Sir,I read with interest the manuscript by Panda et al. on whether a preliminary degree in general surgery is necessary for postgraduation in urology.[1] According to this review article, the current prerequisite of 3 years of general surgical training based on a modified Halstedian system needs to be revised. The authors proposed 1 or 2 years of core surgical training followed by 4 years of specific urology training. This would be in line with the practice similarly seen in the United States,[2] Canada,[3] Australia, and New Zealand.[4] This proposal was echoed earlier by Aron.[5]In Malaysia, we follow a similar system as India. After 5 years of an undergraduate study, a candidate has to complete a year of housemanship followed by 3 years as a medical officer. Then only can he/she apply for 4 years of general surgical training which will culminate in a Masters in Surgery conferment. He/she is then required to complete 6 months of gazettement on general surgery before he/she can apply for a urological trainee post. The urology training program is for another 4 years. Therefore, the total training required to be a urologist is at least 18 years in Malaysia.In my view, this rigorous training has produced excellent clinicians and surgeons. The urological training program has been envied and emulated by other subspecialities. However, I concur with Panda et al. that a Masters in Surgery is not necessary. A 2-year core surgical training is adequate for exposure in basic surgical principles and fundamentals as well as the knowledge in handling surgical emergencies. Another 4 years can be then focused on solid urological training.A change is expected to be met with resistance from consultants who had to previously undergo the rigorous training. However, we need to cast aside prejudice and think of the best for the patients, trainees as well as the country. An audit will prove valuable for this purpose.