Trigger warning: This story contains descriptions of the Peeping Tom incident.
Singapore’s police force took to social media on Sunday (they truly work 24/7) to dispel claims made by a Peeping Tom victim that the police did not immediately arrest the alleged culprit and instead viewed closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera footage first before arresting him.
“Justice requires us to also consider the rights of the alleged offender, and to take actions of arrest and prosecution only after appropriate investigations have been conducted,” said a spokesperson on the police force’s Facebook post.
In response, victim Emilia Chong said on Facebook that she has been informed by the police that authorities will be conducting forensic investigations and thanked commenters on her Facebook post for supporting her during the incident.
The debunked claims
In the police’s Facebook post, the authorities debunked Chong’s claim that the police did not arrest the alleged perpetrator immediately. The statement said that officers had detained the man first before viewing CCTV footage. After establishing evidence of the alleged offenses, they then proceeded to make the arrest.
“These established procedures are to ensure fairness and impartiality towards all parties involved, including the alleged offender,” said the police spokesperson.
Another claim was made by Chong in that she was told by police that the alleged perpetrator could be let off with a warning. The police clarified this by saying that they actually told her such offenses could range from a stern warning to prosecution in court “depending on the facts of the case”.
“At the point of arrest, the police officers would not have been able to determine the eventual course of action against the perpetrator,” the spokesperson added on Facebook.
The police said they have clarified the incident with Chong and added that “we treat all cases seriously”.
The incident
According to the police’s Facebook post, the perpetrator was arrested last Wednesday for criminal trespass and insulting the modesty of a woman at Regus Business Centre in Tampines.
Chong said that she had seen the man allegedly hiding in a cubicle at the female toilet trying to take a video of her and her friends peeing.
He then reportedly came out of the cubicle and tried to apologize to the women as they caught him in the act, even wishing them “Merry Christmas” (really, dude) and saying that he had deleted their videos.
When he tried to escape, the man was successfully apprehended by bystanders along with one of the womens’ guy friends who was waiting outside the toilet.
When the women checked the alleged perpetrator’s phone, he reportedly had more than ten videos of girls undressing and peeing in the cubicle at the business center.
If convicted of insulting a woman’s modesty, the man could be sentenced to a year’s jail, fined, or receive both punishments. If convicted of criminal trespass, the man could receive three months’ imprisonment, be fined up to S$1,500 (US$1,097), or both.
Reader Interactions