MOH and SMC Advertising Rules for Singapore Clinic Marketing: What You Can and Cannot Say (2026)

The two regimes, and who each binds

The statutory regime is the Healthcare Services (Advertisement) Regulations 2021, made under the Healthcare Services Act 2020. It binds the clinic as licensee, and it is hard law: breach is an offence under regulation 18.

The professional regime is Section G of the Singapore Medical Council Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (2016), which binds the doctor's professional conduct through the Medical Registration Act. The ECEG itself states it "has to be read in conjunction with current directives and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health", the two regimes apply together, not as alternatives. The 2016 edition remains the operative one as of July 2026. The SMA reproduces Section G verbatim in its Advisory on Advertising Standards for Doctors (22 November 2020), which also makes clear the standards apply whether a doctor advertises directly or through a proxy he or she authorises, meaning an agency running the clinic's marketing.

What counts as an advertisement (your website does)

Regulation 2 defines the scope, and it is broad. To "advertise" means:

"to publish, disseminate or convey any information that is related to the provision of a licensable healthcare service, for the purpose of promoting (directly or indirectly) that licensable healthcare service", and an advertisement is such information conveyed "by any means or in any form or medium". (reg 2)

That includes the clinic's website copy, treatment pages, blog articles, and social media, which is why SEO for clinics is regulated work, not ordinary copywriting.

What is banned, clause by clause

Regulation 5(1) sets the content rules for the clinic. The advertisement's information "must be factually accurate and capable of being substantiated" and "must not be exaggerated, false, misleading or deceptive" (reg 5(1)(a)). Beyond that baseline, the advertisement must not:

• 5(1)(c) imply results "not achievable by other licensees", create "an unjustified expectation", "compare and contrast the quality" of one clinic's service with another licensee's, or "deprecate" another licensee's service
• 5(1)(d) contain "any photograph, picture, video or film showing the appearance or a feature of any individual before and after, or only after, receiving any treatment"
• 5(1)(e) contain "any laudatory statement (including a statement of prominence or uniqueness) or superlative", no "best", "#1", "leading", "the only". MOH publishes a non-exhaustive list of 61 laudatory terms in Annex A of its Advertisement Regulations FAQ, including "cutting-edge", "state-of-the-art" and "world's most advanced"
• 5(1)(f) contain "any review, testimonial or endorsement", except as provided in regulation 14
• 5(1)(g) provide information "in such a manner as to amount to soliciting or encouraging" use of the service

The SMC guidelines reach the same place from the professional side. G2(1) requires that medical advertising be, verbatim: "(a) Factual. (b) Accurate. (c) Verifiable. (d) Not misleading. (e) Not unduly persuasive. (f) No extravagant claims. (g) Not sensational. (h) Not enticing or alluring. (i) No financial inducements. (j) Not laudatory. (k) Not comparative. (l) Not disparaging." G2(3) bans before/after and even after-only images; G2(8) forbids "any impression that you and your practice are superior in any way compared to other doctors".

Two lesser-known clauses matter for SEO specifically. Regulation 13 restricts the display of accreditations, certifications and awards by default, permitting them only in defined places and only for the specific service the honour relates to. And regulation 16 prohibits the clinic's website from hyperlinking to another website whose content would itself breach the reg 5 standards, with a safe harbour where the licensee did not know and no reason to believe, and a duty to remove the link on becoming aware. Outbound links and link-building are regulated work.

What a breach actually carries

The page you are reading is about staying inside the rules, so it is worth being exact about what sits on the other side of them. Regulation 18 is the offence provision, and it does two different things.

For a breach of the reg 5(1) content rules, the ones covering superlatives, comparisons, before-and-after images, testimonials and inducement, regulation 18(1) does not set a figure itself. It provides that a licensee who contravenes reg 5(1) "shall be guilty of an offence under section 31(3) of the Act ... and shall be liable on conviction to be punished in accordance with section 31(3) of the Act". The penalty for the rules most clinic marketing touches therefore lives in the Healthcare Services Act 2020, not in these Regulations.

For breaches of regulation 13 (accreditations and awards) and regulation 16 (hyperlinks), regulation 18 does state the penalty directly, verbatim:

"a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding $1,000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence continues after conviction." (reg 18(3)–(4))

Figures circulating on agency blogs tend to attach that $20,000 to every breach. That is not what the Regulations say. Quote the provision that actually applies to the conduct in question, and if the number matters to a decision, take it to your counsel.

The testimonial exception (regulation 14)

Reviews and testimonials are prohibited by default, with one narrow carve-out: regulation 14(2) permits them on the clinic's own website or social media only where the review "was given by P directly to the licensee and is not reproduced by the licensee or an authorised person". Aggregating star ratings or reposting Google reviews does not qualify. The SMC adds G2(7): testimonials "must not be used in advertising on any media where you have any control over the content", and a doctor "must not ask or induce" patients to write them.

Discounts, free consultations and promotional pricing

This is the question clinics ask most often, and MOH has answered it in detail. The prohibition sits in reg 5(1)(g), which bars providing information "in such a manner as to amount to soliciting or encouraging" use of the service. MOH's own FAQ on the Advertisement Regulations (October 2023) spells out what that covers:

"Examples of information that solicit or encourage the use of licensable healthcare services are 'promotions' which refer to free or discounted services or products provided at or by licensees, or interest-free payment plans…" (MOH FAQ on the HCS (Advertisement) Regulations, Oct 2023)

The guidance goes on to list the mechanics it treats as promotional: price comparisons between usual and discounted rates, packages, "as low as" or "lowest prices" framing, preferential prices with a validity period, free or lower-cost tie-in services, group-buying listings, giveaways, lucky draws and prizes, loyalty miles or points redemption, and the words "discount", "interest free", "preferential rate", "promotion", "offer", "complimentary" and "free".

MOH Circular 87/2024 extends the same reasoning to examples clinics still run: advertising a medical certificate ("MC in 1 minute") or a headline consultation price ("Medical Consultation from $10") is treated as soliciting under reg 5(1)(g). Note the boundary: these rules govern what you may advertise. A clinic may still operate a fee structure it does not promote. The compliance question is always what appears in the advertisement, and your website is an advertisement.

The examples above are our illustrations of the clauses, not regulator-issued wording. The rule each one encodes is cited beside it; check any borderline case against the clause itself.

Which channels the rules reach

Regulation 2 does the work here: it captures promotional information conveyed "by any means or in any form or medium", so the question is rarely whether a channel is covered. It is which clause bites first.

One platform rule sits on top of the Singapore regime rather than inside it: Google requires healthcare and medicines advertisers to be certified under its own healthcare and medicines policy before certain campaigns can run. That is Google's policy, not MOH's, and clearing it does not make an ad compliant with reg 5.

What compliant clinic marketing CAN do

The rules leave a clear permitted lane. G2(2) states it directly:

"You may advertise by providing neutrally toned and objective information about your SMC-registered qualifications, experience, areas of practice and your expertise in procedures." (SMC ECEG G2(2))

In practice, that permitted lane maps directly onto the work that earns search rankings and AI citations for clinics: factually accurate condition and procedure pages that answer what patients actually search, doctor profile pages in the neutral register the SMC permits, structured data that lets search and AI engines read the site, a properly maintained Google Business Profile, and a review process that stays inside regulation 14. Case studies and images are permitted where "for educational purposes and not used gratuitously" (G4(3)), and any paid placement must be disclosed "prominently to your audience at the beginning of the article" (G4(4)).

This is why medical SEO in Singapore is a distinct discipline: the compliant lane and the effective lane are the same lane, but only if the marketer knows where the lines are. That is the work we do on Medical SEO for Singapore clinics.

Frequently Asked Questions