Anita Rachman – A tobacco control bill was first named to the House of Representatives' list of priority legislation for deliberation and passage in 2009 – and there it smoldered until last October, when it was abruptly dropped from the list.

Rohani Budi Prihatin, a House staffer who helped draft the "bill to control the health impact of tobacco products," fears legislators are unwilling to revive it over concerns its passage could hurt industry players.

"The draft is ready, we finished it a long time ago," he said. "But as you can see, no House members want to discuss this. All of them remain tight-lipped."

Ignatius Mulyono, chairman of the House Legislative Body, said the legislation needed to undergo major revision.

"When will it be back on the list? When they review the substance and title of the bill, because it's very biased toward the anti-tobacco lobby," he said. "None of the parties supported the bill, so we had no option but to drop it."

In its current form, Ignatius said, the bill threatens the livelihood of tobacco farmers and tobacco industry workers.

It calls for all public service spaces, such as schools and hospitals, to be smoke-free zones. It also requires that all cigarette packs carry graphic health warnings, and that the government gradually raise the tobacco excise tax.

It also calls for a total ban on tobacco advertising and the establishment of clinics designed to cater to smokers wishing to kick the habit.

Rohani, like many tobacco control activists, argues that these steps will not hurt tobacco farmers or workers and are intended only to protect the public from the dangers of smoking.

He noted that many other countries had managed to adopt similar legislation without hurting their own farmers and workers. However, Ignatius was adamant that the risk to farmers and workers was not negligible.

"All the parties have looked at the bill together and they believe it will threaten farmers," he said. "If other countries have applied such regulations, that doesn't mean we should too."

He said he fully supported protecting the public from the dangers of smoking through advertising bans and designating smoke-free areas, but said those policies should be developed with due consideration for the welfare of farmers and workers.

Ignatius said the House would eventually get back to the bill – on the condition that it loses its bias. "Let's draft a bill that can protect public health, and at the same time protect those who rely on tobacco," he said.