Yes, but only about the premises, never about the treatment. Under MAB 3/2023, a Malaysian clinic can publish a testimonial about cleanliness, hospitality, or the physical environment. A testimonial about how well a treatment worked, how skilled a practitioner is, or how a patient's condition improved isn't a permitted category, regardless of how it's worded or where it's sourced from. This is a plain-language summary, not legal advice.
Why the line sits exactly here
The distinction isn't arbitrary. A comment about how comfortable the waiting room felt doesn't influence someone's medical decision-making the way a comment about treatment outcomes does. The regulator's line follows that logic: the premises exception exists because it doesn't function as an inducement to seek a specific treatment. An outcome testimonial does, which is why it sits outside what's permitted no matter how it's framed.
What actually falls inside the exception
A testimonial that stays inside the permitted category typically comments on things a patient can honestly assess without any clinical judgement:
- The cleanliness of the facility
- The friendliness or professionalism of front-desk and support staff
- Wait times and scheduling experience
- The comfort of the physical space
If you can imagine the same sentence being said about a hotel or a spa, without any reference to a medical outcome, it's a reasonable sign the comment sits inside the premises exception.
What falls outside it, even if it sounds mild
This is where most clinics slip. These all read as reasonable, low-key praise, and all of them sit outside the permitted category:
- "The results were exactly what I hoped for."
- "Dr. X really knows what they're doing."
- "My smile looks amazing now."
- "I felt so much better after treatment."
- Star ratings or review scores that aggregate patient satisfaction with the treatment itself, not just the premises experience.
None of these need to be dramatic or promotional to be non-compliant. A soft, understated comment about an outcome is still a comment about an outcome.
Where testimonials actually come from matters too
A testimonial you solicited directly from a patient and a testimonial you screenshotted from an unprompted Google review sit under the same rule once you publish them as advertising. The source doesn't create an exception. If the content of the review discusses treatment outcomes or practitioner skill, republishing it in your own marketing carries the same restriction as writing it yourself.
A practical filter before you publish anything
Before a testimonial goes anywhere public, ask whether removing every reference to the premises would leave anything behind. If a comment survives with only "the results were great" or "the doctor was excellent" left standing, it's an outcome or skill testimonial, not a premises one, and it doesn't belong in your advertising.
What to build instead
If testimonials are doing a lot of work in your current marketing, the honest reframe is that in this market, they were never allowed to do the work you were asking of them. Neutral practitioner credentials, factual condition and procedure content, and a transparent, well-run booking experience carry the trust-building weight here. A well laid-out source register, showing exactly which regulation backs each factual claim on your site, does more for a sceptical patient than an outcome testimonial ever could, and it's actually compliant.
If you're not sure whether something already published crosses this line, get in touch and send us what you have.