I can understand Mr Ong Hong Bee's logic in suggesting in-vehicle unit (IU) covers not be used, but I do not completely agree.

Using the cover is still better than having the CashCard in the IU with no cover at all. The intention is to create uncertainty in the mind of a potential thief, rather than make him think a card is not there, as Mr Ong suggests. I agree with Mr Ong that in most cases, cards are hidden under the cover. However, a thief takes an added risk - though perhaps not big - in choosing to try his luck with covered IUs.

Many motorists forget to insert their CashCard in the IU when they start a journey, or forget to remove it at the end of the journey.

This has obvious consequences. I know because I have often paid an admin charge for passing under gantries without a CashCard.

My solution has been to use the cover. I agree with Mr Ong this is not a good solution, but in the absence of any better one, it is the lesser of two evils.

A much better solution is to do away with the CashCard altogether. This can be done easily without having to change any existing IUs.

Since each IU already has a unique ID detected by the gantries as a car passes under, the LTA can simply tie the IU ID to a credit or debit account - perhaps a credit card account, a Giro-enabled bank account or a monthly billing account.

You may still get an error beep when you pass under the gantry without the CashCard, but as long as the LTA can collect the ERP charge, there should be no problem.

You may still need a CashCard in ERP-enabled carparks, but that is a small price to pay for the convenience until a better solution is available.

Edwin Han Vee-Kwang