tshace
Master Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2002
- Messages
- 4,127
- Reaction score
- 3,637
https://gutzy.asia/2024/01/23/will-...phased-out-despite-a-s40-million-expenditure/
" .....
LTA claimed to have conducted market testing and focus group sessions with adult commuters and concession cardholders before finalizing the SimplyGo transition plan. However, considering the public outcry that led to the U-turn, several scenarios emerge: perhaps the market testing and focus groups did not occur, the groups might have consisted of individuals who readily agreed with government proposals, or LTA possibly ignored the results and proceeded with their decision to phase out the cards, compelling everyone to switch to SimplyGo.
Given the lack of government transparency and the absence of a Freedom of Information Act, more in-depth discussions and scrutiny are needed in Parliament regarding the abrupt phasing out of the EZ-Link card and the rationale behind the S$40 million expenditure.
Parliamentarians must ask hard questions: Why can’t the new system integrate old and new systems? Is there a need to phase out EZ-Link cards as LTA had earlier announced, or is LTA trying to muscle its way through by forcing everyone to accept its decision, underestimating the response from the general public?
This is not the first time, at least in recent times, that LTA has had to reverse its decision. Take bus service 167, for example. LTA initially planned to discontinue Service 167 but reversed its decision following strong opposition from affected commuters and residents, marking a remarkable turnaround within a fortnight.
The Singaporean public deserves a thorough explanation and reassurance that their interests are being thoughtfully considered in the implementation of nationwide policies and not ad-hoc decisions, with the expectation that the population will just accept whatever the government decides."
" .....
LTA claimed to have conducted market testing and focus group sessions with adult commuters and concession cardholders before finalizing the SimplyGo transition plan. However, considering the public outcry that led to the U-turn, several scenarios emerge: perhaps the market testing and focus groups did not occur, the groups might have consisted of individuals who readily agreed with government proposals, or LTA possibly ignored the results and proceeded with their decision to phase out the cards, compelling everyone to switch to SimplyGo.
Given the lack of government transparency and the absence of a Freedom of Information Act, more in-depth discussions and scrutiny are needed in Parliament regarding the abrupt phasing out of the EZ-Link card and the rationale behind the S$40 million expenditure.
Parliamentarians must ask hard questions: Why can’t the new system integrate old and new systems? Is there a need to phase out EZ-Link cards as LTA had earlier announced, or is LTA trying to muscle its way through by forcing everyone to accept its decision, underestimating the response from the general public?
This is not the first time, at least in recent times, that LTA has had to reverse its decision. Take bus service 167, for example. LTA initially planned to discontinue Service 167 but reversed its decision following strong opposition from affected commuters and residents, marking a remarkable turnaround within a fortnight.
The Singaporean public deserves a thorough explanation and reassurance that their interests are being thoughtfully considered in the implementation of nationwide policies and not ad-hoc decisions, with the expectation that the population will just accept whatever the government decides."
