S’pore Law Society President Criticises Richard Branson For Declining Death Penalty Debate, Deems Excuses Senseless

Singapore Law Society President Says Richard Branson’s Reasons For Declining Death Penalty Debate Don’t Make Sense

Richard Branson, the founder of the Virgin Group, is one of the notable figures who has been voicing out against capital punishment in Singapore.

But when the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) invited him to debate the issue with Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam, he turned down the offer.

Richard Branson Declines Invitation To Debate Death Penalty With Shanmugam, Says It Will Lack Nuance

On Tuesday (1 Nov), Mr Adrian Tan, President of the Law Society of Singapore, criticised Mr Branson’s decision to turn down the debate.

In particular, Mr Tan said that the excuses that Mr Branson gave for turning down the invitation “don’t make sense”. He also questioned if the Briton was even serious about the issue from the get-go.

Singapore Law Society President accuses Richard Branson of changing his tune

In a LinkedIn post on Tuesday (1 Nov), Mr Tan said that Mr Branson’s reasons for declining the invitation “don’t make sense”.

Responding directly to Mr Branson’s claim that a televised debate would be limited in scope and duration, Mr Tan said the Virgin Group CEO would’ve received as much time as he would’ve wanted.

In addition, Mr Tan said that the scope of the debate wouldn’t be too narrow. Rather, it will be about exactly what Mr Branson has been advocating enthusiastically against — the death penalty in Singapore.

Mr Tan also hit back at Mr Branson’s comments that the issue needs a “local voice”, calling it something “funny”.

Elaborating on the response, Mr Tan highlighted the fact that Mr Branson is neither a “stakeholder” nor a “local voice”.

Despite these obvious facts, it has never stopped him from meddling in Singapore’s affairs and telling the country what it ought to do.

Ironically, when Singapore invited Mr Branson down for a debate, the Briton “changed his tune”, claiming that the limelight should be on stakeholders rather than foreign parties.

Asks if Richard Branson was serious about issue in the first place

Mr Tan further questioned whether Mr Branson’s response was due to the fact that he did not want to be quizzed on live TV about his knowledge of the situation in Singapore.

The Law Society President found this “surprising” as many would assume that Mr Branson is well-versed in Singapore’s affairs after reading his blog posts.

Mr Tan then presented Mr Branson with a confrontational question:

Were you just teasing us?

Questioning if Mr Branson was even serious about the issue, Mr Tan expressed his hope that the Briton was sincere and that his campaign wasn’t just a “social media thing” he came up with to have “a trendy cause to champion”.

Compares current situation to Opium Wars

In his post, Mr Tan also compared Mr Branson’s involvement in the issue to the Opium Wars involving China and Britain.

Harking back to the 19th century, Mr Tan said the Chinese government had implemented harsh laws against traffickers in order to clamp down on opium abuse.

However, the Brits subsequently waged war on China, claiming that their principles of free trade “trumped” over “a nation’s right to regulate its own affairs”.

Two centuries later, Mr Tan said that Singapore has found itself in a similar situation.

In one corner, Singapore as an Asian government is implementing strict laws to protect its own population. In the other corner is Mr Branson –  who’s coincidentally British –  objecting to Singapore law because it runs counter to his principles.

Concluding the analogy, Mr Tan wrote that Mr Branson’s withdrawal signalled his ‘defeat’ in the “Opium Wars”.

Should he try telling Singapore what to do again, Mr Tan said that we should remind the Briton that “he isn’t a stakeholder or a local voice”.

Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.

Featured image adapted from Richard Branson on Facebook and The Law Gazette.