I HEARD an interesting story recently. It was about a privatised utility, told to me by a computer specialist.

The monopoly utility wants to make money but is not good at it. It therefore decides to cut corners so the bottom line will look better.

A decision is made to invest less in resources (manpower, equipment and land) than the minimum needed to provide interruption-free service to customers.

When one customer complains that his broadband connection is not working, the problem is solved by taking away the connection of another customer.

Now, the second customer complains and is left waiting for a week, after which a third customer’s connection is taken away and provided to the second customer.

The third customer complains.

The utility waits, then disconnects a fourth customer. This merry-go-round keeps customers simmering, but just below boiling point.

I am not sure if this story is true, but it reminded me of how the privatised monopoly for garbage collection and cleaning in Kuala Lumpur operates.

Complaints about irregular garbage collection or cleaning of roads are soon attended to. So the complainant feels happy, for a while. But later, a pattern begins to emerge .

If sweeping is done this week in a neglected area, garbage is not collected somewhere else during that week. If garbage is collected twice a week after a resident complains, garbage piles up in a third spot nearby.

Residents do not boil over because the people at the monopoly are so responsive to their complaints.

They only simmer because, although roads are not swept and garbage not collected, people like to feel that their glass is half-full rather than half-empty.

Then there is the story of why zones populated by big politicians are more equal in the perception of utility managers than zones not so populated.

Contrast Bangsar with Brickfields in Kuala Lumpur.

G.T., Kuala Lumpur

Source: NST – December 4, 2008