May 7, 2025

Singapore’s zero-tolerance approach to drug offences combines punitive measures and rehabilitation efforts under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA). In 2019, the MDA underwent a landmark amendment to enhance overall deterrence, support enforcement efforts, and improve upstream intervention for young drug abusers. Crucially, the extension of the maximum period of supervision from two years to five was introduced to ensure that drug abusers receive continual support for successful reintegration into society and to increase desistance. While the amendment appeared to signal a progressive shift towards a more rehabilitative approach, the reality suggests otherwise. The extension of the maximum period of drug supervision from two to five years upon completion of the detention order hinders desistance efforts, leading to recidivism among drug abusers. 

Associate Professor Narayanan Ganapathy (NUS Sociology and Anthropology) and Jillian Hui Li Too  (NUS Sociology and Anthropology) addresses this in their article “Neither an offender nor a ‘free’ person: Drug supervision and desistance in Singapore” (Sociology Compass, 2023), where they investigated how extended state monitoring and drug-testing regimes impacted the desistance process of recovering drug abusers.  

Through qualitative research involving interviews with 16 current and former drug supervisees and desistors, the article reveals how surveillance-oriented supervision erodes personal capital, undermines motivation, and leads to non-compliance among supervisees. Specifically, the authors highlight the contradictions of the erratic urine testing regime post-release and its counter effects of various dimensions of desistance, namely act, identity, and relational desistance, among recovering drug abusers.  

While the main objective of urine testing is to strengthen deterrence against relapse and to reduce recidivism, consistent testing has led to inadvertent outcomes. Supervisees often resort to methods to defraud the tests, such as flushing their systems or tampering with their urine specimens. Routine testing also disrupted offenders’ abilities to establish themselves in new employment roles and perform familial roles effectively, hence reducing identity desistance. Additionally, the demands of urine supervision strain relationships, limiting relational desistance. Consequently, prolonged supervision hinders desistance efforts, perpetuates a sense of limbo between being an “offender” and “free” individual, and increases recidivism rates. Statistics indicate a 24.3% recidivism rate for drug offenders at the 2-year mark and a worrying 40% at the 5-year mark. For long-term drug abusers, the recidivism rate is almost 60%. These findings suggest re-evaluating models of intervention to ensure that they genuinely support desistance among released drug abusers. 

By examining the lived experiences of drug supervisees, Ganapathy and Too highlight that the focus on act desistance alone, without addressing broader social and psychological dimensions of desistance, risks perpetuating a cycle of re-offending. It is evident that a more nuanced approach that incorporates factors like personal identity and social integration is paramount to support successful desistance. Moreover, the transformative potential of religion in facilitating desistance underscores the importance of exploring diverse rehabilitation strategies tailored to the needs of supervisees. As Singapore continues to navigate its approach to drug offences, it is vital to reconsider models of intervention that prioritise holistic desistance over punitive measures alone. 

Read the article here.