A viral debate has emerged on Cambodian social media over whether content that creates positive externalities is being restricted more strictly than content that creates negative externalities. The debate intensified after Dr. Tong, a licensed medical doctor and well-known KOL, was reportedly ordered by the Medical Council of Cambodia to delete all of his content across all platforms.
The case raised a broader public question: why does health education content appear to face heavy restriction, questionable health-related advertisements, such as exaggerated supplement promotions, whitening lotions promising results within seven days, or products claiming immediate effects, seem to circulate more freely?
After public criticism grew, the Medical Council of Cambodia responded through a Facebook caption explaining that professional ethics allow medical professionals to participate in advertising for health education and disease prevention. However, they are not allowed to advertise in a way that promotes themselves, their group, or their services for personal commercial benefit.
This explanation fits with the Prakas on Advertisement within the Healthcare Professional Framework. Article 11 appears especially relevant, as it prohibits “the use of wording that self-exalts/promotes oneself exclusively, or involves competing and attacking in order to undermine the services of other healthcare facilities.”
The key question is how the phrase “wording that self-exalts/promotes oneself exclusively” should be defined and applied in the digital age.
In practice, any doctor who creates public content will, to some degree, build their own reputation. Even if the content focuses on health education, disease prevention, or public awareness, the doctor’s visibility still increases. Once someone becomes well-known online, it becomes easier to attract sponsors, collaborations, and public trust. This creates a difficult question: where is the line between health education and self-promotion? If licensed professionals are discouraged from creating content, the space may be filled by less qualified influencers promoting products with exaggerated claims.
This is why many people see the issue through the lens of externalities. Health education content can create positive externalities by improving public knowledge and reducing misinformation. In contrast, misleading supplement or cosmetic advertisements can create negative externalities by encouraging unsafe consumption, false expectations, and distrust in professional healthcare advice.
Later that day, Dr. Tong reportedly explained that the order to delete his content was linked to a collaboration with a brand that was not registered.
However, the remaining question is whether ordering the deletion of all content was proportionate. Such an order may create a negative public impression and could discourage other qualified health professionals from producing useful public health content.
The better solution is not to allow unlimited medical influencer marketing, nor to silence doctors online. Cambodia needs clearer guidance on what counts as self-promotion, what counts as health education, what types of sponsorship are prohibited, and what approval process must be followed.