On 5 February 2025, Singaporean rapper Subhas Nair began serving a six-week jail term after the High Court rejected his appeal against convictions for promoting racial ill will. The judgment highlights how Singapore’s strict laws on speech can blur the boundary between genuine social criticism and unlawful incitement.
Nair was found guilty of four charges stemming from his statements and online posts made between July 2019 and March 2021, including racially charged lyrics in a rap video and social media posts accusing authorities of bias against minority groups.
His defence argued that his statements were a legitimate response to perceived inequalities, but the court dismissed these claims, labelling them as disingenuous attempts to justify inflammatory content.
One of the key incidents involved an Instagram post from July 2020, in which Nair commented on a video by two Christians linking the gay pride movement to Satan.
He suggested that if Malay-Muslims had made similar remarks promoting Islam, the Internal Security Department (ISD) would have acted swiftly.
His defence lawyer, Too Xing Ji, argued that this post was not intended to stir hostility but to highlight unequal policing. He contended that Nair was expressing frustration at perceived double standards and advocating for fair treatment of minorities, not targeting Chinese-Christians as a group.
However, Justice Hoo Sheau Peng disagreed, ruling that the post went beyond highlighting unequal treatment and instead alleged targeted discrimination against Malay-Muslims.
“Although the appellant claims that his words simply suggested unequal policing… I find this to be a self-serving interpretation unsupported by the objective text of his post,” she said in her judgment.
Justice Hoo concluded that Nair had accused the ISD of favouring Chinese-Christians and portraying them as receiving lenient treatment compared to minority groups, fostering ill will between communities.
Another contentious charge centred on Nair’s 2020 Instagram post responding to media coverage of Chan Jia Xing, a Chinese man given a conditional warning after being initially charged with consorting with a person involved in a murder case.
Nair’s post contrasted Chan’s perceived lenient treatment with the harsher response he himself received for a rap video criticising “Chinese privilege.”
His caption implied systemic racial bias, stating: “Do you actually think a brown person would get asked these types of questions? This place is just not for us.”
The defence maintained that this post was not an attempt to incite hostility but a call for justice in light of perceived discrimination.
Nair’s lawyer argued that his comparison of outcomes was an emotional response to perceived unfairness in the system, rather than a malicious attempt to divide racial groups. Furthermore, the post was deleted on Nair’s own initiative, which the defence claimed demonstrated a lack of intent to incite ill will.
Justice Hoo rejected this, ruling that the post suggested preferential treatment for Chinese individuals and was likely to create resentment between the Chinese and Indian communities.
She described the arguments made by Nair’s defence as “disingenuous” and found that “feelings of ill will between the Chinese and Indian communities would tend to arise from the second post.”
A third charge was linked to Nair’s performance of a stage play in March 2021, during which he displayed a hand-drawn replica of the same Instagram post.
His defence argued that the illustration was merely a stage prop and that Nair had taken steps to seek approval from the authorities before the performance.
Nair also removed the prop after learning of objections from the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). His lawyer stressed that Nair’s compliance with the objections demonstrated a lack of intent to stir hostility.
The court, however, found that his use of the prop indicated a continuation of the narrative introduced in the original post.
Justice Hoo dismissed the argument that the prop held no substantive meaning, noting that the message being conveyed was identical to the deleted post and had the same potential to inflame racial tensions.
A final charge involved a 2019 YouTube video in which Nair and his sister performed a song containing lyrics critical of Chinese privilege, including the line, “Chinese people always out here f***ing it up.”
The defence argued that the song was a response to a “brownface” incident and a form of artistic protest rather than an incitement of ill will. However, the court ruled that the lyrics, taken as a whole, singled out the Chinese community and were likely to promote hostility.
The judgment underscored the High Court’s view that deterrence is a dominant consideration, particularly in cases involving social media.
Justice Hoo noted that the “instantaneous and widespread” nature of online platforms amplified the potential harm of Nair’s statements. “While social media can foster connection, it also provides a platform for irresponsible and harmful speech,” she said.
The decision to uphold the six-week sentence reflects a broader concern over the balancing of free expression and social cohesion in Singapore’s legal framework.
The defence’s emphasis on Nair’s intent to highlight perceived social injustices was ultimately rejected, raising questions about whether critical voices can be fairly heard under existing laws.
Although Nair’s statements were controversial, the court’s insistence on deterrence over proportionality leaves room for debate about whether legitimate advocacy risks being silenced under the guise of maintaining harmony.
Nair could have faced up to three years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. His lawyer had argued for a fine of no more than S$5,600 or, if jail was necessary, a maximum of five days.
However, the court deemed the original sentence appropriate, citing Nair’s disregard for a prior conditional warning as a factor.