So who killed the GEG?

SHE wanted to pay tribute to her former boss Datuk Seri Dr Zaliha Mustafa, who was the previous health minister.

But the homage from G. Sivamalar, who was once Dr Zaliha’s former political secretary, ignited a firestorm so intense that she had to explain herself just days after. 

Her tribute, posted on Facebook on Dec 18, recounted that Dr Zaliha was at one point, offered RM50mil to drop the Generational End Game (GEG) initiative in the drafting of the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Bill back then.

The GEG, after all, was the most important part of the law as it would have banned the sale of cigarettes or tobacco-related items to those born from Jan 1, 2007 onwards.

According to Sivamalar, Dr Zaliha had stood firm against ­lobbyists from big tobacco companies during the drafting of the then Bill which originally had the GEG component. 

(The Dewan Rakyat eventually passed the Bill in November 2023 without the GEG, before a Cabinet reshuffle which saw a change in Dr Zaliha’s portfolio.)

The Attorney General’s Chambers had then said the GEG contradicts Article 8 of the Federal Constitution as “it creates unequal legal treatment between a person born before Jan 1, 2007, and a person born on and after Jan 1, 2007”.

Sivamalar in her tribute said: “She stood firm against tobacco companies and large corporations to drop Anti-tobacco Bills and the GEG policy. At one point, she was offered RM50mil to drop the Bill. She rejected and asked them to leave. I am the living witness to it.”

That excerpt became the news of the day. There was much talk about the might of the tobacco lobbyists while critics attacked her for not reporting about the attempted bribery.

Yesterday morning, Sivamalar issued a statement, saying that her quote was taken out of ­context. She explained that there was no serious offer that warranted a report at that time. 

“She (Dr Zaliha) didn’t give any room for any serious offer. That was what I was trying to say.

“If there is a need, the MACC can investigate,” she added.

It may have been a one-liner that was taken out of context in Sivamalar’s post when her intention was to commend her boss.

Yes, kudos to Dr Zaliha for ­turning the lobbyists away. And yes, the constitutionality of the clause was a factor in dropping the GEG.

When this writer asked Sivamalar whether there was lobbying from tobacco companies, she acknowledged that it had come through middlemen.

This latest episode reignited the ever pressing question: Did the tobacco lobby kill the GEG? Were there hidden hands?

Then deputy health minister Datuk Lukanisman Awang Sauni revealed in the Dewan Rakyat in March last year that there was  pressure from tobacco companies with industry players even meeting MPs in Parliament, and that this had  led to the exclusion of the GEG initiative. 

On March 20, 2024, Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, (who took over from Dr Zaliha) denied his deputy’s statement on lobbyists influencing the government’s move to drop the GEG provision from the Anti-smoking Bill last year.

He emphasised that the dismissal of the GEG provision was due to a constitutionality issue, not industry pressure.

He said that while it was democratically right for lobbyists to hold engagements with MPs, the point that was raised by Lukanisman claiming it influenced the government and the Cabinet was incorrect.

“After looking at the Hansard and (getting) an explanation from the Deputy Health Minister (Lukanisman Awang), I found out that it was Kapar MP (Dr Halimah Ali) who had mentioned issues of industry and lobbyists,” Dzulkefly reportedly said.

But whether Lukanisman was misquoted or Sivamalar’s tribute taken out of context, the concern about the role of lobbyists in the GEG issue does not seem to go away.

Were lobbyists at play?

Malaysians, especially health advocates, want to know whether tobacco lobbyists had any hand in the GEG meeting its end instead of becoming an end game in the ­battle against smoking. 

Whether it was solely a matter of the Constitution or a successful attempt by the tobacco lobby, that is a question that can only be dealt with by way of an investigation. 

The MACC should look into Sivamalar’s report. 

An ardent anti-smoking advocate – NV Subbarow of the Consumer Association of Penang – said the public should be given the truth. 

“We need a royal commission of inquiry,” he said. 

Like Subbarow, many want an independent investigation to see whether there was any impro­priety in the handling of the GEG. 

But a tobacco industry player defended the move, saying that it was not lobbying. 

“We employ thousands of ­people. We can’t just shut down to put a stop to smoking. The government can collect excise duties from tobacco and vape which in the end would be a source of ­revenue to them,” he said. 

He said the onus is not solely on them but also on enforcement agencies and families as well. 

The anti-smoking law was supposed to save lives. So who killed the GEG?