In what appears to be the final post influencer Preetipls is making about the recent incident on the ‘distasteful’ ad by E-Pay and the ‘offensive’ rap video that follower, Preeti thanked people who helped her and her brother out in the past few weeks as the drama unfolded.

She said, “Thank you to every one who understood our intentions behind the music video. Thank you to all the friends, clients, fans and everyone who offered any form of help/legal advice/comfort to us in the last 2 weeks. Thank you to everyone who didn’t try to kick us while we were down but instead attempt to understand discrimination and it’s several forms.”
She explained that she understands exactly why people were offended by the music video, “K. Muthusamy” that she made with her rapper brother Subhas Nair, adding that she isn’t here to justify it.
“I am here to say thank you and let’s hope we don’t see anymore painted faces and “offensive rap videos” ever again.
She continued, “It sickens me when corporations get away with major screw ups by doing the literal least – we see this all around the world and I guess this is no longer news to me anymore but we should all strive to be more accountable, both individually and as corporations.”
“If you have body paint out there…pls use it wisely, we don’t need this to ever happen again,” she signed off, as “SG’s TOP Conditional Warning receiver”.
Preeti and Subhas Nair were issued a two-year conditional warning by the Police yesterday (14 August) under Section 298A(a) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 which covers the offence of wounding racial feelings.
The sibling duo published the video as a response to an advertisement created for e-payment website E-Pay which featured actor and DJ Dennis Chew impersonating different races including a Malay woman wearing a headscarf and had his skin artificially darkened to portray an Indian ma. The latter act of artificially darkening skin is referred to as ‘Brownface’.
Hoping to point out the problems with the ad, the sibling came up with a rap video in Preetipls’ signature satirical comedy style, but it was laced with expletives and mocked Chinese Singaporeans directly for exploiting minorities for monetary gain. This rubbed some people the wrong way.
The Police said that an investigation was launched after reports were filed against the video. The authorities noted, “The video was in clear contravention of the Penal Code. If this video were to be allowed, then similar expletive-laden, insulting, offensive videos, targeted at all communities will have to be allowed.”
However, that slippery slope argument faltered when the Police also announced that though the report were made against the E-Pay ad, it would not be taking any action against the company as the Attorney-General’s Chambers had advised that no criminal offence had been committed. The police did conceded that the ad was “distasteful”.
Coming back to Preeti and Subhas Nair, the conditional warning issued by the Police means that the duo are liable to be charged with the offence should they breach the conditions of the warning, according to the statement by the authority. Following the condition period, they will no longer be subject to prosecution for the offence.

Warnings from the police are not legally binding

The thing is, past cases have demonstrated that the warning isn’t a legally binding pronouncement of guilt or fact finding.
Back in 2015, High Court judge Justice Woo Bih Li ruled that warnings issued by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) are mere opinions of the relevant authority.
This judgement was made in the case of activist Jolovan Wham who was seeking to quash a conditional warning issued to him by the Police after Mr Wham had organized a candle-lit vigil in Hong Lim Park last November to show solidarity with the ‘Umbrella Revolution’ in Hong Kong. The event attracted investigations by the police due to the alleged participation of foreigners and permanent residents.
Justice Woo wrote in his judgement:

However, in my view the warning is still no more than an expression of the opinion of the relevant authority that the recipient has committed an offence. It does not bind the recipient. It does not and cannot amount to a legally binding pronouncement of guilt or finding of fact. Only a court of law has the power to make such a pronouncement or finding and this is not disputed between the parties.

On that judgement, Justice Woo dismissed Mr Wham’s application, noting that the warning held no legal effect on the recipient and was non-binding. The judge also added that the Court is not entitled to treat a warning to a recipient as a prior offence or an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing.
So while the police say that Preeti and Subhas Nair are liable to be charged with original offence if they breach the conditions of the warnings, the High Court said it would not take into account the warning in sentencing.

“The Court is not entitled to treat a warning as an antecedent or an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing a recipient who is subsequently convicted.” – Justice Woo

In the Jolovan Wham case in 205, Justice Woo also flagged the interchangeable use of the terms “Warning” and “Stern Warning” in the document by the police, noting that while the header of the notice read “Notice of Warning”, the content made reference to “stern” warning. The judge said that the terms should not be used interchangeably if there was a difference between them.
In response to the grounds of judgement, a spokesperson from the AGC has said that the AGC and SPF are reviewing the process by which stern warnings are administered and the use of the notice, in the light of the High Court’s comments in the judgment.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

The $1.1Bn quick fix

~by: Kumaran Pillai~ "What Singaporeans want are quicker solutions. They don't want…

Dengue cases in S’pore on the rise, over 4,000 cases reported since January

Aside from the COVID-19 virus outbreak, Singapore is also dealing with a…

民主党发表竞选纲领《引领向前》 唾弃短视方案冀为下一代谋划

新加坡民主党成功在本周六推介该党《引领向前》(The Way Forward)竞选纲领,强调“人民先于营利,权益先于显贵、智慧先于财富”。 根据该党在本周六发表的文告,上述原则不仅仅是口号,更是设计每项政策的核心价值,即以民为先,维护民主,并且有别于行动党政府,避免以短期政策方案来解决国家的问题。 民主党主席淡马亚强调该党的使命,确保国人都有平等机会取得成功,以及涵括“能力、建设性和同理心”的3C价值观。 至于该党秘书长徐顺全表示“政客为下届选举打算,但真正的政治家为下一代谋划”。有记者提问该党投入如此多努力,如何放眼来届选举的成绩。对此徐顺全表示,如果只着眼选举成绩就已经偏离重点,而该党尝试向国人宣扬信息,即民主的可贵。 他说,尽管处在恐惧的氛围,但仍希望致力向民众描绘一个替代的选项,让人们看到一个民主的未来会是怎样的?让我们的下一代享有一个透明、可问责制度的果实,该党的竞选纲领正是倡议上述长远的远见。 前民主进步党秘书长、甫在今年初加入民主党的方月光则提及,民主党政策献议涵括政经文教、部长薪资、马来社群等方方面面,志在提供一个能引领新加坡前进的献议。 询及加入民主党的缘由,方月光指出,在推行政策上民主党不仅局限于选区,更有全国性政策的格局;他说过去也在政府部门服务,故此深知订立政策作为国家基础的重要,故此从如何拟定和提呈国会殿堂、再把政策实际贯彻,需要有政治人物去执行。 而他也赞扬民主党背后具有由支持者们支撑起来的丰富竞选机制,从国家级政策到落实选区基层事务,民主党的机制是少有的,也令他能成为一份子感到自豪。 与此同时,该党年轻党员纳仁什(Naresh Subramaniam)也在会上分享,本身因相信民主党理念而加入,认可该党为弱势者发生和强调以民为先的哲学。他也指出,民主党青年团也对于他们的工作感到自豪。…

S&CC rebates worth S$134 million to be given to around 940,000 HDB households starting next month

In a press statement released on Wednesday (25 March), the Ministry of…