KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has granted a stay on the enforcement of the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking for Drug) Order 2025, pending the disposal of a judicial review application filed by the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA) and other parties.
MMA president Datuk Dr Thirunavukarasu Rajoo said the court’s decision meant no compounding or enforcement action could be taken against private clinics under the order until the case is decided.
He said the ruling confirmed that the legal questions raised by the applicants deserved full judicial consideration.
“We wish to be clear, MMA has never been against medicine price transparency. We support it. Patients have every right to know what they are paying for,” he said in a statement on Thursday (May 21).
However, Dr Thirunavukarasu said MMA opposed the use of the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act 2011 (Act 723), which he described as a trade and consumer protection law, to regulate the practice of medicine.
He said the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998 (Act 586) and its 2006 regulations already governed patient rights, charges and grievance mechanisms in private healthcare.
“The legal framework for transparency in private healthcare was put in place long before this controversy. The government did not need Act 723 to achieve price transparency. The correct instrument was already there,” he said.
Dr Thirunavukarasu added that private clinics were already comprehensively regulated under Act 586, and imposing Act 723 on top of existing laws would increase the regulatory burden instead of reducing it.
He said this was inconsistent with the government’s deregulation policy under the Akta Iltizam, which commits to reducing the regulatory burden by at least 25% and adopts a One-In-One-Out policy for new regulations.
“MMA has engaged with this issue from the beginning — through dialogue, through a memorandum to the Prime Minister, and ultimately through the courts.
“We did not come to litigation lightly. We came because the jurisdictional concerns we raised, together with our coalition partners, remained unresolved after more than a year,” he said.
Dr Thirunavukarasu said the stay order did not resolve the underlying legal questions, adding that MMA would respect the judicial process and await the court’s final decision.
He also urged the government to review what the case had exposed, namely the imposition of a new regulatory layer on a fully governed sector using what MMA viewed as the wrong legislation.
“MMA remains committed to a private healthcare system that is transparent, accountable, and genuinely in the interest of patients,” he said.
