The Ministry of Home Affairs accused the British billionaire of ‘pontificating from a distant mountaintop, and then avoiding a serious discussion when challenged’; In declining Singapore’s invitation to a TV debate on the death penalty, Branson said the parley ‘reduces nuanced discourse to sound bites’
In a pointed rebuttal, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said that 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 MHA said showed a lack of respect for principle and the people he claims to champion for.
“We do not accuse 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 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 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 accommodation fully paid for.
“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,” Branson had written.
MHA said on Saturday: “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 1 of 2 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.”
MHA said that Branson’s reasons
for declining the debate were unconvincing, adding that there was no suggestion that he should only engage in sound bites. “The government offered the debate precisely to give Branson every opportunity to explain himself fully,” MHA said, an argument that echoed that of Adrian Tan, the president of the Law Society of Singapore, who had on Tuesday posted a sharp riposte to 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 Branson realises he will be shown up, because what he has been saying about Singapore is not true. Branson’s sudden scrupulous desire not to engage in sound bites is at odds with the sound bites and broad unsubstantiated allegations, which he has been making, in his blog posts.”
To 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.
If Branson is convinced he is correct, he should take up our offer of a debate, and not offer lame excuses to opt out----Singapore’s home ministry
MHA also cited the ministry’s studies showing strong support of Singapore’s use of the death penalty among citizens and said that its offer to debate Branson was in addition to its engagements with Singaporeans.
“If his facts are wrong, it is important this be publicly exposed. If 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.
MHA said that it is not for Branson to tell the Singapore government who in Singapore it should talk to.
The ministry added that the local advocates named by Branson as those that 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 Branson travelled to Malaysia in 2018 to congratulate Mahathir Mohamad on being elected Prime Minister, and to ask Mahathir to bring democracy to Southeast Asia including Singapore.
“These are persons who turn to foreigners like Mahathir and 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 Shanmugam has criticised previously.
MHA added that it does take lessons from other countries, as 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.”
Source: South China Morning Post, Staff, October 5, 2022
🚩 | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us:
deathpenaltynews@gmail.com.
Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running! DONATE!
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted." -- Oscar Wilde
