Private medical practitioners' proposal potentially violates Competition Act: MyCC
This comes in response to reports that several associations representing private medical practitioners are looking to introduce new service charges including prescription and registration fees, regulatory compliance charges, and facility usage fees some of which may have already been implemented or are under review.
MyCC chairman Tan Sri Datuk Seri Idrus Harun said such practices are considered serious violations and are commonly referred to as cartel activities, which are illegal regardless of whether the pricing agreement has been implemented or merely agreed upon.
'These additional charges reportedly include prescription fees, registration fees, regulatory compliance charges, and facility usage fees, which may already be in effect or currently under consideration.
'MyCC stated firmly that any collective decision by associations representing general practitioners (GPs) or private doctors to introduce such charges could be in violation of the Competition Act 2010 (Act 712),' he said in a statement.
Idrus added under Section 4(2)(a) of the Act, private doctors and GPs are regarded as 'enterprises,' and any agreement between enterprises including decisions by associations to fix prices or trading terms may constitute anti-competitive conduct.
'If any association or organisation collectively agrees to introduce new charges, it may be interpreted as a price-fixing arrangement. Even non-binding pricing recommendations could be deemed price-fixing under Section 4 of the Act,' he said.
The Sarawak Private Medical Practitioners' Society (SPMPS), the Private Medical Practitioners' Association of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur (PMPASKL), and the Penang Medical Practitioners' Society (PMPS) have been specifically cautioned about the possibility of violating Competition Act.
MyCC urged SPMPS to withdraw its advisory encouraging members to implement these new charges.
PMPASKL and PMPS have also been advised not to hold any meetings or make decisions that could result in the uniform imposition of new charges, as this could be considered a breach of the law.
'Under the Competition Act 2010, any enterprise found guilty of violating the Act may face financial penalties of up to 10% of its global turnover during the period of infringement.
'MyCC will not hesitate to initiate investigations and take strict enforcement actions against any parties involved in anti-competitive conduct,' said Idris.
He further stressed MyCC is closely monitoring the situation and called on all stakeholders in the healthcare sector to fully comply with competition laws.
'MyCC reaffirms its commitment to promoting a competitive, healthy, and transparent marketplace for the benefit of consumers and the integrity of Malaysia's economy,' he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Federal Court grants bail to businessmen charged with organised crime links
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has granted bail of RM50,000 each for two businessmen charged with being members of an organised crime group, pending the outcome of their trial. The court also imposed conditions for the two men to wear electronic monitoring devices and remain within the compound of their respective homes. The decision on Thursday (July 3) was made in a 2-1 majority by a three-member panel led by Federal Court judge Tan Sri Nallini Pathmanathan. She said the majority were of the view that S. Hemanathan, 31, and 39, had made out their case primarily due to their health conditions, coupled with the inability of the prison system to attend to or care for prisoners who need special medical attention. "They are prohibited from travelling outside of their residential home without reasonable consent of the police and must report to the nearest police station once every two weeks. Also, they may travel to hospitals for treatment of their medical conditions with the permission of the police, which should not be unreasonably withheld," she said. Justice Datuk Hanipah Farikullah supported the majority ruling, while Justice Abu Bakar Jais dissented. Earlier, defence counsel Datuk Rajpal Singh had urged the court to allow bail on medical grounds. He said Nithiyan suffers from ischemic heart disease, hypertension and dyslipidemia, which could lead to life-threatening cardiovascular failure without consistent treatment, while Hemanathan, who uses a wheelchair, suffers from diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia and high cholesterol, and has not received consistent treatment in prison. Deputy Public Prosecutor Ng Siew Wee argued that both men had received necessary treatment and their conditions were under control. Hemanathan and Nithiyan were charged in the Sessions Court in May last year for being members of an organised crime "Geng TR" in Sunggai Janggut Seafood Restaurant in Jalan Bagan Sungai Janggut, Jeram, Selangor between November 2019 and May 2024. They were charged under Section 130V of the Penal Code, read together with the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma). Their case was transferred to the High Court in Aug last year, and the trial is fixed to begin in October next year. - Bernama
The Star
a day ago
- The Star
Federal court rules in favour of LHDN over RM1.8bil tax appeal against TNB
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court on Wednesday (July 2) allowed the Inland Revenue Board's (LHDN) appeal to reinstate an additional tax assessment of RM1.8bil against Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) for the 2018 assessment year. A five-member panel chaired by Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim unanimously overturned the earlier decisions of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which had ruled in favour of TNB and quashed the LHDN's tax assessment. The other members of the panel were Federal Court judges Tan Sri Nallini Pathmanathan, Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof, Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang, and Datuk Abu Bakar Jais. No order as to costs was made, with the court noting that the matter involved issues of public interest. Delivering the court's judgment, Justice Rhodzariah held that TNB's claim for reinvestment allowance (RA) under Schedule 7A of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA) was misconceived and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. She added that TNB ought to have applied for an investment allowance under Schedule 7B of the ITA, rather than seeking RA under Schedule 7A. She explained that the legislative intent behind Schedule 7A was to incentivise manufacturing companies to reinvest in their existing operations in Malaysia. In contrast, Schedule 7B provides for investment allowance incentives specifically tailored to companies in the services sector, as approved by the Minister of Finance. Justice Rhodzariah further noted that TNB is authorised to impose a service charge under the Service Tax Act 2018, which reinforces its status as a service provider. As such, the court found that TNB falls within the ambit of the services sector and is therefore subject to Schedule 7B, not Schedule 7A. The LHDN argued that TNB, as a utility provider, does not qualify as a manufacturer and is thus not entitled to the RA granted to entities engaged in manufacturing activities. On July 21, 2020, TNB filed a judicial review application seeking, among others, to quash the LHDN's decision dated July 13, 2020, which had disallowed its RA claim amounting to RM1,812,506,384.64. The company also sought a declaration that it was entitled to claim the RA under Schedule 7A of the ITA. TNB had included its RA claim for the year of assessment 2018 in its tax return. However, the LHDN informed the company that the claim had been disallowed in a letter dated July 3, 2020. Subsequently, on July 13, 2020, the LHDN issued a notice of additional assessment against TNB for RM1,812,506,384.64 in tax. TNB then initiated judicial review proceedings to challenge the assessment. In February 2022, the High Court allowed the application and set aside the LHDN's additional assessment for the year 2018. The Court of Appeal, in a decision delivered in May 2023, affirmed the High Court's ruling. Despite the dispute, TNB has already paid the assessed sum. At Wednesday's hearing, the LHDN was represented by Datuk Dr Cyrus Das and senior revenue counsel Ashrina Ramzan Ali, while counsels Datuk D. P. Naban and S. Saravana Kumar appeared for TNB. - Bernama
New Straits Times
a day ago
- New Straits Times
Federal Court rules in favour of IRB over RM1.8bil tax appeal against TNB
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court today allowed the Inland Revenue Board's (IRB) appeal to reinstate an additional tax assessment of RM1.8 billion against Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) for the 2018 assessment year. A five-member panel chaired by Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim unanimously overturned the earlier decisions of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which had ruled in favour of TNB and quashed the IRB's tax assessment. The other members of the panel were Federal Court judges Tan Sri Nallini Pathmanathan, Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof, Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang and Datuk Abu Bakar Jais. No order as to costs was made, with the court noting that the matter involved issues of public interest. Delivering the court's judgment, Justice Rhodzariah held that TNB's claim for reinvestment allowance (RA) under Schedule 7A of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA) was misconceived and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. She added that TNB ought to have applied for an investment allowance under Schedule 7B of the ITA, rather than seeking RA under Schedule 7A. She explained that the legislative intent behind Schedule 7A was to incentivise manufacturing companies to reinvest in their existing operations in Malaysia. In contrast, Schedule 7B provides for investment allowance incentives specifically tailored to companies in the services sector, as approved by the Minister of Finance. Justice Rhodzariah further noted that TNB is authorised to impose a service charge under the Service Tax Act 2018, which reinforces its status as a service provider. As such, the court found that TNB falls within the ambit of the services sector and is therefore subject to Schedule 7B, not Schedule 7A. The IRB argued that TNB, as a utility provider, does not qualify as a manufacturer and is thus not entitled to the RA granted to entities engaged in manufacturing activities. On July 21, 2020, TNB filed a judicial review application seeking, among others, to quash the IRB's decision dated July 13, 2020, which had disallowed its RA claim amounting to RM1,812,506,384.64. The company also sought a declaration that it was entitled to claim the RA under Schedule 7A of the ITA. TNB had included its RA claim for the year of assessment 2018 in its tax return. However, the IRB informed the company that the claim had been disallowed in a letter dated July 3, 2020. Subsequently, on July 13, 2020, the IRB issued a notice of additional assessment against TNB for RM1,812,506,384.64 in tax. TNB then initiated judicial review proceedings to challenge the assessment. In February 2022, the High Court allowed the application and set aside the IRB's additional assessment for the year 2018. The Court of Appeal, in a decision delivered in May 2023, affirmed the High Court's ruling. Despite the dispute, TNB has already paid the assessed sum. At today's hearing, the IRB was represented by Datuk Dr Cyrus Das and senior revenue counsel Ashrina Ramzan Ali, while counsels Datuk D. P. Naban and S. Saravana Kumar appeared for TNB. — BERNAMA
