On Sunday (Oct 23), Singaporeans woke up to the news that the Ministry for Home Affairs was inviting British billionaire Mr Richard Branson to a live televised debate with the Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam, on the country’s approach towards drugs and the death penalty.
The MHA had released a statement the day before clarifying certain statements that Branson, a vocal opponent to the death penalty, had made concerning Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, who was judicially executed on April 27, 2022.
Last year, Branson joined the chorus of global voices urging Singapore to stay the execution of Nagaenthran due to his intellectual disabilities.
“The Singapore Courts held that Nagaenthran knew what he was doing and that he was not intellectually disabled,” the MHA wrote in its statement.
On Oct 10, World Day Against the Death Penalty, Branson penned a blog post titled “What’s the matter with Singapore?”
“Singapore still finds itself on the wrong side of history is its continued, almost stubborn use of the death penalty, particularly for drug offences,” he wrote.
The businessman noted that there have been eleven executions this year, adding that “circumstances surrounding many cases have been dark stains on the country’s reputation in the world.”
The MHA’s statement sought to clarify Singapore’s approach towards drugs, as well as several other issues Branson raised in his post.
And at the end of the statement, the invitation to debate was given, with the MHA adding that the billionaire’s flight to and accommodation in Singapore would be paid for.
“Mr Branson may use this platform to demonstrate to Singaporeans the error of our ways and why Singapore should do away with laws that have kept our population safe from the global scourge of drug abuse,” the ministry added.
Reactions from netizens to MHA’s invitation have been mixed, with some saying that given today’s difficult economic times, perhaps there are more pressing issues to deal with.
“Pls don’t waste our money on this Ang moh !” wrote one commenter.
Others were less polite in expressing their views.
One even suggested that a debate over Zoom, which would certainly cut costs, would suffice.
Others, however, seemed eager to see the debate.
“Bring it on then. You have a worthy opponent representing us,” wrote one.
/TISG