Is Chee Hong Tat suggesting SimplyGo is free vs. S$40M for existing system?

Transport Minister Chee Hong Tat’s recent doorstop interview on Friday (26 Jan) marked a peculiar twist in Singapore’s saga regarding the push for SimplyGo, an account-based ticketing (ABT) system.

While his apology for the planned phase-out of traditional EZ-link and Nets Flashpay cards seemed sincere, it raised more questions than it answered, highlighting the Ministry of Transport’s (MOT) failure to address public concerns adequately.

In announcing the cancellation of the phase-out in June this year, Chee had earlier announced an additional S$40 million to maintain card-based ticketing systems until at least 2030.

Chee’s assertion that the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is spending an additional S$40 million in response to commuter feedback seems to suggest to the unsuspecting public that adopting SimplyGo comes at no cost to the government, a notion likely misleading based on commonly known financial arrangements.

Transitioning to SimplyGo undoubtedly incurs expenses, especially considering that the existing card-based technology (CBT), operational since 2002, has its costs already amortized.

Rather than guilt-tripping the public —  as Calvin Cheng sought to do with his comments — by saying the LTA is spending S$40 million additionally to pander to Singapore commuters’ whims, LTA should be frank about how much it or its subsidiaries (Transit Link and EZ-Link) spent to roll out SimplyGo, including costs from conceptualization, design, development, marketing, and implementation.

For example, it would be illogical to state that an additional S$40 million was spent to maintain CBT cards when, for instance, S$200 million was used to introduce SimplyGo, especially if the current system has already been fully paid for and is working well for the commuters.

Let’s be clear, commuters at large did not ask for the introduction of SimplyGo; it was the initiative of LTA or its subsidiaries. Blaming commuters for a commercial decision that is out of their control is unjust.

The minister cited technical challenges in integrating fare displays into SimplyGo as reasons for the exclusion of the old payment system, but the continued use of concession cards for seniors, which use technology similar to EZ-link cards, raises the question: Why do these technical issues seem selective? It’s perplexing that a solution exists for concession cards in the new system, yet a broader application for all EZ-link cards is deemed technically challenging.

The suggestion that CBT cards might still be phased out post-2030 — despite the estimated S$40 million spending — due to “technical difficulties” is also troubling.

In response to queries about why the phase-out is planned for 2030, Chee said, “All IT systems have a certain shelf life. At the end of the shelf life, you will need to decide whether you need to further upgrade and buy new equipment and hardware, or upgrade the operating system.” Meanwhile, the MOT and LTA declined to reveal the system’s age when asked by the media.

Chee also stated in the interview that authorities will be exploring the possibility of integrating the two card-based ticketing systems over time.

It is particularly puzzling why the LTA did not initially plan for a payment system that included the existing system, thereby avoiding the need to phase out CBT cards and this ad-hoc correction fee of S$40 million. This approach contrasts with practices in other countries, as evidenced by the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, which maintain dual systems for inclusivity and user preference.

Despite Chee’s explanations, it is important to note that in the LTA’s initial announcement about phasing out CBT cards on 9 January, there was no mention of technical difficulties as a reason for the phase-out. Instead, the 9 January announcement emphasized the benefits of SimplyGo cards and stated that the decision had already been made. Neither was it mentioned when the initiative for a one-stop ticketing service was announced in March 2023.

One might wonder if the explanations offered after the public backlash are merely afterthoughts intended to pacify the angry populace.

From the various statements made so far, the transport ministry seems to be using various excuses to justify the phasing out of CBT cards, even though there appears to be no justifiable reason to do so.

This stance raises concerns about the real motivations behind the push for SimplyGo. Is it truly about modernizing the system, or are there other, perhaps political, drivers behind this push?

Furthermore, the lack of transparency regarding operational costs and the lifespan of the concession card system is troubling.

Without these details, the public is left to question the validity of Chee’s statements and the actual cost-effectiveness of the transition to SimplyGo. One can only wait for the upcoming Parliament sitting to see the parliamentarians grill Chee for answers, or to observe how Chee might avoid giving clear answers, as seen in some instances by politicians of the ruling party.

This scenario reflects a broader issue in Singapore’s approach to digital inclusivity. Despite government rhetoric promoting an inclusive digital society, as stated in a recent motion filed in the Singapore Parliament, the push for SimplyGo seems more like a top-down directive, lacking adequate consideration for the diverse needs and preferences of the commuting public. It’s a classic case of technology for technology’s sake, disregarding the practical and sentimental value commuters place on existing systems.

Beyond the above points, Chee’s apology on behalf of the LTA is quite absurd when delved into.

If he was aware of the impending phase-out and the significant use of CBT cards by 36% of commuters, why was there no earlier proactive measure to address this issue? Why claim that LTA had underestimated the strong preference of some commuters when the Minister would have the overriding say over such an important decision as the phasing out of millions of cards?

His attempt to shift the blame to LTA’s judgment seems to deflect responsibility from his oversight as the minister — never mind that he only officially became Transport Minister in January after his predecessor was charged with corruption as he had assumed the role of Acting Minister since July last year.

If Chee is a politician with integrity, he should apologize as the Minister of Transport for not foreseeing the public’s response and making such a flawed decision based on a survey of a selected 1,000 individuals over three to four years from 2020 to 2023 as representative of the millions of commuters in Singapore.

The saga of SimplyGo versus CBT cards is more than a debate over payment methods; it reflects how public policy should be formulated and implemented — with empathy, foresight, and a genuine willingness to listen to those it impacts the most.