Despite our top ranking in numerous surveys of the best business environments or the most competitive economy, Hong Kong is under pressure from the international community for our lack of a competition law. The World Trade Organisation, US Trade Representative and others are asking for action.

Our lifeblood is trade and we, as a community, need to be very strong advocates of fair play. Some say that our current structures are not up to the job, and so it is necessary to legislate. We can look to other countries' laws, they argue, for examples of what -- and what not -- to write into the law. The cost of compliance need not be onerous.

Since 1997, we have had a committee responsible for reviewing and promoting competition, the Competition Policy Advisory Group (COMPAG). It is comprised almost exclusively of civil servants, with no real input from the private sector, and the piecemeal results to date are very poor. Thus far, COMPAG has largely addressed areas where government -- not the private sector -- might improve licensing or procurement activities.

The first step is to revamp -- or replace -- COMPAG. It should be the forum where business, consumers and the international community may seek redress from anti-competitive behaviour. To do so, it needs private sector involvement, and not just an ad hoc representation. It needs input and support, both from business and from consumers.

Many people believe a strategic review of industry-specific competition is over due. This is necessary to get COMPAG away from a reactive, complaints-oriented posture and moving much more pro-actively toward seeking out areas where there is a need for greater attention. It is unacceptable that COMPAG is not even addressing the right issues.

In the private sector, members will recall a controversy some time back regarding fresh meat prices in supermarkets and wet markets. Major meat importers and retailers were challenged by small, wet-market players over allegedly anti-competitive pork pricing. Frankly, it is unclear whether the wholesalers, retailers, buyers or sellers were right or wrong, so this case highlights the lack of a mechanism with which to raise and settle such disputes.

A second example reveals that government, too, needs to be fair. There is no need, nor any inherent benefit, to discriminating against well-established companies by offering new entrants better terms.

According to recent comments we've heard from two major oil companies, the government is thinking of promoting new market entrants to the petrol filling stations business. To do this, the government is reportedly considering changing the rules of the game such that while established retailers pay a land premium, new entrants will not. We are also advised that current participants will be excluded from bidding on these new stations.

Both petrol companies told the Chamber they would prefer a level playing field, under a clear, transparent and consistent set of rules. Write a good law, they argue, and punish us if we are wrong, collude or cheat. But, they argue, don't deny us the right to compete because of an unproven assumption of anti-competitive behaviour. In addition, the Chamber has always cautioned against government policies which may be well-intended but actually have unfair ramifications. This appears to be one of those cases.