NEWS
TROUBLE
SIA
IN A
W
A
L
F
O
E
G
A
U
G
N
A
L
E
TH
THE CRIMINALISATION OF VAPING IN SINGAPORE
REVEALS HOW EASILY WORDS ARE TWISTED
Anti-tobacco legislation is hitting Asia hard and sadly, vape
products have often been caught up in the fray. The latter end
of 2017 and first few months of 2018 have seen an unpleasant
mix of harsh crackdowns and restrictive legislation spreading
throug hout the continent.
As covered in our last issue, Taiwan is reaching the culmination of
incremental legal reforms that could choke out its vape scene
entirely – outlawing them without making explicit reference.
In late January, a shocking development saw hundreds of
independent vape shops throughout Malaysia raided by the
police in an unannounced act of intimidation. This mirrored a
similar operation which took place in 2015 and saw stocks of
e-liquid containing nicotine seized.
Now the long arm of the law has effectively criminalised the
Singaporean vape market, escalating a ban on the sale of
vape products to the possession of products purchased before
the ban.
Like many laws which have curbed the practice of vaping,
it comes as an amendment to an existing law: in this case
th e Tobac c o A c t ( TC AS A). T h e p re v i o u s v e rs i on of
the act prohibited the, “importation, distribution, sale or
offer for sale” of vapour products. Now the Ministry of Health
has upgraded the legislation to give no leeway to products
purchased before its imposition, as the report encourages the
public to, “discard any prohibited tobacco products that they
currently have in their possession.”
Singapore’s crackdown has followed an all-too-familiar pattern
of regulation failing to adequately distinguish between e-liquids
and combustible tobacco. This move is also set apart by its
linguistic tricks, which could provide a glimpse of how anti-
vaping legislation will adapt in the future as business growth
and favourable public opinion turns the tide.
Use of language in the form of false equivalence and
innuendo has defined many an ill-conceived overreach, with
22 | VM16
this faithfully following the pattern. The official press release
from the Singaporean Ministry of Health has attempted to
coin the phrase, “imitation tobacco products”, as a reference
to every means of alternative nicotine delivery, from shisha to
e-cigarettes.
“Examples of prohibited products under Section 15 of the
TCASA include smokeless tobacco products, chewing tobacco
and shisha.”
Regardless of your opinion on its justification, this is at least an
example of consistent tobacco regulation. But the with Section
16, this performative gesture obsession reveals itself again:
“…while Section 16 of the TCASA prohibits any device or article
that resemble tobacco products. This includes vaporisers such
as e-cigarettes, e-pipes, e-cigars and the like.”
The Singaporean Government have attempted to clarify
their definition of “imitation tobacco” as being anything, “that
resembles, or is designed to resemble, a tobacco product
that is capable of being smoked; that may be used in such
a way as to mimic the act of smoking; or the packaging of
which resembles, or is designed to resemble, the packaging
commonly associated with tobacco products.”
This is no light touch regulation with slap-on-the-wrist
consequences either. Anyone caught in violation of the new
law faces a fine, tourists included.
“Under the TCASA, any persons caught purchasing,
in the possession of, or using emerging and imitation tobacco
products, are liable for a fine not exceeding $2,000.” Offenders
may also face up to a year in prison.
The minimum legal age for the consumption of tobacco is also
going up from 18 to 19 in 2019, with plans to continue raising
it by one year-per-year until 2021.
It’s grim news, but the fight is never over. Campaigners
can begin by reclaiming the definitions of tobacco and vape
products in clear, concise language.