MHA slams Richard Branson for 'peddling falsehoods' about Singapore, giving ‘lame excuses’ for not debating death penalty

SINGAPORE — The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Saturday (Nov 5) slammed British billionaire Richard Branson’s rejection of its offer of a live televised debate on Singapore's death penalty, saying that his "lame excuses" do not hold water, and it can only surmise that he realises that his untruths about Singapore will be shown up.

In a pointed rebuttal, MHA said that Mr Branson was "publicly peddling falsehoods" about Singapore and using his celebrity status to campaign to change Singapore's position.

The ministry also criticised the founder of multinational conglomerate Virgin Group for moralising from afar but retreating when challenged, which it said showed a lack of respect for principle and the people for whom he claims to champion.

“We do not accuse Mr Branson of hypocrisy as some British media have done," MHA said in a statement.  

"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.

“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.”

The ministry’s rejoinder was in response to Mr Branson’s blog post on Monday, where he laid out his reasons for declining an invitation from MHA to debate Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam on live TV — with flight and accommodations fully paid for should he accept.

Mr Branson then responded, saying: “A television debate — limited in time and scope, always at risk of prioritising personalities over issues — cannot do the complexity of the death penalty any service.” 

Adding that the TV debate “reduces nuanced discourse to soundbites”, he urged the Government to engage death penalty advocates in Singapore instead.

MHA said on Saturday: “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:

“He either believes that he should be listened to without question, simply because of who he is; or he knows that what he has said cannot be defended. And to avoid being exposed, he has offered an elaborate set of non-explanations.”

‘LAME EXCUSES’

MHA said that Mr Branson’s reasons for declining the debate were unconvincing, adding that there was no suggestion that he should only engage in soundbites.

“The Government offered the debate precisely to give Mr Branson every opportunity to explain himself fully,” MHA said, an argument that echoed that of Mr Adrian Tan, the president of the Law Society of Singapore, who had on Tuesday posted a sharp riposte to Mr Branson on social networking site LinkedIn.

MHA added: “He would have been able to put forward his views (nuanced or otherwise), and explain fully whatever he wants to explain. 

“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.”

To Mr Branson’s suggestion that the Government not ignore death penalty activists in Singapore, MHA said that the Government has engaged Singaporeans extensively on the death penalty, with thousands just this year alone.

Important matters in Singapore are discussed in Parliament by Members of Parliament, as elected representatives of the people, MHA said. 

These discussions, which have happened several times in recent years, reflect not just the Government’s view, but the different perspectives of Singaporeans, it added.

It noted that Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh had, in a commentary published in TODAY, agreed that the death penalty was necessary.

MHA also referred to its studies showing strong support of Singapore’s use of the death penalty among citizens and said that its offer to debate Mr Branson was in addition to its engagements with Singaporeans. 

“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,” it added.

‘CAPABLE OF TAKING OUR OWN DECISIONS’

MHA said that it is not for Mr Branson to tell the Singapore Government who in Singapore it should talk to about these matters.

The ministry added that the Singapore-based advocates named by Mr Branson as those whom the Government should engage 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 (Mohamad) 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,” MHA said.

The ministry did not name these individuals in its statement and it was referring to a group including freelance journalist Kirsten Han, civil rights activist Jolovan Wham, historian Thum Ping Tjin, political dissident Tan Wah Piow, graphic novelist Sonny Liew, whose actions Mr Shanmugam had criticised previously.

MHA added that it does take lessons from other countries, as Mr Branson had suggested.

“We look at what is happening in the United Kingdom, United States, 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.”

While Singapore is not completely free from drug problems, the drug situation here is under much better control, it said.

“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,” MHA said.

“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.”