China Unionpay, the Shanghai-based operator of the country's integrated system for bankcard payment, acted with lightning speed to apologize for the nine-hour breakdown of its network on April 20.

Within one day after the bankcard snag occurred, the company had made public its initial conclusion as to the cause of the transaction interruption and apologized to all users affected by the network failure.

Considering the typically slow reaction of domestic financial institutions to the public's demand for information about such incidents, the bankcard giant's response was remarkably speedy.

However, even such a swift apology does not sit well because China Unionpay went on to talk evasively about compensation for its network users.

As a bankcard transaction service provider, the company is obligated to guarantee convenient use of credit cards or debit cards within its network.

The breakdown that happened last Thursday may well have been a small technical problem, as the company claimed. The service provider itself suffered a loss when the transaction interruption occurred. And it is also true that it is very difficult to calculate the exact losses for users of the payment network, including banks that issued cards, individuals who tried to pay with cards and shops which tried to accept payment with cards.

But an apology with little substance does little to mollify the cardholders' anger about having their time wasted in stores, or the shops that were disappointed by the loss of business.

If the convenience provided by the bankcard payment network has a price tag, the inconvenience caused by its failure should also be compensated. Only when the charge for a service is combined with the remedy for a disservice can a company's promise of quality service equate to more than just lip service.

The other factor that makes the bankcard giant's apology particularly hollow is its timing. The network breakdown took place just days after Unionpay was reported to be planning to implement charges for trans-bank information enquiries by cardholders, in spite of strong public opposition.

As domestic financial institutions begin to charge more and more for services that were free for many years, public complaints have surged about the real motive behind such actions.

Many domestic financial service providers insist that charging such fees is in keeping with standard international practice, which they must follow to compete with foreign firms. But their poor service merely betrays a short-sighted pursuit of instant revenue.

The network breakdown was surely ill-timed for a service provider that was about to persuade the masses to accept a fee it would levy on a once-free service.

A half-hearted apology by China Unionpay for its lack of service to the public will be of little help to the situation.