Malaysia moves to exit the WHO: Press conference tomorrow 24 January 2025

Malaysians' decision to exit could serve as a catalyst for other countries, prompting a re-evaluation of their roles within controversial international organizations.

The issue of nations withdrawing from international organizations has sparked debate across the world, with historic and recent developments shaping this discourse. Notably, the first and only recorded attempt to withdraw from the United Nations (UN) came from Indonesia in 1965.

Malaysia’s health freedom movement has been at the forefront of the #ExitTheWHO campaign and they are mobilising to withdraw. The Malaysian Muslim Consumers Association (PPIM) has taken a bold step by organizing a press conference advocating for Malaysia to exit the WHO.

Today, similar conversations are emerging as countries like the United States under President Donald J. Trump signal their withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), which will be of effect in a year from now.

---

Indonesia’s 1965 UN Withdrawal: A Historical Parallel

Indonesia’s brief departure from the United Nations in 1965 is a historic precedent for nations challenging the authority of global organizations.

While the UN did not formally recognize Indonesia's withdrawal (as the UN Charter does not provide for such action), Indonesia remained absent from the organization for nearly two years. In 1966, Indonesia announced its decision to resume participation, marking the end of its self-imposed suspension.

This episode underscores the challenges of severing ties with international bodies, including questions of legality, diplomatic consequences, and the practical need for multilateral cooperation.

---

Malaysia’s Potential WHO Withdrawal: PPIM’s Press Conference

The Malaysian Muslim Consumers Association (PPIM) is spearheading the call for Malaysia to withdraw from the WHO. The decision by President Trump to exit the WHO, citing inefficiency and alleged bias, means that more people are asking about the relevance of such organizations in national and regional health.

The PPIM argues that Malaysia’s health policies are too dependent on the WHO, compromising national sovereignty. The association contends that a review of Malaysia’s health framework is necessary to better serve the interests of its people and ensure policies are rooted in local needs rather than global directives.

To voice these concerns, the PPIM is hosting a press conference:

Date: 24 January 2025
Time: 11:00 am
Venue: Our Private Place, Level 3, Villa Puteri Condominium, Jalan Tun Ismail, 50480 KL

---

Implications for Other Asian Nations Considering WHO Withdrawal

A Malaysian withdrawal from the WHO could inspire other Asian countries to reconsider their roles within the organization. The decision would have far-reaching consequences:

1. Sovereignty in Health Policies

Exiting the WHO would grant nations greater autonomy in formulating health policies tailored to local contexts. Many Asian countries, including Indonesia and the Philippines, have expressed dissatisfaction with global health mandates that they perceive as one-size-fits-all solutions favoring Western nations or corporate interests.

2. Regional Health Cooperation

Withdrawal from the WHO could push Asian nations to develop alternative regional frameworks for health governance. Organizations like ASEAN may take on a larger role in coordinating health policies, focusing on localized needs and mutual support.

3. Geopolitical Shifts

Such a move would likely signal a shift in alliances. Countries withdrawing from the WHO might align more closely with nations like the U.S. or pursue partnerships with alternative international health organizations such as the World Council for Health, which has over 30 country councils internationally.

---

Conclusion

The call for Malaysia to exit the WHO, the recent U.S. withdrawal, and historical precedents like Indonesia’s 1965 UN withdrawal, represents a growing and active dissatisfaction with globalist governance structures.

For other nations, Malaysia’s decision could serve as a catalyst, prompting a broader re-evaluation of their roles within international organizations. As nations navigate these decisions, the challenge will be to balance national interests with international cooperation as people and not governments.