“Under the guise of performing his estate management duties, the man placed the device in the toilet’s ceiling board.” – Singapore university employee installed pinhole camera in toilet to spy on others, recorded male colleague, Channel News Asia
An estate management officer at a private university in Singapore was sentenced to seven weeks’ jail after admitting to installing a pinhole camera in a disabled toilet to spy on others. The 26-year-old employee, a Malaysian national, aimed to satisfy his sexual desires by recording illicit footage, as his wife was pregnant. His actions resulted in the recording of one victim – a male colleague.
According to court documents, the accused had been working as an estate management officer at the university since February 3, 2023, and his responsibilities included maintaining campus facilities. The incident occurred when he noticed a hole in the ceiling board of a disabled toilet and decided to install a pinhole camera to spy on others using it. The accused then purchased the device from an e-commerce platform in December 2024, having it delivered to his residence in Malaysia.
On January 16, 2025, under the guise of performing his estate management duties, the man went to the disabled toilet with a ladder to install the pinhole camera at approximately 3.27pm. He used a screwdriver to enlarge the hole in the ceiling and placed the camera – loaded with an SD card – and a power bank within. He then concealed the hole with masking tape.
The incident came to light when a male colleague using the same toilet noticed the hole and tape on the ceiling at about 4.05pm. Following this discovery, the area was cordoned off for investigation, and a police report was filed on January 20, 2025, leading to the accused’s arrest three days later.
“The accused abused his position as estate management officer, as he was able to bring a ladder with him without arousing suspicion due to his position,” the prosecution highlighted. The accused’s premeditation and the intrusion on the victim’s privacy were also outlined.
The accused’s lawyer argued for a sentencing discount, emphasizing that the accused had not been able to view the footage as the camera had been discovered within the hour. Additionally, they stated that there was no evidence to suggest that the accused had targeted the victim or caused lasting emotional harm.
The accused pleaded guilty to one count of voyeurism. For this offense, he could have been jailed for up to two years, fined, caned, or received a combination of these penalties. The prosecution stressed the need for a “robust sentence” to deter other potential offenders.
