Employers Grapple with Vaping Challenges as Singapore Takes Harder Stance

As the government intensifies its approach to vaping by treating it as a drug issue rather than merely a tobacco-related offence, employers across the island are scrambling to determine their legal rights and responsibilities in curbing this growing workplace challenge.

Heightened Regulatory Response

The landscape for vaping enforcement has shifted dramatically following Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s National Day Rally speech last month, where he announced that vaping would now be treated as a drug issue with “much stiffer penalties” including potential jail sentences.

“So far we’ve treated vaping like tobacco – at most we impose a fine. But that’s no longer enough,” said Prime Minister Wong during his address, emphasising the serious health and social concerns posed by these devices.

The crackdown comes amid increasing concern about the prevalence of vaping among young Singaporeans, with special attention being paid to vapes laced with harmful substances such as etomidate – a fast-acting anaesthetic that can be dangerous outside medical settings.

For employers, this hardened governmental stance raises important questions about their role in enforcement and the extent of their authority within workplace settings.

Legal Framework for Employers

Employers can expressly prohibit employees from vaping in the work premises by explicitly stating this in the employment terms, either through the contract or employee handbook.

The Employment Act provides mechanisms for disciplinary action. Pursuant to section 14(1) of the Employment Act 1968, employers may take appropriate disciplinary measures, including potential termination, for misconduct following due inquiry if employees violate established workplace policies.

Who Can Conduct Searches Legally?

Singapore legislation strictly defines and limits which authorities possess the legal power to search personal belongings, including bags and containers. This legal framework establishes clear distinctions between statutory search powers and conditional or consent-based authorities:

Police Officers

Police officers in Singapore derive their search powers from several legislative provisions, most notably Section 22 of the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act 2018. This section empowers police officers, pursuant to a special authorisation, to stop, detain, and search individuals and their personal property without a warrant under specific circumstances.

The law explicitly permits police officers to require individuals to “produce or empty the contents of any bag, container or other receptacle” and to “search through any bag, container or other receptacle” when conducting searches under special authorisations. These powers apply when:

• The officer reasonably suspects the individual is a target person specified in a special authorisation or is in the company of such a person;
• The individual is in or near a target vehicle specified in a special authorisation;
• The individual is in a designated target area and the search is necessary to prevent or control public disorder, or if there is reasonable suspicion the person is committing or about to commit an offence.

For routine security screenings in public places such as MRT stations, police officers, particularly those from the Public Transport Security Command (TransCom), conduct bag checks as part of security measures.

These screenings are conducted based on general police powers to maintain public safety and security, particularly in high-traffic public areas that might be vulnerable to security threats.

While specific individuals may be selected for screening based on security assessments, these routine checks are part of Singapore’s overall security framework.

Authorised Government Officers

Several government agencies have officers empowered with specific search authorities under relevant legislation:

• National Environment Agency (NEA) Officers: Environmental health officers and environmental control officers appointed by the NEA are authorised under Section 81 of the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) to “enter upon lands for purposes of the Act.”
  Health Sciences Authority (HSA) Officers: HSA officers derive their search powers from Section 23 of the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act, which empowers them to conduct inspections and searches to enforce prohibitions against imitation tobacco products, including vaping devices.
• Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) Officers: ICA officers search powers are stipulated under Section 51 of the Immigration Act, which grants them authority to examine the baggage and personal belongings of persons entering Singapore to prevent prohibited items, including vaping devices, from crossing the border.
• Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) Officers: Given the reclassification of vaping as a drug-related issue, CNB officers’ powers to search persons and belongings are derived from Section 24 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which provides extensive authority to search and seize items related to drug offences.

Security Guards

Private security guards in Singapore do not have inherent statutory search powers. Their authority to conduct bag searches is limited to:

1. Secured premises where entry is conditional upon consent to search (such as government buildings, concert venues, or private property)
2. Where explicit signage indicates that entry constitutes consent to search
3. Where a person voluntarily consents to a search

Security guards must clearly identify themselves with proper security officer licences issued by the Police Licensing & Regulatory Department of the Singapore Police Force. These licences must be carried at all times while on duty.

It’s important to note that security guards cannot forcibly search individuals or their belongings without consent. Their authority extends only to denying entry to premises if a person refuses a security check where such checks are a condition of entry.

Acting as Police Officers: A Serious Offence

As employers intensify anti-vaping measures, concerning reports have emerged of human resource personnel or workplace supervisors occasionally misrepresenting their authority during workplace searches.

Any attempt by HR staff or managers to portray themselves as having police-like powers constitutes a serious criminal offence under Singapore law.

HR personnel who claim to possess police authority when conducting bag searches—whether by explicitly stating they are acting with police powers, implying they have legal authority to conduct mandatory searches, or using police terminology to intimidate employees—are committing the offence of personating a public servant under Section 170 of the Penal Code.

Any right to search an employee’s belongings exists only through contractual consent, not through legal authority comparable to that of police officers.

The Singapore Police Force treats impersonation cases with utmost seriousness. In January 2021, a 34-year-old man was arrested after identifying himself as a police officer to steal a mobile phone from a victim at Rowell Road.

The man had instructed the victim to surrender his phone for “checks” and to collect it later at a police station. He was subsequently charged under Section 170 of the Penal Code, which carries penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Employees who encounter supervisors or HR personnel who claim to possess police-like search powers should:

• Ask for clarification about the precise source of their search authority;
• Request to see the company policy that permits such searches;
• If the person claims to be a police officer or to be acting with police authority, request to see their police warrant card;
• Document the incident, including the claims made and any witnesses present;
• Report incidents of impersonation to the police.

A genuine police warrant card contains specific security features, including the police crest, the officer’s photo, name and NRIC number, and a holographic “POLICE” word that appears below the photo when tilted.

The Singapore Police Force advises that members of the public who are uncertain about an officer’s identity should call 999 for verification.

Can I physically remove vaping devices from employees against their will?

Any physical attempt by employers or security personnel to forcibly confiscate vaping devices from employees without proper legal authority may constitute the serious torts of assault and battery under Singapore law, exposing the organisation to significant liability.

While vaping devices are indeed illegal, this doesn’t automatically grant private citizens, including employers, the authority to physically seize them. The correct approach would be to report to law enforcement who have proper statutory authority to confiscate these illegal items.

Battery occurs when there is intentional and direct application of force to another person without their consent or lawful justification. Even minimal physical contact, such as grabbing someone’s hand or bag to retrieve a vaping device, could satisfy this definition if done without consent.

Assault involves causing another person to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. By the mere act of “threatening” could constitute to assault even if no physical contact occurs. Threatening physical action to seize a vape could constitute assault even if no physical contact occurs.

The legal consequences of assault and battery can include:

• Civil liability for damages
• Criminal charges under Section 351 of the Penal Code
• Reputational damage to the organisation

Best practice is to rely on proper contractual provisions, conduct searches only with consent, and involve law enforcement when necessary rather than attempting physical seizures.

Contractual Consent and Beyond: Lawful Approaches to Workplace Bag Searches

When Can Employers Search Employee Bags?

Unlike law enforcement authorities, employers in Singapore have no inherent statutory right to search employees’ belongings. Their authority to conduct bag searches is derived solely from contractual consent and must be exercised within strict boundaries.

Workplace searches operate within an entirely different legal framework than police searches. Employers cannot simply conduct bag searches at will, even on company premises, without appropriate contractual provisions and reasonable grounds.

Companies should seek these prerequisites before conducting employee bag searches to avoid legal implications:

• The employment contract or employee handbook must clearly state that bag searches may be conducted, the circumstances under which they might occur, and the procedures to be followed.
• Searches must be conducted for legitimate business purposes such as security, safety, or preventing theft of company property. Random or arbitrary searches without reasonable suspicion may be difficult to justify legally.
• The search policy must be applied uniformly to all employees in similar positions without discrimination based on race, religion, nationality, age, or other protected characteristics.
• Searches must be conducted in a manner that respects the employee’s dignity and privacy, ideally in a private area away from other employees.
• The extent and intrusiveness of the search must be proportional to the legitimate aims being pursued. For example, a suspected vaping device would not justify a comprehensive search of all personal items.

Potential Legal Implications of Improper Searches

Employers who conduct bag searches without proper authority or in an inappropriate manner face significant legal risks under Singapore law, including:

False Imprisonment

If an employee is detained against their will during a search, employers may face claims of false imprisonment. This tort occurs when someone is intentionally confined within a restricted area without lawful justification.

Under tort law, even a brief detention can constitute false imprisonment if the employee reasonably believes they are not free to leave. For example, if a supervisor blocks the door while demanding to search an employee’s bag, this could potentially constitute false imprisonment.

Courts would consider factors such as the duration of detention, the manner in which it was conducted, and whether reasonable alternatives were available. Damages for false imprisonment may include compensation for distress and humiliation.

Defamation

Workplace searches conducted in public view or in a manner suggesting misconduct can potentially give rise to defamation claims, particularly if they damage an employee’s reputation among colleagues.

Under Singapore’s Defamation Act, both libel (written defamation) and slander (spoken defamation) are actionable. If a search publicly implies that an employee has engaged in theft, drug use, or other misconduct without sufficient evidence, this could constitute defamation.

The mere act of singling someone out for a public search can implicitly communicate suspicion of wrongdoing to observers. Employers should conduct searches discreetly and with appropriate privacy measures to mitigate defamation risks.

Wrongful Dismissal

If an employee is terminated based on evidence obtained through an improper search, they may have grounds for a wrongful dismissal claim. Singapore courts increasingly scrutinise both the procedural and substantive fairness of dismissals.

Evidence obtained through improper searches may be challenged in wrongful dismissal proceedings. The Employment Claims Tribunals or civil courts may order compensation, including salary in lieu of notice, if they find that a dismissal was wrongful.

Best Practices for Employers

To minimise legal exposure while effectively enforcing anti-vaping policies, employers should:

• Explicitly state in employment contracts and handbooks that bag searches may be conducted, specifying the circumstances, procedures, and purposes.
• Ensure all employees acknowledge and consent to search policies as a condition of employment.
• Managers conducting searches should be trained on proper procedures, including respect for privacy and dignity.
• Before conducting targeted searches, document the specific observations or information that created reasonable suspicion.
• Ensure search policies are applied consistently without discrimination.
• Explore less intrusive methods before resorting to bag searches, such as workplace education about vaping risks or voluntary disclosure programmes.
• When in doubt, seek legal advice before implementing or conducting workplace searches.

Can Employers Deduct Salaries for Vaping Violations?

With vaping now treated as a more serious offence in Singapore, employers are increasingly considering financial penalties for employees caught vaping on company premises. However, the legal framework for salary deductions in Singapore is strict and tightly regulated by the Ministry of Manpower.

Under the Employment Act, salary deductions are permitted only in specific circumstances, and punitive deductions for misconduct such as vaping generally fall outside these parameters. According to Section 26 of the Employment Act, an employer may deduct an employee’s salary only under limited conditions, including:

• Absence from work without reasonable excuse;
• Damage to or loss of goods expressly entrusted to the employee;
• Recovery of advances, loans, or unearned employment benefits;
• Payments to specific funds (like CPF) or for accommodation provided by the employer;
• Which employees consent in writing and employers allows them to withdraw their written consent at any time, this is meant for deductions that would benefit the employee, and which the employer is in a position to collect the payment.

Notably absent from this list is any provision for fines or penalties related to workplace policy violations such as vaping.

Legal Alternatives to Salary Deductions

Rather than imposing salary deductions for vaping violations, which could expose employers to legal challenges, MOM recommends alternative approaches:

• Written warnings: Formal documentation of the violation with clear indications that repeated offences may lead to more serious consequences.
• Suspension: The Employment Act permits suspension without pay for up to one week as a disciplinary measure, following proper due inquiry procedures.
• Performance improvement plans: Structured approaches to correcting the behaviour with clear expectations and consequences.
• Termination for serious or repeated offences: Following due inquiry, employers may terminate employment for misconduct, which could include persistent violations of an explicitly stated no-vaping policy.

Best Practices for Employers

Companies seeking to enforce anti-vaping policies should consider these approaches:

• Establish explicit anti-vaping policies in employment contracts and handbooks, outlining the disciplinary consequences that comply with employment law.
• Implement a graduated system of consequences that begins with warnings before progressing to more serious measures.
• Conduct proper investigations before imposing any disciplinary measures, including suspensions or termination.
• Maintain thorough records of policy violations, warnings issued, and steps taken to address the behaviour.
• Implement workplace education programmes about the health and legal risks of vaping as a preventive measure.

Want to learn how you could enforce contractual obligations around vaping in your workplace?

Enhance your HR competencies and ensure your workplace practices align with Singapore’s dynamic legal framework through our 2-day course in, “Human Resource Policies and Legislation Framework Management (Level 4)“.

In this course, we will cover the Employment Act’s application to workplace misconduct, principles of procedural fairness in disciplinary actions, development of clear anti-vaping policies, and structured frameworks for managing sensitive internal investigations—all supported by relevant case law and practical exercises.

Disclaimer

The information contained herein is provided for general informational purposes only. While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, inadvertent errors or omissions may occur. No representations or warranties, express or implied, are made regarding the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the information provided. The authors expressly disclaim any and all liability arising from, or in connection with, any errors or omissions. Recipients are advised to seek independent legal counsel for advice pertaining to their individual circumstances.