At a hearing on Tuesday, lawyers for the applicants – Drs Nur Aziah Ismail, Syed Nasir Syed Hassan, Chong Kee Soon and Lok Yuh Ling – and the MCC, named as the respondent, tendered written submissions to set out the respective positions of the parties.
In their submissions, the applicants rejected the MMC’s contention that the proceedings had become academic. The MMC claims an amendment to the Medical Act 1971, which will recognise the applicants’ qualifications, is already in place.
However, the applicants contend that the amendment, which will recognise specialists with the Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons Edinburgh (FRCS Ed) qualification, will only come into force via a gazette notification by the health minister.
“It is critical to note that the Medical (Amendment) Act 2024 has not yet come into operation as such a notification has not been published in the gazette at the date of these submissions,” the filing, sighted by FMT, read.
As a result, the applicants say the MMC’s contention that the judicial review is moot cannot stand.
“Further, the respondent has neither revoked the impugned decision nor registered the applicants as cardiothoracic surgery specialists on the National Specialist Register (NSR),” the submissions added.
The doctors argue that the case goes beyond regulatory interpretation, adding that it directly affects their livelihoods.
They say there is an urgent need for clarity in specialist recognition, especially given the existing severe shortage of cardiothoracic surgeons.
The MMC, in response, asserts that the amendments were specifically introduced by legislation to enable the registration of applicants and others with similar qualifications under Section 14B(1) or Section 14B(2) of the Medical Act 1971.
It says that without the amendment coming into force, such registrations would be legally impossible.
Once the revised provisions take effect, the applicants may apply for specialist registration under the new framework, resolving qualification concerns through legislative changes, the MMC added.
“The applicants’ insistence that this court hear and determine the questions in these proceedings amounts to an abuse of the court’s process, bearing in mind that there exists an avenue for the applicants to obtain specialist registration under the provisions of the amended Act,” the MMC said in its submissions.
The applicants are challenging the MMC’s refusal to enrol them on the NSR two years ago.
They contend that the FRCS Ed qualification was listed on MMC’s website when they signed up for the health ministry’s parallel pathway programme, but was removed in 2022 without explanation.
The MMC claims that the FRCS Ed qualification had been erroneously inserted on the NSR list which, at the time, was maintained by the Academy of Medicine of Malaysia.
However, the doctors dispute this explanation, arguing that since the MMC bore sole legal responsibility for specialist recognition and the list was published on its website, it should be held accountable for the information published.
The plaintiffs were represented in court by Jeremiah Rais and Leah Samuel, while Jessica Binwani, Sarguna Kumari, Navina Ramani and Tashalini Kopal appeared for MMC.