|
I REFER to the letter, 'Charging more for Nets may backfire on banks' by Mr Ethan Guo (ST, June 6), in which he mentions the ways in which the proposal to increase the fee Nets charges merchants could backfire on the three banks which own Nets should consumers be convinced that 'enough is enough' and the time has come to hit back.
He mentions the increased costs that will be incurred to maintain higher usage of bank ATMs, but there is more.
If consumers bypass Nets and use cash instead, retailers will have to spend more on security as the amount of cash on their premises increases.
Then the cash will have to be transported to be deposited in retailers' bank accounts and longer queues at bank counters will create a need for more counter staff.
The originators of the move to go cashless via the use of Nets were innovative, but unfortunately, today it is the bottom-line profit figure that drives many businesses, including banks.
The Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) has spoken against the 330 per cent rise in the rate charged to merchants who use Nets, but has not to date been able to reverse the decision.
It looks as if consumers of Singapore need to show in no uncertain manner whether they think the substantial fee increase is justified as there is no concomitant increase in benefits to them.
Denis Distant
|
