jump to navigation

NETS Won Against Case June 26, 2007

Posted by WishBoNe in Random Thoughts, Technology and Gadgets.
trackback

Frankly speaking, I’m very disappointed that NETS still won its fee hike. Ridiculous, I say. Competition? True but you don’t just up the transaction fees at this point in time. The GST hike and the ever-rising fuel cost are already costing us major headaches and NETS is very helpful in creating another headache.

I use NETS to pay for bills too. Are they saying that we are not using it enough? How odd. I see most use NETS to pay for bills and credit card bills. Some may be paying via cheques but that is another number to be accounted for. Is there a case study on how people are paying the bills for shopping, groceries, bills and other what-nots?

The extra hike in GST is going to make a $2 meal increase to $2.50 – $3 meal. The food stalls are not located in the food courts either. Not to forget that why the movie theatres will be increasing the ticket prices yet again too. Maybe Poh Kim and Sembawang Music must be the happiest owners in future. Or P2P sharing would increase more than ever. So, to gain more profits, everything goes up. But, at what cost? And, don’t call me whiny.

Update: As I don’t want anyone knocking at my doors any time soon, comments are closed due to strong sentiments being built up.

Advertisements

Comments

1. arzhou - June 26, 2007

use credit card, or just hard cold cash 🙂

2. DK - June 26, 2007

Why am I not surprised?

What can CASE do?

3. WishBoNe - June 26, 2007

@arzhou
That’s the other way I’m going to do now. At least, my spendings will go down. Now, is Giro affected?

@DK
Goes to show that anything that is profitable, consumers lose in the end.

4. - June 26, 2007

If CASE wins then that’ll be eye popper. When a company announced that they need to raise price because of higher operating cost, when did you ever see it being stop?

I wonder if Singapore would ever go back to the 1970s where there were riots to protest the higher cost of living. The only thing that stays the same are my salary and my exams mark.

5. WishBoNe - June 26, 2007

@杰
Things revert when there is a strong and loud voice against it. If a riot ever happens, I wonder if more than 5 people will be immediately arrested. Unless everyone is willing to sacrifice. Even the NKF saga doesn’t have much voice except online.

6. Paddy Tan - June 26, 2007

CASE is …… sigh. I really wish they can do more and not being labelled as a toothless tiger. The CASE head talks a lot when interviewed on this issue but in the end …

Paddy
BAK2u.com

7. WishBoNe - June 26, 2007

@Paddy
Talk a lot didn’t mean anything in the end. In any case, CASE is fighting against DBS, OCBC and UOB. The alternative we can do is to stop using NETS and use cash instead. The eyebrow raising thing is that the increase cannot be passed to consumers. As if that helps. It will still be passed to consumers, prices of the goods being jacked up according to GST and NETS hike. We just won’t know it. Perhaps when such a case happens, NETS will then realise or just carry on.

8. mr. simplicity - June 26, 2007

Boycott NETs. I started withdrawing my pay and change to a smaller notes. If back then we can live without NETs, why can’t we do that now?
I say we BOYCOTT! Lets start a petition.

9. aeontan - June 27, 2007

sux.

10. davidhuang - June 27, 2007

Yes, indeed we have alternative like Citibank, etc. But bear in mind, Citibank etc are profit-orientated organization and know how to leverage their brand equity. If a less-known brand like NET is increasing its charge, other alternative will most likely to do likewise, afterall they are just matching NET. I won’t be surprised in few months time, major banks will announced charge from 3% to 4%, even a small charge is a lot of profit !

Yes, the impact to perform those changes for Citibank etc is alot, but the profit is immense and worth it for them.

And foreigner bank can always justified the same reasons as NET.

Think about that when we start telling us ourselves we have choices.

This is a case of ‘one mountain is always higher than another mountain’.

That’s why we need to break free of monopoly and collusion. Unfortunately, the gov themselves has monopoly and collusion etc M1, DBS, UOB, etc (Hints: Who the head in charge ?).
Therefore, can gov tell company not behave this way ?

11. davidhuang - June 27, 2007

CASE is seem irrelevant when dealing with gov. Afterall, who is supporting and building infrastructure for NET in the first place ? Ironically, it is the gov, and therefore, there is a conflict of interest when gov say that there is nothing wrong with NET increment. Well, who are the official gahmen that has stake in NET ? You bet. I won’t say it is conspiracy, it is just a real world, when gov has too much power in running their own private companies.

It is just killing two birds with one stone. The first reason is that GST and other increment is already causing commotion, so may as well join in the mist of increment ? Why wait in the future when they will be targeted in focus for increment ?
Another reason is that whoever is running NET will get better salary and bonus and we know who the mastermind, don’t we ?

Money smell goods than morality !

When you have conflict of interest, whatever reasons you give are just hogwash !

But Singapore is different, so say our gahmen.

12. WishBoNe - June 27, 2007

@aeontan
I agree

@david
In one sentence, we have no say despite our protests. The problem with monopoly is that the dominant company is able to do anything. *sigh*

13. astro - June 27, 2007

i pretty surprise that most consumer raise their concerns this time round. most of the time, the affected one are mainly the businesses because they have to provide this service to the customer and for most cases they can’t pass the cost to the consumer.

In fact same goes for credit card. Everytime someone use credit card, it means that the profit gets lesser. It is a cost to businesses in exchange to be able to provide this additional service to the customer.

infact i think businesses will be happy if everyone just give them cash!

14. WishBoNe - June 27, 2007

@astro
There have been cases where consumers have been duped into paying more. There were a few shops that charged the NETS raise despite it not being effective yet. As consumers, we ought to know the cost of the things that we are buying and if the GST and whatever charges have been in place before buying blindly.

I have encountered shops that proclaim the cost big and bold on banners only to find out upon my confirmation to buy the item at the proclaimed price is exclusive of GST. There wasn’t even a fine print to state GST inclusive or exclusive. It feels like a trick.

With cash, there are no fees involved and most owners don’t mind rounding down a few cents now and then. Except, the robbers and thieves may be very happy too. 😐

15. davidhuang - June 27, 2007

WishBoNe,
the worst thing is the monopoly companies belong to the gov and the gov justified themselves from time to time that it is the right thing to do because Singapore is DIFFERENT !

Amazing reasons for moron. The gahmen here is very insulting to all business academic who do business research because the gahmen defy what business should have => (No Conflict of interest, accountability and transparency to shareholder, Responsibilty (Did Minister head roll or our taxmoney get roll ?), neutrality).

That’s what happened when we place gahmen too much power and that gahmen are unlike 1st generation of leaders who are passionate to build Singapore, current new generation of leaders seem to leverage the PAP’s power in building wealth for themselves than for the people because to them , welfare=Crude Mentality, though this does not apply to gahmen themselves. And they needs millions to regain moral authority to govern the country. What if the country has war or crisis, that these ministers suddenly don’t have millions but banana money, well, if logic applies, these ministers will likely to leave Singapore because there is no more millions dollar salary ! Their life is worth more than millions of salary !

That is the danger when one tied money to their job => No loyalty, go where money go.

Talking about ‘Democratic society based on equality and justice’. Just a LKY has say before ‘This is noble sentiment but it is the real world’.

16. davidhuang - June 27, 2007

WishBoNe,
the worst thing is the monopoly companies belong to the gov and the gov justified themselves from time to time that it is the right thing to do because Singapore is DIFFERENT !

Amazing reasons for moron. The gahmen here is very insulting to all business academic who do business research because the gahmen defy what business should have => (No Conflict of interest, accountability and transparency to shareholder, Responsibilty (Did Minister head roll or our taxmoney get roll ?), neutrality).

That’s what happened when we place gahmen too much power and that gahmen are unlike 1st generation of leaders who are passionate to build Singapore, current new generation of leaders seem to leverage the PAP’s power in building wealth for themselves than for the people because to them , welfare=Crude Mentality, though this does not apply to gahmen themselves. And they needs millions to regain moral authority to govern the country. What if the country has war or crisis, that these ministers suddenly don’t have millions but banana money, well, if logic applies, these ministers will likely to leave Singapore because there is no more millions dollar salary ! Their life is worth more than millions of salary !

That is the danger when one tied money to their job => No loyalty, go where money go.

Talking about ‘Democratic society based on equality and justice’. Just a LKY has say before ‘This is noble sentiment but it is the real world’, specifically ‘PAP’s world’.

17. davidhuang - June 27, 2007

If gov do not set a good examples in managing their own companies, how well do you expect other foreign companies to do so ? If gov companies even reject old people in working in civil service, why do you think other companies will want to accept them ?

18. davidhuang - June 27, 2007

astro,
To say that retailer could not pass the cost to consumer is plain rubbish. I have work in retailer line before and retailer can just simply come out reasons to increase price. CASE ? YOu must be joking because a retailer can also simply close a company and reopen as new company and markup price high. What CASE can do is for existing company not new company. This is just one way. Afterall, even in NTUC has increase their price of product recently, why other shops could not ? Another examples of cronies’s practice. Ppl can stop telling me that NTUC is for ppl because many shops nowsaday sell thing cheaper than NTUC !

Don’t believe me ? Go and get a bottle of coke at NTUC at $1.90 whereas other residential shop at $1.60 !

That’s still a lot of loopholes that I can split it out.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: