A 31-year-old Singaporean man has been sentenced to eight months and 12 weeks in jail after secretly filming his girlfriend and a colleague during sex, all while they were blindfolded. Talk about a breach of trust and common decency.
The man, whose name is protected under a gag order, pleaded guilty to two charges of insulting the women’s modesty and two counts of voyeurism. Six additional voyeurism charges, involving upskirt videos of six unknown women, were also considered during sentencing. Apparently, this guy had a three-year spree of violating privacy, targeting strangers, friends, and even his own girlfriend. Charming, right?
The court heard that his girlfriend caught him filming her multiple times during their relationship. Each time, she forced him to delete the videos, but he kept at it like a creepy Energizer bunny. In April 2021, she finally reported him to the police, fearing he still had compromising footage. Spoiler alert: he did.
When authorities seized his smartphone and external hard drive, they found a treasure trove of 44 videos, including upskirt footage of a university coursemate from 2018 and multiple recordings of his blindfolded partners. Between January and July 2020, he filmed four videos of his then-girlfriend, and in June 2021, he recorded seven videos of a colleague he was in a sexual relationship with. Clearly, this guy missed the memo on consent.
Under Singaporean law, insulting a woman’s modesty can land you in jail for up to a year, with fines or both. Voyeurism carries a heftier penalty: up to two years in jail, fines, caning, or a delightful combination of all three. Let’s just say this guy won’t be winning any “Citizen of the Year” awards anytime soon.
Personal Opinion:
On one hand, the sentence sends a strong message about the seriousness of violating someone’s privacy and trust. It’s a step toward holding perpetrators accountable in a world where such violations are often swept under the rug. On the other hand, some might argue that the punishment isn’t harsh enough, given the psychological trauma inflicted on the victims. While the law has spoken, the debate over whether justice was fully served will likely continue. Either way, let’s hope this case serves as a wake-up call for others who might think twice before crossing such boundaries.
