He did not install the second camera because there was no smoke detector above the cubicle.
The camera in the air freshener was set to begin recording when it detected motion. Iskandar intended to return some days later to retrieve the memory card.
On Oct 22, 2025, two women separately entered the cubicle and used the toilet. The hidden camera recorded videos of both women urinating, capturing close-up images of their private parts. One woman saw the air freshener but thought nothing of it.
The device was discovered later that afternoon when the cleaner opened the air freshener to check whether it was empty. She found a camera concealed inside and alerted colleagues.
Several employees examined the device and realised it was a hidden camera. After failing to access the memory card, they left both items on a table while deciding what to do next.
Later, Iskandar spotted the air freshener camera and memory card on the table and secretly removed the memory card.
When employees later realised it was missing, the building manager called the police.
The police subsequently identified Iskandar as a suspect and arrested him on Oct 30, 2025. A search of his residence uncovered the missing memory card as well as the second miniature camera.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Dillon Kok urged the court to jail Iskandar for seven months, citing his premeditation as an aggravating factor.
“The accused, by his perverse acts, had recorded five of his female colleagues in their private moments in the toilet cubicle,” Mr Kok said.
Two of the colleagues relate to charges to which Iskandar pleaded guilty, while the other three relate to charges taken into consideration.
“He had carefully selected an inconspicuous device that would not look out of place in the toilet and orchestrated his entry to the toilet with deceit.
“Even after the device was found, the accused attempted to evade identification by taking away the memory card without anyone noticing.”
Asked if he wished to say anything in mitigation, Iskandar, who was unrepresented, said he had nothing to add to the written plea he had submitted to the court.
For voyeurism, he could have been jailed for up to two years, fined, caned or any combination of those punishments.
For criminal trespass, he could have been jailed for up to three months, or fined up to S$1,500 (US$1,170), or both.