Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg
The president of the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) has hit out at British billionaire Richard Branson after the latter turned down an invitation to a live televised debate on Singapore's death penalty.
In a scathing written commentary on Linkedin, Adrian Tan criticised Branson's reasons, saying that they "don't make sense".
He also questioned Branson's motives for raising the issue.
"I want to ask Branson: Were you just teasing us?
Were you never really serious about this issue? Was it just some social media thing that you had to do because you needed a trendy cause to champion? I hope not. I thought you were sincere."
"Feeble excuse"
Tan shot down the business magnate's various reasons for turning down the debate in his Nov. 1 post that came just a day after Branson's own.
Branson had earlier in his rejection to debate publicly said that a televised event would be "limited in time and scope".
"That's a feeble excuse," Tan wrote in response. "We would have given Branson as much time as he would have wanted."
He added that the scope would be "exactly what he's been talking about: the death penalty in Singapore".
Tan, who had previously criticised Branson's posts about the death penalty in Singapore, further panned the British tycoon's call for "a constructive, lasting dialogue" involving "local voices".
"We've been telling Branson that he's not a stakeholder, and he's not a local voice," Tan wrote.
"But it's never stopped Branson from telling Singaporeans what to do."
A modern Opium Wars
Tan also likened the situation to the Opium Wars, when the British waged war on China after they clamped down on trafficking amidst an epidemic of opium abuse.
He wrote:
"Once again, there is an Asian government, Singapore, enacting tough laws against traffickers, including the death penalty, to protect its own population.
Once more, an Englishman, Richard Branson, objects to an Asian country's laws because they don't conform to his principles."
He also suggested that Branson might not want to be tested on his knowledge of the situation on Singapore on live TV.
In his previous blog post, Tan criticised Branson for being ill-informed on Singapore, adding that his approach "smacks of elitism".
"Let's be clear: when we discuss a Singaporean law, we must consider the views of Singaporeans," he wrote.
He also alleged, in response to Branson's comment on traffickers being "often of Malay origin or Malaysian nationals", that the British advocate did not understand local demographics.
"Let me say this to Branson: before you educate us on our laws and racial bias, you need to educate yourself on Singapore, including the difference between race and nationality."
Background
Earlier, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had invited Branson to a live televised debate on the death penalty with minister K Shanmugam.
This was in response to the billionaire's repeated criticisms on the death penalty in Singapore, particularly with regard to Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam, the Malaysian man who was executed in Singapore earlier this year for drug trafficking.
Branson is part of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, a group advocating for reform.
He is also a signatory to the Business Leaders Against the Death Penalty declaration, along with other key leaders such as ex-Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg and Unilever's Alan Jope.
You can read Tan's full blog post here:
The original Opium Wars were triggered by the 19th century Chinese government's concern with opium abuse. To protect its own population, China enacted tough laws against traffickers, including the death penalty.
In response, the British waged war on China, insisting that their principles of free trade trumped a nation's right to regulate its own affairs.
Fast forward to the 21st century. Once again, there is an Asian government, Singapore, enacting tough laws against traffickers, including the death penalty, to protect its own population.
Once more, an Englishman, Richard Branson, objects to an Asian country's laws because they don't conform to his principles.
Branson has been blogging about Singapore's drug laws. His latest blog "What's the matter with Singapore?" prompted Singapore law minister K Shanmugam to invite him to debate in Singapore.
It was a once in a lifetime opportunity for one Englishman to address an entire colony (sorry, independent republic) about what we are doing wrong.
Anyway, this 2022 version of the Opium War didn't pan out. Branson retreated.
Branson's reasons for backing out don't make sense.
First, Branson said the debate, being a televised event, would be limited in time. That's a feeble excuse. We would have given Branson as much time as he would have wanted.
Second, Branson said the debate would be limited in scope. No, it wouldn’t. The scope would be exactly what he's been talking about: the death penalty in Singapore.
Third, Branson said, “What Singapore really needs is a constructive, lasting dialogue involving multiple stakeholders" and “this conversation needs local voices”.
It's funny that Branson says that. For the longest time, Singaporeans have been saying the same thing to him.
We've been telling Branson that he's not a stakeholder, and he's not a local voice.
But it's never stopped Branson from telling Singaporeans what to do.
He kept having blogs published under his name, telling Singapore what to do.
It's only when Singapore invited Branson to debate that he suddenly changed his tune. Now, Branson feels that Singaporean stakeholders and local voices should matter more, and that foreigners (like him) should not talk.
Maybe, Branson doesn't want to be tested on his knowledge of the Singapore situation on live TV. It's surprising because, from reading his blog, you would assume that Branson knows so much about us already.
I want to ask Branson: Were you just teasing us?
Were you never really serious about this issue? Was it just some social media thing that you had to do because you needed a trendy cause to champion? I hope not. I thought you were sincere.
Anyway, it looks like the Englishman has lost this round of the Opium Wars. The next time he wants to tell us what to do, we should remind him he isn't a stakeholder or a local voice.
Top image by TSMP website and Richard Branson/Instagram.