Everyone’s trying to cast aspersion on the Pusrawi doctor who first examined the alleged sodomy victim of a very high profile politician. No one really cares if the report was true or false. This is what you call justice for and by Malaysians. See this STAR online blog: The Osman conspiracy? It was given extensive publicity in Rocky Bru’s as well.
So! Hospital Pusrawi has revealed that Dr Muhammad Osman Abdul Hamid , a Burmese national, is not a specialist but only a general practitioner stationed at the Emergency Unit. (malaysiakini).
They also clarified that its medical officer did not conduct a sodomy-related examination on Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan as he had told the doctor he was allegedly “assaulted with a piece of plastic being inserted into his anus”. Oh dear, that must be painful?
Do you mean to say his medical report is not valid? Or that he is not a legally qualified medical practitioner?
The Malaysian Medical Act can guide us, as pointed out to be by a doctor:
Medical Act, 1971, article 28:
The words “legally qualified medical practitioner” or “dully qualified medical practitioner” or any words importing a person recognized by law as a medical practitioner or member of the medical profession, when used in any written law with reference to such persons, shall be construed to mean a fully registered medical practitioner.
Is the medical certificate admissable in court of law, or valid?
No certificate or other document required by any written law to be signed by a duly qualified medical practitioner given after the commencement of this Act shall be valid unless signed by a fully registered medical practitioner.
Refer to article 28.
Also, isn’t it true that any medical reports, including medical certifications (MCs) have to be recognised in Malaysia by everyone, including the Ministry of Health, so long as the doctors issuing those medical reports or MCs are registered with the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) to practice medicine in Malaysia?
The MMC was formed through an Act of Parliament – Act 50 – Medical Act 1971 to regulate the practice of medicine in this country.
Though the Director General of Health is the Chairman of MMC and that the majority of MMC members are made up of appointed members, I believe that the status and validity of the medical reports and MCs can be determined by the MMC.
Whether the content of the report is true or false, shouldn’t that be decided by the court of law?