SimplyGo: Is Changing Tracks the New Norm for Singapore?

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) last month suffered what may prove to be one of the biggest blunders the civil service has ever experienced. A push by the LTA to phase out EZLink cards in favour of only SimplyGo for payment of public transit trips caused significant backlash. SimplyGo, the LTA’s in-house payment system that utilised payment straight from bank accounts, was before the fiasco probably best known for those ads of people dancing in MRT stations. Now, its name will forever be linked to the most recent fiasco that forced the government to U-turn on a policy, something that simply does not happen very often.

This has gotten me thinking if the SimplyGo issue could be used as a test to understand the future of Singaporean leadership. As the 4G leadership of the People’s Action Party (PAP) prepares to step up and make their mark on Singapore, I want to cut through the cynics and the spin doctors.

What can the handling of this controversy show us about how the government might handle future controversy, and what does it leave up to the future and the imagination?

NEXT STATION: IVORY TOWER

The backlash to the move suggested to many that the LTA, and whichever individual or group of individuals were pushing the SimplyGo transition, did not actually understand the needs of commuters. People could not immediately check their card balances and fare transactions, which was a concern the LTA had apparently failed to account for. During the initial days after the announcement of the switch, multiple people had also voiced concerns that they had been overcharged by the system when using SimplyGo. It seems SimplyGo’s faults were being exposed with more people to stress test the system.

This raised questions about how the decision to switch to an only-SimplyGo system went ahead despite its many flaws. The two most straightforward answers were that the LTA were just trying to hit their Key Performance Indicators no matter what, or the LTA were unaware the system had the issues that would be surfaced. If they were unaware, that would further suggest that they didn’t even use the system they aimed to roll out to the 44% of the population whose daily commutes are by public transit. Accusations of elitism have hence started flying.

There is certainly some credence to this point. Those who are less well off or are otherwise more concerned about their finances likely won’t feel safe without being able to conveniently track their transportation expenditure. Their inability to check their balance can cause added confusion and inconvenience where previously there was none, and the premium people place on convenience cannot be understated. I would imagine most LTA employees have a pretty decent salary working in the public sector, and if I were to speculate, it is not impossible that some people working on SimplyGo mainly drive. From my observations online, it seems that cynics have accused the LTA and the government of being a bunch of rich drivers who couldn’t possibly comprehend the need to know how much money one spends on getting around.

This is all further compounded by the perception of progress for progress’ sake. The current system works fine, some will argue, why change what is not broken? In this telling, SimplyGo almost seems like reinventing the wheel, while simultaneously making the wheel worse. When the Straits Times did an infographic highlighting the uses of different transit payment modes around the world and how EZLink and SimplyGo stack up, it was pretty clear that EZLink would be more helpful than SimplyGo. 

However, I wish commentators had been less inclined to suspect malice. It is as much on the users to provide feedback as it is for the policymakers to take in such feedback. I find it highly unlikely that the LTA, knowing SimplyGo aimed to replace Card Based Transactions for transit rides, would let problems it was aware of go unresolved. Further, as more than half of commuters had switched to using SimplyGo or the SimplyGo fare card, it is possible commuters just assumed it worked like normal. I suppose by putting SimplyGo through a trial by fire, it is surfacing the problems that voluntary adoption could not surface.

PASS THE POLITICAL HOT POTATO

One thing I find that many people are casually mixing up is the role of the LTA versus the role of the elected government, and by extension the PAP. New Transport Minister Chee Hong Tat said that it was the LTA that had initially wished to push out the system, not the elected government. However, angry commentators frequently parroted the elitism line with regards to the executive branch without clarifying the difference between the elected government and the unelected civil service. In some cases, they even brought in the fact that Chee’s predecessor, S Iswaran, had been charged with corruption, and accused the government of solving a problem they created. It was all a rather broad attempt at pinning the blame on someone who was already guilty in the minds of whoever expressed those opinions. As much as the pitchforks come out when there is outrage over issues, it is only through moderation and setting aside emotion that can allow society to take stock and move forward.

Something else that left a bit of a sour taste in the mouth of commuters was Chee stating that it would cost an extra $40 million to keep the EZLink and NETS payment systems running until at least 2030. A good number of people have interpreted it as the government trying to put the blame for higher spending by the government on the populace. However, I wouldn’t be so sure about making that value judgement. The phrasing used by Chee was neutral, and was merely stating the fact that the Card Based Transaction system was running for longer than expected, and therefore unexpected costs would be incurred. Further, by assuring commuters that fares would not increase to make up for the loss, it seems the LTA is admitting the financial burden of the decision ultimately rests with them. Stating the facts appears to be the fastest way to get people to be suspicious of said facts.

Ultimately, in politics, perception is everything, and perception is a personal thing. People choose to selectively take in and ignore information about all sorts of things to fit their existing views. Who is to blame for the problem, then? Be it the LTA, the PAP, or the people themselves, anyone who claims it is solely on one party is being misguided, or worse, disingenuous.

REVERSAL NO LONGER A DIRTY WORD?

The government, seeing the scale of backlash and the specific complaints raised, likely felt it was in their best interests to make the problem go away by reversing their decision. They were probably justified in doing so, given that continuing with the complete rollout of SimplyGo would provide no added benefit to the government or the general public. The greatest disruption the reversal caused was to people who had already switched to using SimplyGo, and to the civil servants in the LTA who were working on the system. That could all be easily smoothed over, likely making the decision all the more straightforward for the government.

The question is whether the furore over SimplyGo provides an indicative peek into the future of Singaporean politics. Is that future one where politicians are no longer afraid to admit they made a mistake, and that they should have paid more attention to what the people think? Or is this incident merely an aberration, merely an instance of the government finding its incentives aligned with the views of the public? Judging by the messaging coming from the incoming 4G leadership spearheaded by Prime Minister-in-waiting Lawrence Wong, they want the country to believe it’s the former. A new batch of PAP leaders have been saying that they want to engage in a more consultative form of government, and they are seemingly putting in the work to do so. The launch of the Forward SG exercise, which involved consultations with Singaporeans of all stripes, suggests the 4G leadership are not just waiting around for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to hand over before they rethink their style of governance. Admittedly, no amount of consultation will be able to end accusations of elitism, but they would go some way to showing there is effort being put in to fix that issue.

However, the government striving to have ears to the ground is only part of the lessons to be learnt from the SimplyGo saga. The other part is combining it with a willingness to admit they were wrong. Given the historical precedent, I am not as certain about this being the case. The last significant “policy reversal” was with regards to the Population White Paper of 2013, and even then that was at best an admission that 6.9 million people in Singapore by 2030 was unrealistic. Apart from that, the implementation of SimplyGo was likely not a government priority, and going back on their word would have not significantly derailed plans for the future of society. I do firmly believe that the mark of maturity is the ability to admit you’ve made mistakes, and this is no different for the government. Time will tell if even the most consequential political decisions are open to admissions of being misguided.

In a more enlightened era, with a highly educated populace, the mentality of a government that commands and a populace that follows simply does not fly anymore. I’m certain the 4G leaders’ posturing is meant to be a response to that, to show that even if the party in charge is the same, political leadership can change with the times. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice is a pattern, and I certainly look forward to a pattern of responsive governance in the future.