Preetipls has been on the headlines for the last few weeks, and she’s acutely aware of them.
And she wasn’t just in the news. YouTubers and influencers, Xiaxue, Hirzi and Dee Kosh also spoke about the incident and if you’ve got over 40 minutes to spare, you should really watch their commentary, which comprises good arguments (especially from Xiaxue!) and thoughts:
Now, of course, the question is: would it be so serious that Preetipls would be charged and jailed for that?
The answer’s out, and it’s a no.
The Police Has Responded
After almost two weeks of investigations, the police have completed their investigation and released this statement:
On 29 July 2019, the Police received a report of a rap video that was circulating on social media platforms, and commenced investigations.
Ms Nair and Mr Nair admitted to the Police that they had produced and published the video. 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. There is clear evidence around the world, including in the past week, that such paths inevitably lead to more racism, more racial tensions, and eventually, violence. It will be the minority communities, specifically the Malay and Indian communities, who could suffer more in such a situation. Singapore has taken a clear approach, to say no to offensive speech, targeted at race and religion. Ms Nair and Mr Nair have subsequently issued public apologies for their actions.
The Police have completed their investigations. After consideration of the circumstances of the case and in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, Ms Nair and Mr Nair were administered with a 24-month conditional warning on 14 August 2019 under Section 298A(a) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.
The Police also received reports on an E-Pay advertisement, which featured a portrayal of different races by an actor and which had been referenced in the rap video. The Attorney-General’s Chambers has advised that there is no criminal offence disclosed in respect of the advertisement. The Police will take no further action in relation to the advertisement.
Simply put, here’s the tl;dr version:
- Preetipls & her brother given were a 24-month conditional warning
- There’s no criminal offence in the E-pay advertisement so they wouldn’t be taking any action
So, what is a conditional warning?
It’s actually quite easy to explain that: remember the peeping tom incident in NUS? Yeah, the guy was given a 12-month conditional warning for filming Monica Baey in the shower, too. Simply put, Preetipls & her brother must not commit the offence again for two years, or their new offence and this offence would be dealt in court.
In other words, like what many of us said during the Monica Baey incident, it’s a second chance.
Well, the iconic part of this is that she said this in a video she published earlier:
Interesting.
Here’s a simplified summary of the South Korea martial law that even a 5-year-old would understand:
Read Also:
- Salon Allegedly Charged $880 Treatment Package to Elderly Who Has Hearing Difficulties
- Man Replaces M’sia-Registered Car With a S’pore Plate & Drives It Without a Driving Licence
- Confirmed: Allianz Withdraws Its Offer to Buy Income Insurance
- 10th Floor Resident Leaves Baby Stroller On Air Conditioner Compressor
- $400 Worth of Durians Delivered to Customer; Customer Allegedly Takes Durians Without Making Payment
- Woman Borrows Touch ‘N Go Card From S’pore Driver to Cross JB Checkpoint & Didn’t Return Card
Advertisements
