Sibu: The announcement by the Minister for Utility and Telecommunication that Sarawak Energy Bhd and Syarikat Sesco Bhd have been directed to investigate complaints about sudden increases in electricity bills following the installation of digital meters is timely.
But the Government must not allow this issue to end with yet another statement from Sarawak Energy explaining why customers’ bills have increased.
This is no longer merely a question of whether digital meters are accurate. It is a question of consumer protection, due process, and fairness.
What is needed now is a fundamental review of how electricity consumption is measured and how disputed bills are determined.
The review should also include whether civil liability should be imposed on the innocent registered account holder or property owner when electricity theft is committed by someone else.
I have personally handled cases that demonstrate why the issue of electricity theft by someone other than the registered account holder deserves far more serious attention.
In one case in Miri, a homeowner faced an electricity bill of RM818,474.90, allegedly arising from electricity consumption linked to cryptocurrency mining by a tenant.
In another case, landowners of a property being developed into shophouses were ultimately held liable by SESCO for an electricity theft of more than RM411,000.00 involving one rented shophouse within the development.
These are not ordinary electricity bills. We are talking about property owners being exposed to liabilities running into hundreds of thousands of ringgit without their knowledge and involvement. And now we have another group of consumers reporting substantial increases in their electricity bills after digital meters were installed.
These cases should not be treated as unrelated incidents. They point to a much bigger problem with the present electricity billing and enforcement framework.
There is no dispute that electricity theft is serious, and those responsible must be pursued. SESCO has every right to recover genuine losses and take action against those who steal electricity.
But liability must be fair. A distinction must be made between the person who commits or benefits from theft and an innocent property owner with no knowledge of or involvement in it.
A landlord cannot realistically monitor every activity a tenant carries out inside a rented property. If a tenant secretly mines cryptocurrency, tampers with a meter, or illegally taps electricity, the tenant should be investigated and held accountable for the electricity bills. The fact that the landlord owns the property should not, by itself, settle the question of liability.
The same principle should apply to the current complaints about digital meters.
If a household that has historically received normal electricity bills suddenly receives a bill several times higher after a digital meter is installed, the customer should be given a proper opportunity to have the meter and the bill independently checked. And while a genuine dispute is being investigated, customers should not be placed under unreasonable pressure to pay the entire disputed amount simply to disconnection of supply.
This is especially important when the disputed amount is not a few hundred ringgit but thousands, or, in the cases I have handled, potentially hundreds of thousands of ringgit.
I call for four immediate reforms. The Government should direct Sarawak Energy and SESCO to introduce a stronger and more transparent consumer protection framework.
First, there must be an independent mechanism for disputed meters and disputed bills. Customers must have the right to have a disputed meter independently tested and the basis of an abnormal bill independently reviewed.
Second, abnormal consumption should automatically trigger an investigation. Where electricity consumption suddenly increases dramatically compared with a customer’s historical usage, particularly following a meter replacement, the account should be flagged for verification rather than simply generating a massive bill.
Third, customers must have meaningful protection while a genuine dispute is being investigated. A customer should be allowed to pay the undisputed portion of a bill while the disputed amount is investigated, without being subjected to disproportionate pressure or the threat of disconnection.
Fourth, SESCO must clearly distinguish between the electricity thief and the property owner and strengthen transparency and protection for innocent landlords.
Sarawak Energy has an existing grievance and appeal mechanism and has repeatedly advised landlords to transfer electricity accounts to their tenants. While this is a useful safeguard, it cannot be the whole answer.
What happens when a tenant refuses to transfer the account, or subsequently tampers with the meter without the landlord’s knowledge?
Account ownership should not automatically determine liability for electricity theft. SESCO must establish, based on evidence, who committed the theft or benefited from it, and whether the property owner had any knowledge of or involvement in it. In this respect, the relevant law should be reviewed and, if necessary, amended.
If the Government expects landlords to comply with a particular system, then SESCO must also provide landlords with a practical and effective mechanism to protect themselves.
For example, when a property is rented out, there should be a simple and enforceable process for transferring the electricity account to the tenant, with proper notification to both parties. Where a tenant fails to transfer the account within a prescribed period, SESCO should have a mechanism to address that situation rather than allowing the problem to accumulate until an enormous bill emerges.
A responsible government should realise that digitalisation must not mean consumers lose their rights. Sarawak is rightly proud of its digital transformation agenda.
But a digital meter is only as good as the system surrounding it. If we are introducing smarter meters while maintaining a billing and dispute-resolution system where the consumer has little ability to challenge a disputed bill, then we are not creating a smarter electricity system.
We are creating a more technologically advanced system for sending bills to consumers.
The Government should therefore treat the present digital-meter complaints as an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of SESCO’s billing, meter verification, electricity-theft investigation, and consumer-dispute procedures. The objective should not be to weaken enforcement.
It should be to make enforcement fairer. SESCO must continue to pursue electricity thieves. But at the same time, it must stop treating property owners as the convenient default payer whenever electricity theft occurs on their premises.
A utility company has the power to disconnect electricity and pursue very substantial sums of money from ordinary people.
With that power comes a corresponding responsibility to act fairly, transparently, and proportionately.
The people of Sarawak expect and deserve an electricity system that is not only technologically smart but also fair, accountable, and protective of innocent consumers.
Irene Mary Chang Oi Ling
DAP Sarawak Director of Political Education
11 September 2026
