I have been compelled to alert and share with the general public about a recent tiff I had with Sesco (the Sarawak Electricity Supply Corporation) regarding a particular bill based on their system of charging and billing.

On March 3,, I went to pay my electricity bill which was estimated to be 12,060 units consumed, by the reading taken on Jan 22. Upon receiving that bill in early February, I decided to check and confirm my meter reading, which showed a consumption of only 11,993 units. That means I had been charged in excess of more than 67 units. That was still not a big problem.

When I went to pay my bill on March 3, I decided to settle whatever outstanding amount I might have consumed in the latest bill, in my straight and honest way. I was then told that I only needed to pay an additional RM10. I was happy to know that it was just a mere RM10 extra.

That was until I was about to pay when I realised I was paying an exorbitant RM10 extra for ‘consuming’ a mere three units extra, which is equivalent to RM1.50 at the most, assuming one unit costs RM0.50, which means I was being asked to fork out at least RM8.50 for being a straight and honest consumer.

They had been charging me in excess for so many months and I had been faithfully paying without complaining. I naturally stopped short from paying the RM10 upon realising that I was being asked to pay more unnecessarily.

The issue now is not about the RM10. The issue now is their system of charging. I went back to the billing counter to ask for an explanation. They insisted over and over again that the RM10 was for ‘minimum consumption’ charge.

My argument was that the extra three units could not be considered as ‘minimum consumption’ because it was not a genuine ‘minimum consumption’. That ‘minimum consumption’ was created by their system estimate and is inapplicable, and therefore not justified/justifiable in the charging of the RM10 for an additional consumption of just three more units (by their actual reading).

My conclusion here is that Sesco has mixed their system estimate and their actual reading to the loss of many an unwary consumer.

They should have taken into account that they had been charging me for many months for many unconsumed units of electricity and then only put an extra three units on the latest bill that I had just paid and asked me to pay the just and fair balance. That would have been a fair and fairer deal.

Again, may I repeat - It's not about RM10. It is about the justice and the moral principle behind the so-called ‘minimum consumption’ charge which was generated by their system estimate in the first place.

Just to be fair to all parties, I sought the help of a senior officer who understood what I was saying but he could not offer much help, except to say that they (Sesco staff) had also been slapped in the same way.

To which I replied why did he and the rest in Sesco not get this system rectified to be fair to all customers/consumers (them included) who do not genuinely fall into this ‘minimum consumption’ category. He only answered that perhaps they had been unconsciously programmed and brainwashed by the faulty system.

I write this letter to arrest the attention of those who have power and authority to rectify a faulty and unfair system of charging. By the way, I paid up the RM10 on March 12. Imagine if 100,000 consumers were similarly charged What if one million consumers were charged similarly?

May I repeat yet once more - it's not about the RM10. It's about the justice and moral principle of the real and genuine ‘minimum consumption’ system of charging.