24.3 C
Singapore
Tuesday, December 6, 2022
Ads

MHA RESPONDS TO RICHARD BRANSON’S DEBATE REJECTION, CALLS HIS REASONS “LAME”

The Ministry of Home Affairs previously invited Sir Richard Branson for a debate with minister K Shanmugam on Singapore’s imposing of death penalties for drug traffickers.

Advertisements

Branson rejected the MHA’s invitation, and the ministry has since responded to his reasons for rejection, saying that they “do not hold water”.

MHA’s response to Sir Richard Branson

MHA’s Response to Sir Richard Branson’s Blog Post on 31 Oct 2022

  1. Sir Richard Branson (“Mr Branson”) has, for some time now, been making untrue statements about the penalties imposed on drug traffickers in Singapore.
  2. On 22 October 2022, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) responded to Mr Branson, pointing out his errors. He was also invited to a live televised debate, where he could argue his case, and seek to convince Singaporeans of these views. Regrettably, Mr Branson has declined.
  3. Mr Branson’s reasons for declining do not hold water:

(a) He says that a televised debate would be limited in time and scope, “always at risk of prioritising personalities over issues”, and cannot do the complexity of the death penalty any service. He adds that it would reduce “nuanced discourse into soundbites”.

This is surprising. The Government offered the debate precisely to give Mr Branson every opportunity to explain himself fully. He would have been able to put forward his views (nuanced or otherwise), and explain fully whatever he wants to explain. There was no suggestion that he should only engage in soundbites.

Advertisements

We can only surmise that Mr Branson realises he will be shown up, because what he has been saying about Singapore is not true.

Mr Branson’s sudden scrupulous desire not to engage in soundbites is at odds with the soundbites and broad unsubstantiated allegations, which he has been making, in his blog posts.

(b) Mr Branson suggests the Government engages Singaporeans instead of him on the Death Penalty (“DP”). He may not be aware that the Government has engaged Singaporeans extensively on the DP:

(i) This year alone, the Government has engaged in discussions on the DP with thousands of Singaporeans.

(ii) In Singapore, important matters are discussed in Parliament by MPs, as elected representatives of the people. The discussions reflect not just the Government’s view, but the different perspectives of Singaporeans. The DP has been discussed in Parliament several times in recent years.

Advertisements

(iii) The Leader of the Opposition has agreed that in Singapore, the imposition of the DP is necessary.

(iv) Singaporeans overwhelmingly support the imposition of the DP. One study showed 74% supported the DP for the most serious crimes. Another study found more than 80% agreed that it deters crimes like drug trafficking, firearms offences, and murder, and 66% agreed that the mandatory death penalty is appropriate for those convicted of trafficking a significant quantity of drugs.

  1. The Government’s offer to debate Mr Branson was in addition to its ongoing engagements with Singaporeans. He has been publicly peddling falsehoods about Singapore, using his celebrity status to campaign to change Singapore’s position. If his facts are wrong, it is important this be publicly exposed. If Mr Branson is convinced he is correct, he should take up our offer of a debate, and not offer lame excuses to opt out.
  2. It is not for Mr Branson to tell the Singapore Government who in Singapore it should talk to. He names several persons and organisations he says the Government should engage. Some of them are quite clearly among those who have been feeding him misinformation and untruths. Interestingly, a few of the persons indirectly referenced by Mr Branson travelled to Malaysia in 2018 to congratulate Dr Mahathir on being elected Prime Minister, and to ask Dr Mahathir to bring democracy to Southeast Asia (including Singapore). These are persons who turn to foreigners like Dr Mahathir and Mr Branson to pressure Singapore, because they do not get much support from Singaporeans.
  3. Mr Branson suggests that we study lessons from other countries. We do. We look at what is happening in the UK, US, Europe, and other parts of the world. We see the high rates of drug abuse and drug related crime, and the countless lives lost and families destroyed. Singapore is not completely free from the drug menace either, but our drug situation is under much better control.
  4. We adapt what works to our own situation, and avoid practices that have failed. Our children largely grow up free from drugs, people live in our city state without fear of violence or crime, and Singaporeans and foreigners alike enjoy the genuine freedoms in a vibrant, global city with a very low crime rate.
  5. We ask only for our right to choose our own path, to continue keeping Singapore and Singaporeans safe. The elected Government of Singapore is fully capable of taking our own decisions, explaining them to Singaporeans, and getting support for them, including at the polls.
  6. Mr Branson’s disregard for facts, his condescension in declining a debate, and his failure to recognise that we have considered these matters carefully, all point to one of two possible conclusions:

(a) He either believes that he should be listened to without question, simply because of who he is; OR

(b) He knows that what he has said cannot be defended. And to avoid being exposed, he has offered an elaborate set of non-explanations.

  1. We do not accuse Mr Branson of hypocrisy as some British media have done. We do not question (as others have), his prioritisation of profit over the human rights principles which he so loudly professes. Nor do we judge him for taking drugs together with his son (as he has publicly admitted to doing). But Mr Branson should act with some honour. If he takes a public position on a matter which can impact thousands of lives in another country, then he should be prepared to explain himself.
  2. Pontificating from a distant mountaintop, and then avoiding a serious discussion when challenged, does not suggest any respect either for principle, nor for the people whose well being he claims to champion.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Latest News

MAN WORKS PART TIME JOB AS WIFE TAKES ALL HIS FULL TIME SALARY AWAY

I used to have a part time job at a restaurant around the Clarke Quay/Chinatown area during my study...
- Advertisement -