By MFA Abdullah
A RECENT stir in Sarawak’s political waters has turned public attention towards the Sarawak Heart Centre in Kuching, following concerns raised by an opposition assemblywoman regarding the alleged absence of a cardiologist.
Her remarks, which were widely shared and emotionally charged, sparked a flurry of reaction, understandably so, given that access to specialist healthcare is a matter of great importance to the public.
When the issue touches on something as vital as cardiac care, alarm bells are bound to ring. And rightly so. But amid the heat of public discourse, it is essential that we remain clear-eyed about both the facts and the lines of responsibility.
In this instance, the Sarawak Heart Centre subsequently clarified that cardiologists were indeed present at the time of the complaint. That response suggests the situation may have been more a case of miscommunication than a genuine failure in healthcare provision.
However, it’s the political context that makes this episode especially intriguing. The assemblywoman in question sits on the opposition bench of the Sarawak State Assembly, yet her party currently governs at the federal level.
This distinction matters, not least because Malaysia’s public healthcare system, including specialist centres such as the Sarawak Heart Centre, falls squarely under the purview of the federal Ministry of Health, not the state government.
In short, if a cardiologist was truly “missing”, the appropriate questions ought to be directed to those overseeing the federal health portfolio, not at the doorstep of Sarawak’s Deputy Premier for Public Health.
None of this is to imply that the assemblywoman’s concern was disingenuous. On the contrary, her concern reportedly stemmed from someone she knew personally, and one can appreciate the urgency that such a situation might carry.
But sincerity must be paired with precision. When concerns are raised in the public arena particularly in relation to healthcare, it is crucial that they are both factually accurate and correctly addressed.
Unfortunately, in the current climate, emotional narratives tend to travel faster than nuanced explanations. And when political interests enter the fray, there is always a risk that legitimate issues become distorted for effect.
With a state election fast approaching, the ramifications of this episode could stretch further than a mere news cycle. Public perception, especially among those unfamiliar with the structure of our health system, may be shaped by misleading impressions however unintentionally those impressions may have been formed.
The onus, then, is on the state government to respond swiftly, factually, and calmly. Likewise, the federal Ministry of Health would do well to offer clarity of its own, particularly if one of its facilities has been inadvertently drawn into political crossfire.
It is also worth remembering that public confidence in healthcare depends not only on service delivery, but on the integrity of public discourse around it. Misplaced blame only muddies the waters and risks undermining trust in a system already under pressure.
At its heart, this episode is a reminder that while political accountability is vital, so too is an understanding of where that accountability rightly lies. Otherwise, we may find ourselves diagnosing the wrong ailment while the actual condition goes untreated.
As the old adage goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In this case, a little clarity and coordination could have spared us all a rather unnecessary dose of drama.
Dr. Abdullah is an Associate Professor at the University of Technology Sarawak (UTS) and the Director of the Centre for Publication. He holds a PhD from Loughborough University, UK, and specialises in the field Strategic Management of Innovation and Scientific Research Methodology.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.
