Singapore’s ride-hailing market offers consumers multiple transport options, but comparing journeys involves more than identifying the lowest advertised fare. Pricing models, vehicle categories, pickup arrangements and changing availability can complicate travel decisions.
As mobility services become increasingly data-driven, questions about information accuracy, transparency and consumer trust are gaining importance.
In this Global Apex Tech Industry Perspectives interview, Elger Kua, Founder of COMPARE SG DIGITAL, discusses the challenges of fare transparency, responsible data use and the role of trustworthy information in the future of Singapore's mobility technology ecosystem. He also shares his outlook on innovation and the priorities technology leaders should consider as the sector evolves.
1. How do you see consumer expectations in Singapore’s ride-hailing and urban mobility market changing? Beyond price, which factors—such as availability, waiting time, convenience, accessibility or trust—are becoming most important? What do these shifts mean for mobility platforms over the next few years?
I think Singapore riders increasingly judge a booking by the whole journey, not only the fare shown first. Price remains central, but pickup clarity, vehicle suitability, availability and confidence in the final charge all shape the decision. Consider a family leaving Changi Airport: a seemingly lower price may not be the better option if the vehicle is unsuitable for their luggage or the pickup point is confusing. Competition can benefit consumers, yet different fare structures and app experiences make like-for-like choices difficult. As more providers and services compete, I expect users to demand less repeated searching and clearer explanations of what is included in a quote. For mobility platforms, the challenge is to make decisions simpler without implying certainty about things they cannot verify. A fare estimate can give helpful context; it cannot establish a live driver wait or guarantee that a booking will be accepted. Those details belong with the booking provider.
2. Ride fares can vary across providers and throughout the day. What makes meaningful fare transparency difficult, and what information would genuinely help consumers make better travel decisions? How should the industry communicate estimated fares, ranges and uncertainty without creating a misleading impression of precision?
Meaningful fare transparency is hard because prices change with demand, time, location and vehicle category, while a taxi's metered fare and surcharges are not identical to a private-hire flat quote. A comparison should not turn a previously observed price into something that looks live. My preferred approach starts with validated fare observations for comparable journeys. Where the evidence is sufficient, an estimated fare gives a useful reference point and a typical range conveys variation. Both should be labelled clearly as estimates, not guaranteed amounts. Freshness and coverage matter: a sparse set of observations from one route cannot justify confident estimates everywhere else. If the evidence falls short, displaying 'insufficient reliable data' is more helpful than manufacturing precision. Users should then confirm the actual current price, service conditions and booking directly with their chosen provider.
3. Mobility services increasingly rely on rapidly changing data. What principles should technology companies follow to ensure that data-driven information is accurate, sufficiently current and responsibly presented? Where should they draw the line between delivering a convenient experience and acknowledging that available evidence is incomplete?
Reliable mobility information starts with knowing what each observation represents: provider, journey, ride category, time recorded and the circumstances under which the fare was seen. I would validate records consistently, reject duplicates and implausible values, and check whether the available evidence is sufficiently recent and relevant before estimating a fare. The model should also be tested against new independent observations to understand where it performs well and where error is too high. No single observation should be presented as a universal price for a route. Responsible design means showing an estimated fare and typical range only when justified, explaining that actual quotes can move, and declining to show a number when coverage is weak. This is especially important for a pre-beta product. It is better to delay a feature than allow a polished interface to conceal poor evidence. Reliability must come before a confident-looking result.
4. In Singapore’s competitive mobility ecosystem, where do you see the most significant unmet user needs or opportunities for innovation? What could improve through better interoperability, consumer-facing tools, product design or clearer information—and what practical barriers could slow that progress?
A major industry opportunity is to reduce the information gaps between platforms while respecting how each operator works. Today, services can differ in vehicle categories, pickup rules, fees and how they display final charges. Even when several prices are available, they may not represent equivalent journeys. Better interoperability could start with clearer definitions, consistent disclosure of fare components and reliable ways to distinguish observed quotes from predictions. Shared location standards would also help: a pickup at a large hospital or airport terminal must refer to the same practical meeting point. The barriers are real—commercial data restrictions, fast-changing prices, privacy obligations and inconsistent coverage across locations and times. My view is that innovators should design useful comparisons around verifiable evidence rather than assume unrestricted access to provider feeds. If there is no dependable answer, explain the gap and let the traveller check the operator directly.
5. As digital platforms increasingly influence consumer choices, how should mobility and technology companies build public trust? What are the most important considerations around impartiality, data privacy, transparency and accountability? Please share an industry example or principle that other technology leaders could learn from.
Trust requires more than calling a product 'independent'. A service should say which providers and categories it covers, what a displayed number means, when the underlying evidence was collected, and what happens when that evidence is insufficient. Any future referral or commercial relationship should be disclosed rather than influencing the presentation invisibly. Privacy matters too: collect only information needed for a defined purpose, obtain meaningful consent for updates, and avoid exposing personal journeys or contact details. Consider airport travel. A taxi meter with airport and time-based surcharges is a different pricing basis from an upfront private-hire quote. Presenting the two as identical 'live prices' would mislead people. A fairer experience explains that distinction and uses estimates as context, with the final quote verified in the provider's own app. For me, accountability means admitting uncertainty and correcting mistakes rather than hiding them behind a neat interface.
6. Looking ahead to 2027–2028, which two or three technology or consumer-behaviour trends are most likely to shape Singapore’s mobility market and the wider Southeast Asian ecosystem? What practical priorities would you recommend for industry leaders and innovators—and which common assumption about the sector deserves to be challenged?
Looking toward 2027–2028, I expect three trends to shape mobility decisions. First, people will demand clearer ways to compare the full cost of a journey across different service categories, not merely headline fares. Second, predictive tools will face greater scrutiny: consumers should know when information was observed, what was estimated and how uncertain a result may be. Third, simpler handoffs between journey-planning tools and booking providers may become more valuable, especially as riders use several services. Across Southeast Asia, these ideas will need local adaptation because pricing rules, pickup practices and data access vary by market. I would urge leaders to prioritise location accuracy, data freshness, privacy and independently tested performance before scaling. The assumption I would challenge is that more data or a single 'cheapest' label automatically means a better decision. A recommendation is only useful when the evidence genuinely supports it.
About Elger Kua
Elger Kua is the founder of COMPARE SG DIGITAL, a Singapore-built mobility-information project developing a more transparent way to compare potential ride costs. Compare SG is preparing an independent experience centred on estimated fares and typical ranges backed by validated observations. Elger's approach emphasises data quality, appropriate disclosure of uncertainty and letting commuters make their own decisions. Compare SG remains in pre-beta: public ride comparisons are not yet available, and bookings remain with the providers.
Published by the Global Apex Tech Editorial Desk. Partner involvement, when applicable, is disclosed above the headline. For editorial questions or source material, contact editor@globalapextech.org.