I am very disappointed to read Jacob George's letter, Puas should work with water vendors.

First and foremost, it is obligatory for Perbadanan Urus Air Selangor (Puas) to supply clean potable water to all the consumers in Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya. It has to comply with relevant rules and standards governing the supply of water and they are: Selangor's Water Supply Enactment 1997 and National Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality 1983.

The former requires Puas to protect the interests of the consumers with respect to, among others, "the quality of water and the services provided". The guidelines state: "Drinking water must be clean, colourless and odourless. It must be pleasant to drink...".

Obviously, the present water supplied to many parts of the Klang Valley does not comply with the national drinking water quality guidelines and by doing so, Puas is guilty of a serious dereliction of duty.

By urging Puas to work closely with water vendors, Jacob George of the Consumers' Association of Subang and Shah Alam is simply condoning Puas' failure to supply wholesome water.

No addition burden, financially or healthwise, should be imposed on the consumers. If Puas complied with the standards, water should be safe to drink directly from the kitchen tap. And the current weighted average water tariff in Selangor is merely RM1.08 per thousand litres - dirt cheap compared to 20 sen per litre or RM200 per thousand litres!

Is that consumer friendly? Yes, Puas will be if it can wholly subsidise water vendors for producing cleaner water for public consumption.

Water is essential to life and can be considered a product or utility within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act 1999, which also gives consumers the right of redress against a supplier of goods or services that fail to comply with quality standards. For failing to supply potable water to its consumers, Puas is liable to pay damages in a civil claim.

Surely, if Cassa is truly concerned about poor water quality supplied by Puas, it should initiate immediate and appropriate action against Puas as provided under the Consumer Protection Act.

New Straits Times reported on Jan 13, 2003 that Cassa gave Puas 100 days to resolve the dirty water problem in the Klang Valley and would undertake legal action if it failed to resolve the matter within the given time frame.

On the other hand however, Cassa is promoting the use of water vending machines.

I definitely find it extremely hard to reconcile the statements of Cassa. Just go ahead and sue Puas. Period!