Commuters shouldn't be penalised when ez-link system breaks downI refer to the letter 'Passengers must use cash to pay fare when ez-link system is down' (ST Online Forum, Oct 13).
A majority of commuters pay their fares by using the ez-link card. In the event of a breakdown in the system on the bus, they are required to pay the fare in cash instead.
Commuters end up paying more since the fare is higher for cash payment compared to ez-link for the same fare stages.
Furthermore, if the passengers don't have coins in the right denomination, they end up paying more when they can't get back the change.
Hence the question is, will the transport company be motivated to maintain the ez-link system well, since its takings will be higher with cash fares?
The transport company has a duty to ensure that its ez-link system is functioning properly.
Commuters should not be penalised in any way as a result of the system's failure.
It has become a trend that whenever there are problems in public transport, the buck is often passed back to the commuters. This is not right as it is against the public interest.
This has to stop. I hope the relevant authorities can step in to clarify this.
Aw Chon Wai
http://straitstimes.asiaone.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=f832758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:5a54101d6704e010VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRDLet bus passengers ride for free when ez-link system doesn't workMs Dawn Low of SMRT Corporation stated in a letter to the online forum on October 13 that "if the ez-link system on board a bus is out of service, passengers would need to pay the fare in cash based on the number of fare stages they travel."
It is the responsibility of SMRT, licensed to operate the public transport system, to deliver the service expected. This includes providing its passengers with the option of paying the fares in cash or via the ez-link card.
The unavailability of the ez-link system on the bus constitutes a failure to deliver the service.
This should be viewed as a serious lapse on customer service as many commuters may not have the exact fare for the journey. They may have to pay more in cash because of this.
As SMRT is one of the two companies operating the bus service, the public is at its mercy when the company fails to deliver. This is an intolerable situation.
It is ridiculous that the public should be paying for the service failure of SMRT.
For its lapse in service, SMRT actually stands to gain extra revenue rather than lose revenue.
What incentive is there then for SMRT to ensure that its ez-link service is functioning properly at all times?
The Land Transport Authority should consider penalising public bus companies and close this loophole.
Public bus companies should be made to carry the passengers without charging them when it is their fault that they cannot accept a valid mode of payment with the ez-link card. This disincentive should keep them on their toes.
Chen Junyi
http://straitstimes.asiaone.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=f832758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:7a25101d6704e010VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRDTake bus off the road when card system fails. Otherwise it's unfair to commutersBus commuters have just learned from SMRT that when "the ez-link system on board a bus is out of service, passengers would need to pay the fare in cash based on the number of fare stages they travel" (ST Online Forum, Oct 13).
The ez-link system was introduced in 2002 as part of the government's drive towards a cashless society.
Since then, commuters have been deprived of alternative fare payment methods on buses except by paying in cash.
But cash payment is not really an "alternative" since commuters are charged a higher fare when they do this.
For commuters, cash payment is a fallback option when they have problems paying the fare with their ez-link cards. They usually pay with the ez-link cards to avoid paying a higher fare.
Thus it is wrong for the company to demand cash as a fallback position when the ez-link system on the bus breaks down.
There is a danger of abuse when the ez-link system is deliberately made to malfunction and this obliges commuters to pay a higher fare with cash. This will result in higher revenues for the company.
Furthermore, commuters are unjustifiably penalised for a service flaw.
Commuters are compelled to either pay the higher fare in cash, or suffer productivity loss by waiting for the next bus.
So where is the responsibility of bus companies to maintain an acceptable level of service standard?
When the ez-link system is not working properly, the bus should not be deployed. And if the ez-link system breaks down in mid-journey, commuters must be offered a more equitable alternative.
Bus companies need to be able to handle such contingencies.
It is imperative that the Public Transport Council addresses this issue with the bus companies.
Law Sin Ling
http://straitstimes.asiaone.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=f832758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:1106101d6704e010VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD