Woman admits lying about address so daughter could be enrolled in well-known primary school

SINGAPORE: A woman lied that she and her daughter stayed near a well-known primary school in order to get the child enrolled.

When the school authorities detected the ruse and began conducting house visits, the Singaporean woman instructed her tenants to lie that she and her daughter still lived there.

The 41-year-old pleaded guilty on Wednesday (Sep 24) to one charge each of giving false information to public servants and giving false information when reporting her change of address. A third charge will be considered in sentencing.

The woman cannot be named as the court imposed a gag order protecting the identity of her daughter, who is a minor. The gag order extends to the name of the school and any of its involved personnel.

THE CASE

The court heard that the woman lived mostly with her partner at another address.

The woman's eight-year-old daughter lived with her, while she had a teenage son who splits time between her and her ex-husband.

The woman owned a Housing Board flat and had been leasing it out for about two years from 2023 to six tenants.

As part of the agreement, the woman and her daughter did not stay at the flat for the two-year duration of the lease.

During the 2023 P1 Registration Exercise, the woman enrolled her daughter as a Primary 1 student at the school via priority admission based on the distance of their home to the school.

She used the address of the flat she was renting out, as it was within a 1km radius of the school.

Some time later, a school administrator alerted the vice-principal that the accused had sent an email about changing her address to her partner's address.

As the partner's address was outside the radius for priority admission, the school personnel informed the accused that they were allowed under Ministry of Education (MOE) rules to transfer the child to another school.

According to MOE's website, a child who gains priority admission through the distance category must reside at the address used for registration for at least 30 months from the start of the P1 Registration Exercise.

Where this requirement is not met, or if parents are unable to provide sufficient evidence that the condition is met, MOE will transfer the child to any school and the parent will have no say in the choice of the school.

The accused then said she would remain at the stated flat, even though she had not been staying there.

SCHOOL INVESTIGATES

The school began conducting investigations. In early August 2024, school staff members conducted a house visit to the woman's declared address.

They knocked on the door but met only the tenants - the woman and her daughter were not home.

When the staff members identified themselves and said they were looking for the accused and her daughter, the tenants said there were no children living there.

The vice-principal then met the accused with another staff member a few days later to verify her residential address.

During this meeting, the accused lied that she stayed at the address for some days of the week, and provided her signature in a document that the vice-principal also signed.

Around this time, the accused began repeatedly contacting the real estate agent who represented the six tenants.

She asked about the house visits by the school staff and gave the tenants instructions to state that she and her daughter stayed in the flat.

She also asked them to conceal the occupancy of the flat with measures like closing all the windows.

The school staff members made a second house visit later in August 2024 and found that the accused and her daughter were not there.

When asked, the tenants were "evasive", the court heard.

After this, the principal and vice-principal of the school met the accused and her partner. During this meeting, the accused lied that they always returned to the flat late in the evenings after spending the day at her partner's flat.

She repeated her claims in an email that the flat was her primary residence.

In early October 2024, after the accused was informed that her daughter was to be transferred to another school, she met again with the principal and vice-principal.

She said she was going to terminate the lease the flat was under and that she would live there. She also said in another email that her daughter would continue to live at the flat.

On at least five occasions between August 2024 and October 2024, the woman gave public servants - the school staff - information she knew to be false so that her daughter would continue to be enrolled in the school.

As part of her plan to maintain the appearance of living at the address, the woman misreported her change of address to a registration officer.

The prosecutor said the woman had no prior convictions.

She appeared in court in a pink dress, with her daughter and a man.

She had earlier told the court she could not afford a lawyer and confirmed on Wednesday that she would be representing herself.

The prosecutor said she was not objecting to a fine of S$10,000 being imposed.

District Judge Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz had previously asked the prosecutor to file further submissions on the maximum fine that the accused was liable to.

The prosecutor said there were two aggravating factors in this case - the fact that the woman had lied on multiple occasions and her attempt to implicate others in her wrongdoing.

However, she said while this warranted a "significantly higher fine", she did not find it sufficient to warrant a jail term.

"The present case is a rare instance in which prosecution was pursued at all," she said.

The judge questioned the prosecutor on multiple points, including whether harm was caused to another child who could have been deprived of a spot in the school.

In response to questions from the judge, the prosecutor said the woman's daughter started Primary 2 in a new school near the address where the woman's partner lived.

The prosecution had stated in sentencing submissions that there "may have been some harm" caused to a student whose place was taken up by the accused's daughter, but this was "temporal at best" as the girl was transferred.

The judge said: "If admission to the school was obtained through reliance on an address within the radius stipulated by MOE, wouldn't it be clear that the use of a false address will deny a child, who truly did reside in the stipulated radius, of (a placement) in the school?"

"Isn't that the irresistible inference to be drawn, given that we know that places in schools are of a finite number?" asked the judge.

The prosecutor replied that it was not known if there were any applicants who were denied places because the capacities had been filled, and that it may "well be that there was no child denied that position".

I JUST WANT TO PROTECT MY DAUGHTER: ACCUSED

In mitigation, the woman said the sought fine was too high for her as a single mother who needs to care for her two children.

She said her son recently graduated from secondary school and her daughter still had a follow-up with the KK Women's and Children's Hospital.

She said she was not being reimbursed by her company insurance for the medical bills and she has been "spending a lot of money".

"I hope for a lighter fine so I can support my children, especially my daughter, when she had went through so much," said the woman.

"All I do, I just want to protect my daughter. Your honour, I cannot go to jail. Because if I go to jail there's no support for my two children."

The judge adjourned sentencing to November to consider the arguments further, picking a date that the accused could attend as she intends to apply for permission to go to Australia with her daughter in late October.

MOE'S STATEMENT

In response to queries from CNA, an MOE spokesperson said the ministry takes "a serious view of parents providing false information for the purpose of enrolling their child to a particular school under the Primary One Registration Exercise".

"If a child is found to have been registered in a school based on false information, such as the use of an address solely for registration purposes without residing there, or if the 30-month stay requirement had not been fulfilled, MOE will transfer the child to another school with vacancies near where the child is staying," said the spokesperson.

He said MOE retains "sole discretion in the choice of the school to transfer the child for such cases".

He said parents who are found to have provided false information about their registration address will be referred to the police for investigation.

For knowingly giving false information to a public servant, an offender can be jailed for up to two years, fined, or both.

As the woman's charge was amalgamated and contained five instances, she faces double the penalties.

For giving false information when reporting a change of address, she could be jailed for up to two years, fined up to S$3,000, or both.