In 2016, 23-year-old Republic Polytechnic (RP) graduate Mr Ang Wei Sheng wrapped his head in a towel and snuck into the female shower area at the school’s swimming complex.
He then hid in one of the cubicles and waited for women to enter. When a lady came in, Mr Ang went into the cubicle next to the one she occupied and recorded her showering.
The lady, upon seeing a camera under the divider, started to shout. Mr Ang quickly fled the premises and a while later, deleted the recording.
For criminal trespass and insulting the modesty of a woman, he was sentenced to 10 weeks imprisonment.
This begs the question of why the NUS peeping tom did not receive a similar sentence.
The victim of the recent peeping tom case, 23-year-old NUS undergraduate Ms Monica Baey, recounted the incident on her Instagram on 19 Apr.
She expressed indignation at how the perpetrator had gotten off lightly — receiving only a conditional warning from the police, a term suspension from school and an order to write Ms Baey a formal apology.
Ms Baey’s call for greater punishment spread quickly through the online circles. Many were supportive of her cause and in similar rhetoric, called on NUS to do more about the matter. One Facebook user Ms Quek even wrote a post detailing how to go about effecting change.
Ms Quek wrote in her post that this isn’t the first time something like this has happened.
And indeed, a list of past disciplinary cases on NUS campus shows it. Very often, the perpetrators got off with police warnings, term suspensions and bans from entering certain parts of the campus.
As the elephant in the room got bigger, NUS issued a statement addressing the matter.
What stood out – and vexed – many people was the lack of urgency in the college’s response. Many Facebook users did not hesitate to express their disappointment in the university’s handling of the matter.
Facebook group NUS Students United, however, took slight issue with the overwhelming attention directed at NUS.
They explained that since the crime can be committed not just on NUS campus grounds but anywhere in the country, means that the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) should be the ones answering.
Ms Baey’s mother also expressed support for her daughter on Facebook. In a lengthy post, she described her daughter’s ordeal and said that because of what had happened, she can no longer place her trust in NUS.
In light of the incident, urban farming company OnHand Agrarian wrote on Facebook that they will be suspending “all dealings with NUS until (the perpetrator) is expelled.”
This means “no talks, no internships, no site visits, no use of (the) company when you need industry partners … for government grant submissions.”
As we mentioned earlier, the RP graduate was jailed for 10 weeks for recording women in the shower. Ms Baey’s perpetrator had done the exact same thing. Yet, he only received a police warning and a school suspension.
In another more recent case, a man was jailed 12 weeks for filming women undressing and relieving themselves in toilet cubicles at Tampines Junction.
There are plenty of other such cases where a peeping tom was sentenced to a jail term instead of just being let off with a warning.
So it seems a little odd that Ms Baey’s perpetrator – as well as countless others before hers – would be let off so lightly.
Is there something we’re not seeing? Let us know in the comments what you think.
Featured image from Thenewsminute.
On his first trip there in 1999, he brought a Singapore flag.
She suffered burns on her right hand & cheek.
The senior SCDF officer reportedly gave a different account of what had happened during the…
The rider was conveyed to Woodlands Health, where he succumbed to his injuries.
The victim was one week away from completing her training program in Singapore.
Investigations revealed that the hospital lacked a reliable method for identifying each patient upon arrival.