Willy Lin, Chairman

Recent reports in the industry and mentions in the media indicate that an on-going discussion between shipping lines and terminal operators has not resolved the issue of a Security Charge to be levied by Shenzhen CTOs at a cost of RMB50 per box, both on imports and exports from March 1. Furthermore, Hong Kong CTOs have likewise informed their customers that starting May 1, they will be charging HK$50 for every TEU (loaded) and HK$20 for intra-Asia boxes.

What strikes me most is that security is a basic item that comes under every operator's list of services to customers. From terminal operators to shipping lines, we expect them to be offering us secure services when we pay them to handle the shipping of our goods from Point A to Point B. For anyone in this transportation chain to be adding a 'security charge' is not justifiable.

If the CTOs and the shipping lines have not been providing the services that this so-called Security Charge is supposed to cover, then their trustworthiness is in question. How did they conduct their operations before they imposed the charge?

Moreover, when CTOs speak of transparency, we would like to know how they have come to such a sum D per box? Based on some lose calculations, Hong Kong and Shenzhen CTOs would be collecting some half-billion dollars a year at their proposed rate. The trade would certainly want an accounting of where every cent is going, which I don't believe we shall ever see.

There have also been suggestions that shipping lines intend to pass on the charge to their customers, i.e. the shippers. This is totally unacceptable. Shippers are asked to underwrite all new measures that should be in the basic service offering of a carrier to the customer, or of a terminal operator to the shipping line. It is most often the shipper who takes the brunt of these measures anyway, experiencing cargo delays during their implementation and suffering the consequences of delays or non-shipment of cargo. But are we ever compensated? Hardly. If the CTO or the shipping line wants to prove his respectability and trustworthiness in the trade, then he should voluntarily offer to upgrade his facilities and products without having to ask his customer to share the cost.

Hong Kong's competitiveness has come to be the focus these past few years, mainly because its high costs tend to erode that edge we have for service quality and efficiency. We expect nothing short of the best and speediest service from all our operators in Hong Kong and competition among the operators is a way to ensure good service at reasonable prices. However, if a certain group tends to act as a cartel and impose charges collectively, then where is the free market scenario that Hong Kong is so proud of? It's better that we put a stop to this one charge now before it grows into an unresolved, constant menace as THC has been on Hong Kong's competitiveness.