Vape bans: A Slippery slope for legal governance
The court found that state authorities had overstepped their powers by refusing to renew licences issued under federal law, thereby infringing on the rights of a legally licensed business and violating the Federal Constitution.
This landmark ruling is more than just a win for the gaming industry; it underscores a critical principle: state governments cannot override federal law at will.
Yet just months later, we are seeing the same pattern emerge again, this time with the vape industry. Kedah has announced it will no longer renew licences for vape-related businesses, with the goal of a complete ban by 2026. Other states such as Pahang, Terengganu and Perlis are following suit.
This trend raises urgent questions about the balance of power in our federal system. What started with gaming licences is now extending to vape. Tomorrow, will it be food and beverages? Or wellness and lifestyle services?
If states are allowed to selectively shut down federally regulated sectors, Malaysia risks descending into legal fragmentation where trade and commerce depend more on local politics than national law.
The role of Act 852: A necessary legal anchor
Rather than allowing states to adopt unilateral bans, the federal government must focus on fully enforcing Act 852 across the country.
Act 852 was passed after years of consultation and debate. It represents a balanced and structured approach to regulating smoking and vaping products, protecting youth, ensuring product safety, and reducing public health risks while allowing regulated access to adults.
Its successful enforcement is not just a health issue; it is a legal imperative. If states are allowed to disregard it through political or moralistic motivations, the Act's legitimacy will be compromised.
From a legal standpoint, only a consistent, centralised framework can ensure that public health regulations are enforced uniformly, fairly, and in accordance with constitutional principles.
Legal uncertainty hurts the rule of law and public confidence
One of the hallmarks of a sound legal system is predictability. Businesses, consumers, and civil society should be able to rely on a stable set of laws and policies.
When that stability is undermined by states choosing to selectively ban certain industries, it weakens the rule of law and opens the door for selective enforcement, politicisation of trade, and judicial overload from legal disputes.
This also affects the very communities the bans claim to protect. Instead of driving behaviour change, bans often push products into illicit channels, where there is no age restriction, no safety oversight, and no taxation. This undermines the public health objectives of Act 852 and increases enforcement burdens.
The way forward: Uphold the law, not politicise it
The lesson from the Sports Toto ruling is clear: state governments do not have the authority to override federal laws with blanket bans. Vape should not be the next legal battleground.
The federal government must assert the supremacy of laws passed by Parliament and ensure that public health policies are governed by national interest, not fragmented by state agendas.
Act 852 provides the legal tools to regulate the vape industry effectively. What's needed now is not more bans but better enforcement.
Malaysia must decide whether it wants to be governed by clear laws or discretionary bans. The answer will determine whether our legal system continues to uphold constitutional order or gives way to a patchwork of conflicting state policies. ‒ July 21, 2025
R. Paneir Selvam is the principal consultant of Arunachala Research & Consultancy Sdn Bhd, a think tank specialising in strategic national and geopolitical matters.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
Main image: SCMP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Private doctors file lawsuit against government over medicine price display regulation
PETALING JAYA: Doctors from the private sector are suing the government over the rule governing the display of medicine prices. This comes after several private practitioners filed for judicial review on July 24 against the government in the Kuala Lumpur High Court. The application was filed on Tuesday (July 29) by the Association of Private Practitioners, Sabah (APPS), the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA), the Malaysian Association for the Advancement of Functional and Interdisciplinary Medicine (Maafim), the Organisation of Malaysian Muslim Doctors (Perdim), the Federation of Private Medical Practitioners Associations Malaysia (FPMPAM), the Malaysian Private Dental Practitioners' Association (MPDPA), the Society of Private Medical Practitioners Sarawak (SPMPS) and one Dr Saifulbahri Ahmad. The lawsuit was in relation to the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking for Drug) Order 2025, which came into effect on May 1. The Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister, the Health Minister and the government of Malaysia were named as the first, second and third respondents respectively. The medical practitioners are seeking an order of certiorari to quash the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry's Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Making for Drug) Order 2025, which is also the impugned order in this case. As part of the relief, they are also seeking a declaration that the impugned order is void as it is 'tainted with illegality, irrationality and unreasonableness, disproportionality and impropriety.' 'The enforcement of the Impugned Order, insofar as its application to private healthcare facilities and/or registered medical practitioners and dentists, be stayed until full disposal of the Applicants' application for judicial review,' read the statement of the claim of the case. Among the grounds for judicial review is the government's failure to recognise the difference between drugs sold by retail and those administered for treatment. It also added that the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister had breached principles of natural justice by arriving at the decision without consulting registered medical practitioners represented by the MMA. They said that while the purpose of the regulation was to curb profiteering activities, it has created unwarranted competition among drug providers, with the sole focus being the price of drugs. 'This means even small-scale community clinics operated by general practitioners (GPs) and specialists have to now compete with large-scale drug retailers, for example, international chain pharmacies who already enjoy a larger market control and the ability to gain further control of retail customers by selling drugs at a much lower price,' they said adding that small scale community clinics would be at a disadvantage if forced to enter into an unwarranted competition with large-scale pharmaceutical companies. They said that drug prices in clinics are determined by variables such as manufacturers, freight charges, import or export duties, importers, distributors, volume purchased, the location of the clinics, different formulations of the same product, provisions for wastage of expired or unused drugs and staff and administrative expenses. The price display rule that came into effect on May 1 was met with much resistance by private healthcare practitioners. A three-month grace period has also been given, where no compounds would be issued and the government would instead focus on advocacy and education. The case management has been set for Aug 22.
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
Amendment to Fisheries Bill tabled for second reading in Dewan Rakyat
KUALA LUMPUR: The Fisheries (Amendment) Bill 2025, which among other things, seeks to raise the general penalty for fisheries-related offences from RM20,000 to RM100,000, was tabled for the second reading in the Dewan Rakyat, today. Agriculture and Food Security Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Sabu when tabling the bill today said the amendments are aligned with current needs and the development of the fisheries industry both domestically and internationally. He said the amendment is deemed highly necessary to address the issue of declining fisheries stocks through a holistic management approach. He added that the government is facing various challenges in its efforts to ensure the sustainability of the national fisheries sector, including issues such as the leakage of fishery resources, declining fish stocks, the impact of climate change, and concerns over food security and the guarantee of fish supply for the people. "Among the key challenges are anthropogenic activities such as illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, overfishing, and marine pollution that threaten marine habitats," he said. The proposed amendments cover six key areas, including efforts to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities by tightening control over both local and foreign vessels. This includes monitoring loading and unloading operations, fish transfers, vessel maintenance, and supply activities. It also involves prohibiting fishing in polluted areas to safeguard the integrity of the national food supply chain. Other amendments focus on strengthening the legal framework for marine parks and reserves to fulfil Malaysia's obligations under international instruments, and increasing general penalties to enhance enforcement and ensure that appropriate measures are taken against violations of the Act and its related regulations. The bill also seeks to clarify the application of Act 317 across all Federal Territories, including Putrajaya, and to support more targeted interventions through the collection of accurate and reliable data. The Fisheries (Amendment) Bill 2025 comprises a total of 47 clauses. Among the key changes are on Clause 17 which amends Section 16 to require the captain of a foreign fishing vessel to notify authorities via official electronic communication upon entering and exiting Malaysian fisheries waters. Meanwhile, Clause 19 amends paragraph 25(b) by increasing the general penalty in all matters other than those involving foreign fishing vessels or local fishing vessels operating on the high seas from RM20,000 to RM100,000. Clause 20 amends Section 26 to raise the maximum fine to RM250,000 for offences involving the use of explosives, poisons, pollutants, electric current equipment, or prohibited gear. Clause 21 amends Section 27 to prohibit any person from fishing, disturbing, harassing, capturing, killing, possessing, selling, buying, exporting, transporting, or storing any aquatic mammal or turtle or any part or derivative thereof found outside state jurisdiction. The fine for such offences will increase from RM5,000 to RM250,000. "These amendments are part of policy and legislative reforms aimed at strengthening regulation in the national fisheries sector. "The Bill provides for measures to address licensing issues and the use of unsustainable equipment. The Director-General's powers are strengthened to set technical requirements for vessels, monitor movement and enforce licence compliance with the support of data-driven monitoring systems. "Given the current status of national fish stocks, several zones have been identified as critically stressed. Therefore, the declaration of marine protected areas is essential to enable recovery actions to be effectively carried out based on scientific data. "The government is aware of the issues affecting the fisheries sector, and thus the need to enhance enforcement and build a strong legal foundation is of utmost importance," he said.
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Twins fail in civil court bid to exit Islam
SHAH ALAM: The High Court here has dismissed a suit filed by 26-year-old twin sisters seeking to renounce Islam. Judicial Commissioner Rozi Bainon ruled that the matter falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court, as it involves questions of faith, conversion, and Islamic legal status. The plaintiffs claimed they were forced to recite the syahadah and convert to Islam at the age of 14 by their mother, who had embraced the religion several years earlier. They argued that the conversion was done without their consent or understanding and maintained that they had never lived as Muslims nor professed the faith. Their mother, who embraced Islam in 2007, admitted in court via affidavit that she had forced the children to convert, and now regretted the decision. The plaintiffs also stated that they continued to practise Chinese religious customs and identified with their ancestral beliefs. The plaintiffs filed an originating summons in December last year by naming the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) and the Selangor state government as defendants. The defendants argued that the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court as provided under Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. The defendants submitted that any claim challenging the validity of conversion to Islam, particularly involving the syahadah recitation and questions of faith, must be addressed according to Islamic law and determined by the Syariah Court. Mais said the plaintiffs had already acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court when they previously filed two suits there in 2023, seeking declarations that they were no longer Muslims. The suits, however, were later withdrawn without explanation. Mais viewed the subsequent filing of the present civil action as an abuse of court process and a form of "court shopping." The defendants stressed that the plaintiffs remained Muslims in the eyes of the law unless and until a valid renunciation is recognised through the proper Syariah legal process. The court, agreeing with the defendants' submissions, ruled that although the plaintiffs now claimed they never embraced Islam voluntarily, the validity of their conversion must be determined under Islamic law. The court said that civil courts cannot usurp the role of the Syariah Court in determining issues related to aqidah (faith) and religious identity, especially where there is no constitutional challenge or judicial review involved. Rozi stressed that the absence of a Syariah Court declaration meant their status as Muslims remained intact. "The civil court is not the proper forum for such a declaration. The matter of religious status must be brought before the Syariah Court. "The subject matter of this suit touches directly on questions of faith and religious identity, matters which the Federal Constitution places squarely within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. "Plaintiffs cannot simply abandon one court and turn to another in search of a more favourable outcome. "This amounts to court shopping and is a misuse of judicial process," she said in her ground of judgment dated yesterday. Lawyers Muhammad Firdaus Danial Tan and Crystal Jan Wong Mae appeared for the plaintiffs. Mais was represented by Majdah Muda while State assistant legal advisor Nurul Izzah Abdul Mutalib appeared for the state government.
