in paragraph III, the author used expert opinion
as supporting details. For example, The Nepal’s Minister for Communications and Information
Technology, Rekha Sharma said that the decision was made because TikTok was consistently
used to share content that disturbs social harmony and disrupts family structures and social
relations.

The author's argument is valid and a complete argument. This is because it has been
well-supported by evidence from the article, presenting a comprehensive overview of the global
debate surrounding TikTok. Firstly, based on paragraph I, security concerns are underscored as
the author has strong evidence by highlighting actions taken by various countries, including the
United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, and Malaysia, to restrict TikTok access on
government devices due to perceived security threats. Additionally, Nepal’s decision to ban
TikTok in paragraph III , is firmly linked to concerns about negative impacts on social harmony
and family structures. It is supported with evidence as articulated by the Minister for
Communications and Information Technology. Next, economic threats form another pillar of
support for the argument, as Indonesia’s ban on TikTok Shop is grounded in accusations of
predatory pricing practices and the influx of cheap imported goods. The author further provides
a nuanced view by incorporating perspectives from TikTok users and non-users in Indonesia,
revealing a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the ban. Moreover, the Malaysian
Government’s contemplation of a TikTok ban is discussed in paragraph VII, citing concerns
about defamatory content, legal compliance, and issues related to content distribution and
advertising. The article delves into the business impact, elucidating how traditional retailers and
online businesses in Indonesia are affected by the ban, offering tangible evidence of the
repercussions on trade and content creators. The financial growth of TikTok from 2021 to 2022
is underscored, emphasizing its substantial increase in revenue and global user base,
reinforcing the platform’s significance. Finally, the author also has a counter argument that
shows how he was looking at a possible problem that can happen and managed to refute critics.
It can be seen in paragraph VI, the author presents a counter argument through Golda
Pradeksa, the founder of Alya the Label. Golda expresses sympathy for traditional retailers
affected by the ban on TikTok in Indonesia but disagrees with the decision, highlighting how
TikTok has been instrumental in building her business and expressing concerns about the
limitations of alternative platforms like Shopee. This perspective contrasts with the negative
economic impact mentioned earlier, introducing a nuanced view on the consequences of
banning TikTok. This shows how the author suggests a potential long-term impact, positing that
banning TikTok could strengthen its position by focusing on core functions, enhancing user
safety, and attracting more advertisers and users over time. In summary, the author’s argument
is strongly supported by eight distinct points, each backed by compelling evidence drawn from
the content of the article.

The article also raises some important questions regarding the Tiktok ban. These
questions also include user safety and data privacy which is whether banning Tiktok could lead
to improvements in user safety and data privacy. Can the prohibition of Tiktok foster
enhancements in user safety and bolster data privacy measures? The consideration extends to
the potential consequences of such bans on the platform’s reputation, pondering whether these
measures could make Tiktok more appealing to users and advertisers concerned about data
security. The second question raises important questions about the justification for bans. The
article critically questions the rationale behind the bans instituted by various countries. It delves
into the core reasons for restricting Tiktok access and probes whether concerns related to
security, social impact, and economic threats are valid grounds for imposing such bans. This
examination invites a nuanced discussion of the multifaceted justifications put forth by the
government, weighing the perceived risk against the broader implications for users and the
platform itself.
The article employs a blend of deductive and inductive reasoning to arrive at its
overarching conclusions. The article predominantly adopts an inductive approach, illustrating
specific instances to draw broader conclusions. For instance, in Paragraph III, Nepal's decision
to ban TikTok is rooted in concerns about social harmony and family structures, providing
concrete examples of the perceived negative impacts on youth and society. Similarly, Paragraph
V discusses Indonesia's ban, attributing it to economic threats faced by micro, small, and
medium enterprises (MSMEs) due to alleged predatory pricing practices facilitated by TikTok.
The Malaysian Government's contemplation of a TikTok ban, outlined in Paragraph VII, is
justified by issues related to defamatory content and non-compliance with local laws, citing
specific instances of public concerns and complaints. On the other hand, deductive reasoning is
evident in Paragraphs II, IV, VI, where general statements are made about global actions
against TikTok by the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Nepal,
grounded in overarching themes such as security concerns, societal impacts, and economic
threats. The concluding Paragraph X takes a more deductive approach, projecting potential
long-term effects of a global TikTok ban on the platform's position, reputation, user safety, and
data privacy, anticipating increased attractiveness to advertisers and users over time.The
author's tone appears to be objective. The information is presented in a factual manner,
outlining various actions taken by different countries, statements from officials, and the reactions
from users and businesses. There isn't a clear expression of personal opinions or emotions
throughout the text, suggesting an objective approach to reporting the information.