Serial voyeur jailed again for taking upskirt videos, warned he could face caning next time

Gary Huang Kunjie had been sentenced to jail repeatedly for similar offences, with convictions in each year from 2018 to 2022, as well as in 2025.

Gary Huang Kunjie arriving at the State Courts on Oct 23, 2026. (Photo: CNA/Ooi Boon Keong)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

SINGAPORE: A recalcitrant voyeur was jailed again for filming upskirt videos of women , with the court warning him on Friday (Oct 23) that he could face caning if he reoffends.

Gary Huang Kunjie, 41, had been in and out of jail since 2018 for recording upskirt videos or images of women.

On Friday, he pleaded guilty to one count of voyeurism for an offence committed in June this year and was sentenced to 28 weeks' jail - a longer term than the prosecution had sought.

On Jun 20, 2026, Huang was on the way home from work when he saw a woman he found attractive.

He followed her onto an escalator at Northpoint City shopping mall in Yishun, then placed his mobile phone under her skirt to record an illicit video.

Huang used the video for his own sexual purposes before deleting it.

He also admitted to filming upskirt videos of unsuspecting women about twice a week between May and June 2026, recording around 20 different victims.

He would watch the videos for his own sexual gratification before deleting them, leaving police unable to recover any of the recordings.

Officers from the Transport Command of the Singapore Police Force detained Huang while conducting an operation at Khatib MRT station on Jul 8, 2026.

Court documents did not state what led to his detention. He was subsequently interviewed by the police.

Huang had been sentenced to jail repeatedly for similar offences, with convictions in each year from 2018 to 2022, as well as in 2025. One of his previous jail terms exceeded 60 weeks.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Muhammad Salihin Salim sought 22 to 25 weeks' jail, arguing that both general and specific deterrence were necessary given the accused's prior convictions for similar offences.

District Judge R Arvindren asked why the prosecution was not seeking caning or corrective training given Huang's lengthy criminal history.

Corrective training is a form of long-term imprisonment for repeat offenders, lasting between five and 14 years.

Mr Salihin said the prosecution did not seek caning as Huang faced only one charge, while maintaining that a jail term of 22 to 25 weeks was appropriate.

The district judge then pressed the prosecution on whether it believed the proposed jail term would be sufficient to deter Huang from reoffending. Mr Salihin said that it would.

However, Judge Arvindren found the prosecution's sentencing position to be on the low end, given that Huang had admitted to illicitly filming women around twice a week.

Turning to Huang, Judge Arvindren asked why the court should not impose caning on him given his repeated offences.

Huang, who was unrepresented, said he was remorseful and regretted his actions, attributing his offences to work-related stress.

"I feel disappointed and sad for myself that I cannot even secure a stable job because I cannot manage my mental wellness well. My stress level is very easily triggered," Huang said.

He said he was still seeking psychiatric help but was unable to cope with the stress from his current employment.

Appearing close to tears, Huang added that he regretted not caring for his elderly parents.

Judge Arvindren expressed concern that Huang would continue reoffending.

"I understand you say you have issues securing a stable job but you have went on to commit the same kind of offence against innocent women in public. How are you going to change after this?" Judge Arvindren asked.

Huang said he needed a job that could keep him busy, but also needed to "slow down" and take on part-time work to "release mentally" and reintegrate into society, or else he would "easily trip and fall".

He accepted that Huang would make genuine efforts to reform but warned him that this was his last chance, and that caning should be considered if he reoffended.

For voyeurism, an offender can be jailed for up to two years, fined, caned, or given any combination of these penalties.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

黄坤杰曾多次因类似罪行被判入狱，从 2018 年到 2022 年每年都有定罪，2025 年也有定罪。

2026年10月23日，黄坤杰抵达国家法院。（图片：CNA/Ooi Boon Keong）

这段音频由人工智能工具生成。

新加坡：一名屡教不改的偷窥狂因拍摄女性裙底视频再次被判入狱，法庭于周五（10月23日）警告他，如果再次犯罪，可能会面临鞭刑。

41岁的黄坤杰（Gary Huang Kunjie）自2018年以来因偷拍女性裙底视频或照片而多次入狱。

周五，他承认今年 6 月犯下的一项偷窥罪，被判处 28 周监禁——比检方寻求的刑期更长。

2026年6月20日，黄在下班回家的路上，看到一个他觉得很有魅力的女人。

他尾随她来到义顺北角城购物中心的自动扶梯上，然后将手机放在她的裙子底下偷拍视频。

黄某曾将该视频用于自己的性目的，之后将其删除。

他还承认在 2026 年 5 月至 6 月期间，每周大约两次偷拍毫无戒心的女性裙底视频，共拍摄了约 20 名不同的受害者。

他会观看这些视频以满足自己的性欲，然后将其删除，导致警方无法恢复任何录像。

2026年7月8日，新加坡警察部队交通指挥部的警员在卡迪地铁站执行任务时拘留了黄某。

法庭文件并未说明他被拘留的原因。随后，他接受了警方讯问。

黄某曾多次因类似罪行被判入狱，从 2018 年到 2022 年每年都有定罪，2025 年也有定罪。他之前的一次刑期超过 60 周。

副检察官穆罕默德·萨利欣·萨利姆要求判处被告 22 至 25 周监禁，他认为鉴于被告之前曾因类似罪行被定罪，一般威慑和特殊威慑都是必要的。

地区法官 R Arvindren 询问，鉴于黄某有很长的犯罪史，检方为什么不寻求鞭刑或矫正训练。

矫正训练是一种针对累犯的长期监禁形式，期限为 5 至 14 年。

萨利欣先生表示，检方没有寻求对黄判处鞭刑，因为黄只面临一项指控，但他坚持认为判处 22 至 25 周的监禁是合适的。

地方法官随后追问检方，是否认为拟议的监禁刑期足以威慑黄某，防止其再次犯罪。萨利欣先生表示，刑期足以起到威慑作用。

然而，考虑到黄某承认每周非法拍摄女性约两次，阿文德伦法官认为检方的量刑立场偏轻。

阿文德伦法官转向黄，问道，鉴于他屡次犯罪，法庭为何不应判处他鞭刑。

没有律师代表的黄某表示，他对自己的行为感到懊悔，并将自己的犯罪行为归咎于工作压力。

黄女士说：“我感到很失望，也很难过，因为我无法很好地管理自己的心理健康，甚至连一份稳定的工作都找不到。我的压力很容易被触发。”

他说他仍在寻求精神科医生的帮助，但无法应对目前工作带来的压力。

黄先生眼含热泪，表示后悔没有照顾好年迈的父母。

阿文德伦法官表示担心黄某会继续再次犯罪。

“我知道你说你找不到稳定的工作，但你却在公共场合对无辜女性犯下了同样的罪行。你打算如何改过自新呢？”阿文德伦法官问道。

黄先生说他需要一份能让他忙碌的工作，但也需要“放慢脚步”，做一些兼职工作来“放松身心”，重新融入社会，否则他“很容易跌倒”。

他承认黄会真心实意地努力改过自新，但警告他这是最后的机会，如果他再犯，就要考虑鞭刑。

偷窥罪最高可判处两年监禁、罚款、鞭刑或以上任何组合处罚。

订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。

订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。

加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。