Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Amendment) and Other Matters Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.

12.51 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health and Coordinating Minister for Social Policies, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

On 1 September 2025, the Government launched a coordinated response to enhance the enforcement approach towards vaping, due to the emergence of etomidate-laced vaporisers or "Kpods".

In the past, cigarette smoking and drug abuse were two separate issues. But vaporisers have changed that. It is no longer just about nicotine. People are using vaporisers to abuse etomidate or even other more serious controlled drugs. This makes vaporisers a bridge between these two worlds, creating new challenges in vaping enforcement and health protection.

Hence, the Ministry of Health (MOH) worked closely with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and other agencies to leverage existing legislation to develop a new regime for enforcement, rehabilitation and education.

Specifically, as our existing laws, particularly the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act (or TCASA) and Poisons Act, are not designed for such enforcement actions, we temporarily listed etomidate and its analogues as Class C controlled drugs in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA). I will refer to these substances collectively as “etomidate”. We then used legislative levers in the Poisons Act to take action against first-time etomidate vaporiser offenders as well as repeat offenders under the MDA.

It was not ideal, but we made it work. In gist, this is how the enforcement system works today, since September 2025. First, we imposed much tougher penalties for those who illegally import, sell, supply or traffic etomidate – enabled by listing etomidate as a controlled drug under the MDA. Second, we created a rapid escalation of actions against etomidate vaporiser users. First-time offenders are required to attend rehabilitation, in lieu of prosecution for illegal possession of etomidate under the Poisons Act. Those who default on the rehabilitation are prosecuted under the Poisons Act and may be subject to a custodial sentence. Third, repeat etomidate vaporiser offenders are placed under mandatory urine-test supervision, or detained in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC), under the MDA.

Finally, we also introduced a new rehabilitation requirement for repeat vaporiser users, bearing in mind that vaping is harmful, even if does not contain psychoactive substances like etomidate.

Over the past six months, we have caught more than 5,100 persons for vaporiser-related offences. Of these, more than one in 10, or 593, are etomidate vaporiser users. Among the offenders placed on rehabilitation, 42 defaulted their rehabilitation – of which one has been convicted and imprisoned and the rest will be charged. Seventy offenders have completed their rehabilitation programmes, with four youth offenders re-offending after their completion.

These past six months have been critical, not just for enforcement, but also to consolidate lessons from our enforcement experience and review our laws. We are now ready to put in place a new law, which will not only prohibit vaporisers, but will also allow for enforcement against the abuse of etomidate and potentially other psychoactive substances through such delivery devices in the future.

The new law is built upon the existing TCASA, which will be broadened and strengthened. Let me walk Members through the key changes. First, we are renaming the TCASA to the Tobacco and Vaporisers Control Act (TVCA). This reflects the broader mandate and coverage of the new law. Second, we have updated the categories of prohibited products under the TVCA.

One, tobacco products, such as cigarettes, that contain any prescribed substances, or contain or emit substances exceeding prescribed limits. For example, this includes cigarettes whose emissions contain nicotine or tar in excess of the prescribed limits. The TVCA calls these "section 14 tobacco products". Two, various types of prohibited tobacco products such as smokeless tobacco and heated tobacco products, and their components too. The TVCA calls these "section 15 tobacco products". Three, vaporisers and their components.

And four, other imitation tobacco products that are not already covered by the other sections I mentioned above, and their components. This allows us to future-proof our legislation, ensuring that new products that resemble any existing tobacco product or may be used to mimic the act of smoking, will be prohibited.

Future-proofing is important, especially given that the tobacco industry has been introducing new products to circumvent tobacco control regulations. One example is products containing nicotine analogues, which will be considered a tobacco product moving forward, and can be prohibited under the TVCA.

To be clear, products in all four categories are already prohibited currently under the TCASA. When I say “prohibited”, I am referring to the entire supply ecosystem.

Hence, under the Bill, we are making it clear that giving, transporting, sending or delivering these prohibited products within Singapore, offering to do any of these acts, and possessing such products for the purpose of doing any of these acts, are prohibited.

Third, in addition to the four categories, “Specified Psychoactive Substances” (SPS) will also come under the scope of the TVCA. These are substances or products that will be specified in a new Schedule, provided for in clause 23, being substances and products that can cause a psychoactive effect when consumed, and are also abused or likely to be abused by using a tobacco product, vaporiser or imitation tobacco product.

Etomidate, currently under the MDA, will be listed in this new Schedule. Concurrently, etomidate will be removed from the MDA. The Minister for Health can amend this Schedule by order in the Gazette.

The TVCA will focus on SPS, while the MDA will continue to govern the abuse of controlled drugs, including those abused through vaporisers or tobacco products. Hence, controlled drugs will not be included in this Schedule under the TVCA. The TVCA introduces two presumptions to do with the nature of SPS.

One, a rebuttable presumption that such substances have a psychoactive effect when consumed. Two, for prosecution purposes, a person is deemed to have the knowledge that a product or substance is an SPS as long as the person knows that the SPS has a psychoactive effect when consumed. The person does not need to know the name or chemical composition of the SPS. These provisions mirror sections 22A and 22B of the MDA. Fourth, we are consolidating the enforcement levers under various pieces of legislation today, under the TVCA.

Stiffer penalties will be applied to offences related to the products I just described – prohibited products, as well as tobacco products, vaporisers and imitation tobacco products containing SPS, that is, SPS products.

The offences and penalties for importing, supplying or abusing SPS products are similar to those in the MDA, to ensure similar level of deterrence. Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout that summarises the changes in legislative penalties for key offences.

Mr Speaker: Yes, go ahead. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please see Annex 1.]

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL App.

As Members can see on the handouts, individuals who supply SPS products will face two to 10 years imprisonment term and two to five strokes of the cane.

Those who import these products will face stiffer penalties – three to 20 years imprisonment term and five to 15 strokes of the cane.

And those caught possessing or purchasing such products, or consuming SPS, if prosecuted, can be liable to a fine of up to $20,000, or imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.

On the offence of consuming SPS, I would also like to highlight that although one of the Ministry of Health’s (MOH’s) criteria for listing a substance or product as an SPS is that it is abused or is likely to be abused by using a tobacco product, vaporiser or imitation tobacco product, the consumption offence is not confined to a specific mode. This means that once a substance or product is listed as an SPS, even if an individual abuses the SPS through means other than a vaporiser, tobacco product or imitation tobacco product, for example, in its liquid form or through a patch, they can still be dealt with under the TVCA.

Like the MDA, it will be an offence for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents to consume SPS overseas. This deters locals from going abroad to feed their addiction to evade enforcement in Singapore.

We have also introduced new offences to better protect our young people and children, again drawing from the MDA.

Section 19G targets adults who, being in possession of SPS products, first, knowingly or recklessly leave them where children can access them, or second, do not take reasonable steps to prevent the use of SPS products by young persons.

These adults are liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years for the first offence and imprisonment for two to 10 years for repeat offences.

Section 19H addresses adults who involve young or vulnerable persons in importing or supplying SPS products. These adults are liable to imprisonment for four to 20 years and four to 15 strokes of the cane.

Section 19I makes it an offence to arrange or plan gatherings where SPS products are used or supplied. Those found guilty are liable to imprisonment for two to 10 years and up to five strokes of the cane.

Sir, rehabilitation is the main intervention implemented by MOH for etomidate vaporiser offenders. Today, this is effected in lieu of prosecution under Poisons Act. We will now provide for specific powers for the Chief Executive of the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) to order community-based rehabilitation and institutional treatment and rehabilitation under the TVCA.

A community-based rehabilitation order can be made as long as the Chief Executive has grounds to believe that an individual has consumed an SPS.

Such grounds of belief could arise from, for example, observation of an individual behaving erratically or appearing disoriented who is also found in possession of an SPS product; or an individual testing positive for SPS in their urine or hair; or admission by an individual that they have consumed SPS.

Aside from SPS consumption, community-based rehabilitation can also be ordered for individuals who use vaporisers or section 15 tobacco products, based on observation of use, say, by an enforcement officer, or an admission of use. As per our current practice, rehabilitation will only be ordered for repeat offenders, to support them to quit vaping.

The Chief Executive can also require individuals subject to community-based rehabilitation orders to comply with other requirements, like undergoing urine or hair tests. Non-compliance can result in prosecution.

Besides community-based rehabilitation at the Institute of Mental Health and Social Service Agencies, the Chief Executive can also, under section 19U, order institutional treatment and rehabilitation in the DRC, for re-offending cases of SPS consumption.

The Chief Executive can also require certain persons, such as those discharged from DRC after treatment and rehabilitation for SPS consumption, to provide urine or hair samples to check if they are still consuming SPS. Those who do not comply can be prosecuted.

Finally, we will enhance penalties for offences involving section 15 tobacco products, vaporisers and imitation tobacco products.

Mr Speaker, while etomidate vaporisers triggered the recent escalation in enforcement efforts, the majority of offenders we have caught are actually users of vaporisers that do not contain etomidate.

We are therefore significantly increasing the penalties for offences involving these products to strengthen deterrence.

For purchase, use and possession, the maximum fine will be increased from $2,000 to $10,000. The enhanced penalties are coupled with the new powers to order rehabilitation, so that those who need help to quit can receive support.

For offences involving the import of vaporisers or section 15 tobacco products, we are introducing mandatory imprisonment for up to nine years, and additionally, offenders may face a fine of up to $300,000. For offences involving the sale or supply, including possession for the purpose of sale or supply, of these products, offenders will face mandatory imprisonment for up to six years, and additionally, may face a fine of up to $200,000.

For offences involving the sale, supply or import of imitation tobacco products, the penalties will be increased to a fine of up to $100,000, or imprisonment of up to three years, or both for first-time offences; and a fine of up to $200,000, or imprisonment for up to six years, or both for repeat offences.

We will also be introducing new statutory presumptions and offences to further strengthen our controls and enforcement on the supply chain.

Rebuttable presumptions relating to possession, and knowledge of the nature of prohibited products under the new sections 14 to 16A and SPS products will be introduced, along with similar presumptions in relation to vehicles and trailers in which such products are found.

For example, with the new presumption under section 16C, if vaporisers are found in a vehicle entering Singapore, the driver of that vehicle will be presumed to be in possession of the vaporisers, and cannot avoid legal liability by simply claiming ignorance that the vaporisers are present in the vehicle.

This will address the current challenge where most of the illegal operations bringing vaporisers and other prohibited products into Singapore are run from overseas, and it is extremely difficult for our enforcement authorities to obtain the evidence needed to prove that the suspect knew about the presence of the products found in their vehicles.

Similar presumption clauses are also found in the MDA.

HSA has uncovered several cases of illegal vaporiser operations in warehouses and storage units. The largest warehouse seizure exceeded 400,000 vaporisers and components, worth more than $5 million in street value. These are often cases where offenders rented storage units to run their illegal operations.

Under the new section 18A, introduced by clause 10, it is an offence for owners and occupiers of land, buildings and places to allow other individuals to store prohibited products in these spaces.

To avoid liability, the owner or occupier must have exercised due care to prevent such storage from happening.

This may involve: conducting proper background checks on tenants, including asking them for uses of their storage spaces; explicit clauses in tenancy agreements on prohibited activities; conducting ad-hoc inspections and so on.

HSA will publish a handbook of best practices that owners and occupiers can refer to.

The intent is to allow us to take action against owners or occupiers who allow or turn a blind eye towards storage of such illegal products in their premises for supply and distribution purposes.

To facilitate enforcement, particularly against importers and suppliers of prohibited products, we are also introducing new powers to seize vehicles and trailers reasonably suspected of being used, or is intended to be used in connection with committing an offence under the TVCA, and to seize cash that is reasonably suspected to be evidence that a TVCA offence has been committed.

While vaping is prohibited, some continue to do so in public settings, for example in night clubs, bars and pubs. Under clause 12, we are imposing obligations on owners and occupiers of specified premises to take certain actions when they find someone in possession of or using any section 15 tobacco product, vaporiser or imitation tobacco product. The Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act imposes similar obligations.

The TVCA will spell out the steps which owners and occupiers of specified premises will be required to carry out, such as telling the offending individual to stop or leave the premises and seeking HSA's assistance if necessary.

As a start, specified premises will include discotheques, pubs, bars, lounges and night clubs. These are entertainment venues where people often gather and where we have seen vaping incidents occur. HSA has already been working with some of these operators on anti-vaping measures in their premises, like putting up anti-vaping signages, and we are thankful for their cooperation. HSA will continue to work closely with the operators to comply with this new requirement, creating a safer environment for patrons.

There are several related and consequential amendments to several other pieces of legislation, such as the Poisons Act, MDA, Civil Defence Act, Merchant Shipping Act, and Road Traffic Act, to align to the TVCA. I will not elaborate here.

Sir, this Bill represents our commitment to protect public health, particularly against vaporisers, and to deter those who would undermine it.

It consolidates the lessons we have learned over the last six months.

With this Bill, we will move from temporary measures into a more structured approach, embedded in our legal framework, that can address current challenges and provides flexibility to respond to future trends.

I urge Members of the House to support the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

1.11 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1898, a German pharmaceutical company introduced a product it described as a scientific breakthrough. It was marketed as a non-addictive substitute for morphine and as a remedy for coughs, even for children.

It was sold openly in pharmacies. It was endorsed by doctors. It was regarded as modern medicine. It was called heroin.

Few imagined then that what was promoted as relief would soon become synonymous with addiction. By the time governments recognised the harm, dependency had already entered homes across continents. The tragedy was not that society refused to act. It was that society understood too late.

History teaches us something sobering. Harm does not always look like vice. Sometimes it arrives packaged as innovation. Today, it does not come in glass bottles. It comes in sleek vaporisers and small pods designed to resemble pens and highlighters. It does not sit behind pharmacy counters. It appears on messaging apps.

For many residents in our estates, this is no longer abstract. Parents are discovering devices in schoolbags. Teachers are noticing changes in behaviour. Neighbours are raising complaints about vaping in void decks and playgrounds.

I support this Bill. It is necessary.

But residents will judge it not by how severe its penalties are, but by whether it truly protects families and restores confidence on the ground. As the Vice Chair of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Health, I believe we must ensure that this legislation is not only tough, but properly calibrated, proportionate and effective in practice.

I have several clarifications.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, are we protecting our youths in a way that is firm, fair and effective? As a father of five children, I do not approach this as an abstract policy issue. I think about exposure, influence and consequence. I ask whether the system will respond proportionately if a young person makes a mistake.

The Bill introduces a new category of products containing SPS, with penalties aligned to the MDA. That seriousness is understandable.

However, while the Bill speaks of treatment and rehabilitation, we must balance deterrence against vaporiser use, which disproportionately appeals to youths, with offences now benchmarked against the MDA. Are we calibrating this appropriately for a problem that may involve young offenders who may not know or fully appreciate what they are consuming?

The Bill introduces presumptions of possession and knowledge. In reality, youths share devices. Some may be misled.

What charging guidance will distinguish deliberate abuse from peer pressure or deception? How will discretion be exercised for first-time cases? While deterrence is important, we must ask whether mandatory imprisonment for young offenders may be counterproductive. Will custodial sentences reduce long-term harm, or entrench it?

Next, measurable outcomes. What percentage reduction in youth cases is targeted within 12 to 24 months? Will reductions in school incidents and hospital presentations be publicly reported? Arrests are not outcomes. Seizures are not safety.

On rehabilitation, community-based orders are introduced, with escalation to institutional treatment in DRCs for repeat offenders.

What is the projected impact on DRC capacity? Do we have sufficient counsellors and officers? Will youths caught with psychoactive vapes be segregated from hardened drug offenders?

We must also consider the long-term consequences of convictions. Will offences under this Act be treated as spent after a period? If not, how will criminal records affect education, employment and reintegration? If rehabilitation is our aim, youthful mistakes should not become lifelong barriers.

The Bill also empowers urine, hair and oral fluid testing, with presumptions triggered upon positive results. What safeguards ensure laboratory accuracy and prevent wrongful penalisation?

Finally, the Bill expands the definition of tobacco products to include nicotine analogues as a preemptive safeguard. Do we have the scientific capacity to detect emerging analogues quickly? Future-proofing must be operational, not merely legislative.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, will residents see real change in their daily lives?

Penalties for possession and use of vaporisers increase significantly, with fines up to $10,000. Import and supply now carry mandatory imprisonment. What evidence supports this calibration? How do we deter effectively without disproportionately burdening vulnerable youths?

A $10,000 fine may well be a manageable business expense for a lucrative syndicate. For a vulnerable youth, it can be life altering. We must distinguish between masterminds who profit and runners who were coerced or misled.

The Bill also expands enforcement powers to search persons, seize vehicles and seize cash. What safeguards ensure proportional use of these powers?

Residents experience enforcement in shared spaces. Will response times to estate complaints improve? Can measurable service benchmarks be set?

Agencies prioritise syndicates, but residents see daily offences. Will other ground agencies such as the National Environment Agency (NEA), Land Transport Authority (LTA), Town Councils or NParks and so on be empowered to act against blatant vaping offences so enforcement is not overly centralised?

On responsible persons, specified premises initially include public entertainment outlets. Will this scope expand? In residential areas, who bears responsibility? Will we be outsourcing enforcement to managing agents and security guards in condominiums? If so, will they understand their limits and obligations? Is notifying authorities sufficient or must responsible persons retain offenders? Will clear standard operational procedures (SOPs) and training be issued?

The Bill also introduces liability for owners who allow storage without due diligence. What constitutes due diligence? Will clear guidance and safe harbour frameworks be provided? Strong laws must translate into visible confidence on the ground.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, are we staying ahead of the market? The SPS Schedule is exhaustive. Etomidate and its analogues will be listed and delisted from the MDA. What is the timeline from detection to scheduling? Is there a defined service standard? Will structured horizon scanning and digital monitoring be institutionalised? We cannot fight a fast-moving market with slow-moving processes.

On upstream disruption, are we moving beyond intelligence sharing to coordinated operations targeting production hubs? What international partnerships are being strengthened?

The Bill also amends the Civil Defence Act, Merchant Shipping Act and Road Traffic Act, expanding liability for individuals under the influence of SPS. How will cross-agency enforcement be coordinated? Are frontline officers trained to detect SPS impairment? Unless we disrupt supply at its source, enforcement becomes cyclical.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1898, heroin was sold as medicine. It was trusted. It was legal. By the time society realised the cost, addiction had taken root.

But there is a difference between then and now. Then, they did not know. Today, we do.

In this debate, I have asked three essential questions. First, are we protecting youths with measurable outcomes, fair safeguards and properly resourced rehabilitation? Second, will residents see visible enforcement, accountable powers and clarity on the ground? Third, are we staying ahead of evolving substances through rapid scheduling, predictive monitoring and upstream disruption?

If we answer these well, this Bill will not merely add penalties. It will reduce exposure, restore confidence and protect families. The tragedy in 1898 was ignorance. The tragedy today would be hesitation. The device in a schoolbag does not have to become this generation's cough syrup. History warned others too late. It is warning us in time. As lawmakers, we carry that responsibility. And as a father, I take that responsibility to heart. With that resolve, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

1.20 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the renaming of the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act, to the Tobacco and Vaporisers Control Act is symbolic of the Government's increased focus on tackling vaporisers, also known as vapes, which have seen increased usage over the past few years.

The Bill notably increases the fine amounts for vape users, sellers and smugglers. While this is welcomed, given the proliferation of etomidate-laced vapes or "Kpods" I hope that enforcement efforts will provide users the opportunity to turn over a new leaf instead of inadvertently stigmatising them.

This is especially pertinent as vaping is prevalent mainly amongst children and teens who have a long future ahead of them. The recent popularity of Kpods too has further added to the risk that our children are exposed to.

This is especially so as our brains continue to develop way into our mid-20s and vape use is especially harmful to the prefrontal cortex. This means that the brain's neurocircuits end up being dysregulated. That is detrimental to attention, impulse control and mood.

Vape and nicotine use is associated with dependence, mental health problems and use of other addictive substances.

This is why even though enforcement checks in school to stamp out such behaviour are welcome, we must also be cautious about being overly punitive with our approach to prevent students from being unduly stigmatised. Instead, the focus has to be on giving them the opportunity and support to change.

For instance, expelling or suspending a student might set them back academically, especially if they are already lagging behind their peers. Because vape and nicotine use is ultimately addictive and causes brain changes, it should be treated as a chronic relapsing disease that may require multiple quit attempts.

Therefore, I hope that the Government exercises understanding to its victims and abusers of vapes, whose lives and livelihoods are upended.

On the other hand, we must clamp down heavily on those who profit off the vape trade. Hence, different penalty regimes and the move to impose a fine of up to $200,000 and six years' jail for vape sellers is one which I support wholeheartedly.

Mr Speaker, aside from imposing bans and handing out fines for vaping, we must also be cognisant that solely relying on enforcement might not sufficiently address underlying systemic factors that result in people turning to vapes.

A 2012 study highlighted a lower socio-economic status and associating education level was associated with a higher prevalence of smoking and nicotine addiction. Although it seems unrelated at first glance, our efforts to stamp out vaping can be a socioeconomic one. We can do so by ameliorating the undercurrents of inequality in our society.

Aside from socio-economic factors, we should also aim to tackle or at least mitigate the psychological vicious circle that connects vaping and poor mental health. A New Zealand study found that people who did not smoke or vape were 40% more likely to do so if they are experiencing mental distress.

However, vaping does not provide the path of least resistance for someone who wishes to escape their circumstances. In fact, nicotine and vapes is associated with increased stress and anxiety. Vape users are also more likely to attempt suicide compared to non-users. This ultimately causes a vicious feedback loop that cycles users between poor mental health, vaping and back again.

Although addressing mental health issues is targeted at a broader group, it has a knock-on effect of reducing the likelihood of people turning to vapes in the first place. Therefore, I hope that the Government could work to strengthen mental health support interventions, especially amongst children, to be much more accessible and age-appropriate.

Even as we work to address vapes, we must also continue to play close attention to another societal health risk – smoking.

The increased enforcement against vapes might inadvertently cause users, especially those who use it as a means to quit smoking, to shift back to cigarettes for their nicotine fix. Notably, this Bill's Second Reading comes at the heels of this year's Budget, where it was announced that tobacco excise duties were increased by 20% from 49.1 cents to 58.9 cents per cigarette. For financial year (FY) 2025, tobacco duties are expected to increase by over $92.9 million, compared to financial year 2023 when tobacco duties were last increased.

Instead of viewing it as merely a sin tax, another revenue stream, I hope that the Government would explore more ways to use tobacco duties as a tool to tackle the negative externalities brought about by smoking to smokers, their loved ones and society at large.

The health implications of smoking are well known. For smokers, these include the increased risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke. Their loved ones, who would likely be subjected to second-hand smoke, would experience an increased cancer and stroke risk.

Meanwhile, people walking past smokers or the neighbours of smokers would likely be exposed to second-hand smoke and their associated risks while society at large would have to partially bear the cost of treating smoking-related health issues.

This has grave implications for our public health. According to the Global Burden of Disease survey, some 66,000 disability-adjusted life years are lost per annum to smoking. The effect of nicotine on young brains, especially those under 25, are even more pronounced, given they are still not fully developed. This is why banning smoking for those aged 21 and below may simply not be enough.

Mr Speaker, I therefore repeat our call to consider instituting a tobacco cohort ban.

While the Government might write fully point out that New Zealand scrapped the ban in 2023, it was done so to subsidise tax cuts. Furthermore, although the country has legalised vapes as a tobacco cessation device, thus leading smokers to turn to vapes instead, targeting the tobacco cohort ban at people born after a certain year, when they are still young children, will significantly minimise the exposure to both tobacco and vapes.

Although New Zealand may have made a U-turn, other countries such as the Maldives have also implemented a similar ban, with the United Kingdom (UK) seeking to implement a similar measure.

Our smoking rate has dropped to an all-time low of 8.4%, in no small part due to the efforts of the Government and society at large. Nevertheless, I believe that we can and should do more.

After all, if the authorities have the wherewithal to impose bans on chewable tobacco and vapes as well as leave the door open to a ban on flavoured tobacco products, I am confident that we can also move decisively to impose a smoking cohort ban, as I have previously mentioned during my Committee of Supply cut for MOH.

I also hope that we can set out targets for complete smoking cessation over time as an end game that we can all work towards.

Mr Speaker, while I am supportive of the Government's zero tolerance approach towards stamping out vapes, we should also be holistic and mindful of the socio-economic and even possibly psychological undercurrents that give rise to vaping. Moreover, our law should aim to rehabilitate and integrate rather than ostracise and stigmatise to curb smoking and vaping all together whilst preventing damages to lives and livelihoods.

Mr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.

1.28 pm

Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. It is timely, it is forward looking and it recognises a very simple reality – that the threat simply has changed.

What we are dealing with today is not just cigarettes in the traditional sense. It is also vaporisers, lookalike products and substances that can be mixed, disguised and marketed at speed, especially online. And the people most at risk are our young.

So, I welcome the direction of this Bill. It strengthens prevention upstream, it tightens controls where harm begins and it also provides a framework for early intervention and importantly, rehabilitation that is centred in the community, where I think that is the safer and wiser approach.

My remarks would be phased in three parts: first, on prevention and youth protection; second, the balance between enforcement and rehabilitation; and third, ground implementation so that the law is workable, fair and consistent.

First, on prevention and youth protection.

Mr Speaker, Sir, prevention is not a slogan. It is a design choice. If we want to protect young people, we have to act early, before harmful patterns become habits, before curiosity becomes dependency and before experimentation becomes identity.

This is why I support the Bill's upstream preventive stance, especially provisions that deal with behavioural gateways and imitation products. Because globally, we have seen how this plays out. Products are designed to look harmless, even trendy. Packaging is sleek. Flavours are sweet. Names are playful. Everything points to normalising the behaviour and then addiction becomes a problem. So, I support intervening early.

But I want to ask about the "other half" of prevention. Laws and penalties matter. But so, too, does understanding. Many young people do not start because they want to intentionally break the law. They start because they underestimate the risk. They trust what they see online. There is a lack of information, there is peer pressure and they tell themselves, "Well, it is just a vape."

So, my first clarification is this. Alongside enforcement, how the Ministry will ensure that there is preventive education and health literacy alongside and in a strong way? How will we then equip students and young people to recognise the risk early on? How will we support parents who may not even know what to look out for and how to start conversations with their young ones? How will we keep our messaging current, when products evolve so quickly?

Because a strong preventive framework is not just regulation. It is also proactive, upstream education, delivered in a way that young people and their parents will actually receive and understand. If I may offer one standard to guide us, the test is not how many rules we have, but how fewer young people are trapped in the first place.

Second, on enforcement and rehabilitation. Mr Speaker, Sir, I also welcome that the Bill is not only punitive. It recognises rehabilitation as part of public health and that matters. Because on the ground, we do see young offenders who are not hardened criminals. They made a poor decision. They followed the wrong crowd. They got pulled into a risky habit. And very often, they regret it deeply. They want and look for a way back. So, the inclusion of rehabilitative pathways, including community-based rehabilitation orders, is a very important and integral part of this amendment.

But if we expand powers, we must also look to expand capacity. So, my second set of clarifications is about the scale and readiness. Will there be an increase in training supervising officers? Will counselling and psychosocial support services be expanded with these new pathways? How will community-based agencies be equipped to deliver effective rehabilitation programmes in a way that is structured, consistent and outcomes-oriented? Because rehabilitation is not just compassion. It is accountability coupled with support. It has to be credible. It has to work. Otherwise, we create churn where the system looks busy, but the outcomes do not improve.

Next, on ground implementation and operational clarity. In Parliament, we can discuss and debate clauses, but on the ground, it comes down to people, processes and clarity. This Bill places duties on responsible persons of specified premises in relation to access controls, age checks and reporting obligations. These are important measures, but many smaller premises may not have the experience managing regulatory responsibilities of this nature, so I want to seek clarification on what operational guidance will be provided. Will there be practical tool kits, clear protocols, simple scripts for staff to use training for de-escalation so that they can comply with safety and be consistent about it? We should not put our frontline workers in a position where they must enforce rules without the support, and then face confrontation without adequate protection.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is also a second operational issue. Frontline enforcement officers will now operate in an environment where substances regulated under this act may coexist with substances governed under the Misuse of Drugs Act. In reality, an officer conducting a ground check may see a device, a liquid, a cartridge or a mixture. Decisions would need to be made quickly, so I ask how will enforcement agencies operationally distinguish between these categories of devices and substances, especially when they are doing their ground checks, and when they need to respond rapidly?

Clear differentiation matters for two reasons. First, it ensures proportional enforcement; and second, it can reduce confusion, both for the officers and the public.

Mr Speaker, Sir, trust is built not just by good policy intent, but by how people experience the system. If rules are clear, processes are fair and officers are supported, enforcement would become more consistent and confidence in the system would increase. This Bill represents a careful and calibrated response to the growing public health challenge of vapes and smoking substances. It strengthens prevention. It tightens enforcement and it recognises for many, especially the young, early intervention and rehabilitation must be part of the process. With these remarks, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

1.36 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the Tobacco (Control of Advertisement and Sale) (Amendment) and Other Matters Bill marks a shift in our approach to drug-laced vaping and the persistent harm of tobacco smoking. Renaming the act to the Tobacco and Vaporises Control Act 1993 rightly reflects a focus on modern delivery systems for nicotine and psychoactive substances.

I support the amendments in this Bill, which control the purchase, use, possession, import and supply of vaporisers and specified psychoactive substances. However, I would like to address in my speech the use of tobacco products in the form of smoking. Smoking remains a primary driver of preventable disease and death in Singapore. According to a Global Burden of Disease study in 2023, Singapore saw 2,043 deaths from tobacco and 660,152 disability adjusted life years, which are the years of life lost and years lived in disability.

These statistics represent thousands of families whose lives are upended by chronic illness, disability and premature death. Our objective should not be to merely regulate a harmful habit, but to systematically dismantle the structures that allow it to persist in our society through successive generations.

Crucially, the Bill broadens the regulatory landscape by amending the long title to explicitly include the control of tobacco product use. This transition from regulating commercial transactions to overseeing actual product usage provides a necessary legislative basis to address how these products impact the immediate environment of our residents.

The expansion of smoking bans in public places could have unintentionally pushed smokers into their homes to light up. I have received numerous complaints from my residents about smoke drifting into their homes from nearby units.

Currently, the authorities are only empowered to provide guidance to smokers to be more considerate. In response to a Parliamentary Question on 10 September 2024, by my hon friend, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment said that the exhalation of cigarette smoke to the open air outside of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat is not a violation of the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) regulations when the individual is smoking within the flat, as smoking is not prohibited in residential homes. While smoking within five metres of a of an HDB void deck is prohibited, smoking at home and blowing smoke in that same protected space is allowed. This highlights a gap in how we protect the air in and around our homes.

Clause 37 of this Bill defines smoking as both inhaling and expelling of tobacco smoke. This specific focus on the expulsion of smoke suggests that the impact of these emissions on neighbouring units can fall within the Bill's regulatory ambit. I urge the Minister to utilise the powers under clause 21 to set standards for the use and emissions of tobacco products, ensuring that private enjoyment does not result in the involuntary consumption of secondary emissions by neighbours.

Beyond residential smoking issues, we must move beyond managing the prevalence of smoking and start legislating for its eventual elimination for future generations. I reiterate my call from 5 March 2024 and echo my hon friend, Ms He Ting Ru, regarding a cohort tobacco ban. This would make it illegal to sell tobacco products to or for them to be used by anyone born after a specific year. This will ensure that younger generations of Singaporeans never start smoking, creating a smoke-free future for our children and our children's children. I would like to emphasise that this does not further restrict the smoking rights of existing smokers.

I was glad to hear Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam say during the Committee of Supply debate on 5 March 2026 that the Government remains open to a cohort smoking ban and will study its effectiveness and how it can be applied to Singapore's context. I hope we can move forward on this expeditiously.

In fact, a crackdown on vaping without equally aggressive cigarette controls risk inadvertently pushing our youth towards smoking. We would not want this Bill, which curbs vaping, to cause a resurgence in cigarette smoking by young people. Therefore, anti-vaping strategies, which I support, must be structurally linked to a definitive tobacco phase out.

Next, we must examine the chemical composition of tobacco products on the market. Nicotine is the primary driver of smoking addiction, and by restricting its concentration, we can reduce the pharmacological hook that makes it so difficult to quit using these products. Under clause 6 of the Bill, which introduces the new section 14, the Minister is granted the power to set maximum allowable amounts for substances within tobacco products or their emissions. I urge the Minister to exercise the powers granted under clause 6 of the Bill to set a stringent cap on the nicotine yield in the smoke of all tobacco products.

I understand that in the European Union and the UK, the maximum emission level is strictly limited, and the nicotine yield cannot exceed 1.0 milligrams per cigarette. Can I ask the Minister what nicotine yield limit he intends to prescribe for this for Singapore under the new section 14?

Finally, I hope the Government can also address the harm of second-hand smoking on the move. Even in non-prohibited outdoor areas, a smoker walking ahead of a crowd creates a smoke trail that everyone behind is forced to inhale. This requires greater public education and clearer guidelines on pedestrian etiquette and social responsibility.

In summary, Mr Speaker, while this Bill provides the necessary tools to control vaporisers and psychoactive substances, we must take this opportunity to protect residents from second-hand smoke. We must pair enforcement with a tobacco cohort ban to meaningfully reduce our national disease burden. By addressing gaps in residential smoking and committing to a clear end game for tobacco, we can better safeguard the health of all Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.

1.42 pm

Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, what began as a so-called "safer alternative" has, in some cases, become something far more dangerous. This is no longer a debate about lifestyle. It is a public safety issue.

Devices that resemble vaporisers are now being used to deliver psychoactive substances. What is marketed to youths as flavour and novelty can conceal sedation, dependency and real harm. When a device can fit in a pocket yet deliver chemical dependence, the State must respond clearly and decisively.

I rise in strong support of the Bill. First, I support the move to future-proof our legislation. Industries innovate to evade regulation. If we regulate only what we already know, we will always be one step behind what arrives next. The expansion of definitions to capture nicotine analogues and the creation of a Specified Psychoactive Substances framework ensure that enforcement can respond swiftly as substances evolve.

If enforcement is reactive, exploitation will be proactive. This architecture signals that Singapore intends to stay ahead of the curve, not chase it.

Second, deterrence must be sharpest where harm is multiplied. Young users are visible, but organised importers and distributors are the engines of this problem. The strengthened penalties for import and supply, the presumptions preventing easy denial of knowledge and the duties placed on owners and occupiers to prevent storage and distribution draw a clear hierarchy of culpability. The law must be firmest where profit meets exploitation.

Singapore is a trade and travel hub. We must anticipate concealment methods, storage networks and cross-border sourcing. Targeting upstream syndicates protects downstream youths. I would welcome the Minister’s clarification on how agencies will prioritise dismantling organised supply networks and measure disruption of these channels, so that enforcement impact is visible and sustained.

At the same time, deterrence alone cannot be the entire answer. Nicotine and psychoactive substance exposure affect impulse control and judgment, particularly in adolescents. Early experimentation can escalate quickly.

I therefore welcome the structured rehabilitation orders introduced in this Bill, including community-based rehabilitation and family involvement.

Enforcement stops the spread. Rehabilitation stops the cycle. The credibility of this framework will depend on timely and consistent implementation. For eligible first-time youth offenders, intervention must be swift, structured and supported by access to cessation and counselling pathways. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on how agencies will ensure that diversion to rehabilitation is operationalised quickly, so that intervention is meaningful rather than delayed. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, protecting youth is not just a matter of law enforcement; it is the responsibility of our entire society. Vaporisers today are no longer just nicotine products. Some have even become carriers of psychoactive substances. If a small device can subtly alter a young person's mind, we cannot afford to be complacent. We must come down hard on those who supply these products for profit. But we must also promptly intervene to help young people who have gone astray. Strict measures are to cut off the source. Care is to save the future.

In Tengah, I often hear young parents say that their biggest worry is not fines, but whether their children, out of momentary curiosity, will embark on a path of no return. This Bill is not simply a tobacco control measure. It concerns the health of the next generation, the peace of mind of families and the bottom line of society. Protecting youth is a principle we cannot compromise on.

(In English): Mr Speaker, law alone does not shape norms. A law is strongest when ordinary people understand it and can comply without fear or ambiguity. As duties are placed on premises owners and responsible persons, guidance must be clear and practical. Frontline staff must know what steps to take if they encounter suspected use or storage.

Enforcement communications must reinforce that detection is real and consequences are certain.

A firm law, consistently enforced, shapes behaviour long before it punishes it.

Singapore has always taken a clear stance against substances that undermine public health and social stability. That clarity has protected generations. In confronting the evolution of vaporisers into vehicles for psychoactive substances, we must be equally resolute.

Firm against exploitation. Compassionate toward recovery. Disciplined in implementation. Because ultimately, this Bill is not about devices. It is about safeguarding the next generation. The measure of a society is how firmly it protects its young – especially when the threat evolves. I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.

1.49 pm

Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. As the vapes or vaporisers are posing health hazards to our population, especially the youth and our students, I would like to seek answers to the following specific questions.

What is the current situation of the peddling of vapes or vaporiser who are getting the students and our youth?

Number two: what are the educational and awareness programmes for students going forward? Is it compulsory for students to attend such programmes and learn what are vapes and how bad it is.

Question three: is there any plan to equip or provide parents with tools for them to identify vaping devices and the potential use or identify the potential use of vaps by the child?

My last question: the campus and the hostel of the Institutes of Higher Learning are really porous and do we have plans to install vapes detection systems in IHL campus and hostels? I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 2.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 1.50 pm until 2.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 2.10 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Amendment) and Other Matters Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

2.11 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, some time back, a father met me at my Meet-the-People Session, holding a small metallic device he had found in his daughter's room. It was slim. It was discreet. It did not resemble anything like a cigarette. It did not resemble an item where many parents would traditionally associate with drugs. When he asked his daughter about it, she replied, "It's not like smoking. It's not a drug."

Sir, that moment illustrates how quickly substance misuse is evolving, how often, faster than public perception and regulation.

Vaping is already illegal in Singapore. We have clear prohibitions on the import, sale, possession and use of vaporisers. Enforcement has been ongoing. Public education efforts have been sustained. Yet what has evolved is not merely the device but the chemistry behind it.

Today, products are modified to include nicotine analogues. Some are adapted to deliver psychoactive substances. Specifically, we are seeing the rise of substances, like etomidate, and its analogues, originally developed as medical anaesthetics, which are being misused in vaporisers in ways that exploit regulatory gaps between existing frameworks.

This Bill ensures that substances can no longer hide in the shadows of regulatory framework. It reorganises product categories, expands definitions, introduces the new Part 3A framework for specified psychoactive substances, strengthens presumptions and enhances penalties across the supply chain. I strongly support these measures.

Today, I will focus on the implementation because the strength of this Bill will ultimately depend on how it is operationalised.

While my opening example involved a young person, we must be clear – this is not merely a youth issue. The importation and distribution of Part 3A products containing specified psychoactive substances represent deliberate, profit-driven activities. They exploit regulatory gaps. They undermine public safety. They intersect with organised supply networks.

The introduction of mandatory imprisonment for serious import and supply offences sends a strong deterrent signal. The enhanced presumptions relating to possession and control are also important enforcement tools. However, I would like to seek clarification on how enforcement agencies intend to operationalise these strengthened provisions in increasingly complex supply environments, including decentralised storage and informal distribution channels.

As enforcement tightens, syndicates adapt. And this is a problem. Continuous monitoring and intelligence coordination will be essential.

To this end, the Bill equips authorised officers with the necessary powers to operate safely in enforcement situations that may involve risk. I also note that the Bill strengthens operational powers under section 23B, including the use of restraints where necessary. This recognises that enforcements against organised supply networks is not an administrative work. It can involve real operational risks.

And for residents on the ground, this Bill sends a clear signal. It tells parents that the law is keeping pace with substances designed to evade regulation. It tells communities that those who profit from distributing these products will face serious consequences. And it reassures residents that enforcement agencies are being equipped with the powers needed to respond to new and evolving threats.

Sir, this Bill does not only enhance penalties, it also introduces a structured community-based rehabilitation and institutional treatment orders.

This dual approach is important. But as we strengthen enforcement and potentially increase the number of persons subject to rehabilitation orders, we must ensure there is an adequate capacity.

I would like to seek clarification on firstly, the projected caseload for community-based rehabilitation under Part 3A; secondly, whether the supervising officer's capacity is being expanded; the availability of addiction-trained clinicians and counsellors; and finally, the framework for relapse prevention during and after supervision.

If rehabilitation becomes primarily supervisory without sufficient therapeutic intervention, we risk short-term compliance without that long-term recovery. Substance misuse is not only a legal issue. It is also a behavioural and health issue. Enforcements protect society. Rehabilitation restores the individual. Both must be resourced proportionately.

Sir, beyond enforcement and rehabilitation, the Bill also introduces an important dimension of shared responsibility. Part 3B places duties on the responsible persons of specified premises. This is a significant shift towards shared responsibility. It signals that enforcement cannot rest solely on the state. I support this direction.

However, commercial storage operators, landlords, transport providers and small business owners will understandably seek clarity on what constitutes "due care" and "reasonable knowledge".

Under the new section 18A, an owner or occupier commits an offence if they allow the storage of these prohibited items unless they have exercised "due care". For a small warehouse operator or a landlord, the difference between compliance and a heavy fine lie in the definition of that effort. So, we must ensure our business communities are not penalised for syndicates' sophisticated concealment tactics. I welcome the indication that best-practice guidance may be developed.

May I encourage that: firstly, clear operational guidelines be issued before enforcement is intensified; second, outreach be conducted through trade associations; and third, practical examples of due diligence be provided to reduce uncertainty. When compliance expectations are clear, cooperation improves. When ambiguity persists, anxiety naturally will increase.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many residents may also wonder how these provisions apply in everyday settings. For example, landlords, small shop operators or those managing shared premises may ask what constitutes reasonable steps to ensure that prohibited products are not stored on their premises. As we strengthen enforcement against those distributing these substances, it will be important that guidance is clear so that law-abiding residents and businesses understand what is expected of them.

Sir, the Bill empowers the Chief Executive to order parents or guardians of youth subject to community-based rehabilitation to attend counselling, with penalties for non-compliance. To me, family involvement is critical, it is critical to sustain recovery and I support this principle.

At the same time, we should ensure that such measures strengthen families rather than create adversarial dynamics. Will counselling models emphasise restoration and support? Will there be flexibility for families facing financial or caregiving constraints? If we require parental participation, we should also equip parents with knowledge and the practical tools to navigate.

Sir, I offer these points in the spirit of strengthening what is already a robust legislative framework.

Given the rapid evolution of synthetic psychoactive substances, I would encourage the Ministry to consider a formal review of the Part 3A framework within three to five years of implementation.

Such a review could assess our enforcement outcomes, rehabilitation effectiveness, emerging substances' trends and operational challenges faced by responsible persons. This would future-proof us, because future-proofing requires periodic recalibration.

Sir, if I may conclude, the device that the father found was already illegal. We have campaigns that were ongoing. We have laws that exist. What changed was the product's sophistication and the intent behind those distributing it. And this Bill recognises that reality. It closes regulatory gaps, strengthens enforcement and provides the necessary tools to address substances designed to evade existing frameworks.

But legislation alone cannot solve the problem. Its success will depend on how effectively we implement enforcement, strengthen rehabilitation and support families as they navigate these challenges. As a father of four myself, I believe strongly that protecting our children from substances designed to exploit regulatory gaps must remain a priority. If we implement this Bill effectively, we can ensure that our laws' enforcement and support structures remain one step ahead. For these reasons, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Kuah Boon Theng.

2.20 pm

Ms Kuah Boon Theng (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill.

We have been witnessing the rise of a new public health threat, that of vapes and its variants, especially those laced with dangerous chemicals, such as etomidate. This Bill will play an important role in addressing this threat. And we must act quickly, especially as the lives of many are being upended by the harmful nature of vaping.

As we have all heard, vapes are highly addictive, often more so than traditional cigarettes. Our youths have been particularly susceptible, as peddlers of vapes prey on those who are impressionable. More than 3,000 students were caught vaping every year between 2022 and 2024. The high concentrations of nicotine can trigger rapid brain responses, leading to quick dependency. It affects attention, learning and impulse control. And once hooked, trying to stop will provoke intense cravings and withdrawal.

Since September 2025, etomidate and its analogues have been classified as Class C controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act, for a period of six months while we awaited this Bill. This was intended to be an interim measure, and it has given our authorities more power to prosecute importers, sellers or distributers of etomidate e-vaporisers under the MDA and mete out heavier penalties.

As for consumers of these products, individuals found using etomidate e-vaporisers or who test positive for etomidate are not simply subjected to a fine, but have to undergo rehabilitation, treatment, mandatory supervision and even detention. But we now need to boost our laws to provide a more enduring framework to tackle vaping, and this Bill does that.

First of all, I support the provisions of this Bill that would, in essence, treat the use of vapes with psychoactive substances in a way that is consistent with how we approach controlled drugs. The new Part 3 and 3A will introduce amendments to enact stiffer punishments for the trafficking and selling of vapes laced with dangerous psychoactive substances. It will also provide for testing methods to uncover consumption.

As for users of vapes, in addition to stiffer fines, there are statutory rehabilitation programmes for users of psychoactive substances and this reflects a very calibrated response, with traffickers and sellers attracting strong punitive action, whereas the approach with vape users has a strong rehabilitative purpose which aims to help people break the addiction, work on their recovery and rehabilitate them back into society.

I agree that this is a sound approach. While all offenders have to ultimately be accountable for their mistakes, we must also do our best to support them by providing available help to give them the best chance of quitting an addiction.

I do have questions relating to how the Ministry hopes to achieve its rehabilitative objective. While community-based rehabilitation is an available pathway for users of vapes with psychoactive substances, for regular vape users, they will primarily be faced with a fine. And based on current policy, counselling programmes are mandatory for second-time offenders using regular vapes, but there is not much information available on what type of counselling programme will be made available to them, and what other form of support will be provided particularly to students with vape addictions.

I would therefore like to seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State, in the case of youths in schools who are discovered to be regular vape users, will there be any close collaboration or coordination with parents and schools to implement a structured programme or protocol to help them kick the habit?

While the addiction itself can wreck havoc on the student's ability to learn and concentrate in school, I can only imagine that as they go through withdrawal from nicotine and other addictive substances, this could have an equally deleterious effect, especially in the short term, and during particularly stressful periods like exams. It is hard enough for adults to quit, are we expecting fines and warnings or counselling alone to be sufficient to help school-going children and youths do so?

As for schools, I would argue that without professional guidance and support being offered, they, too, would be left to navigate these issues on their own. The result may end up being an inconsistent and patchy response. I would therefore like to propose that the Ministry of Health consider assembling a team of child and adolescent psychiatrists, qualified addiction specialists and professional counsellors, to come up with a national protocol or programme that will provide clear guidance to parents, teachers and schools as they support our youths who are trying to break the addiction of vaping. In fact, if we are going to do that, we should extend it to other forms of addiction amongst school-going kids, like gaming or even pornography.

Additionally, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if the Ministry intends to track the data of young vape users who are minors, to ensure that nicotine and other addictions are adequately identified and addressed? This is similar to the point made by the hon Member Mr Yip.

And lastly, will there be other steps taken to ensure that recidivism amongst youth vape users remains low? If so, what are these measures? That said, I support the Bill and look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarifications.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

2.27 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. I had spoken up in July last year on the etomidate situation and advocated for its classification under the MDA, because of what I felt were limitations under the existing framework of legislation at the time.

The Government moved fast, and in September last year, etomidate was classified as a Class C drug as a temporary measure. This reclassification has been important. It allowed tougher measures to be taken against those that trafficked etomidate and also permitted mandatory treatment to be ordered against abusers who would often refuse to attend treatment voluntarily. This last point is reinforced by Senior Minister of State Koh's point in his introductory speech, that the number of abusers defaulted even on mandatory treatment.

The current Bill provides for the reclassification of etomidate from a Class C controlled drug under the MDA to a "specified psychoactive substance" under the proposed Tobacco and Vaporisers Control Act.

I was initially a little concerned about whether this meant we were taking a lighter touch approach against etomidate, but looking at the penalties involved, it appears the regime is largely similar to that used in relation to Class C drugs. I think Senior Minister of State Koh also confirmed this in his introductory speech. This suggests we are not taking a lighter touch approach against etomidate, and to the extent, this reclassification is administrative, to put it on a longer term footing. I have no objections to it.

One of the strengths of this Bill is the flexibility it confers. The Minister will be empowered to amend the Schedule by order in the Gazette, enabling new psychoactive substances to be added swiftly without the need for a full legislative amendment each time. This allows the Government to stay ahead of synthetic variants which are engineered specifically to exploit gaps in the legal framework. This is especially useful because so-called "designer drugs" can proliferate because of delays in the implementation of statutory control.

Having said that, there seems to be some overlap with mechanisms that already exist under the MDA.

I understand that the list of SPSes in the Schedule of the Bill currently includes only etomidate and its analogues. In comparison, under the MDA, a psychoactive substance is defined in section 2 conceptually to mean "a substance or product that has the capacity to have a psychoactive effect on an individual if the individual smokes, administers to himself or herself or otherwise consumes, the substance or product" and which is not an "excluded substance" under the Fifth Schedule.

Part 2A of the MDA contains provisions dealing with psychoactive substances generally and can be a conceptual catch-all mechanism for drugs that are not classified elsewhere. In contrast, those psychoactive substances that are already known are often classified as drugs and specific penalties would apply to those.

This essentially means there will be two statutes which could potentially deal with new psychoactive substances: one, they could be classified in the Schedule under this new Act; or two, they could still be captured conceptually under the MDA.

In relation to this, I make three points.

First, in future, what considerations will determine whether a psychoactive substance is to be listed under the Tobacco and Vaporisers Control Act?

Second, is it possible for a case to be caught by both the Tobacco and Vaporisers Control Act and the MDA, and if so, how will the authorities decide which statute to prosecute an offender under?

Third, will sentencing guidelines and cases under the MDA apply to cases under the Tobacco and Vaporisers Control Act? In my view, certainly, etomidate-related cases should apply.

Etomidate is plainly a psychoactive substance. It is largely misused through vaporisers and related products and that may be the reason for its classification under this Bill. However, the potential for vaporisers to administer more serious drugs has always been present, and the infamous Kpod was known to contain either etomidate or ketamine. Ketamine is, of course, classified as a drug under the MDA.

While I understand the rationale for placing etomidate under this Bill and therefore the jurisdiction of HSA, what happens if more harmful substances or drugs are found while the HSA is conducting a raid for vaporisers and/or etomidate? Would HSA be empowered to effect arrests and take enforcement actions, assuming drugs are also found with the vaporisers? In contrast, I understand the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers have much broader powers of arrest.

I believe the HSA will need to adequately resourced and empowered to discharge the new role. Likewise, the CNB should continue to be empowered to effect arrests for etomidate in the event they come across this substance while effecting arrests or investigations into other drugs and psychoactive substances.

The rehabilitation aspect of the Bill is also important. The framework allows for community-based rehabilitation and institutional treatment where appropriate. This mirrors, in many respects, the approach taken under the MDA. It recognises that while enforcement and deterrence are essential, rehabilitation remains a cornerstone of our drug control policy.

However, here again, there appears to be a potential overlap between the two statutes. I would be grateful if the Ministry would clarify two points.

First, would offenders subject to mandatory treatment under this bill be sent to DRCs currently used for drug offenders or is the intention to send them to different facilities? If there are to be different facilities, the HSA will need the resources to set up such centres.

Second, where a case is potentially caught by both Acts, say, multiple substances were found, and the Chief Executive of the HSA and the Director of the CNB both have the power to order an offender to undergo rehabilitation under the relevant provisions of the two Acts, how will this overlap be resolved between the HSA and the CNB?

Finally, I wish to add an observation that young persons are particularly vulnerable to trends such as vaping and experimentation with psychoactive drugs. We must continue to emphasise prevention, education and parental involvement. The provisions requiring responsible persons to act when prohibited products are used on their premises and the measures addressing exposure of children and young persons are important complements to criminal penalties.

Mr Deputy Speaker, ultimately, this Bill reflects Singapore's long-standing position that we should adapt our laws on drug abuse in response to evolving realities while preserving the core of our zero-tolerance stance. Singapore's firm stance against drug abuse has been an important pillar of our social stability and public safety. This Bill strengthens that pillar. We must not be seen to compromise on this when new substances emerge.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.

2.35 pm

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken and for their unanimous support for the amendments proposed in the Bill.

Members have raised a number of thoughtful views and constructive comments. I have touched on some of these in my opening speech, so I will now elaborate more on other areas that were raised by Members.

First, beyond increasing penalties to enhance deterrence, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether our enforcement approach would truly reduce youth exposure and initiation. Well, the fact is that firm enforcement alone will never eliminate vaping. However, a strong deterrence posture remains essential if we are serious about reducing the harm it can cause to our people.

Vaping has not yet become deeply entrenched in Singapore. This gives us a critical window to act decisively. That is why we are targeting the entire supply ecosystem, the entire supply chain, through robust enforcement while at the same time supporting users through rehabilitation to prevent vaping from taking root in our society.

Dr Hamid Razak and Mr Vikram Nair rightly pointed out the importance of preventive education. Many people, especially the young, picked up vaping out of curiosity or peer pressure. Therefore, we have also stepped up preventive education efforts in tandem.

The national campaign across multiple platforms includes digital display panels cross the island, in our heartlands, especially, mainstream media and social media to inform the public about the dangers of vaping and etomidate vaporisers. We also collaborated with many online content partners to reach out to young people because this is where young people are consuming information, so this is a good way to reach out to them.

Schools and Institutes of Higher Learning have also played a big part to educate the young on the harm and consequences of vaping. The messages are also integrated into the school curriculum. Dr Neo Kok Beng asked about this earlier.

For those who have already started vaping, we adopted a calibrated multi-layered approach. This approach provides multiple chances to quit before the more serious penalties apply.

First, the avenue to seek help to quit remains open under the QuitVape Programme. Those who come forward voluntarily will not be penalised for doing so. In the past six months, more than 110 persons came forward to quit etomidate vaping. We hope more will do so.

Next, for individuals who have been caught vaping, penalties will kick in, along with a requirement to attend rehabilitation for repeat offenders. For those consuming etomidate, testing of their urine or hair samples may be required on top of rehabilitation.

To Ms Kuah Boon Theng's question, students caught for the first time will be guided by school counsellors and referred to the Health Promotion Board's (HPB's) QuitLine when needed. Her suggestion of working in a more coordinated manner across different Ministries, resourcing the counsellors, is something that we will take back and look at how to do so, although today, we do have close collaboration between HSA and the Ministry of Education.

To Dr Choo Pei Ling's question, suspected offenders may have to undergo interviews, investigations and testing prior to being sent for rehabilitation. This explains the turnaround time between detection and start of the rehabilitation programme. We are working to minimise this turnaround time.

The providers of rehabilitation programmes will explore the underlying causes for the use of vaporisers and etomidate, and offenders will learn healthy coping habits and how to withstand peer pressure. These are tips that will help them to sustain a vaporiser-free lifestyle, post rehabilitation.

For youths under 21 years old, the Youth Enhanced Supervision Scheme under the Ministry of Social and Family Development has an added element of family involvement, with some sessions conducted together with their parents or guardians. Parents can also refer to the Parent's Guide on Vaping on the Families for Life website for tips on having conversations with their children on vaping.

To Dr Wan Rizal's question, HSA will closely engage parents and guardians and use the powers of section 19S judiciously. Parental and family support, I am sure we all agree, are crucial to helping young offenders quit. Parents who refuse to be involved in their children's counselling without reasonable justifications will potentially face criminal charges.

However, despite our best efforts, if individuals decide to re-offend repeatedly, penalties will escalate rapidly.

For vaping, they will be prosecuted and subject to the increased fine, up to $10,000. For etomidate vaping, they will be detained in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre for institutional treatment and rehabilitation. In answer to Mr Vikram Nair's question, this will be separate from other drug offenders. By the time they are sent to the DRC, these reoffenders would have been caught at least three times and given multiple chances to quit.

To Mr Yip's question, mandatory imprisonment is imposed for importers and suppliers of section 15 tobacco products and vaporisers because they drive the continued availability of these harmful products. We have to go really upstream and stop the flow of these items into Singapore. If the products contain SPS, the penalties will be as severe and aligned to those for Class C controlled drugs under the MDA.

During the investigations of suspected import and supply offences, HSA takes into account several factors, including the quantity and types of prohibited products involved as well as evidence of intent to sell or supply to others, to determine the nature of the offence and how an individual is involved. Factors such as age and number of past offences will be taken into consideration by the Courts when determining the appropriate sentences. Specifically for youth offenders, the Courts will also consider youth-specific sentencing options such as probation or reformative training.

As Mr Yip and Dr Wan Rizal mentioned, supply channels are becoming more complex and decentralised, especially through the use of social media and messaging platforms. On the ground, we have also adapted our enforcement approach to better detect import and supply offences. Let me share two examples.

First, HSA actively monitors sales and advertisements of vaporisers on such platforms and works with platform owners to remove these listings. HSA also collaborates with the Infocomm Media Development Authority and the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) Office to block vaporiser websites targeting locals.

Over 10,000 online advertisements were removed since 2024 and 27 websites blocked under the OCHA since September last year.

Second, vaporiser supply chains predominantly operate overseas. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), CNB and Singapore Police Force already engage in information sharing with their foreign counterparts. We will work closely to make sure that we have intelligence to deal with this.

On vaporisers specifically, with the help of intelligence sharing, joint operations by HSA and ICA detected 59 large-scale smuggling cases in 2025, seizing around 230,000 vaporisers and related products. Thirteen of these cases have been charged.

Dr Hamid, Mr Yip, Dr Wan Rizal, Dr Choo and Mr Vikram Nair have raised a few operational issues.

Members asked how enforcement actions will be differentiated for SPS under the TVCA, and controlled drugs and psychoactive substances under the MDA.

A SPS, once scheduled under the TVCA, will be automatically excluded from the framework of psychoactive substances under the MDA because this framework in MDA works on a negative list approach and SPS has been excluded.

To Dr Hamid and Mr Yip's question on frontline enforcement, officers will assess the situation to route the case to the appropriate agency. Laboratory testing of the substance may be conducted to ascertain the identity of the substances involved and subsequently refer to the appropriate authorities.

To Mr Vikram Nair's questions, when it comes to rehabilitation, those who are suspected or are found to have consumed only SPS will be handled by HSA. If both SPS and controlled drugs or psychoactive substances under the MDA are consumed, the MDA rehabilitation framework will take precedence, given the seriousness of those drugs and offences.

Similar principles apply to prosecution. HSA and CNB will investigate the cases jointly if necessary.

The ultimate decision on prosecution will be made by the Attorney-General's Chambers. For cases to be charged under the TVCA, we will take guidance from the existing body of law, including precedent cases charged under the MDA.

Support will be provided to owners and occupiers of specified premises so they will understand how to fulfil their new obligations.

As I have mentioned, this is not entirely new, it is similar to the obligations under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act (SPCPA) that public entertainment premises are already subject to, and it is not meant to be onerous or impose a disproportionate amount of legal liability on premise operators.

HSA will support them in complying with these obligations. Practical guidance on the identification of prohibited products, how to engage and handle individuals possessing or using these prohibited products and when to engage HSA for further assistance, will be provided.

To protect these owners and occupiers, it will be an offence for individuals to hinder, obstruct, threaten, abuse or assault owners and occupiers in the course of performing their duties.

HSA will publish a handbook of best practices today on their website to illustrate what constitutes "due care" by owners and occupiers of land, buildings and places under the new offence of allowing other individuals to store prohibited products or their components in these spaces.

I thank Dr Wan Rizal for his suggestions on this and, understandably, owners and occupiers may worry that the storage of prohibited products could happen, even if they have done their best to prevent it. Let me assure you that each case will be assessed based on the particular facts of each situation, and owners and occupiers who have exercised due care do not need to worry.

We intend for the Bill to commence on 1 May and will provide support to responsible persons and owners and occupiers before then.

Mr Yip asked about the safeguards that ensure the accuracy of our laboratory tests, given that a positive urine test can be presumed to mean that the individual has consumed SPS and committed an offence. HSA has extensive experience supporting CNB in conducting laboratory tests for enforcement under the MDA. So, these powers and capabilities are not new to HSA.

Expanded powers require adequate resources to support implementation – this was also a point emphasised by a few Members.

We adopted a whole-of-Government enforcement approach, where relevant agencies, such as the Police, CNB, NEA and National Parks Board (NParks) assist in the detection and referral of suspected cases to HSA. So, the enforcement is not done just by HSA alone. This has multiplied our effective enforcement capacity, with more than 13,000 officers authorised to-date. These agencies will continue to be authorised under the TVCA.

To Mr Yip's question, HSA carefully assesses the suitability of these officers before empowering them with enforcement powers. This applies to officers from HSA and across other agencies. Officers are only authorised for specific powers that match their roles and experience and must also undergo prescribed training and competency assessments before being deployed. After deployment, they continue to be overseen and reviewed by their supervisors.

On rehabilitation capacity, having operated these programmes for the past six months, we have provided for sufficient capacity, including in the DRC. We will regularly review capacity utilisation and projections, based on the latest offender numbers and trends and make the necessary adjustments.

Finally, Members have asked about monitoring the effectiveness of the current enforcement approach, as well as monitoring trends in emerging substances of abuse. Beyond the number of offenders, we also monitor recidivism rates and other key indicators.

MHA already works with international and regional partners, such as the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN) counterparts, to monitor the emergence of new psychoactive substances. MOH and MHA also review various sources of data to identify and be alert to emerging substances of abuse.

Specific to vaporisers, HSA also collects and exchanges intelligence with the World Health Organization and international regulatory counterparts and, on our own, we conduct random testing of vaporisers that we have seized to detect any new substances that is emerging in our market.

If another psychoactive substance or product emerges in tobacco products, vaporisers or imitation tobacco products, it can be listed in the Schedule of TVCA fairly quickly, by amending the Schedule via an order in the Gazette made by the Minister for Health. So, there will be less scrambling and a lot more responsiveness to any emerging threats.

Mr Gerald Giam cited clause 37 on the definition of smoking.

Let me clarify that this is actually an amendment to the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE)/NEA's smoking prohibition on certain places. It is not for the Tobacco Control Act, but it is actually an amendment to NEA's Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act. Smoking Area Ban policy is also under MSE and NEA's purview, but I understand where the Member is coming from. We will work with NEA and MSE on the Member of Parliament's suggestion to see how we can continue to help manage the issue of second-hand smoke and smoking within our heartlands.

On setting standards for emission of tobacco products, this is already in current section 15 and the new section 14. We have existing limits on the content emission of nicotine and tar of cigarettes that will continue under the TVCA.

On the suggestion to reduce addictiveness or tobacco and nicotine products, the Member of Parliament was likely referring to the nicotine cap policy I had mentioned earlier. We have considered this before and will continue to study it. It is possible to do so under the new section 14. But I do hear the Member's suggesting that the UK has a cap of 1.0 milligram and actually in Singapore, our nicotine emission yield is also capped at 1.0 milligrams since 2013.

So, if the Member were to look this up, it is actually under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Limits on Certain Substances) Regulations 2010. So, our limits are no different from what the Member has cited from the UK.

Mr Speaker, I believe I have addressed the clarifications raised by Members. I thank Members for their suggestions and support of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are there any clarifications arising out of Senior Minister of State Koh's response? If not, I will put the question to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Koh Poh Koon].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.