godzilla60
New Member
why does that sound like a foreseeable reality? :sweat:
you.never.know
well....appreciate watever choices we have now coz next time there may not be a choice
EZ link card with Giro
- Thread starter Virgo
- Start date
why does that sound like a foreseeable reality? :sweat:
you.never.know
well....appreciate watever choices we have now coz next time there may not be a choice
Virgo
Senior Member
And also pressure the authorities for more options, so that they do not dominate the entire market! More competitors, more options!
Back to the topic, it seems like we are not given a choice on this Giro issue. Just pay only! :angry: Of course, I have chosen not to succumb to their 'option'!
ZerocoolAstra
Senior Member
another forum letter on this topic in today's The Straits Times.
One of the better written ones, except for the mistake about referring to the new CEPAS card as EZ-Reload, which I'm sure EZ-Link will be quick to point out, conveniently ignoring all the other important points.
Now that this topic has been re-started, hopefully there will be more letters coming in once more. We really can't take this lying down.
Anyone visiting their MP soon?
One of the better written ones, except for the mistake about referring to the new CEPAS card as EZ-Reload, which I'm sure EZ-Link will be quick to point out, conveniently ignoring all the other important points.
Now that this topic has been re-started, hopefully there will be more letters coming in once more. We really can't take this lying down.
Anyone visiting their MP soon?
godzilla60
New Member
another forum letter on this topic in today's The Straits Times.
One of the better written ones, except for the mistake about referring to the new CEPAS card as EZ-Reload, which I'm sure EZ-Link will be quick to point out, conveniently ignoring all the other important points.
Now that this topic has been re-started, hopefully there will be more letters coming in once more. We really can't take this lying down.
Anyone visiting their MP soon?
Everyone has an option to subscribe or not to subscribe to EZ-Reload. Not subscribing to EZ-Reload does not hamper or restrict one's access to the transportation network. Alternative top-up methods are easily available also.
Forcing EZ-Reload to be complimentary will only push up the costs of doing business, thus justifying a rise in the transport fares. This method will push the burden of those who want the EZ-Reload facility but refuse to pay for it to every users of the transport network, which in turn makes everyone who feel unfair to be paying for something they don't use to start subscribing, which in turn pushes the costs of doing business even higher and generally, our fares will also reflect the same costs.
Since EZ-Reload is a non-essential service of convenience (which can be classified as a premium service), they are justified to charge for it. This is just like taxi companies charging booking fees, etc.
Maybe there are issues of more importance and pressing urgency worth arguing for than this? :dunno: No?
V
vince123123
Guest
Essential or otherwise is a matter of degree. I can argue that elevators for MRT stations are inessential facilities and hence, should we charge a premium for having elevators at MRT stations and charge those who use it (since not everyone uses it). Next, I can say escalators are also inessential; put more staircases; and charge those who take escalators, a fee.
Also, I can argue that having a Top Up Machine is an inessential facility (you can always queue up at the main counter if you want to top up); and hence, we should pay to use those?
While we are at it, how about including toilets in the MRT stations. Again inessential; not everyone uses it; charge for using it!
Perhaps, we can also charge for those who use the seats on the MRT trains since it is inessential and you have the option not to sit down.
There are always more important issues than this, but that should not detract from us discussing it. This "sweep under the carpet" proposal has always been said again and again but it is logically lacking. In fact, it is the very reason why we are saddled with the day to day stuffs that we never progress to questino more important things. IF the establishemnt can keep the populace at Level 1 of Maslow's Hierarchy, they will never progress to Level 3 to question the establishment since everyone is busy satisfying their Level 1.
Also, I can argue that having a Top Up Machine is an inessential facility (you can always queue up at the main counter if you want to top up); and hence, we should pay to use those?
While we are at it, how about including toilets in the MRT stations. Again inessential; not everyone uses it; charge for using it!
Perhaps, we can also charge for those who use the seats on the MRT trains since it is inessential and you have the option not to sit down.
There are always more important issues than this, but that should not detract from us discussing it. This "sweep under the carpet" proposal has always been said again and again but it is logically lacking. In fact, it is the very reason why we are saddled with the day to day stuffs that we never progress to questino more important things. IF the establishemnt can keep the populace at Level 1 of Maslow's Hierarchy, they will never progress to Level 3 to question the establishment since everyone is busy satisfying their Level 1.
GIRO push up the cost of doing business?.. hmm..
The argument for making GIRO complimentary is that there is potential savings in the long run for the companies that could possibly outweigh the cost incurred from GIRO transactions.. If there is no benefit to the company in the first place, why would they introduce it, and having it free somemore, for the original ezlink card. Why would they make such an investment (offering it FOC for the first batch) if they see no potential in it ($$$$ Savings). If a company really feel that a particular service is so costly, chances are they are more likely to just remove it, rather then providing it as an alternative. There are many examples of this happening. So what ezlink is doing is to ask consumer to pay for something that actually benefits the ezlink company a lot.
The urgently, is bcoz, other companies could start using EZ-Reload as a precedent case of charging for GIRO and follow suit.. This will make it real hard for consumers, as if the current economy is not hurting enough..
The argument for making GIRO complimentary is that there is potential savings in the long run for the companies that could possibly outweigh the cost incurred from GIRO transactions.. If there is no benefit to the company in the first place, why would they introduce it, and having it free somemore, for the original ezlink card. Why would they make such an investment (offering it FOC for the first batch) if they see no potential in it ($$$$ Savings). If a company really feel that a particular service is so costly, chances are they are more likely to just remove it, rather then providing it as an alternative. There are many examples of this happening. So what ezlink is doing is to ask consumer to pay for something that actually benefits the ezlink company a lot.
The urgently, is bcoz, other companies could start using EZ-Reload as a precedent case of charging for GIRO and follow suit.. This will make it real hard for consumers, as if the current economy is not hurting enough..
Last edited:
godzilla60
New Member
GIRO does push up the cost of doing business. There is a charge for every transaction made, the cost of administration (e.g. cost of software/automation to trigger the transaction instructions, etc). There are always invisible costs and there may be constraints on the way the company operates that makes removal or reduction of costs not feasible....
The ability of other companies to start using this case as a precedence for charging for GIRO depends on whether they have a monopoly/duopoly in the market as well as how well their targeted audience will accept such changes. So, I wouldn't worry about that because, I can always choose not to accept such change and take my money somewhere else.
godzilla60
New Member
While you have a strong case (which you always have for cases that you have voiced on), the charging of fees are not related solely to the "essential-ness" of such facilities. There are other factors such as the benefits of the facilities to the company as compared to the cost of the facilities, legislation, operational contract terms, etc. While I can second-guess the reasons why the facilities named in the post are implemented without a fee, I cannot say for sure that these are the very reasons for their implementations. Unless their company representative comes out and clarifies matter, these will forever be speculations. Likewise, I can also name facilities that should be free but I don't subscribe to the "everyone shares the costs" mentality for everything.
While I am not sure how questioning a commercial decision can satisfy our needs at level 1, I have certainly provided my theories of the possible reasons behind the charges. While I don't agree with the fees personally and loathe paying more than I should (especially when the new system is to me less customer-oriented than the previous system), I had also tried to generate sufficient publicity for the alternatives available to those who do not wish to pay those fees.
For the record, I still wish that they will remove the fees and improve the systems but till then, there are other alternatives that allow us to prevent paying more than what we think they deserve for the services. And I am happy that such alternatives are present rather than total elimination of such alternatives for something as basic as public transport.
Anyway, all commercial and governmental entities have the ability to include the costs back into the overall prices and the market can be the none the wiser, which I suspect will be the action if they so remove the fees. So, regardless of the way they charge us for it, we have to pay IF we want to use the services :dunno:
Last edited:
What I meant is, if majority of the commuters are using GIRO, they can do with less GTMs and maybe counters. There is cost savings from less electricity, less maintenance, less machines, and maybe other less tangible benefits that in total is worth more than the 25cts per transactions. So there maybe still net savings for the company. And on top of all that, there is better efficiency.
how does giro push up cost ? shouldn't it be the other way around ?
its a premium service ? how premium ?
adminstrative cost per transaction ? its fully automated, whats there to charge... electricity cost :bsmilie:
1 one time activation fee still can accept, per transaction is daylight robbery...
its a premium service ? how premium ?
adminstrative cost per transaction ? its fully automated, whats there to charge... electricity cost :bsmilie:
1 one time activation fee still can accept, per transaction is daylight robbery...
godzilla60
New Member
Ideally, that should happen. However, I am not sure if they are burdened by other economic factors such as the terms of their operational contract which requires the full operation of all GTMs and counters. Maybe they are still trying to recoup their investments in the GTMs and counters. :dunno:
waiting for some company representative to come out and clear the air... then we will know if they have constraints or they just refuse to change their mindset.. LOL
godzilla60
New Member
the bank charges activation fees as well as transaction/standing instruction fees to them per GIRO application, which may be waived depending on the banking relationship they have with their bank(s)....
Limsgp did highlight how GIRO can reduce costs if the companies are willing to adopt such practices. So, the cost savings have to be more than the fees being charged before they can generate the actual cost savings after deducting the fees being charged.
Per transaction is like Credit Card and NETS. Maybe unless the banks refuse to let companies charge for GIRO transactions, then there won't be such open charges. But then again, unless there are significant benefits outweighing the 2% commission fee, i will pay in cash to avoid paying such fees. :devil:
V
vince123123
Guest
1. The essentialness point was made because you raised it in your earlier post:
"Since EZ-Reload is a non-essential service of convenience (which can be classified as a premium service), they are justified to charge for it. This is just like taxi companies charging booking fees, etc."
In your new point where you talked about benefits to the company, do note that GIRO is as much a benefit to the company as it is to the commuters (reduced manpower & maintenance costs). However, they chose to have it just as a double benefit to the company by making commuters pay for it.
2. The reference to Maslows was a side point, and in response to your statement that we have better more urgent things to do than to question this.
3. The only way they can build back into costs is if they collaborate with SMRT to do so. And trust me, raising bus/train fares will raise a helluva more ruckus than charging for GIRO.
"Since EZ-Reload is a non-essential service of convenience (which can be classified as a premium service), they are justified to charge for it. This is just like taxi companies charging booking fees, etc."
In your new point where you talked about benefits to the company, do note that GIRO is as much a benefit to the company as it is to the commuters (reduced manpower & maintenance costs). However, they chose to have it just as a double benefit to the company by making commuters pay for it.
2. The reference to Maslows was a side point, and in response to your statement that we have better more urgent things to do than to question this.
3. The only way they can build back into costs is if they collaborate with SMRT to do so. And trust me, raising bus/train fares will raise a helluva more ruckus than charging for GIRO.
this giro service is nothing new and its been around for ages... so why charge for this transaction and not the other bills payment ? i have giro deduction for so many bills, none of it charge a single cent, so what so different ? its still deduction from the banks...
for the convenience of their work, they did a reset for everyone to $30 top up, to change to $50, u have to cancel ur current giro top up, wait for dunno how many weeks, apply again and dunno wait for how long just to revert back to $50...
i din know things can be so inefficient and we still have to pay for it... so much for our advance technology and automation... all the not so easy and blah blah blah...
it can be done if wanted to... its not rocket science, its just tedious...
let me tell my boss my work is not so easy, maybe he will give me a raise...:bsmilie:
for the convenience of their work, they did a reset for everyone to $30 top up, to change to $50, u have to cancel ur current giro top up, wait for dunno how many weeks, apply again and dunno wait for how long just to revert back to $50...
i din know things can be so inefficient and we still have to pay for it... so much for our advance technology and automation... all the not so easy and blah blah blah...
it can be done if wanted to... its not rocket science, its just tedious...
let me tell my boss my work is not so easy, maybe he will give me a raise...:bsmilie:
V
vince123123
Guest
1. GIRO also comes with savings in manpower reduction and maintenance costs. Do you really know the relative size of one to the other to make a good comparison?
2. When the following starts charging you for GIRO, I guess you may start to reevaluate your current stand:
(a) Singapore Power Utilities Bills
(b) HDB monthly installments
(c) Town Council Conservancy Charges
(d) Singtel/M1/Starhub's mobile bills (for those who use it)
(e) Your monthly installment for Income Tax payment (for those who use it)
(f) The list goes on.
2. When the following starts charging you for GIRO, I guess you may start to reevaluate your current stand:
(a) Singapore Power Utilities Bills
(b) HDB monthly installments
(c) Town Council Conservancy Charges
(d) Singtel/M1/Starhub's mobile bills (for those who use it)
(e) Your monthly installment for Income Tax payment (for those who use it)
(f) The list goes on.
GIRO does push up the cost of doing business. There is a charge for every transaction made, the cost of administration (e.g. cost of software/automation to trigger the transaction instructions, etc). There are always invisible costs and there may be constraints on the way the company operates that makes removal or reduction of costs not feasible....
The ability of other companies to start using this case as a precedence for charging for GIRO depends on whether they have a monopoly/duopoly in the market as well as how well their targeted audience will accept such changes. So, I wouldn't worry about that because, I can always choose not to accept such change and take my money somewhere else.
V
vince123123
Guest
That is quite baseless speculation honestly. Also, manpower costs in counting and depositing money will definitely fall outside this speculation.
The next thing we can speculate that they contract with SMRT to give them commission for each machine based topup since SMRT gives them space to put the machines in the station;' hence they need to dissuade commuters froM GIRO.
The next thing we can speculate that they contract with SMRT to give them commission for each machine based topup since SMRT gives them space to put the machines in the station;' hence they need to dissuade commuters froM GIRO.
Last edited by a moderator:
V
vince123123
Guest
That's because in paying cash at your retail shop, you already need to queue up anyway.
If I tell you that by paying cash, you need to join the 20-people long queue and if you pay credit card, you get instant clearance; then you will re-evaulate whether the 2% is worth it or not.
If I tell you that by paying cash, you need to join the 20-people long queue and if you pay credit card, you get instant clearance; then you will re-evaulate whether the 2% is worth it or not.
godzilla60
New Member
1. Yes, the essential point was raised in my earlier post but if you read my other posts in the same thread, you will get the full picture of my argument.
2. So your Maslows reference answers directly to the statement that we have better more urgent things to do? :dunno:
3. Well... there are more than one way that these can be built back into costs. So i wun be surprised.
godzilla60
New Member
mmm... if u read my earlier posts, i did mention that these companies have done their calculations and basically the benefits of GIRO outweighs the cost of the transaction fees which make GIRO attractive to implement for all customers. Obviously, this new company does not feel that GIRO is attractive enough to incentive the conversions to GIRO, hence the harges.
As for the convenience of their work and the inefficiency of the new procedures, i totally agree with you that these are not ideal. In fact, my application for changing of the amount is taking ages to complete. :thumbsd:
the key to this thing is if wanted to. i guess they just dun want to. :dunno:
godzilla60
New Member
1. Obviously I know the relative size of one to the other. But do you also know that commercial and contractual obligations and restrictions on operations can wipe out any savings that such GIRO can give?
2. I don't have to evaluate my current stand when those companies start charging me for GIRO because:
a) I don't use GIRO for these bills as much as they want me to.
b) I exercised my option not to use GIRO.
Similar threads
