The New Straits Times, May 23, 1997
Taken in its totality, the issue relating to tobacco has come into full view. It is now not just against the industry per se, but one that is against all forms of substance abuse.
In this case, it is the addictive nature of nicotine, in line with the statement from the World Health Organisation, whereby 'expects in the field of substance abuse consider tobacco dependence to be strong or stronger than dependence on such substance of abuse which is persistently plaguing the country since two decades ago.
More than that, tobacco dependence too has now been 'classified as a mental and behavioural disorder according to the WHO International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10 (Classification F17.2)'.
In short, there is very little room left, if at all, for tobacco use in the light of what is known today. The question then is how to we go about it? What policy should be in place so that the appropriate measures could be taken.
Otherwise, like the war to eradicate drug abuse, the battle to eliminate the culture of smoking would be unnecessarily drawn out and wasteful, especially within a tight network of an ostentatious industry set to sell just that compulsive product - addiction.
For this purpose, it is worthwhile to look for guidance from the World Bank policy on tobacco as published in a World Bank report 'Investing in Health' (1993). It states:
'In 1992, in recognition of the adverse effects of tobacco consumption on health, the World Bank articulated a formal policy on tobacco. The policy contains five main points (four of which are directly pertinent to the present discussion).
-
The World Bank's activities in the health sector, including work, policy dialogue, and lending, discourage the use of tobacco products.
-
The World Bank does not lend directly for, investments or loans for tobacco production, processing, or marketing. However, in the few countries that are heavily dependent on tobacco as a source of income and foreign exchange earnings (for example, those where tobacco accounts for more than 10 per cent of exports) and especially as a source of income for poor farmers and farm workers, the World Bank treats the subject within the context of responding most effectively to these countries' development requirements. The World Bank seeks to help these countries diversify away from tobacco.
-
To the extent practicable, the World Bank does not lend indirectly for tobacco production activities, although some indirect support of the tobacco economy may occur as an inseparable part of a project that has a broader set of objectives and outcomes (for example, rural roads).
-
Unmanufactured (sic) and manufactured tobacco, tobacco-processing machinery and equipment, and related services are included on the negative list of imports in loan agreements and so cannot be included among imports finance under loans.
-
Tobacco and tobacco-related producer or consumer imports may be exempt from borrowers' agreements with the bank to liberalise trade and reduce tariff levels.'
Given such a policy statement, Malaysia can easily lay down its own national policy on tobacco. It is surprising that there are people still harping on the issue of economics, as though it is the only aspect that matters. It is unbelievable that tobacco advocates (including some decision makers and policy planners) are not familiar with such a global policy.
Or are they observing the familiar code of silence of the tobacco industry and refusing to acknowledge that the international standard towards the growing and use of tobacco has changed drastically for almost five years now.
As a nation, we need to take a stand: economics versus health. Even if tobacco is essential to the national economy, why do bodies like the World Bank explicity 'seek to help countries to diversify away from tobacco.'
Above all, why does the World Bank articulate such a clear policy to discourage economic dependency on tobacco. The steps taken by the World Bank seem to be more in tandem with conclusions derived not only from numerous scientific work, but also well supported by the religious viewpoint such as the one declared by the National Fatwa Council that regards 'smoking' as haram.
We should be ashamed that, as a nation, we have not been serious in decision-making nor do we keep abreast with developments. We are ignoring the scientific merits of the case and also turning a deaf ear to the fatwa promulgated at a national level some two year ago. We are grossly out of sync with the norm of international socio-economic policy towards tobacco!
In a nutshell, economic considerations alone are no longer sufficient to justify growing and using tobacco without recognising all aspects of health and the significance of religious teachings, not limited to Islam alone. In the proper perspective, the economic reasons for promoting tobacco are not making sense anymore.
We need to diversity, as suggested by the World Bank. Agencies created to promote tobacco production should re-examine their role. Activities should be focused on seeking alternatives and solution, and weaning farmer-curers from being dependent on tobacco rather than trying 'to create 200 farmer-curers annually' as mentioned by the National Tobacco Board (NST, Jan 26).
The fact that more than 1,000 grows issued with farmer-curer licences were still repaying loans of up to RM27,000 each to various financial institutions' as claimed in a statement by the National Tobacco Curers Association (NST, March 24) should be given consideration by the relevant authorities. After all they seem to be in the minority, given there are more than 43,000 farmer-curers working for the tobacco industry.
Similarly, any individual investment made to build smokehouses and the like should be gradually bailed out, just like what the Government has done for other bigger and more complex investments that have gone sour.
All these are necessary for the long-term gains of our citizens in building a healthy and vibrant society as enshrined in Vision 2020, one that is tobacco-free.
We need to think of a win-win situation for all Malaysians, no more the win-lose proposition that we have been subjected to all along, where the industry is laughing the loudest at the end of it all. For this to happen, we must remain 'united for a tobacco-fee world,' lest we continue to be a laughing stock yet again due to our lack of resolve as we look ahead to the World No-Tobacco Day.
