The British entrepreneur Richard Branson has rejected an invitation from Singapore’s home affairs minister to debate the death penalty, urging him to instead engage with local activists who oppose the “inhumane, brutal practice”.
Branson had been invited by the ministry of home affairs to debate capital punishment live on TV, after he described it as “a serious stain on Singapore’s reputation”, and condemned the execution earlier this year of Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam.
Singapore, which has some of the world’s most severe drugs laws, provoked an outcry in April when it executed Nagaenthran, a Malaysian man, who campaigners say had learning difficulties. He had spent more than a decade on death row for attempting to smuggle 43g of heroin – about three tablespoons – into Singapore.
In a blog posted on his website, Branson declined Singapore’s offer to debate the issue, saying that more constructive dialogue was needed. He said: “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. It reduces nuanced discourse to soundbites, turns serious debate into spectacle.”
The “brave thing”, he said, would be to engage Singaporean activists and human rights lawyers. “They deserve to be listened to, not ignored, or worse yet, harassed.”
The Singaporean ministry of home affairs had offered to pay for Branson’s flights and accommodation so that he could attend a TV debate, writing: “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.”
It said that, while Branson’s views may be widely held in the UK, “we do not accept that Mr Branson or others in the west are entitled to impose their values on other societies. Nor do we believe that a country that prosecuted two wars in China in the 19th century to force the Chinese to accept opium imports has any moral right to lecture Asians on drugs.”
The Singaporean government has defended its use of the death penalty, including its handling of Nagaenthran’s case, denying he had learning difficulties. It argues that its use of capital punishment ensures public safety. In the four years after the mandatory capital sentence was introduced for opium trafficking, there was a 66% reduction in the average net weight of opium trafficked into Singapore, it said in its statement to Branson.
“Our priority is to protect Singapore and Singaporeans from the scourge of drugs,” it added.
Activists, however, say there is no convincing evidence that the death penalty prevents crime more effectively than other punishments. They also point to the disproportionate number of racial minorities on death row, and say the system imposes the harshest punishment often on people from deprived backgrounds.
Kirsten Han, a Singaporean journalist and activist, described the offer of a TV debate as “political theatre”. It was an attempt to set up Singapore’s minister for home affairs and minister for law, K Shanmugam, as “a Singaporean nationalist standing firm against a sanctimonious western interloper … It’s a red herring designed to distract from a growing local abolitionist movement,” Han wrote in her recent newsletter We, The Citizens.
Singaporean efforts to save Nagaenthran had gathered more momentum than any other death penalty campaign she had witnessed in the 12 years she had worked on advocacy related to the issue, Han added.
Following Nagaenthran’s death, more than 400 people turned out for a rare protest in April at Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park, the only place where demonstrations are permitted in Singapore, to call for executions to be halted.
At least 10 death row inmates have since been executed. Death penalty cases are rarely reported in any detail in Singapore’s tightly controlled media.
A 2018 study suggested the death penalty is supported by the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans. However, support fell when people were presented with different scenarios and asked to choose whether the person convicted should be executed.
