Digitalisation trend

Recently, more and more industries are digitalising¹ their existing products and services. When something is digitalised, it is only accessible using electronic products, most commonly smartphones.

The phenomenon of digitalisation is particularly noticeable in Singapore, partly due to government initiative. In particular, the use of QR codes in Singapore is increasing in prevalence, entering almost every aspect of people’s daily lives.

Ubiquity of digitalisation

There are several examples that illustrate how commonplace digitalisation has become nowadays.

While there are still a fair number of shops and food stalls in Singaporean hawker centres that operate cash-only, many stalls have started to adapt contactless payments via QR codes. Payments via QR codes can also be found in healthcare, government services and even vending machines.

QR codes were also used by the Singaporean government (as well as several other countries) for COVID-19 contact tracing. Even the redemption of COVID-19 test kits and meals, as well as student cards, are made digital in the form of QR codes.

Other forms of digitalisation can also be found. One notable example would be the digitalisation of vital documents issued by the government, such as entry permits, immigration passes and identification cards², some of which even entirely replacing the physical versions. COVID-19 vaccination certificates are to be obtained digitally. A plan to roll out digital currency is also reported to be underway in Singapore, following China’s digital yuan policy³.

And the list just goes on and on, from virtual credit cards, online supermarkets to even digital Starbucks gift cards. These just show how deeply digitalisation has entered our lives.

…but is digitalisation always the best?

Many people see the trend of digitalisation as a sign of improvement in life quality. Some even admire it so much that they view it as the only way to a brighter future⁴. This then leads to a question: should we digitalise everything?

My take on this is: of course not. I’m not saying that digitalisation is always bad. Indeed, it does provide us convenience and access to things that may otherwise be physically inaccessible. However, just like snows, when things go too far, it usually brings more harm than good, and digitialisation is indeed no exception to this.

Here are some reasons that I think there should be a limit on the extent of digitalisation.

Digitalisation is not (always) accessible

Seriously? You are saying that digitalisation is not accessible? Don’t you know that more and more people own a smartphone now?

– you, possibly

Some of you dear readers may find this argument ridiculous, and may even say that we could just make more people own smartphones so that digitalisation is more accessible.

Well, you may be right in this sense, but here I’m interpreting accessibility more specifically as the feasibility of accomplishing something without relying too much on a single method. The versatility and portability of smartphones have made them a highly preferred medium of digitalised products and services, but it also makes a highly centralised working environment. This can cause people to increasingly depend on their smartphones to complete various tasks.

Eventually, this may lead to what I call gadget dependency, where people find themselves having to hold their smartphones all the time so that they can do their things properly.

And I think that such over-reliance on electronic devices like smartphones is bad. It makes smartphones a (metaphorical) ticking bomb: what if we lose access to our smartphones, either due to battery running out or an unexpected theft? Such a scenario can be pretty unbearable if our daily tasks can only be done via smartphones. Imagine not having a smartphone to make payment at a vending machine that only accepts digital wallet, or breaking the camera lens on your smartphone which renders you unable to scan any QR code, or worse, being locked out of our own room for losing access to a mobile key and you couldn’t even use a physical key as an alternative. At this point, it’s not just inconvenience; it can be a nightmare to some people.

In addition, there are still people who cannot afford to own a smartphone at all, which causes issues when they need to use certain products and services with no physical approaches available.

Digitalisation is not foolproof

If we don’t care much about the issue of gadget dependency, then it makes sense to say that we can make normalise digitalisation by giving out smartphones to more people. However, I’d say that this is only sweeping a deeper problem under the rug: what if people don’t know how to use a smartphone even if they do own one? After all, smartphones come with a lot of functionalities, some of which may not even be immediately obvious. This makes digitalisation not as foolproof as some people may think.

Indeed, there are efforts to increase digital literacy, particularly among the elderly, by teaching them how to use a smartphone. However, to some people, it can still be a steep learning curve and even if they overcome it, the use of smartphones can sometimes be a fiddly and unnecessary extra step when, as discussed before, a more straightforward physical method is available. This then leads to inconvenience, which defeats the purpose of digitalisation.

Digitalisation can lead to more wastage

We can see that some industries brand their digitalised products as a way to contribute for environmental sustainability. If we assume that no more people will own a new electronic device, then this makes sense. However, it can be an issue when more digitalisation leads to an increasing use of electronic devices, thereby leading to more electronic waste.

To me, in terms of environmental sustainability, this is why we should carry out digitalisation more mindfully, instead of just for the trends. It has been shown that digitalisation can impact environmental sustainability, at times negatively. Therefore, if the decision to digitalise causes unnecessary use of electronic gadgets, then perhaps we should think twice about that.

And not to mention power outage…

Things can get worse when we account for the possibility of power outage, which is not low in some places. In this case, even knowing how to use smartphones can’t help us.

I guess this doesn’t need much explanation. Hopefully, it’s undeniable that electricity is the very prerequisite before even considering about digitalisation. Thus, if we digitalise things so much that only digital tools are available for even the most fundamental things in daily live (good luck China on your digital yuan policy), I do hope there is infinite supply of electricity there.

Security and privacy concerns

Although digital tools are generally more convenient and lightweight to use, it can be more susceptible to malicious exploitations as compared to physical approaches.

A case in point is QR codes. One of the major risks of QR codes is its lack of transparency: we are unable to foresee what we are accessing until we actually scan the QR code, which can be too late if the QR code contains some malicious code injected into the website or text encoded by the QR code. This in turns produces potential security issues.

Things get more complicated if we consider the fact that QR codes can do more than just redirecting users to a certain website. Nowadays, QR codes are also used in making e-payments and tracking records (as in, say, COVID-19 contact tracing), things which involve some behind-the-scenes work and aren’t so straightforward. In this case, unless we are the tech-savvy bunches, we often don’t know or just can’t examine what kind of URL or source code is actually encoded in the QR code. It is possible that there are some tracking or data-mining code hidden within the QR code, but we just don’t know. This forms a bigger issue of data privacy.

In addition, it is generally difficult to hack into a physical tool (unless someone has actual physical access to it), whereas digital tools are more susceptible to hacking and intrusion, which are often done remotely. Malicious actors don’t even need to directly hack the digital tool owned by the users themselves, say, a smartphone. If technically possible, they could just hack the company servers that manage the digital platform itself (like e-payment portals) and the users will then be victimised by bad things like data leak and mass service disruption. Such security risk can be even more critical if we consider things at way greater stakes, such as large-scale voting, not to mention the lack of accountability in this matter.

Conclusion

To quote Tom Scott, “There’s a lot to be said for a solution that just uses physics.” After all, we are actual humans made of flesh and blood living in the physical world. If the more convenient, foolproof and accessible solution is actually right in front of us, why digitalise something to potentially make things unnecessarily complex? Long-term accessibility should be our priority, instead of the chase of so-called technological trends.

If the industries are really keen in digitalisation, sure, go ahead, but please leave the options open to the users. Don’t get rid of the physical alternatives that are already there and still perfectly functional. Backup plans are always good for worst-case scenarios. Being something that doesn’t depend on electricity, physical solutions would stay stronger than digital ones most, if not all, of the time.