LETTERS: Is the new bill governing the sale of smoking products a contradiction between the real and the imagined?
The new bill on smoking that has been tabled in Parliament has undergone some significant changes, particularly regarding the prohibition of Malaysians born from 2007 onwards from buying or consuming nicotine products.
The removal of the "generational endgame (GEG)" from the bill has been attributed to reasons advanced by the Attorney-General's Chambers regarding constitutional issues.
With this development, have we reached a situation where there is a contradiction between the real and the imagined?
The reality is that vaping is harmful, becoming an increasingly addictive habit among the young and can be expected to continue to be so for generations.
But, the prospect that a GEG clause in the law will be challenged in the courts is, for now, only an imagined threat.
Moreover, Health Minister Dr Zaliha Mustafa has said there is a possibility of introducing a GEG bill at a later date.
Is there a contradiction or conflict in the minister's statement?
On the one hand, mentioning possible legal challenges to the GEG suggests that there are concerns about its legality or compliance with the current language of the supreme law.
On the other hand, suggesting that this provision could be introduced at a future date implies that there might be room for adjustments or amendments to address those concerns.
In situations like this, it's essential for the relevant authorities or officials to offer clarity.
It is possible that there are specific legal intricacies or considerations that we are not aware of, and the minister's statement might reflect a willingness to address those concerns in a way that aligns with the law.
However, it's crucial for transparency and accountability that such matters are explained in more detail to the public to avoid confusion and ensure the integrity of the administrative process.
Given the increasing prevalence of vaping, especially among schoolchildren, it can be important to specifically address vaping in the legislation to ensure clarity and effectiveness in regulating these products.
By explicitly mentioning vapes in the bill, it sends a clear message that the government recognises the health risks associated with vaping and aims to regulate it alongside traditional tobacco products.
This can help prevent any ambiguity and ensure that both the public and law enforcement agencies understand the scope of the regulations.
Moreover, specifying vapes in the legislation can provide a legal basis for addressing issues related to vaping, such as sales to minors, advertising and labelling requirements. It can also serve as a deterrent to those who may try to exploit regulatory gaps.
However, it's essential that any regulations related to vapes are well-informed, evidence-based and balanced to address public health concerns while also considering the potential harm reduction aspect that some vaping products claim to offer.
Striking the right balance in the legislation can be challenging but is crucial for effective regulation.
Explicitly mentioning vapes in the bill can contribute to the clarity and unambiguity of the regulations, especially in the context of addressing the increasing use of vaping among schoolchildren and the general population.
TAN SRI LEE LAM THYE
Chairman, Alliance For A Safe Community
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times