By Shane Britten
When Nicole (not her real name) made her first online purchase of disposable e-vaporisers, more commonly known as vapes, it took just a matter of minutes.
“It’s actually super easy to find (a seller online),” said the 28-year-old. Indeed, a quick search of “Singapore vape” on instant messaging service Telegram revealed about a dozen results, all ripe for the picking.
The public channel she eventually settled on posted listings of vape pens of various exclusive flavours. All she had to do was strike up a private chat with one of the group’s faceless admins and put in an order for her personal favourites, peppermint and peach oolong.
The terms were more than favourable: same-day delivery, straight to her address, as long as the purchase was made before 3 pm.
A few hours later, a driver showed up to the void deck of her block with a Foodpanda delivery bag as a disguise, and the transaction was complete, fast and discreet.
Every so often, the group’s name changes just slightly to evade police detection – and it is business as usual. Nicole is just one of the group’s 25,000 anonymous members who regularly turn to the online black market for vapes, which are banned in Singapore.
But the use of vapes continues to rise. Based on a survey by research platform Milieu Insight, the number of Singaporeans who use e-cigarettes and other heated tobacco products grew from 4.5 per cent to 5.2 per cent from Q4 2022 to Q4 2023.
This is despite the Singapore government’s commendable efforts to enhance public education through initiatives like youth anti-vaping campaigns and strengthening current enforcement measures, including multi-agency efforts to step up checks at border checkpoints and public hotspots like bars and clubs.
The thing is, it’s not just about vapes.
E-commerce platforms and instant messaging services like Telegram may seem innocuous enough but are increasingly becoming hotbeds for crime, be it the sale of other illegal substances like drugs or the dissemination of non-consensual, obscene, explicit material.
These issues are too big to ignore if the recent arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov, who is being investigated for his suspected complicity in such crimes and refusal to communicate with authorities, is anything to go by.
There is a need for more regular dialogue between the public and private sectors to establish common ground and tackle the epidemic of ever-evolving online crime.
However, to ensure that these conversations are not all bark and no bite, strengthening legislative action is crucial in giving authorities the teeth to effectively take perpetrators to task.
Appealing to a common humanity
Just as governments and law enforcement must respect that companies are commercial entities, these companies must also recognise their place as responsible citizens of the world.
To do so, governments can do more to facilitate more candid and productive dialogue with companies to build long-term relationships that can enable fruitful cooperation.
Think of it like this: positive reinforcement is far more effective in motivating people in the long run than simply resorting to punishment.
For instance, Australia’s eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant appealed to social media platforms to remove graphic footage of the Wakeley church stabbing earlier in April this year, framing it as a conversation about social responsibility instead of merely compliance.
With the exception of X, formerly known as Twitter, which insisted on “freedom of expression” on its platform, companies like Google, Microsoft Snap, TikTok and Meta worked with the Commissioner’s office to actively take down such material.
Nearer to home, Singapore’s Anti-Scam Centre also serves as a good example of a public-private partnership.
The Singapore Police Force’s ongoing collaboration with partnering banks has allowed them to launch successful operations to safeguard bank customers and reduce the losses of scam victims.
A legal backbone
Yet, to truly maximise the effectiveness of these partnerships, they need to be backed by a robust legal framework.
This means strengthening legislation to give authorities legal tools and powers to take tangible action against criminals, like order takedowns or disabling access to specified content.
A big reason why Telegram is so popular among its users is its firm commitment to protecting their privacy – though this becomes a double-edged sword when it is exploited for criminal activity.
While the Singapore government closely monitors e-commerce platforms and messaging apps to take down illegal content, such as scam accounts and posts, Telegram, in particular, has remained unresponsive to such requests.
Of course, there is always the option to completely ban non-compliant platforms, but this is an extremist solution that is undesirable for legitimate everyday users.
A more effective approach could be capitalising on the newly enacted Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA), which took effect from Feb 1 this year and specifically tackles evolving criminal content online.
The new bill fills a gap in existing legislation by covering all online communication mediums through which criminal activity can be initiated, as opposed to only social media platforms under the recently amended Broadcasting Act.
It also targets a broader scope of online criminal harms, with a lower threshold for issuing takedown orders for scams and malicious cyber activities as they unfold at great speed and scale.
By this logic, OCHA can potentially be used to fortify Singapore’s defences against the sprawling illegal online vape trade, which exposes users to health risks and undermines public health efforts to eradicate the use of vapes.
If public-private cooperation forms the shield that safeguards citizens’ online safety, then legislation is like the sword that strikes back at threats. Neither can do without the other.
Featured image: Depositphotos
Shane Britten, CEO of Crime Stoppers International