Last updated 11 September 2026 — by Adrian Tan, SDM. Marketing guidance, not legal advice. The Tobacco and Vaporisers Control Act 1993 carries custodial penalties and, for vaporisers, mandatory imprisonment on import; if you are anywhere near this regime, take it to a Singapore lawyer before you take it to a media plan.
Every other advertising regime in Singapore tells you what an advertisement must say. This one tells you the advertisement must not exist.
On 1 May 2026 the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act 1993 was renamed the Tobacco and Vaporisers Control Act 1993 by Act 9 of 2026, and “vaporiser” was written into the section 3 advertising prohibition alongside tobacco and imitation tobacco products. That is not tidying-up. It closed the last piece of drafting slack a vape marketer could have argued about, in the same amendment that raised the penalty for importing a vaporiser to nine years’ imprisonment.
The reason to read this is not that you have a tobacco client. It is that this Act reaches four things you would not expect: an online checkout button, a brand name mentioned without any product, an advertisement aimed entirely at another country, and a personal social post.
What actually changed on 1 May 2026
The 2026 amendment did three things that matter commercially.
It put vaporisers into the advertising prohibition by name. Section 3(1) now reads across “any tobacco product, vaporiser or imitation tobacco product” in each of its four limbs. Before the amendment, a vaporiser containing no tobacco had to be argued into the definition of a tobacco substitute. It no longer has to be argued at all.
It defined “vaporiser” functionally rather than by contents. The section 2 definition covers “any device or article that is used, intended to be used or described to be suitable for use” to vaporise any liquid or substance for oral inhalation. A device becomes a vaporiser partly because of how it is described — so your own product copy is one of the facts determining which statute you are under. Section 16(7) removes any doubt: the device need not contain tobacco, a tobacco product or a tobacco substitute.
It moved etomidate into this Act. Etomidate and its analogues were listed as specified psychoactive substances here from 1 May 2026 and delisted as controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 on the same date, bringing the “Kpod” problem into one enforcement framework.
The Health Sciences Authority reported 2,589 people caught for possessing or using vaporisers between 1 January and 31 March 2026 (377 involving etomidate-laced devices) and 2,428 in the following quarter, alongside more than 36,000 devices and components seized. One figure in that release belongs in a marketing article rather than an enforcement one: HSA also fined ten people who posted vaping-related photos and videos of themselves on social media. Organic content is being read as evidence.
Section 3 has four limbs, and the second one is the one nobody expects
Section 3(1) prohibits publishing, causing to be published, or taking part in the publication in Singapore of any advertisement falling into any of four descriptions.
| Limb | What it prohibits | What that closes in practice |
|---|---|---|
| 3(1)(a) | Any express or implied inducement, suggestion or request to purchase or use a tobacco product, vaporiser or imitation tobacco product | “Implied” does the work: a lifestyle post with a device in frame needs no call to action to qualify. |
| 3(1)(b) | Providing a facility for a person accessing the advertisement on the Internet to purchase any such product | A checkout, a cart, an “add to bag”, an in-app purchase, a payment link in a bio. The transactional function is itself the prohibited advertisement. |
| 3(1)(c) | Anything relating to the product or its use in terms calculated, expressly or impliedly, to lead to, induce, urge, promote or encourage its use | Editorial, review and “harm reduction” framing. Calculated is an objective test about the terms used, not a question of what you intended. |
| 3(1)(d) | Mentioning, illustrating or depicting the name or trade name of any person associated with manufacture, distribution or marketing; a brand name or trade mark; or any pictorial device commonly associated with either | No product need appear and no purchase be suggested. The corporate name alone is enough. |
Limb (b) is the provision to sit with. Every other Singapore advertising regime treats the advertisement and the transaction as separate events, each assessed on its own terms. Section 3(1)(b) collapses them: if the page a Singapore user reaches lets them buy, the page is a prohibited advertisement regardless of what the copy says. A bare listing — name, price, buy button, no marketing language at all — is caught.
Limb (d) catches organisations that thought they were outside the regime. Because it reaches the name or trade name of any person “associated or concerned with the manufacture, distribution or marketing” of the product, a recruitment advertisement, a CSR announcement, a sponsorship credit or an employer-brand campaign naming that company is within the prohibition on its face. The route out is a permission, not an exemption: under section 3(6) the Minister may approve an advertisement, or a class of them, mentioning such a name to promote goods or services unconnected with these products. Section 3(7) excludes anything that directly or indirectly encourages use, section 3(8) allows cancellation for breach of a condition, and section 3(9) requires a formal application. Treat it as a regulatory filing with a lead time, not a media-planning assumption.
The only self-executing exception is narrow. Section 3(2) disapplies the prohibition to an advertisement comprising only a price list, of a prescribed description, in prescribed circumstances. All three conditions bind. It is not a licence to build a product page.
“Advertisement” and “publish” are drafted to leave nothing out
The section 2 definitions are the reason a channel audit under this Act is short.
“Advertisement” includes any notice, circular, pamphlet, brochure, price list, label or wrapper, and any announcement or intimation to the public, to any section of it, or to any person or persons, made orally or in writing; by poster displayed on any object; by producing or transmitting sound or light; by writing on any vehicle, ashtray, calendar, lighter or clock; or — the catch-all — “in any other manner“. Two features matter for digital work. It reaches a communication to “any person or persons”, so a one-to-one message qualifies, with no bulk threshold of the kind the Spam Control Act uses. And the residual limb means no channel argument survives: a format that did not exist in 1993 is not outside the definition, it is inside the last limb.
“Publish” here “includes to distribute, show, exhibit, display or broadcast by any form of communication or in any manner”, so resharing, embedding and leaving something displayed are all publication. The Act separately defines “access” to include access behind a password, by push technology, and by standing request — so a gated members’ area, a push notification and an email subscription are each access.
The rule that catches an advertisement aimed at Jakarta
Section 3(10) tells you when an electronically published advertisement is “published in Singapore”. It has two independent limbs, and the first breaks the usual assumption. Under limb (a), the advertisement is published in Singapore if it originates in Singapore — “even if none of the persons capable of having access to the advertisement is physically present in Singapore”.
Read that against how paid media works. A Singapore agency runs a vape campaign for a client in a market where vaping is lawful, geo-targeting excludes Singapore, and nobody here ever sees it. On the face of section 3(10)(a) the advertisement is still published in Singapore, because it originated here. Every other jurisdictional rule in this catalogue — including the law firm publicity rules, which turn on where publicity is reasonably expected to be received — runs the other way. This one asks where the work was done.
Limb (b) catches the reverse case and requires all three of: the advertisement did not originate here or its origin cannot be determined; it is published, caused to be published, or taken part in by a Singapore-connected person; and it is accessible by persons physically present in Singapore. Section 2 defines that person broadly — a citizen or PR, an individual in Singapore, a company incorporated in or centrally managed and controlled from Singapore, an unincorporated body established here, and those managing such a body. A Singapore holding company whose overseas subsidiary runs the campaign is squarely inside it.
Strict liability going in, reverse burden coming out
Section 3(5) is one sentence, and it decides how you should run approvals: “it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the person knew or had reason to believe that the advertisement published is of a type described in that subsection.”
So the prosecution proves publication and content, not knowledge. Knowledge appears only in section 4, as a defence you must establish on the balance of probabilities:
- Section 4(a) — the conduit defence. You were acting in the course of a business of delivering, transmitting or broadcasting communications, or making data available, and the nature of that business is such that those undertaking it have no control over the nature or content of it. That describes a network or hosting provider. It does not describe an agency, which chooses content for a living.
- Section 4(b) — no knowledge. You did not know and had no reason to believe the advertisement was of a prohibited type. “No reason to believe” is where a documented approval process earns its keep.
Two provisions widen the circle. Section 5 makes an owner or occupier of premises to which the public has access guilty of an offence if they knowingly permit the premises to be used for publication contravening section 3(1). Section 6 adds a presumption: where more than ten copies of a printed document containing an advertisement under limbs (a), (c) or (d) are found in the possession of, or on premises occupied by, a person connected with the associated brand, that person is presumed to have taken part in the publication until the contrary is proved. Ten leaflets in a storeroom shifts the burden.
Promotions, prizes and loyalty schemes are closed as well
An advertising ban usually pushes budget into promotions. Part 3 anticipates that.
Section 9 prohibits bundling in every direction — goods or services with a tobacco product as a free gift, a tobacco product with other goods as a free gift, or the two packaged or labelled together — and separately prohibits distributing free samples to the public. Section 9(3) prohibits offering a tobacco product as a prize in any lottery, raffle, draw, game or competition, whether held here or elsewhere, so read it alongside our guide to the rules for lucky draws and prize promotions: the general promotional-draw framework never reaches this category.
Section 9A closes shopper loyalty programmes in both directions, and section 9A(2) adds that it does not matter whether the programme runs in Singapore or elsewhere, or whether the purchaser is physically present here. A points scheme on an overseas platform accruing on Singapore purchases is within it.
The display ban, and the display that becomes an advertisement
Section 12A requires a tobacco retailer not to display the products, and to ensure no customer or member of the public can see them from inside or outside the premises. The same duty falls on the owner or occupier of any premises to which the public has access. Section 12A(3) permits display to a customer at the customer’s request, display by a customer, and other prescribed circumstances.
Then section 12A(4) does something anyone designing retail or e-commerce interfaces should note: a permitted display “must not consist of a display of the products, or representations of the products, that constitute an advertisement itself as distinct from the display allowed under that subsection”. The permission covers showing the goods; it does not cover dressing the moment of showing. A lit gantry, a branded menu board, a product carousel — the presentation converts a lawful display into an unlawful advertisement.
Two provisions complete the picture. Section 13 requires warning notices at retail outlets of the type, size, wording and appearance the Health Sciences Authority directs — a rare case of a regulator specifying the creative. Section 18(9) bars any licence for sale by vending machine, which is why the machine in this article’s header photograph could not lawfully stand on a Singapore street.
The packaging rule that overrides trade mark law
For a brand team, the most striking sentence in the Act is section 17(3)(b). A tobacco product and its packaging or labelling — “despite any written law or rule of law” — must not bear any trade mark, term, descriptor, figurative or other sign, feature, scent or sound that is prescribed as prohibited, or that promotes the product by any means likely to create an erroneous impression about its characteristics, health effects, hazards or emissions, “including the misleading impression that the tobacco product is less harmful than other tobacco products”.
Two things follow. The opening words displace the Trade Marks Act 1998: a validly registered mark confers no right to put it on the pack. And the list reaches beyond graphics to scent and sound, so sensory branding is prescribed away along with the logo.
Where the penalties actually bite
Advertising offences are not the severe end of this Act, and the gap explains why a client’s risk appetite may differ sharply from yours.
| Conduct | Provision | Maximum penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Publishing a prohibited advertisement | s 3(3) | $10,000 or 6 months, or both; $20,000 or 12 months on a qualifying repeat |
| Owner or occupier knowingly permitting publication on premises | s 5 | $5,000 or 6 months, or both; $10,000 or 12 months on a second or subsequent conviction |
| Sales promotion, free samples, prizes | s 9(4) | $10,000 or 6 months, or both; $20,000 or 12 months on a repeat |
| Non-compliant packaging or labelling | s 17(4) | $10,000 or 6 months, or both; $20,000 or 12 months on a qualifying repeat |
| Selling, distributing or possessing a vaporiser for supply | s 16(5) | Imprisonment up to 6 years and, in addition, a fine up to $200,000 |
| Importing a vaporiser or component | s 16(4) | Imprisonment up to 9 years and, in addition, a fine up to $300,000 |
| Possessing, purchasing or using a vaporiser | s 16(6) | Fine up to $10,000 |
| Import or supply of an imitation tobacco product | s 16A(4) | $100,000 or 3 years, or both; $200,000 or 6 years on a qualifying repeat |
Note the drafting of section 16(4) and (5): the offender “shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment” and “in addition, shall be liable… to a fine”. Imprisonment is the primary sentence, with the fine on top.
Section 16A deserves a line even for consumer brands with no tobacco connection. It reaches any article, device or food product that resembles a tobacco product, is capable of being smoked, may be used to mimic the act of smoking, or whose packaging resembles tobacco packaging. The Act’s own illustrations are a toy and a confectionery — so a novelty sweet in a flip-top pack is an imitation tobacco product on those words.
What this means if you run marketing in Singapore
Treat the buy button as creative. Section 3(1)(b) makes an online purchase facility an advertisement in its own right, so compliance review has to include the commerce layer, not just the copy deck.
Do not rely on geo-targeting. Under section 3(10)(a) origin in Singapore is sufficient and audience exclusion is expressly not an answer — the commonest misunderstanding among regional teams, because every platform-side compliance tool is built around the audience rather than the operator.
Write the section 4(b) file as you go. For any product with an inhalation, nicotine or “nicotine analogue” characteristic — the definition covers nicotine salts and derivatives — record what you asked, what you were told, what documentation you saw and who approved the brief. That is what “no reason to believe” looks like on paper.
Audit the corporate-name surface, not just the campaign. Limb (d) reaches recruitment ads, sponsorship credits and CSR announcements naming a person associated with manufacture, distribution or marketing, so a careers campaign is a section 3 question. Where the business genuinely has unconnected goods or services, the section 3(6) approval route exists for exactly that; start it early.
Brief creators explicitly, and monitor what is in frame. HSA’s Q1 2026 fines for social posts show this category is enforced in organic content. Put devices and the act of vaping on the prohibited list in the brief and check the footage, not just the script — the platform rules in our guide to TikTok advertising in Singapore sit on top of the statute, not instead of it.
Know which regime you are in. A therapeutic product registered under the Health Products Act 2007 is carved out of both “tobacco product” and “vaporiser” here and sits instead inside the regime in our guide to health product advertising rules. Getting that classification wrong is the difference between an advertising review and a criminal one.
Place it against the other two prohibition regimes. Under the moneylender advertising rules the constraint is a closed channel list, and in crypto and digital payment token marketing it is on public promotion of a service. Here it is on the advertisement itself, in any medium, by anyone — the strictest of the three, and the only one that overrides trade mark law.
Frequently asked questions
Can you advertise vapes in Singapore?
No. Since 1 May 2026, section 3(1) of the Tobacco and Vaporisers Control Act 1993 names vaporisers in each of its four limbs, so an advertisement that induces purchase or use, provides an online facility to purchase, uses terms calculated to encourage use, or mentions a brand name, trade name or associated pictorial device is prohibited. Selling or distributing vaporisers separately carries up to six years’ imprisonment and a $200,000 fine; importing them carries up to nine years and $300,000.
Is an online shop with a buy button an advertisement under the Act?
Yes. Section 3(1)(b) prohibits publishing an advertisement “providing a facility for a person accessing the advertisement on the Internet to purchase” any tobacco product, vaporiser or imitation tobacco product. The transactional function is itself within the prohibition, so a neutral listing with a cart or payment link is caught without any promotional language.
Does the ban apply if the campaign targets only customers outside Singapore?
On the face of section 3(10)(a), yes. An electronically published advertisement is published in Singapore if it originates in Singapore, “even if none of the persons capable of having access to the advertisement is physically present in Singapore”. Geo-targeting does not address that limb, because the test is where the advertisement originated rather than who could see it.
Do I have to know the advertisement was prohibited to commit the offence?
No. Section 3(5) provides that the prosecution need not prove the person knew or had reason to believe the advertisement was of a prohibited type. Knowledge appears only as a defence under section 4(b), which the accused must prove on the balance of probabilities, alongside the section 4(a) defence for a business that transmits communications and has no control over their content.
Can a tobacco or vape company advertise its other, unrelated products in Singapore?
Only with approval. Section 3(1)(d) prohibits mentioning the name or trade name of a person associated with the manufacture, distribution or marketing of these products, so even a corporate or recruitment advertisement is caught on its face. Section 3(6) lets the Minister approve an advertisement using such a name to promote goods or services unconnected with these products, while section 3(7) excludes anything that encourages their use. It is an application, not an automatic exemption.
The takeaway
Most Singapore advertising regulation is about disclosure: state the licence number, carry the mandatory information, do not mislead. This one removes the advertisement. There is no compliant version of a tobacco or vaporiser advertisement in Singapore — only a price list of a prescribed description, and a ministerial approval for genuinely unconnected goods.
It is worth reading even if you will never take a client in the category, because of three drafting choices other Singapore regimes have not yet made and may. The transaction is treated as advertising, so the checkout is creative. Jurisdiction attaches to where the work originates rather than where the audience is, so geo-targeting is not a control. And knowledge sits in a defence you must prove rather than in the offence, so documentation is the only asset that helps. Those are the tools a regulator reaches for when a category moves online faster than its rulebook, and you will recognise the shape when they turn up somewhere less extreme.
If you market in a regulated Singapore category and want the compliance layer built into the campaign rather than bolted on after legal review, that is what our performance marketing team in Singapore does; see our client case studies. Start with our complete guide to performance marketing in Singapore, then the adjacent regimes: car advertising rules, food advertising claims and the PDPA rules on marketing and tracking.
