KUALA LUMPUR — Funding limitations to take Malaysia further in cancer research shows the absence of a well-established framework to support high-level biomedical research here, said the president of the Federation of Private Medical Practitioners’ Associations Malaysia (FPMPAM).
Dr Shanmuganathan Ganeson said vaccine development is lengthy and expensive, requiring multiple phases of clinical trials.
“Even if we give money to a project, without proper oversight and governance, the results are uncertain. Who will monitor how the money is being used? There are too many questions,” he told Scoop, explaining the lack of a strong framework to support such research.
Shanmuganathan was asked to comment on the lack of funding to conduct clinical trials for a locally developed, high potential vaccine for oral cancer, by the Cancer Research Malaysia (CRMY).
Scoop reported that CRMY said it has been unable to secure the financial backing needed to begin human clinical trials since 2019 even though internal studies and animal testing continue to demonstrate the vaccine’s potential as a safe treatment and possible cure for multiple types of cancer.
However, Shanmuganathan said the reality about public funds for medical research is that decision-makers have to choose between diseases that afflict the masses and those that affect a smaller proportion of the population.
“There are thousands of cancers. If you have limited funds, you must ask whether you spend RM50 million or RM100 million on something that will help a small group, or on prevention and treatment for common diseases such as diabetes and hypertension,” Shanmuganathan added.
“If it is a very common cancer, you might get support, but if it is rare, it will be low priority. At the end of the day, health economists will ask: how can we spend money most effectively to help the greatest number of people?”
He stressed that Malaysia must develop better research governance before attempting ambitious projects like a cancer vaccine.
“Public funding alone won’t achieve anything now. You need a properly established council for research. Otherwise, the country will remain dependent on Europe, China, or India for breakthroughs,” he said.
Although such projects can be funded by private and non-government parties, Shanmuganathan cautions about reliance on external funds and transparency issues.
“Even if philanthropists give money, how do we know it will go to the right people? Will it be misused? These are real risks if the system is not properly structured,” he said.
From a patient’s perspective however, delays in securing funding for such a needful project reflects a culture of inaction.
Manvir Victor, chairman of Patients for Patient Safety Malaysia, said seven years of waiting for fund is “far too long”.
“People are dying while we wait. Their lives are at stake, yet some organisations have been very patient with other people’s lives.”
He criticised the practice of waiting solely on government funding.
“Organisations cannot simply return to the government with a begging bowl. They must act, think creatively, and explore alternative funding sources. Clinical experts can treat patients in front of them, but scaling treatments for thousands requires fundraising expertise and collaboration.”
Manvir highlighted successful models elsewhere, where public and private funds are combined.
“If the government matches what the community raises, you can double the impact. Yet here, many are stuck in silos, not looking beyond the familiar,” he said.
He also stressed the economic dimension of public health.
“Healthy citizens are productive citizens. If people are sick, they cannot work, earn, or contribute. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw clearly how a health crisis can stall the economy. Funding healthcare is not optional — it is foundational,” he said.
Manvir emphasised that organisations must take initiative beyond their medical expertise.
“You need fundraisers, corporate partners, and high-value individuals. Money cannot be the barrier we fail to overcome. We have the Twin Towers, highways, world-class infrastructure — we are not a poor country. Yet in healthcare, people are dying because of mindset and inaction,” he said.
The debate comes as Malaysia allocates RM46.5 billion for healthcare in the 2026 federal budget, up from RM45.3 billion in 2025.
Of this, RM39.78 billion is earmarked for operational expenses and RM6.745 billion for development projects, including upgrading hospitals and medical equipment.
Despite the increase, healthcare spending remains around 2.4% of GDP, lower than many regional peers, prompting calls from medical associations to raise the share to 5% to meet growing demand and support innovative research initiatives.
Both Shanmuganathan and Manvir warned that without structural reforms, broader collaboration, and proactive funding strategies, Malaysia risks lagging behind in critical medical research, leaving patients and families to bear the consequences. – March 30, 2026