Is Death Sentence a Deterrence?

The recent execution of a Singaporean man for importing over 1,000g of cannabis is a stark reminder of how clear and uncompromising our drug laws are. In Singapore, importing more than 500g of cannabis carries the death penalty. This is not new information. It is widely known, consistently communicated, and reinforced over decades.

Which leads to an uncomfortable but necessary truth: people who commit these offences already know the consequences.

This is not a knowledge gap. It is a behaviour gap.

Much like someone who continues to smoke cigarettes despite knowing the risks — cancer, addiction, death — the issue is not awareness. It is that the consequences are not compelling enough, in that moment, to drive a different decision. The choice is still made.

And this is where the current approach, especially within our schools, needs to be seriously re-examined.

For years, anti-drug, anti-gang, and even anti-bullying efforts have relied heavily on information delivery and deterrence — talks, campaigns, statistics, and warnings. But if awareness alone worked, we would not be seeing a steady rise in younger drug abusers or increasing cases of bullying, both offline and online.

To the educators and decision-makers in the Ministry of Education (MOE) — this is the hard question:

Are we still teaching for awareness, when the real issue is influence?

Because students today are not making decisions purely based on logic or consequences. They are driven by identity, belonging, and social validation. Being accepted, being seen as “cool,” and fitting in with peers often outweighs long-term risks — even severe ones.

You cannot lecture someone into caring.

When a young person chooses to engage in drugs, join a gang, or bully someone else, it is rarely because they are unaware of the consequences. It is because, in that moment, they do not care enough about those consequences to act differently.

And if that is the reality, then our approach — no matter how well-intentioned — is outdated.

We need to move beyond fear-based education and start building connection-based influence. This means rethinking not just what is taught, but who is delivering the message and how it is being delivered.

Because a system that prioritises qualifications and rigid structures alone risks producing educators who are technically competent, but not always deeply connected to the students they are trying to reach.

If we want different outcomes, we need to challenge the status quo:

• Stop assuming awareness equals behaviour change

• Stop relying solely on authority-driven messaging

• Start prioritising relatability, mentorship, and real engagement

The reality is simple: students don’t just listen to who is qualified — they listen to who they relate to.

Until we address that, we will continue to see the same pattern repeat: clear rules, strong consequences — and yet, the same decisions being made.

Different campaigns.
Different assemblies.
Same outcomes.