Richard Branson's decline of SG govt debate: A missed opportunity?

Earlier this week Richard Branson decided to thank and swiftly decline the invitation sent to him by the Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs to  conduct an all expense paid for debate around Singapore's policies on drugs and death penalties. In a statement published on his blog, Branson suggested that such a debate would “reduce nuanced discourse to soundbites” and turn it into a “spectacle”. 

The invitation to Branson by MHA came after Branson publicly criticised Singapore's policies, which sparked MHA to publish a lengthy statement calling out Branson's statements as false. MHA added that Branson also suggests untrue claims that Singapore had breached international commitments to protect people with disabilities by carrying out the capital punishment on Nagaenthran A/L K Dharmalingam. 

In a rather sternly worded statement, MHA said: "Branson is entitled to his opinions. These opinions may be widely held in the UK, but we do not accept that 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.”

According to media intelligence firm CARMA Asia, the uncommon move made by the Singapore government resulted in a peak in social conversations in the 24 hours following the first announcement when he was invited to Singapore (23-24 October) is comparable to volume of conversations in the 24 hours following the second announcement when he announced his declined to join the debate (31 Oct-1 Nov).

The invitation by the Singapore government definitely signalled the Singapore government's willingness to discuss the criticisms at a more global level - which in itself is different from the previous stance that domestic affairs are for Singaporeans to manage, said Edwin Yeo general manager of SPRG.

He added that by involving someone as famous, and openly critical as Branson, the debate opened an opportunity for the government to present their point of view to a bigger global audience, and more importantly, correct misconceptions and misinformation. For Branson, it was an opportunity to engage directly with a key lawmaker in Singapore which is not something that happens every day.

That said, the debate could be a double-edged sword for both parties given the distinct cultural and ideological differences between Branson and the Singapore government.

“Arguably, it might be hard to find a middle ground, because the base which both parties would argue from are different. The Government's starting point would be what's best for Singapore whereas Branson starts from what's right for the individual. Layer into that the difference in philosophy, and the end result would most likely be a polarising one,” said Yeo.

The issue itself is a divisive one and such a debate could play into confirmation bias, depending on one's starting point on the issue.

He added that while Branson has legitimate concerns about a TV debate becoming a spectacle and playing down the importance of the issue, at the same time, it would give the issue a far bigger platform than ever, for the world's press would certainly give it much attention.

From Singapore’s perspective, Branson is an influential personality with the ability to impact brand Singapore given his reach. As such, the demand for a debate by Singapore’s Home Affairs Minister K.Shanmugam comes across as a bold and right move, said Asiya Bakht, founder of Beets Public Relations.

She added that as a global financial hub susceptible to the vagaries of international opinion, this issue had to be dealt head on and the offer of a debate was exactly that. It would have given Singapore an opportunity to clarify its stance and give relevant proof points supporting it.

“Regardless of the outcome, with this message Singapore has shown a self confidence that is impressive. To a neutral observer, it is clear that the country has nothing to hide or fear,” she added.

As for brand Branson, Desmond Ku, founder and director of The Bridge Agency said on a PR front, the action of Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs is ultimately to reinforce the nation’s approach towards drugs and the death penalty, regardless of whether Branson accepted the invitation or not.

“It doesn’t affect the image of Branson or brands that are associated with him as Branson is known for his critical personality and willingness to challenge the power,” Ku added.

Related articles: 

Richard Branson declines public debate with SG law minister
Sir Richard Branson: 'No one gave our curious airline much of a fighting chance'