Many Malaysians are increasingly frustrated with what they perceive as an uneven playing field between consumers and powerful service providers.

Although the country has a respectable legal framework on paper, including the Consumer Protection Act 1999, the Tribunal for Consumer Claims and various sector regulators, these protections often fall short in practice.

Telcos, utilities, financial services and subscription-based platforms operate with significant structural advantages, enabling them to impose terms and penalties that most consumers cannot realistically challenge. As a result, many people feel that consumer rights in Malaysia exist more in principle than in everyday reality.

From a criminologist’s viewpoint, this imbalance is not simply a matter of poor customer service or bureaucratic inefficiency. It reflects deeper issues of power, vulnerability and systemic harm.

Large corporations operate within frameworks that inherently favour them, and harm is often inflicted not through criminality but through routine administrative procedures. Standard form contracts, drafted entirely by companies, frequently include terms that widen penalty powers, limit liability and restrict avenues for dispute. Consumers end up agreeing not because the terms are fair, but because essential services leave them with no real alternative.

These systemic weaknesses become clearer through personal experiences.

Recently, I discontinued my Unifi Internet service and switched to Maxis. More importantly, my contract with Unifi had already expired several months earlier, meaning I was no longer bound by any contractual obligations and should have been able to terminate the service without complications. To ensure a smooth process, I went personally to Telekom Malaysia’s office. A polite staff member assisted me and I ensured all payments were fully up to date.

However, the termination request was only partially processed. I was told to expect verification calls and was given five different landline numbers.

Days passed before a call finally came. The caller repeated the same questions I had already answered in person and even asked which provider I was switching to. Meanwhile, Maxis could not install its service because Unifi had not disconnected the line.

Ultimately, it took more than two weeks before the disconnection was completed. It was a needlessly stressful ordeal for a simple service termination, especially since no active contract tied me to the service.

To add to this, more than two months later, I received an SMS stating that I owed about RM70, with no explanation. I had no idea what the charge was for. Receiving such unexplained messages leaves consumers feeling helpless and anxious, particularly when disputing them requires lengthy calls or in-person visits.

My experience with Astro TV services further illustrates this imbalance. Consumers are not allowed to terminate their subscription without paying for all the remaining months under the contract. This raises a fundamental question: why must consumers pay the full balance for the entire contract period when a one-month notice should logically be sufficient? Many industries, including telecommunications and insurance, recognise standard notice periods. Yet Astro continues to bind customers to rigid obligations even when they no longer want or use the service.

This clearly prioritises the company’s interest over the consumer’s. Requiring payment for months of service not received, and not intended to be used, is excessive and unreasonable. It suggests that contractual structures are designed to protect revenue rather than ensure fairness or flexibility. Consumers bear the financial burden while the provider enjoys guaranteed earnings regardless of service satisfaction or changing needs.

These examples are not isolated. They reflect patterns across multiple sectors. Automated billing systems impose harsh consequences for minor delays or technical glitches. Penalties, service restrictions and reminders are designed for revenue recovery, not empathy. For low-income households, retirees, young families and digitally challenged individuals, these structures create real financial and emotional hardship.

Seeking redress often proves difficult. The Tribunal for Consumer Claims provides a useful mechanism for small disputes, but its monetary caps and limited jurisdiction restrict its ability to address systemic issues. Many consumers do not pursue claims because the time and effort outweigh the financial loss. Consequently, widespread but individually small harms remain unresolved and become normalised.

The telecommunications sector illustrates this clearly. Despite oversight from the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), complaints about service disruptions, billing disputes and delayed installations remain consistently high. Enforcement often lacks the speed, scale and deterrent strength needed to influence corporate behaviour. When penalties represent only a fraction of corporate revenue, they become an acceptable cost of doing business rather than a meaningful deterrent.

Consumer harm is not trivial – it is a genuine form of social harm. Opaque contract terms, inflexible penalty structures and complicated dispute procedures undermine consumer confidence and create unnecessary stress. Over time, such experiences erode trust not only in companies but also in regulatory institutions. When people repeatedly face systems designed to favour corporations, cynicism grows and faith in the marketplace diminishes.

Practical reforms could help rebalance the landscape. Clearer rules on unfair contract terms should be enforced, ensuring penalties, disconnection procedures and verification processes are fair and proportional. Essential service providers must adopt structured hardship policies to support consumers facing temporary financial difficulty. The Tribunal for Consumer Claims could be strengthened through expanded jurisdiction, online accessibility and frameworks for systemic or collective claims.

Regulators should increase transparency by publishing complaint statistics, enforcement outcomes and corrective actions. Penalties should be scaled to company revenue to ensure meaningful deterrence. Consumer advocacy groups must be empowered with funding, access to data and legal support for stronger collective action.

Service providers should also be required to streamline contract termination procedures, respect standard notice periods and ensure verification processes do not cause undue delay or stress.

Ultimately, Malaysia has the frameworks to protect consumers, but these protections must be enforced with greater clarity, speed and fairness. Consumer protection is not merely about resolving individual complaints – it is about upholding dignity, reducing harm and ensuring ordinary Malaysians are treated fairly by systems they rely on.

When the marketplace becomes a source of stress rather than service, consumer rights must be recognised as a core component of social justice and good governance.

DATO’ DR P. SUNDRAMOORTHY
Criminologist
Centre for Policy Research
Universiti Sains Malaysia