While Chinese banks insist that it is purely a business decision up to them to charge bankcard holders for cross-bank inquiries, they should come out with an explicit response to the public's complaints against such extra fees.

Unfortunately, by speaking evasively about the charges, major domestic banks have all been slow to address concerns.

Worse, thanks to their indifference towards the masses, this bad example of public relations is evolving into a crisis that could seriously undermine Chinese banks' reputations.

It has been reported that a woman in Shanghai is suing China Unionpay and three other banks for charging her inquiry fees earlier this week.

Meanwhile, after a delegate of the National People's Congress sent an emergency proposal to the standing committee of the top legislature last month covering the issue, related authorities are believed to be considering halting the collection of such fees.

Pressure is mounting at a speed that domestic banks have not expected. The involvement of judicial and administrative forces will only make the case more eye-catching to the public and more complicated for domestic banks to handle.

However, what is at stake for Chinese banks is not a loss of a source of profit but rather their reputation as a pillar of China's financial system.

The country has invested a huge sum of public funds in recent years to help reform major state banks into ingenious commercial lenders. They are supposed to compete, and win, on their own footing when the domestic banking sector is fully opened to foreign banks soon.

Yet, as major domestic banks spare no efforts to brace themselves for coming competition from foreign banking giants, their attitude towards Chinese consumers betrays a dangerous underestimation of the importance of public support for their survival.

From June 1, all the country's five largest lenders began to charge holders of bankcards issued by other banks the fee of 0.3 yuan (3.8 US cents) for checking accounts at their ATMs.

Since such a service used to be free for individual consumers, the extra fees banks have collected have triggered widespread public resentment, creating the impression that domestic banks have put their short-term interest before consumers' due rights.

Though some officials from the banking sector have tried to explain the operational cost of cross-bank inquiries, lack of transparent and verifiable information about that calculation has only added to the public's suspicion about the legitimacy of these fees.

The fact that administrative and judicial authorities have now stepped in casts further doubt on this issue.

If domestic banks think the decision to charge such fees is really a business of their own, they should provide as soon as possible the required and reasonable proof to support their business decision. Being secretive about their pricing strategy does not justify their insensibility toward the public's concerns.

And if domestic banks will not defend their validity to charge cross-bank inquiries, they should better turn their ears to the consumers as soon as possible. After all, public support is not something they can afford to lose at any time.

(China Daily?July 8, 2006)