Smoke Signals: Decoding Singapore’s Digital Discourse on Vaping

Short on time? Download the original PDF HERE and review it at your convenience!
‍

‍Introduction: Vapes, Vaping?

‍

Vaping – the use of electronic vaporisers (e-cigarettes) to inhale aerosolised liquids – has surged globally in the past decade. Unlike traditional cigarettes, vapes do not burn tobacco. Instead, they vaporise a solution often containing nicotine, flavourings, and other additives.

Vapes can resemble thumb drives, pens, smartphones cases, toys, and other types of products, making them easy to conceal [1][2][3][4].

‍

The Appeal and Reality of Vaping

‍

Why People Choose to Vape

‍

Lifestyle Appeal

Vaping’s rapid rise has been driven in large part by its youth appeal. Unlike traditional tobacco, e-cigarettes come in thousands of flavours and sleek gadget-like designs.

Moreover, social media and marketing is a potent driver. E-cigarette brands leverage platforms such as Instagram and TikTok through influencers and flashy advertisements. These advertisements also feature attractive young models and associate tobacco brands and vaping with “having fun, freedom, relationships and sex appeal” [5][6][7][8].

‍

Flavour

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there are at least 16,000 e-liquid flavours that are available globally. Vapes are also being marketed with flavours like mint, mango, and crème brûlée, and these sweet and cooling sensations have an inherent neurological appeal to the young [5][7][9][10].

‍

Harm Reduction and Smoking Reduction

Users believe that vapes are less harmful to health than smoking because vaping eliminates tobacco combustion (the source of tar and many carcinogens). The notion of vaping as a “healthier alternative” or a form of harm reduction has marketed, reducing risk perceptions [8].

In fact, this has been promoted in some countries such as in the UK where health authorities have stated that regulated vapes are less harmful and can be a useful quitting aid for smokers [11].

‍

Convenience and Cost

Vapes are small and battery-operated, making them easy to carry and use on demand; vaping does not produce noxious tobacco smoke or ash, and the vapour dissipates quickly without leaving a lingering smell [13].

Furthermore, vapes may appear to be a cost-effective alternative in the long run, particularly in environments where traditional tobacco products are heavily taxed [14].

‍

Documented Health Consequences

‍

Dangerous Substances in Vapes

Vapes can contain nicotine – often at high concentrations – alongside concerning concentrations of heavy metals (e.g., tin, lead, nickel) and carcinogenic substances like formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and benzene [15], all masked or disguised by flavours and marketing tactics.

Research has shown that some users are unaware that vaping cartridges contain nicotine, and assume the pods contain only flavouring [16].

‍

Respiratory and Cardiovascular Harm

The inhalation of vapor chemicals can damage the respiratory system. Some research suggests habitual e-cigarette users show markers of lung inflammation and reduced lung function [17]. Over in the United States, thousands of vaping-related lung injury cases (dubbed EVALI – E-cigarette or Vaping Product Use-Associated Lung Injury) occurred, with symptoms ranging from chest pain and breathing difficulty to respiratory failure [18].

On cardiovascular health, some studies have found that vaping can lead to signs of oxidative stress and inflammation in blood vessels which could raise risks of heart disease similar to tobacco use [19][20].

‍

Mental Health

Emerging research suggests that vaping is linked to poorer mental health outcomes [21][22]. In Singapore, medical authorities have flagged that the use of vapes has been associated with greater mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, and even suicidal ideation in youth [12].

‍

Dual Use

Even as vapes are promoted as a potential smoking cessation tool, it is worth noting that not all smokers end up quitting – instead, they become dual users of both cigarettes and vapes. Research has suggested that taking up vaping while continuing to smoke will probably not help people to stop smoking [12][23][24][25].

‍

A Look at Singapore: Vaping Culture in Singapore

(Tan et al., 2024)

‍

Appeal of Vaping

• Novelty Flavours: A wide variety of e-liquid flavours (e.g., caramel popcorn, bubble tea) is highly attractive and serves as social icebreakers.

• Positive Sensory Experience: Vape aerosol is described as having a pleasant, candy-like smell, which increases curiosity to try it.

• Social Bonding: Vaping is often a group activity, facilitating bonding and social interaction.

• Normalisation Among Youths: Youth vaping is seen as trendy, rebellious, and a marker of social identity. Peer influence and exposure on social media reinforce the perception that vaping is common and “cool”.

• Affordability: Vapes are seen as cheaper than cigarettes, especially when sourced from neighbouring countries.

• Convenience: Vaping is viewed as more convenient and less detectable than smoking, making it popular in places where smoking is not allowed.

‍

Harm Perceptions

• Mixed Views: Some view vaping as more addictive and potentially more harmful than smoking; others believe it is less harmful or innocuous, especially in moderation.

• Harm Misperceptions: There are widespread misconceptions, such as the belief that vaping liquids lack nicotine or tar, and that vaping is safer than smoking due to the absence of combustion.

‍

Cultural Features

• Discreet vs. Open Use: Adults tend to vape discreetly, while youths are more conspicuous, sometimes vaping openly in public or social settings.

• Association with Youth Culture: Vaping is associated with rebellious youth subcultures and is sometimes performed for attention or to fit in

‍

Regulation and Enforcement

• Perceived Decriminalisation: Many perceive vaping as “de facto decriminalised” due to lack of strong enforcement and ubiquity.

• Effectiveness of Ban: Some see the ban and high fines as effective deterrents; others believe enforcement is inconsistent and easily circumvented.

• Ease of Access: Despite strict laws, vapes are easily obtained via online channels, cross-border shopping, or local networks. Products from neighbouring countries (e.g., Malaysia) are cheaper and accessible.

‍

Escalating Threat: Drug-Laced Vapes and Novel Substances

One of the most alarming recent developments – in Singapore and internationally – is the emergence of vapes laced with controlled drugs. A report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) published in May 2025 flagged the emergence of pharmaceutical products, namely etomidate and its analogues, being used for non-medical purposes, particularly in vaping products.

Organised crime syndicates have begun exploiting the popularity of vaping by adding narcotics or new psychoactive substances (NPS) such as cannabinoids, sedatives like etomidate, ketamine, methamphetamine, and even synthetic opioids into vape liquids, creating products colloquially known as “Kpods” or similar.

This presents a tricky issue because when one drug is controlled, illicit suppliers simply pivot to a new formula – for instance, when China banned certain synthetic cannabis chemicals, syndicates began spiking vapes with etomidate, a pharmaceutical anaesthetic, to mimic a narcotic effect [26].

‍

Dealing with Vapes: Singapore’s Multi-Pronged Approach

Vapes are banned in Singapore. The importation, distribution, sale, possession, and use of e-cigarettes and vaporizers are prohibited under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act. Violations can result in fines and even imprisonment.

The surge in vaping-related incidents is becoming increasingly evident. Between 2022 and 2024, the number of vaping-related cases dealt by the authorities were approximately 5,600, 8,000, and 14,800 respectively [27][28]. This has led to the branding of vaping as a “scourge” and an “invisible crisis” in Singapore.

Beyond the legal ban and penalties, Singapore’s approach to vaping has been augmented by education to deter initiation and cessation support to help users quit. For instance, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) has worked with schools to amplify anti-vaping messages in educational materials and preventive programmes, raise awareness of the harms of vaping, and provide vaping cessation support for students who are caught vaping [29]. HPB also runs the I Quit Programme that users can sign up for to get support by embarking on a nicotine-free journey.

‍

Perceptions Matter Too: Beyond Physical Harms

Scientific evidence regarding vaping health risks provides an essential foundation for policy and regulation. However,understanding how people perceive, interpret, and communicate about these risks is equally critical for effective public health intervention. From a risk communications perspective, we understand that people’s responses to risks are shaped not only by scientific evidence, but also by subjective judgments, emotions, cultural values, and social context [30][31].

Even as risk messages about vaping are transmitted, these messages can be amplified or attenuated as they move through media, social media, and everyday conversation [32][33].

Trust is also critical in determining which messages people believe and act upon; trust in information sources has been shown to predict risk belief and subsequent behaviours [34][35][36]. Distrust in experts can increase or reduce risk perceptions, intensify or attenuate public reactions to risk signals, and influence whether the public views a particular risk as acceptable or unacceptable [37].

Taken together, we underscore the importance of analysing public discourse about vaping risks to examine how risk perceptions form, spread, and potentially change, thereby providing insight into designing communication strategies to compete in an information landscape marred by mixed opinions.

‍

Unpacking Developments in Singapore’s Vape Scourge

‍

Objective

Given the interest in vapes (and its associated harms), the authors have decided to dive into the key conversation drivers. In particular, we wanted to decode the emotionally-charged emergent social commentary through systematic analysis of social media conversations. We hope that these findings will inform evidence-based communication strategies that can more effectively reach and influence public attitudes.

‍

Specifically, this work aims to:

1. Map the emotional and thematic patterns of vaping discourse during a period of intensive scrutiny and government action.
2. Examine public reception of policy interventions, including harm reduction measures, community engagement strategies, and enforcement escalation.
3. Identify discourse patterns and emotional responses that suggest communication opportunities for future policy messaging and public health campaigns.

‍

Methodology

This study employed an inductive thematic analysis approach to examine public discourse surrounding vaping in Singapore. It also combined computational techniques to enrich the data and understand the depth of public emotions across diverse digital platforms.

‍

Data Collection Process

• To ensure comprehensive coverage of online discourse in Singapore, data was collected across Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Twitter, and Forums using Truescope's proprietary media intelligence platform with broad keyword parameters related to vaping.

• The temporal scope was limited to July 2025, capturing a concentrated period of vaping-related policy discussions and public responses in Singapore.

‍

Sampling Strategy

• A purposive sampling approach was employed to focus on high-engagement content. Specifically, data extraction concentrated on the most-commented posts from each platform, operating under the assumption that highly commented content represents topics of significant public interest and controversy.

• A total of 72 social media posts were shortlisted, and all comments from them were extracted, yielding a total sample size of 16,881 comments for analysis. 3,978 comments were manually coded for the purpose of the inductive thematic analysis, while all comments were processed for the computational emotion analysis.

‍

Data Analysis

Phase One: Content Categorisation

Initial data organisation involved categorising collected content into dominant story angles and their reporting focus. These categorical domains were identified to be:

1. Vaping Situation in Schools: Content focused on vaping problems within educational settings
2. Parents and Families: Content addressing parental concerns and family-related vaping issues
3. Government Responses: Content surrounding official policy announcements and governmental actions
4. Legal Enforcement Action: Content related to regulatory enforcement and legal consequences
5. Effects of Vape Use: Content showcasing health-related consequences and impact assessments on vape use

‍

Phase Two: Inductive Thematic Analysis

Thematic analysis was employed to help organise and describe the available data. During this process, codes and themes were refined iteratively. Multiple readings were conducted to enhance consistency and depth of interpretation.

‍

Phase Three: Cross-Case Analysis

Following individual thematic analysis within each domain, a comparative analysis was conducted to identify:

1. Commonalities: Recurring themes and patterns evident across multiple categorical domains
2. Unique Emergent Themes: Distinctive patterns specific to individual categorical domains

Similar themes were aggregated while unique themes are presented individually to preserve contextual sensitivities.

‍

Phase Four: Computational Emotion Analysis

To quantify the emotional landscape of the discourse, all comments were analysed using a computational emotion classification model. This technique assesses each comment and assigns scores for six core emotions (sadness, joy, love, anger, fear, surprise). This enabled the identification of the most dominant emotion in any comment and the overall emotional intensity across the entire dataset, thereby revealing which feelings were most strongly driving the conversation.

‍

Ethical Considerations

All data analysed consisted of publicly available social media content with no private or restricted access information included. Any personally identifiable content (if any) was removed to ensure anonymisation

‍

Limitations

It is important for us to acknowledge the inherent limitations of this work. The data is drawn exclusively from public social media platforms and forums, and therefore reflects the views of users who are motivated to comment publicly; these views may not be representative of the entire local population.

Additionally, this analysis was confined to a one-month period in July 2025; while it captures a critical flashpoint, public sentiment may evolve over a longer timeframe.

‍

Key Findings (Descriptive Statistics)

‍

Engagement and Comment Distribution

‍

‍Key Highlights

‍

13 – 14 July

• Delford Tay shared his story about his daughter, Shermaine, who died after using Kpods.

• HSA officers arrested a 27-year-old “delivery man” and seized vape devices and vape pods after a dramatic car chase.

‍

20 – 21 July

• Minister (MOH) Ong Ye Kung announced that Singapore is working to list etomidate, an anaesthetic that has been found in vapes, as a Class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

• HSA enhances reporting channels for vape offences; hotline service to run daily with extended hours and new online form.

‍

24 – 25 July

• Educational content on Kpods being a drug issue

• Vape bins are being installed, offering a means to discard vapes without punishment to encourage users to quit.

‍

30 – 31 July

• MHA to support HSA's crackdown on Kpod abusers and help in treatment of offenders.

• Vape peddlers approach primary school pupils, alarming parents and prompting school alerts.

‍

Channel Breakdown

Instagram and TikTok led in engagements (i.e., sum of comments, reactions and shares) contributed by a significant volume of reactions. However, Facebook and Forums were the largest contributors of comments.

Across all platform types, mainstream media channels consistently drove engagements; the most engaged alternative media channel was Mothership.sg. On Forums, HardwareZone was the most engaged channel.

‍

Key Findings (Thematic Analysis)

‍

Common Themes

‍

Enforcement Regime (67%) ²

• The majority³ of netizens expressed an overwhelming desire for severe punitive measures against vape traffickers and sellers, drawing parallels between vape trafficking or distribution and drug trafficking, and argued for the death penalty to be imposed.
• Beyond capital punishment, many also called for physical corporal punishment, particularly caning, viewing it as an essential deterrent. They dismissed current penalty structures as inadequate, noting that monetary penalties alone were insufficient to break addiction cycles.
• Many further perceived the government’s response as lacking and reactive, characterising it as “too little, too late”. They were also critical of the classification of etomidate as only a Class C drug, and demanded its immediate reclassification to Class A to enable the most severe enforcement measures
• Notwithstanding these criticisms, many expressed strong support for the government's decision to escalate enforcement and uphold Singapore’s reputation as a drug-free nation.

‍

Health and Safety (13%)

• Many netizens expressed alarm by using “zombie” terminology and apocalyptic imagery to describe Kpod users, and voiced serious concerns about the public safety risks they may pose. They further emphasised the need to safeguard Singapore’s youth and future generations from the harmful effects of vaping, conveying sadness over its devastating impact on young lives.
• Netizens highlighted the health risks associated with vaping, branding vapes as more dangerous than cigarettes due to the cocktail of unknown chemicals in the e-liquid, which they noted could cause severe and long-lasting lung damage. They also flagged the dangers of Kpods, noting their detrimental effects on brain function.
• However, there was a small proportion of netizens that held a harm reduction perspective – they viewed vaping as a lesser evil and added that vaping produces less offensive odours compared to traditional smoking of cigarettes.

² Percentages within represent the share of voice the common themes garnered across all domains

³ Quantifiers represent the approximate proportion of commentary within each identified theme: Few (<20%), Some (20 – 39%), Many (40 – 49%), Majority (50 – 89%), Most (90 – 99%), All (100%).

‍

Crisis Escalation (5%)

• The majority of netizens expressed alarm over the rapid escalation and loss of control in the vaping situation, describing it as “everywhere” and “getting out of control.” Their comments reflected a heightened sense of crisis, with the situation perceived as spiralling beyond manageable levels.
• Some displayed resignation or callous attitudes toward Kpod users, and suggested that society would be better off not expending resources on them, as they believed these individuals did not value their own lives.
• A few drew unfavourable comparisons between Singapore’s situation and that of other countries, such as the United States, and lamented that Singapore’s past reputation for order and control was eroding amid a perceived decline in social cohesion and public safety.

‍

Substance Comparison (5%)

• The majority of netizens drew direct parallels between Kpods and traditional controlled drugs, and argued that Kpods should be treated with identical severity. They also called for Kpods to be classified on par with Class A substances.
• Some questioned the consistency of Singapore's substance policies, particularly why cigarettes and alcohol remain legal and taxed while vapes are banned. They suggested this disparity was motivated more by tax revenue considerations than by genuine health concerns.
• A few likened the current Kpod crisis to international drug epidemics, particularly the fentanyl crisis in the United States, and expressed fears that Singapore was heading down the same destructive path, with visible drug users behaving erratically in public spaces.
• A few also compared the vape situation to Singapore's historical experience with glue sniffing in the 1980s, drawing direct parallels between past and present substance abuse patterns.

‍

Inter-Agency Coordination (4%)

• Netizens expressed confusion and frustration about jurisdictional issues between different agencies, particularly whether HSAor CNB should handle vaping cases. They opined that the division of responsibilities created loopholes and inefficiencies, and urged clearer agency roles and better coordination.

‍

Vape Sources and Border Controls (2%)¹

• Many netizens identified Malaysia as the primary source and route for vapes and Kpods smuggling. They criticised customs and immigration enforcement failures, questioning how these illegal substances were successfully passing through border controls.
• Nevertheless, a few highlighted the challenges of detecting vapes and Kpods due to their small size and the shift to online distribution networks, noting the practical difficulties of enforcement.
• A few recognised that the problem extended beyond Singapore’s borders, and called for international cooperation and investigation to address the root of vape production and distribution.

¹ Percentages represent the share of voice each domain-specific theme garnered.

‍

Institutions’ Responsibility (32%)⁴

• The majority of netizens called for implementing strict security measures in schools, ranging from daily bag checks to prison-standard searches and metal detectors. They believed that thorough screening procedures were necessary to detect well-concealed vapes.
• Many called for implementing harsh punishments such as caning, heavy fines, and strict disciplinary measures against students caught vaping. There was a general belief that only severe consequences would effectively deter student vaping behaviour.
• Some called for comprehensive educational approaches, particularly in schools, to deter youths from taking up vaping. They stressed that enforcement alone was insufficient and advocated for awareness campaigns and other educational initiatives.

⁴ Percentages represent the share of voice each domain-specific theme garnered.

‍

Educators’ Challenges (19%)

• Many netizens acknowledged the added burden on teachers in tackling vaping issues and questioned the fairness of involving them in anti-vaping enforcement. In contrast, a few accused teachers of deliberately turning a blind eye to students’ vaping to avoid confrontation.
• A few wondered if teachers were sufficiently trained to detect vapes and to deal with them appropriately.
• A few highlighted potential parental resistance to disciplinary measures being meted out should their child be caught with vapes at school.

‍

Domain-Specific Themes

‍

Practicality of Counselling (12%)

• Netizens were sceptical about the practicality of proposed counselling programmes, questioning whether they could realistically address the vaping problem. A few criticised the use of taxpayer money for such initiatives, dismissing their cost-effectiveness and suggesting the funds could be better allocated.

‍

Nostalgia and Historical Comparisons (9%)

• Netizens reminisced about their school days, recalling how they once hid cigarettes, pagers, Tamagotchis, and Game Boys from teachers - much like how students today conceal vapes.

‍

Parents and Families

‍

Parental Responsibility and Accountability (42%)

• Many netizens stressed that parents bear the primary responsibility for tackling youth vaping. They championed educational approaches, tough-love decisions, and early intervention, while also blaming parental failures, absence, and poor role modelling for enabling the problem.
• In contrast, some rejected the notion that parents should be held accountable, arguing that vape users – particularly those above the age of 18 – are adults capable of making their own choices and must bear responsibility for their actions. They noted the unique challenges parents face when dealing with an adult child’s addiction, highlighting the limited influence they have over their grown child’s decisions.
• Meanwhile, some expressed sympathy and emotional support for parents grappling with children who use vapes or Kpods, recognising the emotional toll, distress, and difficulty of their circumstances.

‍

Systemic and Structural Challenges (10%)

• Netizens suggested that deeper systemic challenges were a contributing factor to the vaping crisis. These include economic pressures that push both parents into full-time work which results in limited supervision, negative peer influence networks, and family dysfunction such as broken family structures.

‍

Government Responses

‍

Vape Bins

‍

Trust and Surveillance Concerns (24%)

• Many netizens expressed deep scepticism over government privacy assurances of the vape bin initiative, drawing extensive parallels to the TraceTogether scandal where contact tracing data was later used for criminal investigations despite initial promises.
• Additionally, some viewed CCTV monitoring of disposal bins as contradicting privacy assurances and suspected that the initiative was a surveillance trap to identify vapers.
• A few also alleged that the government would use forensic analysis on discarded vapes - using saliva, fingerprints, or DNA to cross-reference with databases - to identify, raid and potentially prosecute users in future despite official assurances of no penalties.

‍

Practical Implementation and Effectiveness (21%)

• Many netizens questioned whether the bins would genuinely help users quit or simply provide a convenient way to dispose of finished vapes before purchasing new ones. Others criticised the initiative as wasteful and illogical, noting that vapes could just as easily be discarded in regular bins or down rubbish chutes without the need for special infrastructure. Broadly, netizens felt the initiative addressed symptoms rather than root causes, suggesting that without addressing supply chains and enforcement, the bins would have minimal impact on overall vaping rates.
• Many also raised concerns that desperate users or opportunists might steal vapes from disposal bins, potentially creating "free vape collection points." They feared that bin design flaws could allow people to break locks or remove entire bins, thereby undermining the initiative's effectiveness and potentially redistributing confiscated substances.

‍

Community Support: Reporting Vape Offences

‍

Monetary Incentives (5%)

• Netizens called for monetary incentives to encourage public reporting, suggesting rewards of $10 to $100 per successful case. They argued that without financial compensation, few would be willing to take the risk and effort to report vapers, drawing comparisons to other reward schemes and proposing vouchers as an alternative.

‍

Personal Safety, Anonymity and Confrontation (4%)

• Netizens voiced concerns about personal safety when photographing or reporting vapers, fearing potential violence from offenders - particularly if they were gang members or aggressive individuals - and feeling uneasy about taking photos of strangers.
• A few suggested removing the SingPass login requirement for HSA’s online reporting platform, noting that mandatory identification could deter those who wish to report anonymously. They also pointed to the reluctance to testify in court, surrender phones for forensic checks, and the overall legal burden of acting as a witness.

‍

Emotions Analysis

‍

• Anger, Joy, and Sadness were the most dominant emotions amongst all comments.
• Meanwhile, Anger and Joy had the strongest valence amongst all six emotions.

‍

Discussion and Recommendations

‍

Social media discourse surrounding the vape situation in Singapore reveals a public grappling with a perceived crisis that is embedded with a strong call for state-sanctioned punitive action. Far from a nuanced health debate, the conversations were dominated by concerns over enforcement, public safety, and the perceived failures of the current system.

‍

Our findings point towards communication gaps and hurdles that shape public perception:

‍

Trust-Surveillance Barrier – There appears to be a trust deficit (brought upon by the TraceTogether controversy during the fight against COVID-19) that is potentially undermining harm-reduction initiatives, particularly the introduction of vape bins.

Trust is a pre-requisite for the functioning of a social system [38]. In situations of uncertainty, trust enables individuals to make decisions about their actions. Even if risk perceptions are high (i.e., people do perceive vaping as a threat), a lack of trust in the institutions implementing policies can prevent individuals from acting on proposed solutions.

Thus, fixing this trust deficit is essential to enable harm-reduction measures to be perceived in good faith.

‍

Punishment-Prevention Tension – A significant proportion of commenters demanded harsher punishment and penalties. This punitive focus frames vaping as purely a criminal justice issue rather than a concurrent public health challenge, which could potentially overshadow cessation and prevention messaging.

Emotionally charged narratives on social media, such as the calls for the death penalty or use of “zombie” imagery can amplify risk perceptions, but attenuate harm-reduction and cessation messages [39]. This suggests a need to balance communication strategies that simultaneously maintain deterrent effects while creating space for supportive messaging.

While punitive approaches may deter initiation among non-users, they risk alienating current users who need cessation support, potentially driving them away from seeking help. Communication efforts should therefore bolster harm-reduction and cessation messages alongside enforcement messaging.

‍

Responsibility Attribution – There is a tension between who bears responsibility – parents, schools, or the government for the vape situation, and recognition that perhaps the root of it all is structural. Adult children also present a unique challenge as they’re legally autonomous, yet are perceived to be making poor choices.

This scepticism creates a communication paradox: efforts to help users quit are interpreted as entrapment. There is a credibility challenge where even well-intentioned public health measures are viewed through a lens of suspicion.

Different groups perceive vaping risks at varying levels of seriousness [40][41][42]. Some see it as a critical health threat, while others underestimate the harm or frame it solely as a structural issue. Addressing this gap requires moving beyond assigning blame to parents, schools, or the government.

All stakeholders need to acknowledge the seriousness of the risk and commit to coordinated action. A shared sense of urgency can help close perception gaps and ensure consistent, reinforcing prevention and intervention messages.

‍

Ho Wei Yang | Head of Insights, Truescope Singapore

Hong Soo Jung | Assistant Professor, National University of Singapore, Department of Communications and New Media