Our Desk | Que sera, sera; whatever will be, will be

Anthony Lam

The recent hot topic in town is apparently – if not undeniably or inevitably – the commencement of e-voucher use.
After the project’s announcement, many applauded the government for supporting the development of e-payments, which has long been criticized for being too slow.
Viewing the case in Macau, the development of e-payment has not really been too slow; I remember many years ago I saw a poster in a Hong Kong shopping mall advertising discounts for shoppers paying by e-payment, by which it meant credit card.
By that standard, Macau has never been slow in developing e-payment method; credit cards have existed in the city for more than three decades already.
On top of that, the three most popular credit card brands in the city – Visa, MasterCard and UnionPay – have all developed their own contactless tap-card system. It was for unknown reasons that the three systems have not gained popularity in Macau, although recently I saw them being accepted at a greater number of vendors.
Mentioning e-banking in a discussion on e-payment seems inevitable. Many in town have complimented the online banking platform of the government’s banker, the BNU, for the exceptional choice of functions provided by its platform.
Meanwhile, the user interface has also been applauded for its neatness and clarity, compared with many of its competitors.
The other government’s banker, the Bank of China, Macau Branch, has greatly improved its online banking platform and mobile app over time. It has tried to make its platforms more user-friendly and multifunctional. A highlight of its app is the payment function, which allows users to pay for physical transactions with the app. Users can also transfer funds to friends simply by using a phone number. ‘Going Dutch’ is also a great feature, eliminating the need for calculations.
Here comes the “however.” It has recently made an upgrade to the app and forced its users to update to the latest version – not officially on Google Play – on the bank’s website by downloading an app file. The bank has always reminded its clients to remain vigilant about app downloads and always rely on Operating Systems’ (OS) official channels for apps.
In unofficial channels, the bank has explained that it was due to the pandemic that the new app’s approval was delayed by Google Play.
Of course, I’m not saying that the government’s bank is trying to scam its users. What I want to say is that the older version should remain in operation and the bank should only require its clients to download an update when it’s ready on Google Play (or the Apple App Store). Currently, if you don’t download the new app directly from the bank, you have no way to continue using the app.
Given that banking security has been repeatedly emphasized everywhere, the bank should consider that its customers have many reasons not to download an update from a non-OS channel. In this case, these customers will be blocked from using “the modern mode of payment.”
Not all banks are equal, though. There is a bank that charges its customers for internal transfers from other banks. In this era when the government – which often plays slow so as to play safe – is paying subsidies and “wealth partaking ” cash directly by bank transfer, this practice is simply from Queen Victoria’s era.
After all, when I think e-banking and e-payment are going to be common practices in the future, I want to ask: “Who is hindering the twos’ developments?”