THE government’s decision to withdraw its appeal over the liquid nicotine ruling may be legally defensible and motivated by legitimate public health concerns. Politically, however, it risks becoming another avoidable controversy over a policy the government itself created.
In 2023, liquid nicotine was removed from the Poisons List. The government then introduced the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024 (Act 852), creating a regulatory framework for tobacco, vape products and nicotine liquids. The Act came into force in October 2024.
In May, the High Court ruled that the earlier delisting was unlawful, finding that the decision had been driven primarily by economic considerations and made without adequate consultation with the Poisons Board.
The government initially announced that it would appeal. Three months later, it withdrew that appeal. That sequence inevitably creates the appearance of a policy reversal.
The issue is not whether nicotine should be regulated. It should be. Nor should legitimate concerns about youth vaping, addiction and illicit substances be dismissed.
The real question is whether the government has fully considered the legal, economic and political consequences of changing course after businesses, regulators and consumers have spent nearly two years adapting to Act 852.
If the High Court’s ruling ultimately results in liquid nicotine returning to the Poisons List without a clear transition, what happens to the regulatory framework established under Act 852?
What happens to legally registered products, licensed businesses and investments made in reliance on the government’s own system? Most importantly, how will the Poisons Act and Act 852 operate together in practice?
Those questions deserve clear answers before, not after, the next policy announcement.
The timing also matters. Malaysia is entering an increasingly sensitive political period, with the government facing continued pressure over the cost of living, economic confidence and the durability of its coalition.
As the next general election draws closer, it should avoid creating unnecessary policy disputes that reinforce perceptions of inconsistency while unsettling businesses, workers and consumers.
This is not an argument for putting political convenience ahead of public health. It is an argument for competent sequencing.
If stronger controls are necessary, the government should first conduct proper consultations, publish the evidence supporting its preferred approach and explain how the two laws will work together.
It should also provide a reasonable transition period and demonstrate that enforcement can distinguish between legitimate regulated products and the illicit market.
Otherwise, it risks replacing a regulated system with legal uncertainty while driving more consumers towards an underground market that is far harder to monitor.
Good government is not simply about pursuing the right policy objective. It is about consistency, consultation and competent implementation.
Act 852 was meant to resolve Malaysia’s long-running regulatory uncertainty. Reopening that uncertainty without a coherent plan would not look decisive. It would look like another unforced political error at precisely the wrong time. ‒ Sept 9, 2026
Shamsul Mustafa is a Focus Malaysia reader.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
Main image: Harian Metro
