I think to be fair we have to consider a few factors.
First, context. The context under which she evoked the inappropriate mentions of race and religion was while she was commenting on some perceived injustice.
If you read the posts and consider the context its clear the intention was not to create enmity but to rant about what she perceived as injustice. The problem was that she used inappropriate allusions to race and religion.
Similarly other candidates and parties have made such errors in the past and present such as the wife beating analogy in recent days.
Secondly, the comments were made 2 years before she became a public figure running for election. While that does not absolve her completely of any wrongdoing it does lend some context - what she posted back then on social media doesn't indicate her current position. Just like if an edmwer long time ago said he like to pump someone full tank and then today want to run for election.. We can't really judge someone purely based on that can we?
Tin pei ling also made some immature behaviour back then but as time goes by she matured also.
Third, pritam made a good point about how in the penal code there must be both action and intention proven for someone to be guilty of the offense. In this case the action was clear but the intention needs to be proven. As he had pointed out, her behaviour at the MPS in the past year has proven that she is able to service people of all races and religions.
I think can give her a chance la. Let the investigation take its course but in the meantime give the benefit of doubt.