- Joined
- Oct 3, 2016
- Messages
- 35,356
- Points
- 113
SINGAPORE — While working as the head of technology at a digital analytics consultancy, Balasingam-Chow Yu Hui installed a pinhole camera on the ceiling of the firm's female toilet but failed to film anyone after it fell onto the floor.
For his offences in 2019, the 44-year-old was sentenced to 10 days’ jail on Wednesday (Feb 9). He pleaded guilty to one count each of criminal trespass and attempting to insult a woman’s modesty.
Two other similar charges were taken into consideration for sentencing.
The court heard that on the morning of June 25, 2019, he entered the women’s toilet at Sparkline — located along Tanjong Pagar Road at the time — to install a pinhole camera in one of the cubicles there.
He had bought it online for about S$25 a month earlier.
About half an hour later, another company employee went to the toilet and noticed a cube-like object on the floor next to a cubicle. When she picked it up, she noticed that it looked like a camera as it had a lens and storage chip in the USB slot.
She immediately left the toilet and asked her colleagues in the office if the camera belonged to anyone.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Heershan Kaur told the court: “She also asked Balasingam-Chow, who was skilled in technology, whether it belonged to him. No one owned up.”
The colleague then handed over the device to the company’s human resource manager, who inserted the chip into a computer and noticed Balasingam-Chow’s face at the start of the recording while he was trying to fix the camera.
Fearing he had been found out, he went to the manager and asked to speak with her privately. He then confessed to his actions.
He had been inspired to place cameras in women’s toilets by watching videos online such as on YouTube.
Five video clips were found in the camera, but none had captured women relieving themselves. Balasingam-Chow himself was filmed installing the camera in the toilet for about one-and-a-half minutes.
PROSECUTION OBJECTS TO ‘VICTIMLESS CRIME’ ARGUMENT
DPP Kaur told the court that Balasingam-Chow had showed premeditation and that it was “purely fortuitous” the camera was found, or he would have faced more serious charges.
In mitigation, his lawyer Chia Boon Teck told the court that his client had installed the device in an “amateurish fashion beyond belief”. The defence counsel claimed the black camera had rainbow stripes and was stuck to the white ceiling with Blu-tack and tape.
“Anyone looking up at the ceiling cannot possibly miss the camera sticking out like a sore thumb. It was so amateurishly installed that it fell to the ground within half an hour,” Mr Chia said.
The lawyer argued that it was a “victimless crime” as no women were filmed in the end. He also said there was no premeditation involved, arguing that if there was such, Balasingam-Chow would have been “so excited and eager to install it”.
DPP Kaur objected to these arguments, saying the time Balasingam-Chow took between buying and installing the camera suggested “some sort of planning”.
She also said that he had deliberately thought of buying the Blu-tack and tape, and that the fact that he did not film anyone was not a mitigating factor.
District Judge Lim Wen Juin said in his sentencing remarks that he accepted the camera was installed in an amateurish fashion, but this was merely the absence of an aggravating factor.
The judge agreed with the prosecution that it was merely fortuitous that Balasingam-Chow failed, and that any videos recorded could be replayed without limit.
The judge also accepted that Balasingam-Chow had shown a genuine desire to change by going for 25 counselling sessions at the Institute of Mental Health’s National Addiction Management Service.
Those convicted of insulting a woman’s modesty can be jailed for up to a year or fined, or punished with both. Those who commit criminal trespass can be jailed for up to three months or fined up to S$1,500, or both
For his offences in 2019, the 44-year-old was sentenced to 10 days’ jail on Wednesday (Feb 9). He pleaded guilty to one count each of criminal trespass and attempting to insult a woman’s modesty.
Two other similar charges were taken into consideration for sentencing.
The court heard that on the morning of June 25, 2019, he entered the women’s toilet at Sparkline — located along Tanjong Pagar Road at the time — to install a pinhole camera in one of the cubicles there.
He had bought it online for about S$25 a month earlier.
About half an hour later, another company employee went to the toilet and noticed a cube-like object on the floor next to a cubicle. When she picked it up, she noticed that it looked like a camera as it had a lens and storage chip in the USB slot.
She immediately left the toilet and asked her colleagues in the office if the camera belonged to anyone.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Heershan Kaur told the court: “She also asked Balasingam-Chow, who was skilled in technology, whether it belonged to him. No one owned up.”
The colleague then handed over the device to the company’s human resource manager, who inserted the chip into a computer and noticed Balasingam-Chow’s face at the start of the recording while he was trying to fix the camera.
Fearing he had been found out, he went to the manager and asked to speak with her privately. He then confessed to his actions.
He had been inspired to place cameras in women’s toilets by watching videos online such as on YouTube.
Five video clips were found in the camera, but none had captured women relieving themselves. Balasingam-Chow himself was filmed installing the camera in the toilet for about one-and-a-half minutes.
PROSECUTION OBJECTS TO ‘VICTIMLESS CRIME’ ARGUMENT
DPP Kaur told the court that Balasingam-Chow had showed premeditation and that it was “purely fortuitous” the camera was found, or he would have faced more serious charges.
In mitigation, his lawyer Chia Boon Teck told the court that his client had installed the device in an “amateurish fashion beyond belief”. The defence counsel claimed the black camera had rainbow stripes and was stuck to the white ceiling with Blu-tack and tape.
“Anyone looking up at the ceiling cannot possibly miss the camera sticking out like a sore thumb. It was so amateurishly installed that it fell to the ground within half an hour,” Mr Chia said.
The lawyer argued that it was a “victimless crime” as no women were filmed in the end. He also said there was no premeditation involved, arguing that if there was such, Balasingam-Chow would have been “so excited and eager to install it”.
DPP Kaur objected to these arguments, saying the time Balasingam-Chow took between buying and installing the camera suggested “some sort of planning”.
She also said that he had deliberately thought of buying the Blu-tack and tape, and that the fact that he did not film anyone was not a mitigating factor.
District Judge Lim Wen Juin said in his sentencing remarks that he accepted the camera was installed in an amateurish fashion, but this was merely the absence of an aggravating factor.
The judge agreed with the prosecution that it was merely fortuitous that Balasingam-Chow failed, and that any videos recorded could be replayed without limit.
The judge also accepted that Balasingam-Chow had shown a genuine desire to change by going for 25 counselling sessions at the Institute of Mental Health’s National Addiction Management Service.
Those convicted of insulting a woman’s modesty can be jailed for up to a year or fined, or punished with both. Those who commit criminal trespass can be jailed for up to three months or fined up to S$1,500, or both
Last edited:
