The Malaysian government is set to table a new bill in Parliament that would ban the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 2007. The bill, known as the Generation End Game (GEG) bill, is a bold new initiative that has the potential to significantly reduce tobacco-related deaths and illnesses in Malaysia.

The GEG bill is based on the principle of harm reduction. Harm reduction is an approach to tobacco control that focuses on reducing the negative health impacts of tobacco use, rather than on eliminating tobacco use altogether. The GEG bill would achieve this by preventing a new generation of Malaysians from becoming addicted to tobacco.

The GEG bill is not without its critics. Some argue that it is too extreme and that it will lead to an increase in the black market for tobacco products. Others argue that it is not necessary, as smoking rates in Malaysia are already declining.

However, the GEG bill has also been met with widespread support. Public health advocates argue that the bill is necessary to protect the health of future generations. They point to the fact that tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable deaths in Malaysia, responsible for more than 50,000 deaths each year.

The GEG bill is a significant step forward in tobacco control in Malaysia. If passed, it would make Malaysia one of the first countries in the world to implement a generation-wide ban on tobacco sales.

Comparative Practices Worldwide

The GEG bill is not the first of its kind. In 2017, the city of San Francisco passed a law that banned the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 2000. The law, known as the Tobacco-Free Generation Act, has been challenged in court by the tobacco industry but has so far been upheld. In 2018, the Canadian province of Nova Scotia passed a law banning flavoured tobacco products’ sale. The law was passed in response to the growing popularity of flavoured tobacco products among young people.

The reactions to the San Francisco Tobacco-Free Generation Act were mixed. Some people praised the law, saying that it was a necessary step to protect young people from the dangers of tobacco use; while others said it was an infringement on personal freedom and would not be effective in reducing tobacco use. The law has also been challenged in court by the tobacco industry. They argued that the law is discriminatory and violates the First Amendment, but the courts have ruled the opposite - it is not discriminatory and it is a valid exercise of the city's police powers.

The Nova Scotia law saw similar reactions - praises for reducing the number of young people who start using tobacco products; and criticisms for its effectiveness and potentially hurting small businesses. It is too early at this stage to say whether it has been successful, but there is some evidence that the law has had a positive impact. For example, a study by the Nova Scotia Department of Health found that the number of young people who use tobacco products has declined since the law was passed.'

It is important to note that the San Francisco and Nova Scotia laws are just two examples of a growing trend of legislations that are designed to prevent young people from using tobacco products. Other cities and states have also passed laws that raise the minimum age for tobacco purchase, ban the sale of flavoured tobacco products, or restrict smoking in public places. These laws are part of a larger effort to reduce the number of people who use tobacco products and protect the health of young people.

Impact on Future Generations

In Malaysia, public health experts have praised the government for its boldness, while others have expressed concerns about the bill's potential to be too restrictive. The GEG bill has the potential to have a significant impact on future generations and businesses in Malaysia. For future generations, the bill would mean that they would never be exposed to the harmful effects of tobacco use. This could lead to a healthier and longer life for many Malaysians.

Drawing from the Tobacco-Free Generation Act, there is a potential to see the following impacts:

● Increased demand for alternative nicotine products. As tobacco products become less available, people who are addicted to nicotine may switch to alternative products, such as electronic cigarettes or vaping devices. This could lead to an increase in demand for these products.

● Reduced healthcare costs. Tobacco use is a major cause of preventable death and disease. By reducing the number of people who smoke, the Tobacco-Free Generation Act could lead to a reduction in healthcare costs. This could benefit both the government and businesses to save money on this front.

● Increased productivity. Tobacco use can also lead to decreased productivity in the workplace. By reducing the number of people who smoke, the Tobacco-Free Generation Act could lead to an increase in productivity.

● Increased investment in tobacco control. The government and businesses may invest more money in tobacco control programmes, such as education and cessation programmes. This could help to reduce the number of people who smoke, even after the Tobacco-Free Generation Act is no longer in effect.

● Changes in the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry may respond to the Tobacco-Free Generation Act by changing its marketing strategies or by developing new products. This could lead to new opportunities for businesses that are involved in tobacco control or in the development of alternative products.

● Changes in public attitudes towards tobacco use. The Tobacco-Free Generation Act could help to change public attitudes towards tobacco use. This could lead to more people quitting smoking and to a decrease in the social acceptability of smoking.

There are also tax/economic repercussions to the GEG bill. The tobacco industry is a major source of tax revenue for the government, and if tobacco products are no longer available legally, the government will lose a significant amount of tax revenue. This could lead to budget cuts in government services, or other key sectors. The tobacco industry also employs millions of people around the world, and the GEG bill will undoubtedly impact job security for many.

It is difficult to say whether the health benefits of the GEG bill outweigh the economic costs. The health benefits of reducing tobacco use are clear - tobacco use is a major cause of preventable death and disease - however, the economic costs of the GEG bill are more difficult to estimate.

For example, the black market for tobacco products is already a big problem. If the GEG bill is passed, it could make the black market could grow even bigger, leading to a potential increase in crime and violence. It is also important to note that the black market for tobacco is not just a problem for young people, which the bill targets. Adults, too, may also be tempted to buy tobacco products from illegal sources. This could expose them to harmful tobacco products, such as those the government has not regulated.

Malaysia as a Healthy Country

Despite these concerns, in my perspective, the GEG bill has the potential to be a significant step forward in tobacco control. The GEG bill is based on the principle that the best way to prevent people from becoming addicted to tobacco is to prevent them from ever starting. It has the potential to save lives and improve the health of future generations. Businesses may face some challenges, but they could also see opportunities in the tobacco control market.

Ultimately, it is up to the Malaysian government to decide whether or not to pass the bill. If the bill is passed, it would be the first time a country has banned smoking for life for an entire generation, which sends a strong message from Malaysia about the government’s commitment to reducing tobacco use.


* Dr Ahmad Zaharuddin Sani Sabri is a political analyst.

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.