MOVE has critics, and some of them are serious organisations. SEATCA lists MOVE in its Tobacco Industry Monitor under front groups and lobby groups. The Ministry of Health, the Galen Centre for Health and Social Policy, the Federation of Malaysian Consumers Associations (FOMCA) and two Members of Parliament argue for prohibition, or against the reasoning MOVE uses. Two Universiti Malaya lecturers warn that vapes are becoming drug delivery devices. Researchers also dispute the “95% less harmful” figure, which is Public Health England’s 2015 estimate. If you are looking for criticism of MOVE’s vape advocacy in Malaysia, we keep it on our own site: eight criticisms on one page, The case against us, each linked to the original and each with our response.
We publish them because a reference site that leaves out its critics cannot really be called a reference site. Readers should be able to check what we say against the people who disagree with us without going looking for them. An organisation that shows only the evidence in its favour is running a campaign. A source puts the opposing case in front of the reader, accurately and with the links.
What our critics say, and where to read them
Each is linked to the original. Our responses are on The case against us.
- That MOVE is a front group. SEATCA’s Tobacco Industry Monitor carries a profile of MOVE and classes it with front groups, think tanks and lobby groups. The profile records MOVE’s engagement with the tobacco industry and its lobbying against tobacco control measures (SEATCA, April 2020).
- That a ban is a national urgency. The Galen Centre welcomed what it described as the Government’s decision to ban, saying “There is a nationwide urgency” (Galen Centre, 11 September 2025).
- That youth uptake settles the matter. The Ministry of Health’s case rests on use among young people and on drug-laced liquids, with 402 recorded synthetic-drug vape cases up to April 2026 (Berita RTM, 20 June 2026). These are recorded cases, not hospital admissions. An analysis of national surveys found that current e-cigarette use among adolescents aged 13 to 17 rose from 9.8% in 2017 to 14.9% in 2022 (Tobacco Induced Diseases, May 2026).
- That the 2023 tax decision left minors unprotected. This objection was reported in 2023, quoting the Malaysian Council for Tobacco Control and the Malaysian Health Coalition, and the report is reproduced on the Malaysian Paediatric Association’s website (The Straits Times, 7 April 2023).
- That the 95% figure is not valid. An American Journal of Public Health editorial by Thomas Eissenberg, Aruni Bhatnagar, Simon Chapman, Sven Eric Jordt, Alan Shihadeh and Eric K. Soule called the claim “outdated, misleading and invalid” (VCU News, 8 January 2020).
- That state bans are progress. In 2025, FOMCA described state moves to ban vape sales as “a progressive step” (Twentytwo13, 28 April 2025).
- That taxing vape legitimises an illegal poison. Lee Chean Chung (Petaling Jaya) and Dr Ahmad Yunus Hairi (Kuala Langat) called for nicotine vape to be declared an illegal poison and for excise collection to stop. In Lee’s words, “A tax is a declaration of legitimacy” (CodeBlue, 2 September 2026).
- That vape is becoming a drug delivery device. Dr Chong Karleen and Dr Mohd Hafyzuddin Md Yusuf, medical lecturers at Universiti Malaya, wrote that vapes “are increasingly being used as delivery devices for illicit and psychoactive drugs” (Bernama, 1 September 2026). Their column calls for education, enforcement and the Act 852 measures.
The front-group question
SEATCA’s entry says MOVE was established in 2015 “as a vapers’ rights program” with the objective of “promoting vaping as a healthier alternative to smoking conventional cigarettes”. It records four things: an e-petition to the Ministry of Health rejecting a ban, our founder’s 2015 objection to vape being taxed like tobacco, MOVE joining vapers’ groups from the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia to form #VapersBeHeard in 2018, and a MOVE representative speaking on a panel at the 1st Asia Harm Reduction Forum in November 2017.
We do not dispute any of these. Each is described on this site in our own words, and the period is summarised in the short version of our record.
The entry does not allege a payment, a contract, a sponsorship or a shared officer linking MOVE to the industry. That describes the entry. It says nothing about who funds MOVE, which is a separate question, dealt with below.
SEATCA should also be read on its own terms, and not only as the author of a profile of us. Its current position is a comprehensive ban on e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products and other nicotine products, set out in an open letter to Malaysia’s Health Minister signed by its executive director, Dr E. Ulysses Dorotheo (SEATCA, 30 June 2026). We respectfully believe that a ban will not work, and we link to the letter so readers can weigh it themselves.
Who funds MOVE
MOVE is an independent, non-profit organisation. The MOVE committee consists of volunteers, and the working team today is a small core group of unpaid volunteers. MOVE does not sell any products. It has no shops and no commission arrangements. There is no advertising, brand or price on this site, and no product is offered for sale.
On funding, MOVE’s position is stated on The case against us: it does not represent any commercial interest. No fuller funding statement has been published.
Where our critics are right
The page also says where MOVE agrees with its critics:
- Youth access is a crisis.
- Drug-laced liquids are a serious harm.
- We do not have independent Malaysian data on youth uptake.
Two of our answers
On minors, our answer on The case against us is that the gap described in the 2023 objection, that the tax decision left minors unprotected, was real. It was closed when Act 852 came into force on 1 October 2024, with sale to anyone under 18 prohibited from that date.
Where the site explains the 95% figure, it attributes it to Public Health England 2015, dates it, marks it as contested and shows or links the criticism. Our answer on The case against us is that the follow-up 2022 Office for Health Improvement and Disparities review has more cautious wording: while it did not reaffirm the 95% figure, it concludes that in the short and medium term, vaping poses a small fraction of the risks of smoking. Questioning the precision of the 95% figure is not the same as disproving the conclusion that vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking. At the same time, MOVE acknowledges that vape is not risk-free and that its long-term effects remain uncertain. What the figure does and does not establish is set out in our article on the 95 per cent figure.
The rest of the site works the same way
The evidence library lists the sources that argue against MOVE beside the ones it relies on.
The numbers page names a source for every figure, including the figures our critics use, and a caveat where one applies.
MOVE has commissioned and funded an independent research paper, “Malaysia’s Vape Ban: At the crossroads of public health and the black market”. It is due in Q4 of 2026, and a summary of its findings will be published on this site. It is not yet published, so nothing in it is cited here. See our research page.
If we have got you wrong
If you are quoted or characterised on The case against us and you think we have got your position wrong, please tell us. We will correct it. That applies to organisations that regard MOVE as an opponent as much as to anyone else. Contact us through our media page.
The full set of criticisms, with our responses, is on The case against us.
The position described here is as at 23 October 2026.