Singapore differs from Western countries mainly in terms of its traditional values and collectivistic orientation. Late former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was once a proponent of the “Asian Values”, which meant that there are distinctive Asian characteristics in Singapore which cannot be compared to Western beliefs and values – such as law, democracy and viewpoints on human rights (“Taking on the Western media”, 2015). Furthermore, Lee’s advocate for a communitarian society with “Asian values” also suggest strong elements of social coexistence, relationships and familial values over individualism. Along with experiences such as international pressures and governmental intervention, the application of the criminological schools of thoughts in Singapore differs slightly from the Western countries.As mentioned above, Singapore still practices capital punishment, although the punishment is not proportionate to the severity of the crime, as proposed by classicism. As opposed to Western countries which focuses more on individualism and human rights, Singapore has a more collectivistic orientation (Country Comparison, n.d.), focusing on the harmony of society. Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam explained that the death penalty is “for the greater good of society” (Death penalty is part of Singapore’s multi-pronged approach in fight against drugs: Shanmugam, 2017). Therefore, Singapore justifies the death penalty with the attitude that the peace of the society is more important than an individual’s life. While the death penalty itself was not in accordance with classicism, the administration of it for trafficking drugs over a certain amount was in accordance with it. Drug trafficking used to warrant a mandatory death penalty, which follows the classicism principle of a fixed punishment with no mitigation of guilt. However, now it is no longer mandatory and the judge has the discretion of doling out the punishment (Saad & Ramesh, 2012). This likely came as a result of pressures from human rights group like Amnesty International (Saad & Ramesh, 2012; Singapore Government Press Release, 2004). This shows that while we still hold on to our values, our legal system is constantly evolving as a result of changes in the wider international society. In terms of urban development, Singapore’s was not the same as the Chicago model. Since independence in 1965, Singapore left Malaysia without any natural resources and only its population to defend itself. Singapore’s government, the People’s Action Party (PAP) had a mammoth task to ensure Singapore’s survivability. PAP had only its population and workforce to depend on. In order to portray a well-managed nation with a productive workforce to foreign investors, PAP needed to re-organise its people, and to do that, PAP deliberately affected the population pattern. Under the watchful eyes of the Housing and Development Board (HDB), public housing were erected and rural racial enclaves were dispersed and redistributed proportionately into the subsidised public housing system. Under this system, residents were given housing at attractive rates which allows loans repayment with part subsidies by the government made through the Central Provident Fund (CPF). Apart from this, the PAP ensures that residents’ demographic were according to the national demographic ratio and of different racial, social and economic status. These measures ensured equal access to shared basic amenities like shelter and water, as well as schools and religious establishments within these public housing vicinity (Chua, 2009). Such deliberated intervention and foresight from the government had allowed Singapore’s population regardless of race and religion to progress with comparatively equal opportunities, thus was a huge contrast with the Chicago development in terms of its social disorganisation theory which also explained the deferring crime and criminal behaviour. The traditional values that Singapore holds also contribute to the differences in what is considered crime. This can be explained by sociological positivism which also argues that crime are behaviours that deviate from the norms of a society (Burke, 2009). For instance, unlike Western countries like USA or UK which legalises homosexual marriages, Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore) criminalises sex between adult men – however, law enforcement agencies do not strictly enforce it. This is evident from the neutrality shown by the government for pro-LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) events, such as Pink Dot, despite backlash from conservative groups (Lai, 2017). Similarly, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reflected the nation’s position on the issue, stating that the society is not yet accepting of gay marriage due to its conservative nature and entrenched mindsets but noted that public sentiments are slowly changing (Wong, 2015).In conclusion, Singapore adopts a mixed approach to crime and punishment. We adopt theories and adapt them in accordance to our values, geographical context, as well as the social and political climate of the modern times.