Singapore Student Sentenced for Catcalling and Camera Tricks
Yesterday, on June 22, Colin Chua Yi Jin, a 24‑year‑old former university student, got locked up for a year and slapped with a $2,500 fine after admitting to a spree of embarrassing, covert videos of women. He filmed 11 known victims and one mystery lady across a range of pins—think hotels, his own shithole‑lout toilets, and even an escalator. No wonder the police went from “we’ve got the suspect” to “i’m running a fox hunt” in no time.
How the Gag Order Cried a Second Wind
Initially, the courts wrapped his identity in a gag—classic “Mystery Man” move. That curtain folded up when Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said there was no need to hide him. “Gag orders are to protect victims, not to protect the accused,” he quipped, nodding to the 11 women’s unified demand for a little public recognition. The only remaining blackout tiles were the juicy bits that could expose the girls or reveal that Chua was a student at a top British uni in 2018.
The Break‑Up Incident That Set the Stage
The first drama that finally blew up a tear in truth dates back to December 2, 2015. An 18‑year‑old girl was caught on a shower‑toilet in a hotel by our main character and later got screamed into the police. She recounted how the footage spread online, and a janitor’s detective officer was called in. Her “victim impact statement” read: betrayed, worthless, and now avoiding public toilets like a social life exists only on a private island.
Personal Toll on the Victim
Deputy Public Prosecutor Tan Zhi Hao was all syrupy and quotes, “She has turned down a ton of social events, terrified she’ll find herself using a public toilet again. She’s got a low self‑esteem hurdle and feels “very unworthy”.”
Recurring Aunties in the Bathroom
Despite the detours, Chua kept it up. He installed cameras in his Singapore home toilets, former 20‑year‑old escalator victim who never thanked him (because he captured her up‑skirts).
In 2019, the police raided the suspect’s pad. The haul: seven personal gadgets, 16 guilty videos plus 124 up‑skirt photos. The 14 scorched images that park at his own place, and two that had already taken the internet by storm. He then salmutly confessed, “I did it ‘cause I was stressed and I felt it was a drug.”
Courts Consider the Age Factor
Justice Tan Jen Tse, on opening remarks, emphasized the gravity lodged by the victims. “Every charge of insulting a woman’s modesty can lead to a year in jail, plus a fine.” Yet the defence moved to slash the sentence to nine months, citing that Chua was under 21 for majority of the offences and that he’s got a voyeuristic disorder, and has gone to get treatment. The court still didn’t whack out whether he’s still in the UK.
The Verdict is a Squeeze of a Fair Verdict
Because of a careful tight‑rope play between the shed‑few‑lines of the law and the victim’s suffering, the process culminated with a year-locked sentence and $2,500 fine. It’s a reminder that filming and sexual assault are no joke. Justice also told him he’d obliged his full apology to the affected women.
We’ll keep you posted if he’s caught trying to sneak anymore webcams into meet‑ups—because the internet is a panel of eyes that knows no recede.
