Foreign Billionaire Richard Branson Makes Inaccurate Claims Against Singapore’s Anti-Drug Laws
I recently saw a blog post by Richard Branson, who once again had something to say about Singapore’s anti-drug laws. This time, it was regarding the upcoming execution of Tangaraju Suppiah. Firstly, he is not a Singaporean and should not be interfering with our laws. Secondly, it is important to note that his account of Tangaraju Suppiah’s case is inaccurate.
Suppiah’s Case
Suppiah was arrested in March 2014 after Singapore’s Central Narcotics Bureau arrested two men they believed were connected to him. Prior to his arrest, Suppiah missed his urine test, and was only arrested when he showed up days after to make up for this missed test (perhaps he was trying to ensure that he will test negative by the time of his make-up test). In 2017, the court found him to be the owner of two phone numbers used by other drug traffickers, one of whom said that he was one of the intended recipients of the drug parcel. He was conclusively convicted of abetting by engaging in a conspiracy to traffic 1.0179kg of cannabis and sentenced to the death penalty in December 2018.
There is a standard of proof.
“In Singapore as in other countries, there is a high bar for criminal convictions, and the standard of proof required is to establish culpability “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Even setting aside my fundamental opposition to the death penalty and the grave injustice of killing people for non-violent drug offences, it appears to me that Tangaraju’s conviction didn’t meet that standard at all.” — Richard Branson
While we respect Mr. Branson’s views on the death penalty, his claims that Tangaraju’s conviction did not meet the standard of proof required is inaccurate. It is important to remember that our criminal justice system has stringent standards for convicting anyone of a crime, especially a capital offense like drug trafficking.
Tangaraju’s conviction was based on sound evidence, including his mobile numbers being found on the actual drug traffickers’ phone. The fact that Tangaraju may not have been in possession of the drugs at the time of his arrest is irrelevant to his guilt, as he was part of a criminal conspiracy to traffic drugs into Singapore. In Suppiah’s case, he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced to the death penalty in accordance with Singapore’s laws.
Singapore’s drug laws have been effective
The use of the death penalty in Singapore has been extensively debated and reviewed over the years, and the country’s government has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to uphold the rule of law while ensuring a fair and just criminal justice system. The death penalty is reserved for the most serious crimes, such as drug trafficking, and has been shown to be an effective deterrent against such crimes.
Richard Branson’s call to abolish the death penalty is misguided and ignores the reality of the drug trade and its devastating impact on society. The death penalty is a just and proportionate punishment for those who seek to profit from the misery and suffering of others. Singapore’s drug laws and criminal justice system have been effective in reducing drug-related crime and maintaining public safety. Abolishing the death penalty would only embolden criminals and put more innocent lives at risk. While it is true that the punishment is harsh, it is not “misguided”, as Branson suggests.
Branson and others who may not be familiar with Singapore’s laws and criminal justice system should refrain from making unfounded and inaccurate statements.
While we respect differing opinions on the death penalty, we must also uphold the integrity of Singapore’s laws and institutions.
It is also noteworthy that Branson has rejected previous invitations by Minister Shanmugam to debate the death penalty.
