TM contract unfair but subscribers must take it or go without

Updated 3 years ago · Published on 30 Aug 2020 3:00PM · 4 Comments

WHEN consumers are put in a “take it or leave it” situation and have no choice but to agree with the one-sided terms of the service provider’s unilateral agreement or get no internet service, does the consumers’ “agreement” given under such constraints, make the unfair terms in the agreement legally valid and binding? 

Under Section. 24D (1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1999 (CPA), a contract term is considered unfair if it is in itself harsh, oppressive or unconscionable.  Under Sec. 24B this provision applies to all contracts, even those under other laws, and cannot be ousted. It is an offence to violate this provision. A body corporate can be fined not more than RM250,000 for the first offence and RM500,000 for subsequent offences. For a continuing offence the penalty is RM2,000 per day or part of a day.

I had to “agree” to Telekom Malaysia’s terms in order to get badly needed internet service (Streamyx) as TM refused to consider my request to remove the bundled together TV (Varnam). The two-in-one package cost RM80.

Last year the Multimedia and Communications Ministry came out with the mandatory standard on access pricing (MSAP) to give consumers a better deal by reducing internet prices and increasing speed. It was later reported that speed had gone up by up to 10 times and prices down by an average of 49%. However, my Streamyx package continued to cost exactly the same as before.

When I found out that I was now being billed separately for internet (RM50) and RM30 for the Varnam, (maybe this is how the MSAP was implemented to reflect that internet price had been reduced), I paid RM53 (including tax) and wrote to TM that I will pay for what I use and not for what I do not use. TM called and insisted that I had to pay for both as it was a “package”, and I insisted that was unfair as I do not watch Varnam movies. TM then said it will take out the Varnam package and the charge for internet alone would be RM69 and not RM50 as shown in the bill. 

I wrote to the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) chairman asking whether despite the MSAP TM is right to keep charging me exactly the same prices as before and whether the MCMC considers TM’s “take it or leave it” agreement that compels customers to pay for a product they do not use (by bundling it with what the customer uses) to be unfair. 

The MCMC forwarded my enquiry to TM and to the Communications and Multimedia Consumer Forum of Malaysia (CFM). TM gave the same reply and the CFM is yet to respond.

Since enforcement of the Consumer Protection Act is under the Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry, the MCMC and CFM ought to liaise with the enforcement division of thatmMinistry and decide if TM’s contract that compels consumers to pay for something they do not need by bundling it with  what the consumer actually needs, is not in breach of Part IIIA of the Consumer Protection Act.

The MCMC, the telecommunications regulator, must answer whether it is fair for TM to withhold internet service when the consumer pays only for the internet on the bill (RM53 including tax) and not for pay TV (RM30) that the consumer does not want but which is bundled together with the internet service to justify a higher bill. The MCMC should ensure that all telco contracts comply not only with the General Consumer  Code of Practice for the Communications and Multimedia Industry Malaysia, but also with Part IIIA - Unfair Contract Terms, of the Consumer Protection Act 1999. – August 30, 2020.

Ravinder Singh reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.

Sign up or sign in here to comment.

Comments

  • When you complain, they just forward it to the guys you are complaining about. You will get the same 'go to hell' answer from the company and its 'considered close" Malaysia Boleh style.

    Posted 3 years ago by Alphonz Jayaratnam · Reply

  • The same thing happened to me. My contract does not provide for the package as I sign for the internet many years ago. But TM decided to "bundle" my hypp TV because TM wants to collect the same charges that they have charged me before the purported exercise to lower the internet charges. Hence there is no lower charges for the internet at all. So despite the assurance of the Minister that internet charges has come down. It is a farce as TM just use another means to charge the consumer the same amount. MCMC has done nothing.

    Posted 3 years ago by Anne Gan · Reply

  • I can understand the frustration expressed by Alphonz Jayaratnam and Anne Gan in their comments. From my own experience with TM and complaint to MCMC/CFM, I can attest to the fact that the former is profiteering through unscrupulous means, whilst the latter merely pays lip service to public complaints - by allowing complaints to appear on their website.

    What usually happens after your complaint appears on the MCMC's website is this:

    TM will provide an excuse as a reason to reject your complaint, and no matter how far-fetched or silly that reason may sound, your case will be immediately closed by MCMC.

    We must remind ourselves that this is "Malaysia Boleh" (in the most negative sense), where we can complain till the cows come home," but the staff at MCMC/CFM's complaint team aren't really going to do anything to help. "Makan gaji buta" is the Malay term that would best describe the lot working at MCMC/CFM, no different from the generally held public perception of the majority of the staff working at other government departments and agencies in the country.

    Posted 3 years ago by Eric Masilamoni · Reply

  • After 3 years of your complaint, they are still doing the same way to their customer,bundle up with the TV which I don't even know it exist and for business, they added the cloud storage fees which is RM100 extra,compulsory and forced to pay penalty that cause a bomb,and the most important thing is that they leaked out customer's data to 3rd party which is so unethical in business, In my opinion, the reason why TM has so many data breaches is because they leak it themselves (Just my opinion and I do not have strong evidence in court since they have strong legal department and we are just normal civilians who have no power but it is definitely strong enough to let anyone thinks that they are the 1 that leak the data)

    Posted 1 day ago by Lim Pei Ling · Reply