A Smarter Path to Public Health is by Collaborating with Retailers Without Harming Thousands of Small Businesses
As Malaysian retailers brace for the enforcement of Act 852 on April 1, a growing debate rages over the economic impact of the government’s latest public health initiative.
While the Health Ministry’s goal of reducing smoking prevalence is commendable, the ban on tobacco product displays in retail outlets has left many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) struggling to adapt to yet another costly regulation.
The Federation of Sundry Goods Merchants Associations of Malaysia (FSGMAM) has sounded the alarm, estimating nationwide compliance costs to hit RM200 million.
With nearly 40,000 retailers affected, some store owners anticipate expenses of up to RM5,000 just to retrofit their outlets.
Retailers argue that this additional financial burden comes at a time when they are already navigating inflation, labour shortages, and rising operational costs.
Will Sales Go Up in Smoke?
FSGMAM’s President, Hong Chee Meng, laments,”Retailers are already under immense pressure from rising costs and shifting consumer behaviours. Imposing additional restrictions, particularly with financial implications, will only add to their struggles.”
Beyond compliance costs, businesses fear a decline in revenue.
Many convenience stores rely on cigarette sales to drive foot traffic—once customers are inside, they make impulse purchases across multiple product categories.
With tobacco products now hidden from view, impulse sales could plummet, dealing a double blow to retailers.
Wan Mohd Farid Wan Zakaria, a lecturer at the Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) cautions that this regulation could push small kiosk owners and independent retailers closer to financial distress—or even force closures.
“Many small business operators work with slim profit margins. This regulation could push them closer to financial distress or even force closures.”
A Double Standard in Public Health?
Critics of Act 852 point out inconsistencies in Malaysia’s approach to public health regulation.
While tobacco displays are being banned, other health-risk products—such as alcohol, sweetened carbonated beverages, sweets and gambling services—remain largely unaffected.
“If the government is truly committed to protecting public health, why are similar restrictions not imposed on other harmful products?” asks Wan Farid.
This perceived inconsistency fuels frustration among business owners who feel targeted by selective regulation rather than holistic policymaking.
Finding a Middle Ground
While protecting public health is a worthy goal, policymakers must also consider the economic fallout of sweeping restrictions.
Instead of imposing regulations that disproportionately impact SMEs, the government should explore alternative strategies such as:
Gradual implementation – Giving retailers more time and financial assistance to adjust.
Industry consultations – Engaging stakeholders before implementing major regulatory shifts.
Public awareness campaigns – Encouraging informed consumer choices without hurting businesses.
The key to effective policymaking lies in balance.
By working with retailers rather than against them, Malaysia can achieve its public health goals without putting thousands of small businesses at risk.
As the April 1 deadline looms, one question remains: will policymakers listen before it’s too late?
