GEG: Protect kids, not profits

KURT Vonnegut said: “The public health authorities never mention the main reason many Americans have for smoking heavily, which is that smoking is a fairly sure, fairly honourable form of suicide.”

I’m not sure about honourable, but I’m quite sure that smoking is in fact suicide.

I work in the business of public perception; when the government does something, I cannot speak authoritatively about exactly why they did it, to what extent it is justified, and so on.

I think I can, however, speak a little about how their actions and decisions are likely to be perceived by the public.

I was quite shocked to read that the generational end game (GEG) clause had been scrapped by the current government.

The GEG was an excellent plan to ban the sale of cigarettes, vape products, and such to anyone born after Jan 1, 2007.

When I heard of the GEG for the very first time, I thought it was a stroke of genius.

I can understand why people who are already smoking would want to “defend” their right to continue smoking. There are arguments to be made for legalising suicide, euthanasia, and by extension I suppose, smoking.

What makes the GEG genius, however, is that it only affects those who are already not legally allowed to smoke.

The reason the cancellation of the GEG was so shocking, and why it will cause the government a massive, massive perception problem can be summarised in one simple question: Who wants young people to start smoking?

As mentioned, I can understand smokers still wanting to smoke. But how many of these smokers want their children to smoke?

How many smokers believe that it is fine and OK for the next generation to develop addictions to cigarettes?

I can think of one and only one group of people who believe young people should be allowed to buy cigarettes one day: the people who sell cigarettes.

I will happily entertain anyone who believes they have strong arguments for who else has an interest in the GEG being cancelled, or those who believe selling cigarettes to people who haven’t started smoking yet is a good thing. Please, bring your best arguments.

If such arguments fail to be persuasive, however, as I rather expect them to be, then we are left with the question that creates a crisis of perception – at the very least – for the government:

Why on earth would the government cancel an initiative that the vast majority of Malaysians – smokers and non-smokers alike – agree with?

If only one group of people – ie corporations who profit from smoking – stand to gain from cancelling the GEG, then (ever more in Malaysia compared with other countries), can we shy away from the fact that nearly every man in the street is going to be asking: Who did the smoking companies influence and how?

Again, I haven’t even the faintest piece of evidence, and would never, ever accuse anyone of any such corruption without evidence.

All I am saying here is that surely the government cannot be in such a “Emperor’s New Clothes” mode as to ignore what people will surely say in coffeeshops and WhatsApp groups throughout the country: that the smoking companies are exerting undue influence, and causing the government to unethically cancel a policy that would disadvantage those companies but benefit literally endless future generations of Malaysians to come.

It is hard to overemphasise how blindingly obvious this will seem to the Malaysian in the street. It is hard to imagine any kind of “justification” the government can give that will not make Malaysians roll their eyes, scoff, and declare that this is just the latest bit of proof that politicians really are all corrupt and the same, no matter who we vote for.

Some of these “justifications” have already been proffered. Some say the GEG may be “unconstitutional” because it is a law that does not apply equally to all. Some say this law will open the government to lawsuits.

I can’t imagine this is a “roadblock” that the government only discovered or realised so many years after the GEG was mooted. More importantly, I am reminded of the joke about how if you have five lawyers in a room, you will get 20 legal opinions.

And perhaps most importantly of all, have we become such cowards that the threat of lawsuits from cigarette companies are causing us to cower in fear – so much so we don’t even dare to enter the arena?

If we truly are a government of the people, for the people, then what on earth is there to fear in a lawsuit?

Even if the smoking companies win (I can’t possibly imagine who else would sue), then we haven’t lost anything, we’d only be back at square one.

Every time we vote for a government, we do so hoping they will stand up for us.

We hope they will share our convictions about what is right for the rakyat – especially in matters so painfully obvious as smoking and health.

We hope they will not just pay lip service to what is right, but truly fight with us and for us – against all who seek to selfishly profit at the expense of our health and wellbeing.

For anyone to mumble meek excuses about vague things like “constitutionality” is already one level of bad. To use that as an excuse to give up the fight before the fight has even started is truly unforgivable.

When I first glanced through the headlines about the war of words between former health minister Khairy Jamaluddin and the current government about the GEG, I originally thought it was meaningless petty posturing by both sides. Seeing what has happened, I can only really hope and pray that the petty politics of blame and credit are not the reason why the GEG has not gone through. That would perhaps be the most unforgivable sin of all.

The healthcare costs of not executing the GEG are literally infinite. There will be no end to the money we spend trying to deal with health problems emerging from smoking.

More importantly, if we do not have the integrity and strength of conviction to do the right thing, the costs are much, much more serious than just money.

At the end of the day, the true question is: will we really sacrifice the lives and well being of our children, and our children’s children, at the altar of some company’s profits?

Smoking is most definitely a form of suicide; will those in power commit political suicide by failing to push through the GEG?

Nathaniel Tan is a strategic communications consultant. He can be reached at [e-mail]. The views expressed here are solely his own.