Going cashless doesn’t always mean greater efficiency

My neighbourhood has two popular supermarkets. One uses the normal counter with a cashier and a row of self-service terminals. The other has a cashier at the counter with the option of using a cash terminal for payment.

During peak periods, I prefer the latter, as there is always a terminal available once the cashier has scanned my purchases. She need not handle the payment and can go on to the next customer.

This is a smarter, faster alternative because the queues at these counters are shorter than those at the first supermarket.

Similarly, at the self-service machines at MRT stations, it is slightly faster to top up one’s ez-link card by cash than by ATM card.

Going cashless may not always equate to greater efficiency if one must queue for longer than necessary to make payments (S’pore lagging behind other cities in e-payment use; Aug 21).

If going cashless means a smart nation, does it also mean dispensing with ATMs in time to come? When we talk about a smart nation, from whose perspective are we talking?