After over a week, British billionaire Richard Branson responded to the invitation from the Ministry for Home Affairs to a live televised debate with the Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam, over Singapore’s approach towards drugs and the death penalty.
Branson wrote on his blog on Oct 30 that he had decided to decline the invitation as a televised debate would be “limited in time and scope, always at risk of prioritising personalities over issues” and therefore “cannot do the complexity of the death penalty any service. It reduces nuanced discourse to soundbites, turns serious debate into spectacle”.
“What Singapore really needs is a constructive, lasting dialogue involving multiple stakeholders, and a true commitment to transparency and evidence,” he added.
He wrote that the other reason was that the voices of local activists against the death penalty are needed in the conversation.
“The brave thing for you would be to actively engage those Singaporean stakeholders, from Transformative Justice Collective to Mr M Ravi, Nagaenthran Dharmalingam’s courageous lawyer, and regional voices, such as the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network, and treat them as equals who are just as interested in Singapore’s progress as I’m sure you are. They deserve to be listened to, not ignored, or worse yet, harassed.”
Commenting on Branson’s decision to decline the invitation, one Redditor wrote that they were “a bit disappointed.”
Some wrote that the debate was Branson’s to lose.
But others questioned the Redditor’s disappointment.
Another called it “a smart move.”
Others expressed interest in watching Mr Shanmugam debate human rights lawyer Mr Ravi M Ravi.
“We’d missed out on a real good popcorn material,” another commenter wrote.
Some Redditors praised Branson’s response to the MHA’s invitation.
Others highlighted his point that local voices are needed.
Another Redditor said Branson should have brought up lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam, whom they believe to be “one of Singapore’s best humanitarian lawyers.”
/TISG