MALAYSIA has spent years debating what to do about vaping. Ban it? Regulate it? Restrict it further?
Despite years of discussion, we keep returning to the same fundamental question: what does Malaysia ultimately want to do about vaping?
The question has resurfaced following the government’s decision to withdraw its appeal against the recent High Court ruling concerning the exemption of liquid nicotine from the Poisons List, once again putting the legal and regulatory position of nicotine-containing vape products under the spotlight.
With Budget 2027 approaching, Malaysia has an opportunity to provide something more fundamental than another isolated tax, regulatory or enforcement measure.
Malaysia needs a clear long-term policy on vaping. Ban it or regulate it - but decide. If the answer is prohibition, then say so.
There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the vape debate. Public-health concerns have driven calls for prohibition, while Malaysia already has a regulatory framework governing tobacco products.
Either direction is a policy choice. Remaining somewhere in between should not become one by default. If Malaysia is to prohibit vaping, there needs to be a clear roadmap for getting there.
Existing consumer demand will not necessarily disappear overnight. Any move towards prohibition therefore needs to account for the risk of supply shifting into illicit channels, including across borders and online.
A prohibition strategy must address these risks from the outset. Otherwise, Malaysia risks replacing a difficult-to-regulate legal market with one that is even harder for authorities to see and control.
If on the other hand vape is to remain legal, then the pathway should be equally clear. What products can be sold? What standards must they meet? Who can sell them? How should access and online sales be controlled? How will compliance be enforced?
Malaysia already has the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024 (Act 852), but a regulatory framework is only as effective as its implementation.
If regulation is the chosen path, the objective should be a legal market governed by clear and consistently enforced rules, not a grey area where consumers, businesses and enforcement agencies are left navigating uncertainty.
That brings us to the next natural question: how should vape be taxed? This is where Budget 2027 becomes particularly relevant.
Vape products are currently taxed at a rate around ten times lower than cigarettes. That stark difference is not marginal. It is a significant fiscal gap between nicotine products competing within the same consumer market.
If vape is to remain legal, the government should bring its taxation more closely in line with other nicotine categories. The current discrepancy is simply too wide, particularly as consumers increasingly move between products.
The sequence therefore matters. First, establish a clear policy direction. Then, if vape remains legal, establish an equitable tax framework that delivers comparable fiscal treatment across nicotine categories.
Budget 2027 presents an opportunity to bring Malaysia's regulatory, fiscal and enforcement approaches into alignment.
That does not necessarily mean announcing a nationwide ban. Nor does it mean preserving the market exactly as it exists today. It means making a decision, it means taking a stand. If the government chooses prohibition, set out a credible pathway and the enforcement architecture to make it work.
If it chooses regulation, establish clear standards, controls, taxation and enforcement for a legal market.
What Malaysia should avoid is continuing indefinitely in a regulatory grey area.
Ban it or regulate it. But after years of debate, uncertainty should no longer be the third option.
Sharifah Nurafiqah is a senior Public Relations consultant. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Sinar Daily.