I fully advocate for this amendment. The revised fee structure is vital to enhancing the Malaysian Veterinary Council's operational and administrative capacity. Financial viability is the bedrock of effective regulation, which in turn provides the stable foundation required to progress veterinary professionals and safeguard our code of ethics

Vet council’s silence ‘unacceptable’, animal rights group mulls legal action

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2026/02/12/vet-councils-silence-unacceptable-animal-rights-group-mulls-legal-action

the held regulators has had the chance to held & help veterinary profession since 1975, but alas the veterinarians
themselves has to help themselves up by their own abilities to scale & prospers their career, MVC has done nothing but
produce sub par APC document and even to some extent limit all veterinarian progression. All of a sudden in 2025 a
veterinary clinic and its owner faces challenges, and the authoritative body for the vets are only considering a fee change
from the vet themselves from their own hard earn work & only thinking of limiting the vets some more, by adding nothing
but inconveniences to the profession, unlike the medical counterpart which by the way are in branch section of proper medical department that gives better benefits & safeguards to their constituents (also need less CPD points and produced
better/faster/easier certificates)

In my view, the original intention and objective behind this proposal are commendable and serve the best interests of the veterinary profession in Malaysia. I also hope to see the Malaysian Veterinary Council (MVC) operate with greater independence from the Department of Veterinary Services (DVS), allowing it to function as a truly impartial regulatory body that upholds professional standards without any perceived conflicts of interest.

I believe many veterinary professionals are aware of concerns that, in some DVS-operated veterinary clinics, certain treatments and even surgical procedures such as neutering may not always be performed by registered Veterinary Surgeons. If this is indeed occurring, it raises serious questions regarding compliance with the Veterinary Surgeons Act and the professional standards that are expected to apply equally across the profession.

What concerns me is that MVC is fully aware of its responsibility to uphold and enforce the provisions of the Act, yet situations such as these continue to be raised within the profession. Furthermore, when practitioners consider reporting such matters, there is often a perception that MVC and DVS are too closely linked institutionally, which may undermine confidence in the independence and impartiality of any investigation or enforcement process.

Ultimately, public and professional trust can only be strengthened when the regulatory body is seen to be independent, transparent, and willing to apply the same standards and accountability to all parties, regardless of whether they operate in the public or private sector.

The proposed regulations are a step in the right direction for the profession, both in terms of detailing of procedures, as well as reflecting the actual cost of managing MVC activities. There are several aspects worth addressing as well. (1) Definition of registered veterinary surgeons (RVS) should be adjusted to reflect the origins of how a veterinarian obtained his RVS status under the act. Distinction should be made between those registered under Section 12 of Act 147 (through qualifications listed in Schedule II and thus an APC), versus those registered via Section 13 of the same act (with council-stipulated restrictions thus carried issued a TPP) as both categories of RVS have different rights and privileges. The "unified" term "RVS" is required under other relevant acts, eg Poisons Act 1952 etc allowing for a licensed professional to prescribe, administer, use, operate drugs etc as provided by those acts. Examples could be referred to the Medical Act 1971, which have made such distinction. In the same manner, restrictions perscribed in Sec 13 in the act should also be made clear and enshrined into the regulations. (2) Pursuant to issues raised in (1), additional clarification may be required to explain what constitute "satisfied" and " sufficient standing" to warrant being admitted into a register as described in Sec 14(2) of Act 147. It is better to state the necessity of Qualifying Examination and any such methods proving fitness of practice that the Council requires the candidate to undertake before granting registration/APC/TPP....This spirit is very much in line with qualifying examination practiced in other professions in Malaysia. (3) Finally, in view of the potentially nebulous nature of the word "premise", it is time the Council look into the possibilities of further defining the nature, operation and extent of responsibility of the "premise" mentioned. A clinic, medical centre, veterinary hospital, wild life sanctuary, animal shelter, zoo, constitute very different operational capacities, responsibilities and thus legal liability. This is entirely different from other sectors and should be addressed adequately. Perhaps a new regulations of act on Veterinary medical facilities 9and its regulations) is very much in need under this circumstances.