Subhas Govin Prabhakar Nair v Public Prosecutor: Promoting Enmity Between Racial and Religious Groups
Mr. Subhas Govin Prabhakar Nair appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against his conviction and sentence by the District Judge for four charges under s 298A(a) of the Penal Code for knowingly attempting to promote feelings of ill-will between different racial and religious groups in Singapore. Hoo Sheau Peng J dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of six weeks' imprisonment. The charges related to social media posts and a stage play display that were deemed to promote disharmony between Chinese, Indian, Malay-Muslim, and Christian communities.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Subhas Govin Prabhakar Nair appeals conviction for promoting ill-will between racial and religious groups. The High Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Vincent Leow of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jordon Li of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Subhas Govin Prabhakar Nair | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Vincent Leow | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jordon Li | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Too Xing Ji | Too Xing Ji LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellant posted a message on Instagram stating that if Malay Muslims made a video promoting Islam with hateful content, the ISD would have acted swiftly.
- Appellant posted another message on Instagram comparing his conditional warning for a rap video to a conditional warning given to a Chinese man involved in a stabbing case.
- Appellant displayed a replica of the second Instagram post during a stage play.
- Appellant created a rap video containing lyrics that were critical of Chinese people.
- The rap video was made in response to a 'brown face' incident in an online advertisement.
- The District Judge convicted the Appellant on four charges under s 298A(a) of the Penal Code.
- The Appellant appealed against both his conviction and sentence.
5. Formal Citations
- Subhas Govin Prabhakar Nair v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9173 of 2023/01, [2025] SGHC 18
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rap Video posted to YouTube | |
| Appellant issued a 24-month conditional warning for Rap Video | |
| Video by Jaime Wong and Joanna Theng uploaded | |
| Appellant posted First Post on Instagram; Wong and Theng removed video and issued apologies | |
| Appellant posted Second Post on Instagram | |
| Appellant removed First and Second Posts from Instagram | |
| Appellant performed stage play with Display at the Substation | |
| Amendments to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 1990 came into force | |
| First hearing | |
| Second hearing | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Interpretation of 'Enmity, Hatred, or Ill-Will' under s 298A(a) of the Penal Code
- Outcome: The court found that 'enmity', 'hatred', and 'ill-will' are to be interpreted distinctly but collectively set out the spectrum of feelings promoted or attempted to be promoted by harmful speech which prejudices inter-group harmony.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Distinct meanings of 'enmity', 'hatred', and 'ill-will'
- Whether the terms should be interpreted as a collective whole
- Whether the terms lie on a sliding scale of negative emotions in diminishing intensity
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 2 SLR 850
- [1990] 3 SCR 697
- [2018] 1 SLR 659
- Mens Rea Requirement of 'Knowingly Promotes' under s 298A(a) of the Penal Code
- Outcome: The court held that 'knowingly promotes' does not require malicious intent to promote racial hostility; knowledge that the speech in question promotes feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will suffices.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether 'knowingly promotes' requires deliberate intention
- Whether malicious intent to promote racial hostility must be proven
- Application of s 298A(a) to Social Media Posts and Stage Play Display
- Outcome: The court upheld the District Judge's conviction of the Appellant on all four charges, finding that the Appellant knowingly attempted to promote ill-will between different racial and religious groups through his social media posts and stage play display.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether the Appellant's social media posts and stage play display promoted ill-will between different racial and religious groups
- Whether the Appellant had the requisite mens rea for each charge
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
- Imposition of a fine instead of imprisonment
- Reduction of imprisonment term
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Penal Code s 298A(a): Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Media
- Social Media
- Arts and Entertainment
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Subhas Govin Prabhakar Nair | District Court | Yes | [2024] SGDC 74 | Singapore | Sets out the District Judge's reasons for convicting the Appellant, which the High Court is reviewing on appeal. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of statutory interpretation, specifically the purposive approach under s 9A of the Interpretation Act 1965. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 659 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties should avoid 'rushing to dictionaries' in order to justify their desired reading of a particular provision. |
| R v Keegstra (Attorney General of Canada and others intervening) | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [1990] 3 SCR 697 | Canada | Cited for the principle that dictionary definitions may be of limited aid to the exercise of statutory interpretation. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the purposive approach does not allow the court to construe the provision in a manner that does violence to its express wording. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ong Kian Cheong and Another | District Court | Yes | [2009] SGDC 163 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act should be given a plain and literal interpretation. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Song Huat Benjamin and Another Case | District Court | Yes | [2005] SGDC 272 | Singapore | Cited for highlighting the context in which the Sedition Act operates. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yue Mun Yew Gary | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 39 | Singapore | Cited for approving and endorsing the remarks in Public Prosecutor v Koh Song Huat Benjamin and Another Case. |
| Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that one cannot hide behind the veil of governmental criticism to mask their attempts at stirring hatred between different groups in society. |
| Patricia Mukhim v State of Meghalaya and Others | Supreme Court of India | Yes | [2021] 2 MLJ (CRL) 360 (SC) | India | Cited for the principle that s 153A of the Indian Penal Code requires proof of intention. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to overturn a trial judge’s findings of fact. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not ordinarily disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 298A(a) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act 1965 (2020 Rev Ed) s 9A | Singapore |
| Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 1990 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Maintenance of Religious Harmony (Amendment) Act 2019 (Act 31 of 2019) | Singapore |
| Undesirable Publications Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed) s 4(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Public Order Act 2009 (2020 Rev Ed) s 7(2)(e) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 267C | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 26C(2) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 26D(2) | Singapore |
| Indian Penal Code 1860 (Indian Act No 45 of 1860) | India |
| Indian Penal Code Amendment Act 1898 (Indian Act No 4 of 1898) | India |
| Indian Criminal and Election Laws Amendment Act 1969 (Indian Act No 35 of 1969) | India |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Racial Harmony
- Religious Harmony
- Promoting Enmity
- Ill-Will
- Social Media
- Conditional Warning
- Mens Rea
- Knowingly Promotes
- Penal Code
- Stage Play
- Rap Video
- Brown Face
- Unequal Policing
15.2 Keywords
- Racial Harmony
- Religious Harmony
- Hate Speech
- Social Media
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Penal Code
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Offences relating to race | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Civil Litigation | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Racial and Religious Harmony
- Freedom of Speech
- Social Media Offences