Dear MOH and JPA,
Malaysia is short of specialists. This is not something doctors invented to complain about.
Based on figures reported recently, the Ministry of Health (MOH) had around 9,040 specialists across 29 core specialties at the end of 2025, while the projected requirement is 22,435 by 2030. We are talking about a gap of more than 13,000 specialists within the next few years.
With numbers like these, one would assume that training and retaining specialists would be treated as a national priority. Unfortunately, what is happening on the ground sometimes gives a very different impression.
This year, a group of specialists applying for MOH subspecialty training found themselves affected by the requirement for three complete consecutive years of annual performance assessment.
Their appeals were subsequently rejected. On its own, that sounds like a straightforward eligibility issue: you do not fulfil the requirement, therefore, you do not qualify. Except it is not that straightforward.
These doctors came through the Master’s pathway. During Master’s training, candidates were instructed that they were not required to complete the usual SKT/LNPT while undergoing training.
They followed the instruction, completed their postgraduate training, passed their examinations, returned to service, and became specialists.
Now some of these same doctors are being told that they cannot proceed because they do not have enough complete years of LNPT. I am genuinely struggling to understand the logic here.
MOH’s written reply to one affected applicant states that the applicant “…hanya mempunyai markah penilaian prestasi bagi satu (1) tahun penilaian genap sahaja.”
The letter then refers to MyPPSM SR.5.1.8 Kemudahan Cuti Belajar dan Biasiswa Dalam Perkhidmatan, which requires “…markah purata penilaian prestasi tahunan sekurang-kurangnya 85 peratus bagi tempoh genap tiga tahun kalendar terkini, secara berturut-turut.”
The appeal was therefore “Tidak Dapat Dipertimbangkan.”
So let me get this straight. Doctors were told they did not need SKT/LNPT during Master’s training. They complied with that instruction. They are now being rejected because they do not have enough LNPT from those years.
How exactly were they supposed to produce assessments that they had been told were not required?
Were they expected to know several years ago that the same documents would later become essential for subspecialty applications? If so, perhaps clairvoyance should be added to the Master’s curriculum.
This is not an argument for lowering standards. Nobody is asking MOH to automatically accept every applicant. Subspecialty places are limited and selection should be competitive.
If somebody is clinically unsuitable, has poor professional conduct or loses out to a stronger candidate through a fair selection process, so be it.
But surely we can distinguish clinical standards from administrative technicalities. If the problem is that conventional LNPT was not available during Master’s training, then why not assess the affected years using something equivalent?
Training reports, supervisor assessments, postgraduate evaluations or subsequent LNPT performance could be considered. There must be a more sensible solution than telling somebody, in effect: you followed our previous instruction, and unfortunately that has now made you ineligible.
There is another part of this story that deserves attention. The affected specialists met representatives from the relevant MOH divisions on July 20, 2026.
According to those involved, they were told that a response would be given within one week. By August 13, they were still writing to ask for clarification.
Doctors are constantly reminded about deadlines. Submit your application late? Rejected. Missing document? Rejected. Fail to fulfil one administrative requirement? Tidak dapat dipertimbangkan.
Fair enough. Rules and deadlines exist for a reason.
But surely the same principle applies when the system gives doctors a deadline for its own response. If one week was promised, why should affected applicants still be chasing an answer weeks later?
If more time was required, simply tell them. These are specialists trying to plan the next several years of their careers, not people asking when their parking coupons expire.
There are also questions from the affected group about consistency. They have asked why some general requirements appear non-negotiable while certain specialty-specific requirements can apparently be varied.
They have also sought clarification over how specialists with fewer than two years of specialist service were reportedly admitted into some subspecialty programmes while more senior specialists were excluded on other grounds.
There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation. If there is, MOH should simply explain it. Transparency would settle much of this argument.
The Public Service Department (JPA) cannot be absent from this discussion either. MOH’s rejection specifically refers to MyPPSM SR.5.1.8. If an existing JPA requirement is producing unintended consequences for doctors who went through government-approved Master’s training, then MOH and JPA need to sit down and resolve it together.
Passing the file from one department to another does not solve anything.
This matters beyond the applicants affected this year. Subspecialty applicants are already specialists, so obviously approving them will not suddenly create 13,000 new specialists. But career progression matters if we are serious about retention.
We keep asking why doctors leave government service.
We discuss brain drain, specialist shortages, and manpower problems. Yet remuneration remains uncompetitive, on-call compensation remains poor for the responsibility involved, workloads are heavy, and when doctors try to progress professionally, they can encounter problems like this.
At some point, we have to ask whether our policies are moving in the same direction as our speeches.
Perhaps the most ironic part of the rejection letter is its ending: “Berkhidmat Untuk Negara.” That is exactly what these doctors have been doing. They spent years training, returned to public service and now want to develop further.
Apparently, before they can continue berkhidmat untuk negara, they must first satisfy berkhidmat untuk borang.
Malaysia already has a health care manpower problem. We say we need more specialists, more advanced expertise and more doctors willing to remain in government service. Yet we continue creating situations that frustrate the very people we supposedly want to retain.
So perhaps MOH, JPA, and the government should answer a very basic question: do we genuinely want to produce, develop, and retain more doctors, or are we creating a system that steadily reduces the number willing to stay? Because if the objective is retention, we have a rather strange way of showing it.
And if we continue down this road, we should not be surprised when the next discussion is once again about doctors leaving public service. They have been telling us why for years.
The author is a specialist doctor in the Ministry of Health. CodeBlue is providing the author anonymity because civil servants are prohibited from writing to the press.
- This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of CodeBlue.
