Singapore Drink Driving Laws & Section 67 Penalties Guide 2026

Section 67 applies to a person who is driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place and is either incapable of having proper control because of drink or another substance covered by the provision, or has alcohol in the body exceeding the prescribed limit.

Section 68 is a separate offence concerning a person who is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place while under the influence of drink, drugs or another specified substance to the statutory extent. Being 'in charge' is not identical to driving or attempting to drive under Section 67.

Section 69 governs preliminary breath tests. A police officer may require a preliminary breath test in the circumstances specified by the Act. Since 3 October 2025, immigration officers also have specified powers to require preliminary breath tests within or near authorised checkpoints for the prevention or detection of Section 67 or 68 offences.

Section 70 governs provision of a breath specimen for analysis or, in specified circumstances, a blood specimen. A person arrested under Section 69(5) may be required to provide a specimen for evidential analysis. A blood specimen can be required only under the conditions stated in Section 70.

Section 71A contains evidential provisions for proceedings under Sections 67 and 68. The statutory testing and evidential framework is therefore more specific than simply treating every roadside screening result as conclusive proof.

Section 72 provides definitions used by Sections 67 to 71B, including the prescribed alcohol limits and the meaning of breath test and related terms.

Section 67 is not limited to the numerical alcohol threshold. It also separately criminalises driving or attempting to drive while so under the influence of drink or another substance that the driver is incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. Therefore, a person should not treat the statutory limit as a safe amount to drink before driving.

The statutory maximum sentence is not the same as the sentence actually imposed in every case. Courts consider the facts and relevant sentencing principles, including the alcohol level, manner of driving, harm, antecedents and other circumstances where applicable.

For ordinary Section 67 drink-driving cases, Singapore courts have used sentencing frameworks that consider the level of alcohol and other culpability and harm factors. A published High Court decision summarised a post-2019 working framework for first offenders by breath alcohol level, but that framework is not a replacement for the statute and should not be presented as a guaranteed tariff for every case.

These figures are included only as a historical/published judicial sentencing framework discussed in Rafael Voltaire Alzate v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGHC 224. They are not statutory minimums, guarantees, or a substitute for the current law and case-specific sentencing.

Under Section 69(5), a police officer or, in specified circumstances, an immigration officer may arrest without warrant where a preliminary breath test gives reasonable cause to suspect that the alcohol proportion exceeds the prescribed limit, where a required specimen was not provided and there is reasonable cause to suspect alcohol is present, or where there is reasonable cause to suspect specified substance impairment.

Section 71 restricts compulsory breath or laboratory specimen requirements for hospital patients unless the medical practitioner in immediate charge authorises the process and the specimen is to be provided at the hospital.

Section 71B permits the Deputy Commissioner of Police, in specified accident and medical circumstances, to require a registered medical practitioner to send a treatment blood specimen for laboratory analysis.

A preliminary breath test is part of the statutory investigative process. It should not be described as automatically being the final or conclusive court evidence of the Section 67 offence.

Sections 70 and 71A establish the evidential testing and proof framework for Section 67 and 68 proceedings.

Whether the prosecution has proved the charge is ultimately determined through the criminal justice process, not by the roadside screening officer alone.

Section 67 concerns a person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place. It is not drafted as a special rule for Singapore citizens only; the legal provision applies according to the conduct and circumstances described in the Act.

Motorcycles are motor vehicles for road-traffic purposes, so a motorcycle rider can be prosecuted under the motor-vehicle provisions where the statutory elements are met.

The original page incorrectly stated that Section 67 automatically applies to personal mobility device users. Section 67 itself applies to a 'motor vehicle', so the scope should not be expanded to all personal mobility devices without checking the specific legal classification and offence provision applicable to the device.

A foreign national can be subject to Singapore criminal law when the statutory elements are met. MOM's Employment Pass and S Pass application forms ask applicants whether they have ever been convicted in a court of law in any country, which shows that criminal convictions can be relevant to work-pass assessment. However, a drink-driving conviction should not be described as automatically causing cancellation of a work pass, deportation, or loss of immigration status. Such consequences depend on the applicable immigration and work-pass rules and the authorities' assessment.

The page should not state that an EP holder or Singapore Permanent Resident will automatically be deported because of a drink-driving conviction. Any immigration consequence is case-specific and should be verified directly with the relevant authority.

Drink driving is a criminal offence when prosecuted and proved under the Road Traffic Act, but it is inaccurate to state that every conviction creates a 'permanent criminal record' in all circumstances.

Singapore law provides mechanisms under which certain qualifying convictions can become spent in appropriate circumstances, and the detailed rules depend on the applicable legislation and sentence. Therefore a blanket statement that a drink-driving conviction is permanently on a criminal record is too absolute.

A person who has been convicted should answer any official declaration about criminal convictions truthfully and should check the exact disclosure rules applicable to the particular application or process.

The original statement that Singapore motor insurance is automatically 'void' and that the driver is personally liable for all damages was too broad.

The General Insurance Association of Singapore states that insurers generally may refuse to renew motor insurance where a motorist has been found to be driving under the influence of alcohol or driving while intoxicated. Whether a particular claim is covered, denied, or otherwise dealt with depends on the policy wording and applicable law.

Compulsory third-party insurance law means the effect of an alcohol-related breach should not be reduced to a blanket statement that all third-party claims disappear. Coverage and insurer rights can depend on the type of claim, policy terms and the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960.

A person involved in an alcohol-related accident should report the accident as required by the policy and obtain case-specific insurance advice rather than assuming that all cover is automatically cancelled.