I think we have lost sight of one thing, that is why a fee for NETS needs to be imposed, and if it justified. Whether the fee is on the consumer or retailer is irrelevant, the implication is that the cost of the goods (or at least the cost of providing the goods) will be increased.
There has been so much heat here, lotsa of people here who have stated they would rather walk a longer way to an ATM, carry more cash, avoid shops with NETS etc, to save on the small increase in cost. Well, it goes right to the point, NETS is a SERVICE, a SERVICE which provides a CONVENIENCE (so that you dun have to walk so far or carry so much cash) to the retailer and customer. A SERVICE that comes with a COST, yes? COST of infrastructure, manpower, adminstration, financing. As a SERVICE, the are entitled to charge a fee, yes? Or does anyone here disagree with that?
Point 1: The providers of NETS provides a service which incurs a cost to the provider, and are entitled to charge a fee.
Next, does NETS provide a social service or should it function as a commercial entity? Perhaps in the early days of its inception, due to the foresight of our policy makers (who only suffer brickbats in this forum, btw), there was an ideal that we should make cashless transactions accessible to heartlanders who do not have access to credit cards. To that end, it may have been possible that public funds were made available as seed money to get this off the ground. This is my understanding from speaking with folk who have some history of the system but I have no way of verifying, so if someone has contrary information, I stand corrected. However, as it has evolved, it is now very much a commercial entity. I.e. it needs to be self-sustaining and not dependent on public funding. I believe this makes the best sense for this type of operation.
Point 2: NETS should be self-sustaining and not dependent on public funding
Last, how about pricing? IMO, if an entity is a commercial one, my only concern about how they price is whether or not I wish to use their service. I have no interest for any rationalisations nor do I expect any commercial company to explain to me how they price their product/service. As a commercial entity, my expectation is that they will price as high as the market can bear. If NETS becomes a cash-cow for the involved banks, so be it. If I were a shareholder in DBS bank, I would certainly expect the bank to maximise value from NETS. As stated by the competitions commission, there are alternative modes of payment out there. If the retailer wishes not to pay the NETS fees and provides goods at a lower price than one who does, that is a very legitimate business strategy. Likewise for the reverse. The consumer has the choice to lug around a bunch of cash to pay a little less at a shop without NETS, or pay a little more for the convenience. A very common decision trade-off we make all the time, so I fail to see the reason for all the angst.
Point 3: As a commercial entity, NETS have a right to set whatever price they like.
In a nutshell, our spoilt Singaporeans have gotten too used to a good thing, something which may have been provided as a privilege and has now somehow become a 'right'. Typical.
Dun wanna say.... ;p
