Two-tier healthcare or public lifeline? Unpacking the debate over Rakan KKM
On one side, detractors warn it would create a two-tiered healthcare system that favours wealthier patients using public facilities.
On the other, supporters argue the programme could help alleviate the financial strain on government hospitals and clinics while retaining specialist talent.
What is Rakan KKM?
The programme is a paid-for service envisioned by the MOH to offer 'premium economy' healthcare, encompassing elective procedures and personalised care.
According to Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, Rakan KKM will operate within the public healthcare ecosystem but provide services evocative of yet cheaper than commercial hospitals.
The ministry aims to launch Rakan KKM by the third quarter of this year at four pilot locations: Hospital Cyberjaya, Hospital Putrajaya, Hospital Sultan Idris Shah Serdang, and the National Cancer Institute (IKN).
Why the controversy?
Criticism primarily centres on the argument that Rakan KKM amounts to a 'backdoor privatisation' of healthcare facilities and services funded by taxpayer money.
Critics argue this will create a two-tiered system, allowing those with money to 'skip the line' for access to public healthcare services and bypass the long waiting lists that currently plague government hospitals under severe cost and manpower strains.
They have also homed in on the salaries offered by Rakan KKM, with many top posts advertised with five-figure pay. Detractors have used this to question the MOH's stated inability to absorb thousands of contract health workers into permanent positions.
Rakan KKM has so far received an allocation of RM25 million under Budget 2025, with a second phase of funding expected to come from government-linked investment companies (GLICs).
The ministry's defence: Public interest, not profit
Responding to the backlash, Dzulkefly has stressed that Rakan KKM's conception is underpinned by public interest.
He rejected claims of privatisation by highlighting that Rakan KKM Sdn Bhd will remain fully owned by the Ministry of Finance Incorporated, which would keep the entity aligned with government objectives.
'When a GLIC investor comes in, the GLIC may take an equity stake in Rakan KKM Sdn Bhd. Ownership of Rakan KKM remains with the government, directly or through GLICs, throughout its operations,' the minister said on the social media platform X on Sunday.
He then urged the public to look at the programme's key objectives, which he outlined as:
Making healthcare more affordable than fully private options.
Using any profits to cross-subsidise regular public healthcare services.
Providing better income opportunities for specialists to retain them in the public service.
Dzulkefly argues that these goals demonstrate that Rakan KKM is rooted in public service, not profit maximisation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
‘No Tantra, no magic mushrooms': eHati founders deny un-Islamic practice claims
KUALA LUMPUR, July 15 — The founders of eHati International Sdn Bhd have denied allegations that their programmes promote teachings that deviate from Islamic principles. In a media statement, Diyana Tahir and Rahim Shukor said the accusations against them were based on viral social media posts that they claimed were misleading and unverified. They said several posts made by a Facebook account identified as Masyitah Ashari had triggered public criticism against eHati since July 2. 'We wish to clarify that we have never received any complaints from any participant regarding the content or implementation of our programmes,' the founders said. According to the statement, eHati denied claims that it incorporated elements from other religious rituals, such as Tantra, stating that its therapy modules were based on hypnotherapy, breathwork, and Neuro-Linguistic Programming. They said the modules were designed to support women in managing emotional and psychological challenges and did not conflict with Islamic teachings or social values. 'In or around November 2022, we attended a session with Jais to explain a programme we had conducted. After we gave a detailed explanation, Jais accepted it and informed us that the programme could continue,' the statement said. The founders added that they accepted Jais' advice to include a disclaimer to ensure participants clearly understood the programme's objectives. They further said that eHati's programmes do not undermine the role of marriage or the family institution and are intended to help women improve their relationships. The statement also addressed concerns about a drink promoted by the group, stating it was a blend of raw cocoa, honey, and natural spices, and did not contain any banned substances or 'magic mushrooms'. They urged the authorities to verify the accuracy of information from social media before issuing any statements or taking action.
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
Rakan KKM: No friend to those in need
JULY 15 — Public hospitals were never meant to resemble private hospitals. They exist precisely because profit-driven care leaves people behind. Yet with Rakan KKM, we are asked to accept the idea that the same tax-funded wards can be quietly turned into pay-per-use zones, where money determines how quickly you see a doctor. This is not some academic worry. Private hospitals exist to make money; no one disputes it. But public hospitals are built on a simple promise: when you are sick, you are equal to everyone else. That is not a sentimental slogan. It is the only reason taxpayers agree to fund a system meant to serve all, not just the fortunate. So why is the government so determined to blur that line? Why, just as subsidies are being clawed back and new taxes are piled onto families already stretched thin, must Malaysians be told they should pay extra for the privilege of timely care in hospitals they already own? And what of the resources this will quietly consume? Specialists and nurses are not idling in abundance. They are already stretched so thin that entire wards function on life support. In the Klang Valley hospitals, nurse-to-patient ratios sit at 1 to 10, far below safe standards, while over 20 per cent of specialist positions remain vacant. Yet we are told this scheme will have no impact. As if time and skill can be conjured out of nothing and from nowhere. As if rationing what little manpower exists to serve paying patients is somehow not a form of abandonment. Proponents call this pragmatism. A necessary compromise to stop the talent exodus. But when did it become acceptable policy to imitate everything we once criticised? If public hospitals now run on 'pay more, get more,' what sets them apart from private hospitals except the logo over the door? Is it only a question of which government-linked company gets to collect the fees? Imagine if a government school declared that to keep the best teachers, it would sell 'premium education plans' to the wealthy for faster grading, smaller classes, better facilities. In Klang Valley hospitals, nurse-to-patient ratios sit at 1 to 10, far below safe standards, while over 20 per cent of specialist positions remain vacant. — Picture by Raymond Manuel Would we call that modernisation? Or would we recognise it as the thin end of the wedge? Or picture the fire department offering 'express response packages,' promising to save homes that have signed up and paid first. Would we nod approvingly and call that innovation? Should the police auction off faster investigations to crime victims who can afford a premium plan? Rakan KKM is not simply a new revenue stream. It is a confession that the government no longer believes public goods can survive without a market price tag attached. That citizens must pay twice, once in taxes, again at the counter, to claim the care they have already funded. If public hospitals and private hospitals become indistinguishable in practice, why pretend there is still any difference in principle? What becomes of the promise that no Malaysian would be left behind just because they cannot pay? We are told this is not privatisation. Perhaps on paper it isn't. But in spirit, it is something worse: a slow surrender. A cynical rebranding of inequality as reform. Next time the ministry calls healthcare a right, they should add the footnote: terms and conditions, and your wallet, apply.
Malaysiakini
2 hours ago
- Malaysiakini
Rakan KKM public or private initiative?
MP SPEAKS | Strictly, the question of whether an initiative or entity is public or private comes down to questions on ownership, control, sources of funding, distribution of profits, and purpose. Rakan KKM Sdn Bhd is 100 percent owned by the Minister of Finance Incorporated (MOF Inc). When a government-linked investment company (GLIC) investor comes in, the GLIC may take an equity stake in Rakan KKM Sdn Bhd. Ownership of Rakan KKM remains with the government, directly or through GLICs, throughout its operations. As for control, the Health Ministry is the "kementerian kawal selia" responsible for critical decisions over the management of the company. Seed funding of RM25 million from the Finance Ministry was announced in the budget. Additional scale-up funding from GLICs will be explored in Phase 2, which will be repaid through the revenues/profits of Rakan KKM operations. In all cases, sources of financing remain government or government-linked. Profit distribution is to the shareholders/owners of Rakan KKM - ie MOF Inc or GLICs. Rakan KKM's purpose As a public initiative, Rakan KKM serves five key objectives which are in the public interest: (a) In the environment of high medical price inflation, Rakan KKM provides premium economy value-based healthcare services to raise the ceiling, (b) Excess revenue from Rakan KKM will be used to cross-subsidise the services for all public patients, thus raising the floor, (c) Support the retention of ministry health workers by providing opportunities to increase their income considerably, (d) Serve as a price benchmark, including for services provided by private hospitals, to moderate medical price inflation for all, including patients who do not directly use Rakan KKM services, and (e) Provide appropriate returns for our GLIC shareholders and their members. Act 586 But why is Rakan KKM licensed under the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998 (Act 586)? Does that make it a private initiative? The experts who drafted Act 586 had the foresight to anticipate the possibility that the government would provide health services through a corporate body. This is important to ensure a level playing field with the private sector, especially if Rakan KKM is to play a role as a price benchmark. The Act clearly states that a government corporate body should be regulated under this Act. DZULKEFLY AHMAD is Kuala Selangor MP and health minister. The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.
