JOHOR BARU: The newly gazetted Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking for Drugs) Order 2025 should be referred to the Attorney-General’s Chambers for a comprehensive legal review before its enforcement, according to local medical practitioner Dr Boo Cheng Hau.
Dr Boo emphasised that while the initiative aims to protect patients’ rights by ensuring fair pricing of medicines and medical consultation fees, its legal foundation under current laws is questionable.
“It is just to uphold the rights of patients, but the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act 2011 must be interpreted together with other existing laws such as the Consumer Protection Act 1999, the Medical Act 1971 and the Poisons Act 1952,” he stated.
This statement comes in response to Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister Datuk Amirzan Mohd Ali’s announcement in May about the formulation and gazetting of the new price control order under Section 10 of the 2011 Act, which mandates private hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies to display prices of medicines.
Amirzan contended that the Act empowers the ministry to regulate prices of “goods and services” provided to consumers.
However, Dr Boo, a former Skudai assemblyman and current DAP Taman Ungku Tun Aminah branch publicity secretary, argued that this interpretation might exceed the ministry’s jurisdiction.
He cited Section 2(2)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act 1999, noting that healthcare and other professional services are explicitly exempted from consumer law, as they are regulated under separate professional legislation.
“Although Section 4 and Section 5 of the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act do give the ministry powers to set maximum and minimum prices, medical charges fall under the jurisdiction of the Health Ministry via the Medical Act 1971 and the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998,” Dr Boo explained.
He further noted that the sale, licensing, and regulation of medicines are governed by the Poisons Act 1952, the Sale of Drugs Act 1952, and the Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984, all under the Health Ministry’s purview.
“The Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry does not have the technical expertise, authority or jurisdiction to regulate pharmaceutical licensing or pricing. These responsibilities lie solely with the Health Ministry,” he asserted.
Dr Boo urged that the Cabinet should ensure laws are not interpreted unilaterally by ministers and should seek clarification from the Attorney-General’s Chambers to ensure lawful enforcement and coordination between ministries.
He warned that poor legal coordination could lead to enforcement issues, confusion, and exploitation in the healthcare sector, despite the government’s commendable intention to protect patients’ rights.
Dr Boo highlighted inconsistencies in pharmaceutical pricing, with complaints about private hospitals charging significantly more than chain pharmacies, which sometimes sell drugs at up to 75% below typical market rates.
He also raised concerns about pharmacies offering consultations outside their licensed scope and tampering with prescriptions, causing complications for patients.
Dr Boo concluded that a clear legal framework is essential for regulating the health sector, stressing the need for better coordination among doctors, pharmacists, and paramedics to prevent profiteering, protect patients’ rights, and uphold the ethical standards of the medical profession.