1.1 Three labels, stop and escalate, and written sign-off
What you'll do in this section: After reading this, you'll be able to do three things: look at a compliance sentence and tell which label it carries; recognise the three specific situations where you must stop and escalate, and know who has to sign off; and know what a written sign-off can loosen and what it can't.
The diagram above is the book-wide stop-and-escalate rule. The Dental & Aesthetics Edition adds only two things: exactly how the labels are applied in this book, and whether the liability of the party publishing on the client's behalf (that is, us) changes once the client's compliance officer signs off.
In the Dental & Aesthetics Edition, the three labels state how firm a rule's basis is under Singapore's dental and aesthetics rules: Statute text — a specific rule, or the regulator's official FAQ, says so in black and white; Conservative line (not statute text) — the rules don't say this directly; it is a judgement inferred from a stricter reading; Original text not obtained — we have not obtained the rule's original text, or the existing rules say nothing on this point. Copy the three labels word for word; never invent a new wording.
Two things the figure can't show. First, every Statute text label must be traceable in Appendix A to a rule number, the original sentence and a link; if it doesn't match, don't judge it yourself — escalate to the editor. Second, where the basis is the MOH FAQ, those rule numbers point to MOH's official, point-by-point interpretation of its own regulations, not to the text of the regulations; Appendix A still labels them Statute text and says so in the table header. Any compliance sentence with no label at all goes to the editor, every time: when writers fill in a label themselves, the easiest mistake is to label an inference Statute text, and that is the step with the highest risk of a lie.
In three situations you must stop and escalate to the client's compliance officer for a written sign-off:
- Facts only the client knows — whether they have ever bought a review package or a ranking package, whether evidence for a claimed specialism is on file, whether a given price is the final, tax-inclusive price.
- Judgements this book labels Conservative line (not statute text) — if the client wants to loosen one, ask them to give written reasons; we write exactly what was signed off and keep it on file.
- Items this book labels Original text not obtained — even a written sign-off does not unlock them: write this book's default wording; it is not used as a basis for judgement; assume neither that the rule exists nor that it does not.
A written sign-off resolves only the three stop-and-escalate situations; it never turns something banned as Statute text into something publishable.
The client's compliance officer signing off does not release us from liability either: under the regulations, the party publishing on the client's behalf (us) already shares joint liability with the client [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. The client's sign-off is only a record of their part of the judgement, not a clause that releases us from liability. File the sign-off sheet together with the letter of appointment; see 6.1.
Dental clinics and aesthetic clinics draw on different rule sources, so read each label for the kind of clinic: the SDC Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines in Appendix A.2 govern only dentists. The practitioners at an aesthetic clinic are doctors, and the code that applies to them is the SMC Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines, whose original document we did not obtain this round (we obtained only SMC announcements and the passages quoted from it in the MOH FAQ). So wherever this book labels a sentence Statute text on the strength of an SDC rule alone — peer comparison, not linking to commercial companies, lack of awareness not being a defence, the code's standard for doctor pages, bylines on contributed pieces — it is Statute text for dental clinics and is treated as Original text not obtained for aesthetic clinics: still write it the way this book says, do not treat it as a basis for judgement, and even a written sign-off does not unlock it. What you actually do is identical for both kinds of clinic; the only difference is how you describe the basis to the client.
1.2 The clinic's own prices: fixed final prices only
What you'll do in this section: Wherever the clinic's own price appears — page copy, title, structured data, business profiles, price lists you send out, PDFs — write it in the same format: say exactly which service it is, give one final price incl. GST, and spell out what is always included in that one price. The format is the same whatever the carrier.
Every row in the figure rests on the same rule: list only the fixed final price; put no prefix or description in front of the price; do not list the original price or a discount [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. Case-by-case variation can only be expressed as tiered, itemised pricing, with each tier's defining conditions spelled out. The effective date, what's included and what's charged separately may be written: they describe the scope of the service, not the price. Price rises and falls, historical prices, package prices and offer prices with an expiry date belong in the same category as the discounts and limited-time offers in the figure, and are not written either.
Free or discounted services in an advertisement count as soliciting, so never write CTAs such as "First consultation free" or "free check-up" [Statute text; see Appendix A.1, A.2]. Promotions and referral incentives are not banned in themselves; they just cannot go into an advertisement, and can only be disclosed in person at the point of payment [Statute text; see Appendix A.1].
Write the title to this formula: <specific service> Price in Singapore (2026): S$<final price incl. GST> <unit> | <clinic name>; when more than one service appears in the same title, write it as <Service A> S$A · <Service B> S$B (incl. GST). From, starting, as low as, only, After Medisave, CHAS up to, a discount, a range — none of these may appear in the title.
Example (dental) One dental clinic wrote its title as "Dental Implant Cost Singapore (2026) | From $X After Medisave"; another version read "… CHAS Up to $Y". AI has cited both (2 cases). Being cited doesn't mean it's usable: ranking criteria do not apply to compliance, and From, After Medisave and CHAS Up to are all price prefixes. Dental and aesthetics clients never use any of them.
Tiered pricing is written like this:
Example (dental) Clear aligner treatment split into three fixed-price tiers, all incl. GST, effective 2026-01-01: mild S$4,800 (crowding ≤3mm; includes 3 follow-up visits + 1 set of retainers; extractions and mini-implants charged separately, itemised); moderate S$6,800 (crowding 3–6mm; includes 5 follow-up visits + 1 set of retainers; extractions and mini-implants charged separately, itemised); complex S$8,600 (crowding >6mm; includes 8 follow-up visits + 2 sets of retainers; extractions, mini-implants and orthognathic surgery charged separately, itemised). All three tiers are single fixed prices — none of them is a "from" price.
Policies on follow-up visits, rework and refunds state only the time limit, the number of times and what is already included in the quoted price. The words "free", "complimentary", "at no extra charge" and "$0" must not appear, even when they are true [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. This rule does not govern page copy alone: business profiles, off-site material and review replies are all written to the same rule.
How you write a price follows the content, not the carrier: the price field in structured data (2.4), the organisation facts page (3.1), the price field in a business profile (3.4), a directory's self-supplied blurb (6.3), a price list you send out (6.4), a PDF (5.20) — every one of them is written to this section; not one carrier is an exception.
How to handle official fee benchmarks and peer price ranges is covered in the next section; not repeated here.
1.3 Official benchmarks and subsidies: their own section, with none of the clinic's prices in it
What you'll do in this section: Write official figures such as MOH fee benchmarks, CHAS subsidy amounts and Medisave claim limits as a fully separate section: not in the clinic's own price table, not next to the clinic's own price, not in the same FAQ answer. Write the Medisave worked example on its own, as "how to pay", not as "a discount".
The rule's own words say only one thing: an advertisement that lists a price must not include a comparative listing of prices [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. "The same table, the same paragraph, an adjacent paragraph or the same FAQ answer all count as a comparison" is a reading derived from that sentence: once an official figure sits next to the clinic's own price, what the reader does is compare them. Side by side in the same table = a comparative listing of prices (Statute text; a sign-off cannot unlock it). The same paragraph, an adjacent paragraph, the same FAQ answer, or writing "we're within the benchmark" / "below the benchmark" = Conservative line (not statute text) (the rules don't spell these out one by one): don't write them by default; loosening requires written reasons from the client's compliance officer, kept on file. This judges what the content is, not where it sits on the page: rearranging the same page, or rewriting it as the single sentence "we're within the benchmark", saves nothing; the only fix is to move the official figures out into a section of their own.
If the official figure's source table can't be opened or found, put only a link to the official page — don't estimate a number yourself, and don't carry over a number from an old version.
Peer price ranges are never written, named or unnamed: appearing in the same table or paragraph as the clinic's own price is a comparison [Statute text; see Appendix A.1, A.2]; an unnamed market range in a sentence of its own, with no clinic price beside it, is not written either [Conservative line (not statute text)]; and no peer clinic's name, peer price or line like "cheaper than the market" appears anywhere on the page. This is a different matter from official benchmarks: an official benchmark can be written in a section of its own, but peer ranges and peer prices cannot appear anywhere.
The price table carries only final prices; how much Medisave can cover goes in the payment example in a separate section. Never merge the two tables.
1.4 Testimonials, reviews, stars, before-and-after photos: judged by who controls the content
What you'll do in this section: Remember one rule. On any channel where we control the content (the website, landing pages, the blog, our own social media, brochures and PDFs, EDMs, and any review widget embedded in a page), testimonials, positive reviews, star ratings, rating widgets and before-and-after photos are never posted, and there is no tier for "allowed once the compliance officer confirms in writing". A review a patient writes on a platform by themselves can be left alone, as long as we have zero involvement in it. And if the client's marketing team cites a line from MOH to demand a testimonial, you have a ready-made answer.
The diagram above is the general framework for judging "whose content is this review". For dental and aesthetics, that framework becomes these nine cells:
| # | Specific action | Verdict | Label |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Posting a patient testimonial, positive review, star rating or rating widget on the website / landing page / own social media / brochure / EDM | Not allowed, no exemption | Statute text |
| 2 | Screenshotting or paraphrasing a positive review from a platform, or turning it into a "client reviews" section on the website | Not allowed (this is a form of cell 1; the rule names it separately) | Statute text |
| 3 | A patient writing a review themselves on Google Business Profile, a forum or social media, with zero involvement from us | Allowed to exist; the only action we take is to do nothing | Statute text |
| 4 | Asking for reviews: SMS, email, a QR code, or the front desk asking a patient in person to write one; offering a discount, a gift or a prize draw in exchange for a review | Not allowed, including asking only satisfied patients | Statute text |
| 5 | Buying a review package or a ranking package; joining a medical ranking list or SEO platform that uses patient ratings | Not allowed | Statute text |
| 6 | Replying to a patient's review on a platform | Use the most conservative wording: a one-line thank you, or one line asking them to call the front desk; neither confirm nor deny that they're a patient of ours; keep the reply template on file (template in Appendix B.2); this cell is not used as a basis for judgement | Original text not obtained (how to reply); not confirming identity: Conservative line (not statute text) (A.3) |
| 7 | Deleting a negative review or asking a platform to take one down | May only remove offensive content (profanity); the text of the review itself cannot be altered | Statute text |
| 8 | A third party writing "新加坡最好的 N 家诊所" (the N best clinics in Singapore) on their own and listing the client in it, with zero involvement from us | The client carries no liability | Statute text |
| 9 | Us submitting to, contributing to or paying to be listed on that kind of ranking, or putting the ranking onto the client's own page | Not allowed, and the penalty here falls on us | Putting the ranking on our own page: Statute text; submitting, contributing or paying for a listing: Conservative line (not statute text) |
Rule text: see Appendices A.1 and A.2.
If the client's marketing team comes to you with this question: "The official FAQ says that as long as a testimonial comes directly from the patient to the organisation, doesn't that mean we can display it?" — that sentence only lifts the restriction at the organisation level; it does not lift the restriction on the individual doctor. Under the doctors' ethical code, doctors are personally responsible for the information the organisation puts out about them, and the code covers any medium where the doctor has control over the content — the clinic's own website falls squarely within that. With both layers applying, follow the stricter one, and the answer is still: don't post it. The ethical code also states plainly that not knowing what was on the website is not a defence: "it will not be sufficient for the dental practitioner to plead lack of awareness of the nature or the content of the organisation's information" [Statute text; see Appendix A.2].
Before-and-after photos (including posting only the "after" photo) are not posted, even with a disclaimer added [Statute text; see Appendix A.1, A.2]; a patient's signed consent form, a blurred or anonymised photo, or a line about "individual variation" don't save them either. Before-and-after photos may only be shown and explained by the doctor in person, during a consultation in the clinic [Statute text; see Appendix A.1], and the doctor must explain the possible outcomes at the same time. If a page needs to be persuasive, draw the material from the seven kinds of checkable fact in 1.6.
How to handle reviews off-site (not requesting them, how to reply, what to fill the empty slot with) is covered in 6.5; this section only governs whether the channels we control can carry them — and for dental and aesthetics there is only one answer here: don't request, don't display.
1.5 Wording, titles, comparisons, outbound links, FAQ: no exempt zone
What you'll do in this section: Strip out laudatory words, titles you can't back up with evidence, comparisons with peers, outbound links to commercial companies, and any promise of results, from the page copy, the FAQ, figure captions and table headers — all four of these places go through the same banned-word list, with no exceptions.
Whether or not they are true, never write any of these: laudatory words such as "best / top choice / leading / authoritative / senior / extensive experience / most cases"; descriptions of efficacy, success rate, recovery time or pain level; before-and-after photos (including posting only the post-treatment photo); reposted testimonials and reviews (including screenshots, star ratings, aggregateRating); comparisons with or disparagement of peers, named or unnamed; "free / complimentary / at no extra charge / $0"; third-party directories that call themselves "MOH-verified" or "government-approved"; and any claim we cannot back up ourselves. Of these, five items — efficacy, success rate, recovery time, pain level and directories calling themselves MOH-verified — are Conservative line (not statute text); for the rest, the rule text is in Appendices A.1 and A.2.
Three of these rules are the most tightly worded: laudatory words have an official list of 40-plus entries, and Highest volume, Extensive experience, State-of-the-art and Five star services are all on it [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]; "not comparative" and "must not give any impression that they and their practice are superior in any way" are the ethical code's own words, so even an unnamed comparison counts [Statute text; see Appendix A.2]; and a phrase like "straight teeth in 2 weeks", which ties a result to a timeframe, is listed by the regulator directly as soliciting [Statute text; see Appendix A.1].
Professional titles follow the same rule: for a doctor's credentials, write only SDC/SMC-approved qualifications and registration fields, not manufacturer-granted tiers [Conservative line (not statute text)] (basis and conditions for loosening it: see 3.3).
Operating figures can be written, but the opening is narrow: what the regulator bans is efficacy, outcomes and any subjective praise, not clearly defined, provable, adjective-free facts about how the organisation operates; cross that line and it counts as laudatory [Conservative line (not statute text)] (70% confidence, not measured; the signed compliance memo has the final word, and where the memo conflicts with this rule the memo prevails (except for case counts and procedure volume)). To write one, all four conditions must hold at once: no adjectives or comparatives of any kind; every number has a ledger entry and a sign-off; it is never placed next to efficacy, indications or outcomes (aesthetics pages write only about equipment, staff and process); and any rise-or-fall (±%) figure is deleted entirely. Only the items listed under class 6 in 1.6 can be written. Case counts and procedure volume are deleted by default: there is no confirmation process and no "usable once confirmed" tier — Highest volume is on the official list of laudatory terms, and the denominator, period and statistical basis can never be produced, so these numbers never pass the six checks for numbers.
Example (aesthetics) An aesthetics page once wrote a cumulative case count like "over N filler injections" without saying which year to which year — missing the period, so even if the number is true it fails the six checks for numbers.
Outbound links never go to any commercial company: a manufacturer's website, a brand page, a device page and a manufacturer locator are all off limits, and any link already in place is deleted the moment you know about it [Statute text; see Appendix A.1, A.2]. Link only to government and regulator pages (for example, the professional registration lookup page) [Conservative line (not statute text)].
FAQ, figure captions and table headers are not an exempt zone; they go through the same list. Typical questions that cross the line: "How soon will I see results?", "How long do results last?", "Does it hurt?", "How high is the success rate?", "How does this compare with clinic X?" — don't write any of these. Replace them with compliant questions like these: "How many visits does the whole course take, and how long is each one?", "In which cases is this not suitable?", "What does the fee include, and what doesn't it include?", "How are follow-up visits after treatment arranged?"
Before writing any outcome-type number (case counts, ratings and the like), run it through the six checks for numbers first; see → General Edition 5.10 Shared parts for all page types: six checks for numbers, no public price, billing units, dates and schema.
1.6 What fills the gap: seven kinds of checkable fact and the three-language banned-word list
What you'll do in this section: Every time you delete a piece of non-compliant content, take one checkable fact from the seven classes below and fill it back into the same slot; on every homepage-level page, write a short paragraph on "why this page has no before-and-after photos"; and when checking Chinese and Indonesian pages, use the same Annex A Chinese–English–Indonesian mapping table.
When you write, take material from these seven classes first; the basis is in Appendix A. One example sentence per class below (copy the sentence pattern, swap in your own numbers):
Example (1 registration and qualifications):
Dr Tan Wei Ming — BDS (NUS) 2009; MDS (Orthodontics) (NUS) 2015. Registered with the Singapore Dental Council on the Dental Specialists Register (Orthodontics), registration no. D1234A. Register entry checked 20 September 2026.
Example (2 technical-standard certification):
The clinic's in-house dental laboratory is certified to ISO 13485:2016 (certificate no. SG-12345, issued 4 March 2025, valid to 3 March 2028).This class can only appear on the website and own social media, not on brochures, letterhead or test reports [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]; a doctor's own practising certificate is not subject to this restriction.
Example (3 an exact final price):
Zirconia crown, single tooth: S$1,200, inclusive of GST. The price covers the digital scan, the laboratory crown, try-in and one fitting review within 30 days. Root canal treatment and any core build-up are charged separately and quoted at S$X and S$Y.
Example (4 follow-up visits / remakes / refunds):
If the crown de-bonds within 12 months and the underlying tooth is intact, re-cementation is included in the crown price above. If the crown fractures within 12 months, it is remade once, with the laboratory component included in the crown price above; the clinical fee of S$150 still applies.Write it as a rule for how the fee works, not as a results guarantee such asguaranteed to last 12 yearsorlifetime guarantee[Conservative line (not statute text); see Appendix A.2]; and, per 1.2, don't write words like "free" or "at no charge" — write "already included in the price above".
Example (5 device and material model numbers):
Implant planning is done on a Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid cone-beam CT unit installed in 2023. The clinic places Straumann BLX and Osstem TSIII fixtures; the fixture used is recorded on the patient's implant passport.The model number itself is a fact and can be written; adjectives like "most advanced" or "state-of-the-art" are laudatory and can't be written; nor can you link to the manufacturer's website [Statute text; see Appendix A.1, A.2]. If you really want the manufacturer's traffic, get the manufacturer locator to list you instead (the manufacturer linking to you is an inbound link, not us linking out).
Example (6 organisation operating figures):
The clinic has operated at 1 Orchard Boulevard since 2011. Four dentists practise here; all four SDC registration numbers are listed on the team page. Two slots are held each weekday for acute pain triage.Every number in this class must pass the six checks for numbers.
Example (7 process / duration / risk):
A single implant in the lower molar region takes about 60 minutes of chair time. Osseointegration takes 3–4 months before the final crown is fitted.This is the class AI likes to cite most, and it never goes near the advertising line; a sentence like "which cases we don't take on" is especially valuable — it can't possibly be advertising copy, which is exactly why AI is most willing to cite it.
These seven classes change how you play, not whether you have cards to play: a regulated organisation swaps "success rate" for "process steps + duration + number of visits + material model numbers + insurance coverage". These are just as much numbers and just as copyable, and the regulations already require claims to be provable, so a provable number is, if anything, the safe zone. If all that's left after deleting is empty phrases like "professional team, advanced equipment, patient-centred", the page is compliance-clean and zero-density: a page with no exclusive checkable facts gives AI no reason to cite it; the money is spent and the output is zero. The density gate and the ban gate each have veto power; if deleting leaves fewer than 5 checkable facts, send the page back and change the intent cluster. That is a signal to change the topic, not a signal to loosen compliance; see → General Edition 5.8 The conclusion block, the density gate and the source gate.
Every homepage-level page must carry a short paragraph on "why this page has no before-and-after photos", linking to the regulation's own text. That paragraph turns a restriction into a trust signal; it is not just a disclaimer.
Chinese and Indonesian pages are checked against the same Annex A Chinese–English–Indonesian mapping table: 40-plus laudatory terms, built once by legal, attached to the compliance memo, with one shared copy used on-site and off-site. Five sample rows of Chinese seed words: Leading → "领先" / "首屈一指"; Best → "最好" / "首选" / "第一"; Extensive experience → "经验丰富" / "资深"; State-of-the-art → "顶尖" / "尖端"; Highest volume → "例数最多". The full table and the Indonesian column are in Appendix B.3. The original gives no Indonesian seed words, and writers must not add their own.
