The RM30 e-credit given by the previous Government to Malaysians above 17 years old who earn
less than RM100,000 annually has ended. This was to encourage public’s adoption of digital
payment. With e-wallets, transactions will become more effective and efficient.
People may be willing to spend more and hence boost the country’s economy. But
is cashless really that good?
The
Dangers of a Cashless Society:
1.
Security
Cash
payments work anywhere but digital payments rely on operating power networks,
and supporting systems. A cashless world is entirely vulnerable to
cyber-attacks and system breakdowns, with no emergency back-up plans. Sweden,
for instance, experienced a computer crash during a “cashless festival” and,
with none of the guests having cash, the entire event was bungled.
2.
Privacy
Transactions
we make become virtual. Corporations and governments will be able to monitor
the citizens. Citizens’ concerns have already been expressed at how powerful
and influential companies like Facebook and Google have become.
3.
The Poor
Charity
organizations warn that if we force our societies over the cashless cliff, the
most vulnerable members of our societies (the poor) will be further excluded
and isolated. This is because the poor are usually unbanked, and they may have
no devices to make payments and even have difficulty in receiving financial aid.
4.
The Elderly
The
elderly is not as tech-savvy as the millennials. They may find the digital
payment system more complicated and time-consuming.
5.
The Planet
Many
NGOs are pointing out that the green promises of the cashless revolution may
well backfire. The carbon footprint of financial operations is large, but
invisible, which makes it dangerous. Behind each transaction, a domino-effect
of computer transactions occur which, once added together, represent an immense
strain on the world’s resources and place additional demand on energy producers
(Mike Javenson, 2019).
In
short, e-wallets provide flexibility to majority of citizens, but not all. A
full cashless society remains unlikely. More options are still better than
fewer and therefore, whether to go cashless or not, it should be a free choice
for citizens, not an imposed agenda.
Reference:
No comments:
Post a Comment