Singapore employers encouraged to take firmer action against employees who vape

At a glance

• Singapore is intensifying its crackdown on vaping, now treating it as a drug issue due to the rise in use of vapes and also the emergence of drug-laced vapes, with harsher penalties announced in the Prime Minister’s August 2025 speech.
• Etomidate, found in some vapes, is temporarily classified as a Class C drug, making it an offence to allow etomidate usage on premises, with fines of up to SGD10,000 and / or five years’ imprisonment.
• Employers are advised to update HR policies to prohibit vaping-related conduct; outline disciplinary measures; and issue company-wide communications reinforcing compliance with the new laws.

The possession, use, purchase and sale of e-vaporisers has been illegal in Singapore since 2018, but historically this has not been strictly enforced by the authorities. Recently, however, due to the increased use of e-vaporisers (commonly known as 'vapes') and the emergence of drug-laced vapes containing substances such as etomidate, significant steps have been taken to crack down on vaping.

In his National Day Rally speech in August 2025, the Singapore Prime Minister announced that vaping will be treated as a drug issue and harsher penalties will be introduced.

In this regard:

• Etomidate (a substance commonly found in vapes) is now categorised as a 'Class C drug' under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (MDA) for six months from 1 September 2025. Under the MDA, it is an offence for a person being the owner, tenant, occupier or person in charge of any place or premises, to allow drug activities to be conducted in the place or premises. With respect to Class C drugs, the potential penalties for the owner, tenant, occupier or person in charge of the premises are a fine of up to SGD10,000 and / or imprisonment of up to five years.
• Where the offence is committed by a company, liability can also extend to directors and officers if it can be shown that the offence was committed with the 'consent or connivance of, or attributable to the neglect of, such person'. While there are no known cases of the Singapore authorities enforcing this provision against companies in the context of vaping-related offences by its employees, we anticipate that the authorities may begin taking firmer action against companies given the increasing scrutiny in this area.

The Ministry of Manpower has also encouraged companies to establish HR policies to address situations where employees contravene the vaping laws in Singapore, including disciplinary measures.

In light of these developments, it would be prudent for employers to review and update their HR policies to: (1) include clear prohibitions on vaping-related conduct in the workplace; (2) set out disciplinary consequences for breaches; and (3) reinforce compliance with Singapore’s legal framework to mitigate organisational risk.

It would also be timely to issue a company-wide communication to remind employees of the new laws against vaping and clarify the company's stance on this issue, making clear that breaches (particularly in the workplace) will be dealt with appropriately.