Look at it this way.
If Ez link wants the cost savings of manpower to collect and send money to the bank and buying/maintaining ticketing machines, it can pay for the cost so as to encourage consumers ot go cashless and therefore allow it to have cost savings.
Otherwise, if they only succeed in getting a less than crticial mass of pple to go GIRO, they will lose on both ends; one to setup the GIRO for those who want it, and the other, in still having to maintain the cash-related costs. They will then have a neither here nor there situation.
For us, we just do without the GIRO. We don't lose anything in real $$ other than our time. That can be worked around by ways which others have already stated:
1. Wait until need to withdraw cash, then top up at ATM
2. Wait for a time where you need to wait for a friend at MRT, then topup.
3. In your daily trips; I'm sure there are some days the ticketing machines are not so full; use those days to top up.
Etc.
EZlink loses in real $$ terms (which cannot be worked around); consumers just lose in some inconvenience (which can be worked around).
In the end, by imposing the fee and wanting to create a Win More-Lose, EZLink has created a Lose-Lose, when they could have created a Win-Win by absorbing it in.
For GIRO, we don't even know what the processing costs is, unlike NETS (0.9-2%) or Crdit Card (2+%). For all we know, there is no processing cost!
On top of that, we don't need to put such a hefty deposit in for nothing.
No matter how we look at the matter, we will lose if we do not follow order. You want giro, someone has to pay to the bank who administer giro.
Just like a can of coke. Some pay 60c for a can, some pay $1.30 at hawker, $5 at pub, $22 at disco. Isnt it the same coca cola from the same distributor? Why pay more?
We cant stop them from making money. But we can find means to save some pennies.
