Retailers Axed Factories Spared Is Malaysia S Vape Policy Double Standard

---

 
MALAYSIA’S vape industry is being strangled by its own success. Once hailed as a fast-growing sector contributing over RM288 mil in tax revenue, powering 31,500 jobs, attracting RM100 mil in foreign investment, empowering Bumiputera entrepreneurship and micro-enterprise, it is now branded as a public health menace, awaiting slaughter.
The Ministry of Health has announced a nationwide ban on the sale of e-cigarettes and vape products, citing rising concerns over youth vaping and the alarming misuse of drug-laced devices.
The government insists that vape crackdown is truly rooted in public health concerns, but how credible is that claim when factories keep churning out vape products while local retailers are punished?
Back in June, the Health Ministry confirmed that the government had issued Ispire Technology—a US-based e-cigarette and cannabis vape company—an interim nicotine manufacturing licence to produce e-cigarettes with nicotine at its 31,000sq ft plant in Senai, Johor, with local council approval.
This was granted through the Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (MITI) under the Industrial Coordination Act 1975, despite Johor being one of the states that banned vape sales as early as 2016.
This policy contradiction creates a disjointed narrative. On one hand, Malaysia embraces foreign investment and positions itself as a manufacturing hub for vape exports; on the other, it wants to penalise domestic retailers and restrict local access.

If public health is the stated priority, then regulatory consistency must apply across the entire value chain from production to distribution.
Less than a year ago, the Parliament passed Act 852, Control of Smoking Products For Public Health Act 2024. The law was introduced to regulate—not prohibit—the vape industry.
It was meant to bring clarity, oversight, and accountability to a sector long operating in legal grey zones.
If the Act 852 is deemed insufficient, the logical step for the government is to strengthen it with evidence from enforcement and monitoring, not abandon it abruptly.
The law has been in force for less than a year—far too soon to judge its effectiveness. Hence, this reflects either the government lacked vision when the law was passed or unwilling to let the Act fulfill its intended purpose. Either way, it reflects poorly on the government.
In this case, Singapore displays a regulatory consistency. They have been consistent from day one: no legalisation, no industrial investment, no domestic production, and a clear, unwavering ban.
Their recent vape crackdown is simply a continuation of a clear, principled stance. Meanwhile, Malaysia’s current trajectory, fragmented: permitting manufacturing while penalising retail, and shifting policy within a year of Act 852’s implementation.

Accountability and consistency are the backbone of any credible policy or law. Without them, public trust weakens and national policy goals lose integrity, leaving industries like vaping caught in uncertainty and doubt.
Targeting retailers while protecting factories is a contradiction that cannot last. Until Malaysia embraces regulatory consistency, every player in the vape industry will be left wondering if they’re next on the chopping block. 
Tharenee Gunasekaran, Senior Analyst from Bait Al Amanah, an independent research institute that promotes policy and decision-making through sound, independent and multidisciplinary research and analysis in areas of governance and democracy, economics, security, and issues of national importance.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.
- Focus Malaysia.

---