The war on drugs – Contrasting the sentencing policy of Singapore and the United Kingdom with regards to drug trafficking

By Xiong Shiyu (Dawn)

UKSLSS Essay Competition 2025 Submission

Introduction

Drug trafficking is a global issue that threatens the public safety and public health of countries around the world. To curb the harm brought by drugs, some countries, such as Singapore, impose harsh sentencing policies to deter traffickers, with limited room for mitigation. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom reserve substantial judicial discretion for mitigation based on the individual circumstances of the offenders.

This essay will attempt to analyse and contrast the differences between the sentencing policy for drug trafficking offences in Singapore and the UK. The analysis will focus on the communitarian approach of Singapore, in contrast to the more humanitarian approach of the UK, and how both approaches weigh the rights of individual offenders against the welfare of the wider community. This is followed by an evaluation of the two sentencing regimes, focusing on their effects on justice and deterrence.

The sentencing policy of the UK and Singapore in relation to drug trafficking

UK

In the context of drug trafficking, the sentencing guidelines recognises a series of mitigating factors which would act to reduce the sentences of those found guilty of drug trafficking, such as level of involvement, presence of intimidation, control, or coercion, the offender’s naivety/immaturity, and expectation of financial reward. [1]

Singapore

In Singapore, for drug trafficking offences, judicial discretion is rather limited, and mitigation is only applicable to offences that merit the death penalty [2]. Section 33B (2) and (3) of the 1973 Act outlines the conditions for judicial discretion: (1) the offender’s role in drug trafficking is limited AND he has rendered substantial assistance in disrupting drug trafficking in Singapore [3], or (2) the offender’s role is limited, AND he has suffered an abnormality of mind which can act to reduce the offender’s criminal responsibility. [4]

The balancing of the offender’s rights and the rights of the public

Singapore

Singapore’s sentencing policy in relation to drug trafficking ignores factors such as the influence of coercion, exploitation and intimidation, as well as financial pressure, which may compel individuals to offend. [5] Such factors diminish the voluntariness of the offender’s actions, as the offence was committed under duress and pressure, which have the effect of reducing culpability.

Imposing a uniform sentence on drug trafficking offences, with severely restricted judicial discretion on the personal mitigating circumstances of each offender offends the principles of proportionality, as there is inadequate consideration of the offender’s individual culpability. The same sentence is imposed regardless of the actual culpability of the offender, for the same band of offence.

However, such sentencing policy is justified on the basis of saving lives”[6] -- protecting Singaporean society from the threats posed by drugs, and drug-related crimes, such as the destruction of livelihoods, families, threats to safety and security [7]. The mandatory death penalty is meant to act as a powerful deterrent to potential drug traffickers who intend to traffic drugs into Singapore, the threat of death forcing traffickers to reconsider their criminal venture.

Thus, arguably, Singapore’s sentencing policy gives greater weight to the rights of the public to safety and security, over the individual rights of the offender. The right to life, as upheld by article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [8], as well as the principle of proportionality in criminal law give way to a harsh sentencing regime that is viewed as necessary to curbing, and completely cutting the inflow of drugs into Singapore, thus maintaining the peace and safety of the country. This highlights the communitarianism of Singapore’s sentencing policy, which sacrifices the rights of an individual for the greater good of society. [9]

UK

The UK takes a more humanitarian approach towards the sentencing of drug traffickers compared to Singapore and arguably gives greater weight to the individual rights of the offender.

In the UK, culpability is one of the main factors in determining the final sentence, with sentencers having ample discretion to consider a wide range of aggravating and mitigating factors which will determine culpability, such as the influence of intimidation, coercion, limited participation in the drug trafficking operation as well as the potential presence of exploitation [10].

The recognition of the effects of intimidation and coercion on pushing an individual into drug trafficking indicates an acknowledgment by the UK that the offenders of drug-trafficking offences may not always be autonomous actors who act voluntarily and freely. Reducing an offender’s sentence based on these factors allows the culpability of the offender to commensurate with the final sentence he is given, thus protecting the principle of proportionality.

Unlike Singapore, Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which was written into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998 protects an individual’s right to life, precluding a sentencer from legally passing the death penalty against an offender [11]. Such a law prevents the UK from using it as a harsh deterring measure against drug trafficking in the country, removing the death penalty as a weapon to be used in the war against drugs.

Thus, by integrating Article 2 into English law, and abolishing the death penalty, it is arguable that the UK has given greater weight to upholding the fundamental right of its residents, including individual offenders of crime, to life, over the rights of the public to safety and security from drug-related offences.

An evaluation of UK’s and Singapore’s sentencing policies

According to the Minister of Law Shanmugam, the harsh sentencing regime of Singapore does not only seek to punish drug traffickers for their offences, but also their responsibility for “making the world lose its familiarity and security”. [12] Furthermore, the Minister also further justifies it by describing drug traffickers as people who “ruin lives for profit”, [13] and make the “choice” to traffic drugs. [14]

However, is this really the case? As stated above, undertaking drug trafficking is not necessarily a voluntary choice, and may not necessarily be done for the purposes of profiteering. Violence and coercion may play a role in inducing involvement, and many individuals are engaged in drug trafficking to alleviate poverty and meet basic financial needs. The latter is especially true for women with caregiving responsibilities, who face financial pressure from caring for children or elderly parents. [15]

An individual who traffics drugs under compulsion, imposed by threats to his life and body is arguably less criminally responsible than an individual who traffics drugs for selfish gain – such as to reap profits, or to pursue luxury. The former does not choose to offend because of free discretion but is rather forced to offend against his will by external pressures. A sentencing policy which ignores the individual circumstances of the offender will likely give rise to injustice, as it imposes an equally harsh punishment for individuals with differing criminal responsibilities.

Singapore’s sentencing policy, especially that of the mandatory death penalty was made under the assumption that it would have a deterrent effect on drug trafficking. However, research shows that such effects are limited, and that there is no credible evidence which supports the notion that death penalty corresponds to a reduction in crime [16]. The deterrent effect of punishment also weakens the more serious the offence is. [17]

The sentencing regime is thus based on a flawed premise and does not fully serve to substantiate the basis for Singapore’s communitarian approach – as sacrificing individual rights through sentences such as the death penalty, and harsh sentencing regimes does not necessarily guarantee greater security of Singapore from drugs.

The UK’s sentencing policy, on the other hand, is more likely to give rise to a fair result than that of Singapore, as it gives sentencers room to consider the effects of external circumstances on the criminal responsibility of the offender for his actions.

However, given the lesser sentence given to offenders who meet the mitigation criteria – such as immaturity, age, and potentially, caring responsibilities for dependent relatives, it makes them more likely to being used by drug trafficking rings to be drug couriers [18], as it will likely entail less disruption to trafficking activities. This was found to be applicable to mothers or poor immigrants in the UK. [19] This does not only reduce the deterrent effect of UK’s sentencing policy but may also make vulnerable individuals more susceptible to exploitation by drug trafficking syndicates.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Singapore’s sentencing policy in relation to drug trafficking offences reflects its communitarian values, which prioritises the welfare of the wider community over that of an individual, while the UK values the rights of the individual even if doing so may undermine the benefits to society. However, questions have been raised about whether Singapore’s sentencing policy is truly effective in serving communitarian ideals, and its disproportionate encroachment on the offender’s rights. Although UK’s sentencing policy may give rise to more just outcomes, it may have the effect of encouraging greater exploitation of vulnerable persons.

References

[1] Sentencing Council, Supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug/Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another (2021)

[2] s 33B(1), Misuse of Drugs Act 1973

[3] Misuse of Drugs Act 1973, s 33B(2)

[4] Misuse of Drugs Act 1973, s 33B(3)

[5] Fleetwood, Jennifer, 'Sentencing reform for drug trafficking in England and Wales' [2015] International Drug Policy Consortium Briefing Paper, pg 1

[6] Jean Lau, ‘Capital punishment for drug trafficking essential to saving more lives: Shanmugam’ The Straits Times (Singapore, 14 November 2024)

[7] Yap, A. Y. Y. and Tan, S. J. (2020) “Capital Punishment in Singapore: A Critical Analysis of State Justifications From 2004 to 2018”, International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 9(2), pg 137

[8] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art 3

[9] Yap, A (n 7), pg 138

[10] Sentencing Council (n 1)

[11] Human Rights Act 1998, sch 1, art 2 (pt 1)

[12] Yap, A (n 7), pg 138

[13] Ibid pg 140

[14] Ibid pg 138

[15] Fleetwood, Jennifer (n 5) pg 1

[16] The Death Penalty Project, 'Deterrence and the death penalty', pg 5

[17] Ibid pg 5

[18] Kwok-Yin Cheng, K. Ri, S and Pushkarna, N (2022) “Testing the Drugs’ Sentencing Guidelines: A Comparison between England and Wales and Hong Kong”, Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 17(1), pg 170

[19] Ibid pg 170