Blog
Mogok Doktor Malaysia: The Dilemma of Malaysian Protests
Lew Guan Xi
A group of government doctors who work under the contract system of Malaysia had claimed that more than 8,000 of them would go on a strike from 3 to 5 April 2023 to protest against the “unfair system” and “low wages” under the “Mogok Doktor Malaysia” (MDM) movement. This was the second effort of contract doctors’ protest since the “Hartal Doktor Kontrak” (HDK) movement in 2021.
However, a check done by New Straits Times on the first day of MDM found that its impact on hospitals was minimal and most hospitals that it visited still ran normally. Patients did not need to wait long for their turn, and they sensed no feelings that a strike was actually underway. During the HDK in 2021, participating doctors publicly stated that doctors from Covid-19 hospitals would not be mobilised to join the movement, and they would work to ensure that the operations of the healthcare system would not be jeopardised by the strike, putting the patients at the top of the hierarchy.
Though this indicated how noble Malaysian doctors are, from the perspective of protest, this heavily softened its impact to alert the policymakers and leaders on top. This brought out the dilemma in Malaysian protests, as protesters always struggle between the impact of their actions and their moral or legal obligations.
Taking the #Lawan protest in 2021 as an example, many see the movement driven mainly by youths as one of the driving factors of the resignation of former Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, ignoring the fact that Muhyiddin resigned out of political considerations instead of external forces from the grassroots level. It should be admitted, however, that #Lawan produced a huge social impact, especially among Malaysian youths, attracting the media to shift their direction of coverage and stir up the issues of human rights and democracy. Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with the change of government that occurred afterwards.
Muhyiddin’s resignation is only a political tactic for him to protect his reputation from being destroyed by the then-upcoming motion of confidence in the parliament to determine whether he had the support of the majority. With him resigning before the motion was tabled, no one can be 100 per cent sure that he had lost the support of the majority, giving him the room to package himself as a victim of political games played by his opponents. If he were found to have lost the support of the majority in the parliament, the whole country would know for certain that he was clinging onto the position of Prime Minister despite already losing legitimacy, which may have caused voters to label him as power-hungry.
In short, #Lawan indeed generated a great social impact, but politically, it yielded nothing.
Back to the issue of MDM, the government will only have strong political will to boost the reforms of the contract doctor system when the movement’s impact is large enough to paralyse the country’s medical system. However, due to the doctors’ inner professionalism and moral obligations, which is undoubtedly respectable, they will never leave the suffering patients behind just to fulfil their democratic demands. After all, movements like these are not exactly legal either: there are laws that oblige government workers not to speak against the government publicly.
The softened impact of protests in Malaysia does not only come from the protesters themselves but is also rooted in the systemic practice of Malaysian executive authorities against the protesters over time, particularly after the pandemic. Based on observations, since the pandemic hit Malaysia, all forms of large gatherings, like protests, will be probed by the police under the Prevention of Infectious Disease Act. Even after the government loosened the restrictions last year, protesters are still constantly being summoned by the police for questioning under the Peaceful Assembly Act. The Women’s March protest this year is a clear example. Actions like these pose a cooling effect on the protesters, leading them to more self-censorship, further deteriorating the impact of the protests.
To address this, the government must amend the Peaceful Assembly Act to shorten the period of informing the police from ten days prior to five days or below, as the police often use this to interrogate the protesters. The reason behind the need for shortening the period lies in the immediate impact that an event, be it political, economic, or social, may generate after it happens that would drive the need for protest for the voices of the affected communities to be heard instantly. An informing period that is too long jeopardises the timeliness of the event, hence, softening its impact.
For the protesters, utilising the right channel is important. As in the case of MDM, the contract doctors should have been represented by a third party like a non-governmental organisation (NGO) or an advocacy group to speak and engage with the top leaders for them, just like how other realms of advocacy do. When the directly affected sides engage in protest activities, negative externalities will be generated, as in the case of MDM, the patients who have nothing to do with the contract doctors’ welfare would suffer due to the disruption of operations in hospitals.
Protesting is a basic right in all democratic countries, including Malaysia, and therefore must be upheld. All parties should be able to protest freely as long as it is peaceful, without being threatened by any branches of authority. Elements like professionalism, moral obligations, and legal compliance complicate this fundamental liberty protected by the Federal Constitution and must be dealt with carefully to minimise the damage done. For now, the above-mentioned ways seem to be the only way forward before a fair system is established to eliminate the need for protest.