The New Straits Times, November 5, 2000
By Prof Dzulkifli Abdul Razak
BY and large the 2001 Budget is being embraced as a "caring" one, that is, from the health stand point.
It provides a clear focus on the Government's concern to address a number of issues related to health and social ills.
The allocated sum of RM94 million to redress some social problems has been hailed by some as substantial in ensuring that Youths, in particular, do not continue to fall victims to such a menace.
A case in point cited in the Budget speech is the curbing of unhealthy activities epitomised by video arcades.
The Common Gaming Houses Act as well as the Electricity Supply Act have been amended to ensure success. Despite some calling this decision as an "over reaction", it received tremendous and widespread support from the community.
Whatever the merit of the argument, the firm decision of the Government sends a very positive signal. Kudos for the decision, no matter how unpopular it is to some.
In the Budget speech, the Government also voiced its concern about the involvement of some students in activities like smoking and drinking.
The Minister of Finance mentioned that excessive smoking and consumption of liquor "can lead to addiction, adversely affecting health and create other social problems", namely drug abuse.
It was proposed, as "a preventive measure", that the sales tax on liquor be increased by five to 20 per cent, and that of cigarettes from 15 to 25 per cent.
While this is commendable, the measure has some in-built flaws which become even more apparent when compared to how the video arcades issue was handled.
In term of unhealthy consequences, cigarettes smoking could easily match the activities arising from frequenting video arcades.
It is a waste of time and money. It can breed indiscipline leading to truancy and absenteeism at work and in school. It also has the tendency to develop into a habitual behaviour.
In addition, cigarette smoking has many other well-established destructive consequences not normally associated with playing video games.
Firstly, as mentioned by the Minister of Finance, smoking can cause cancer, which was admitted by the largest tobacco manufacturer - the most explicit to date - during the public health hearing in Geneva in October (NST, Oct 14).
Secondly, the chances of being addicted and stay addicted by using of tobacco-related products is now proven to be relatively high compared to the use of video machines.
During the public hearing, the vice-president of corporate affairs of one manufacturer was quoted as saying, "We agree that smoking is addictive and causes disease in smokers." It is no longer a matter of free choice as the industry likes smokers to believe.
Thirdly, smoking pollutes the environment through the emission of various noxious fumes and gases, notably from the estimated 4,000 chemicals found in cigarettes.
The deadly impact of environmental tobacco smoke or better known as "second-hand smoke" is today well documented to be ignored. Video games per se are literally free from such pollutants.
Fourthly, access to cigarettes is practically everywhere. Not so for video arcades as most are localised in urban centres and shopping malls - making it easier to supervise through licensing.
The emergence of illegal video outlet could be likened to the smuggling of cigarette that must be curbed through effective surveillance and enforcement.
Finally, cigarette smoking affects a larger group of people, ranging from primary school students to adults.
In contrast, video arcades are largely a teenage fad, and thus relatively easy to control without having to necessarily resort to any form of banning.
Further it could be argued, if properly supervised, video games could even provide some form of skills, manually if not intellectually, depending on the type of games played. Yet cigarette smoking has none of this benefit.
On contrary, it tends to prey on healthy cells of the brain and body.
Based on such straightforward comparisons, one expects tobacco-related products to be more severely regulated; at least confiscated and destroyed like the video machines - they being the more "hazardous" of the two.
In short, while a 10 per cent additional sales tax on cigarette does reflect the Government's concern to weed out smoking activities, especially among youth, it clearly is not an effective strategy.
Already a random survey reported in a tabloid (Sunday Star, Oct 29) indicated that "smokers appeared unfazed" by the impending rise in cigarette prices.
For example, a smoker for the last 20 years was quoted as saying, "a 10 per cent or 20 per cent increase is not going to stop people from smoking."
A more drastic disincentive action is imperative to prevent or encourage someone to quit due to the addiction.
In short, the Budget proposal on smoking as "a preventive measure" clearly falls short.
It fails to take into account some of the rationale put forward in upgrading the health status of the nation as mentioned in the Budget speech.
For instance, recognising that healthy citizens make a prosperous nation, it proposes that the Government continue to finance health education programmes, and the public are encouraged to take precautionary measures to maintain good health (with tax relief up to RM500 to individuals on expenses incurred for complete medical examination).
Yet there was no suggestion that tobacco promotion and advertising is to be regulated.
This means that in response to the tax increase, the industry will have a field day to increase its promotional campaign activities on all fronts to garner new smokers, especially youth, to replace those supposedly deterred by the intended "preventive measures" of the Budget.
Indeed, for as long as this aspect remains uncontrolled, it is common knowledge that the industry - through its slick and sophisticated advertising techniques - can quickly undo the Government's health education programmes on smoking.
That is why the World Health Organization advocates the banning of all forms of tobacco-related advertisements and other non-price measures if any real impact is to be observed.
Similarly from the agricultural viewpoint, there was also no mention of the badly needed incentive strategy to encourage tobacco growers to venture into substitution crop such as roselle.
Recently, the Minister of Agriculture suggested two varieties of local sweet potatoes - telong and jaloma - developed by Mardi (Malaysia Agricultural Research and Development Institute) as substitution crops for tobacco. (Sun, Oct. 12).
All these have been greatly missed in the 2001 Budget, especially, when many farmers are not totally adverse to the suggestion to switch to other crops. They are looking forward for more encouragement from the Government on the economic viability of planting sweet potatoes for a living.
Given all these, one cannot help but to feel that the "preventive measure" announced is riddled with loopholes favouring the tobacco industry to continue peddling their fatal products, seemingly at the expenses of the health of the people.
Literally, cigarettes get away with murder yet again - given the projection that four million people will die throughout the world each year due to tobacco-related diseases.
In this respect, the "caring" aspect of our society is rather wanting, simply because many of our citizens will continue to lose their lives and remain unaccounted for in the budgetary calculations. This is indeed a very high price to pay.
Recommended website: http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-53.html
