Woman gets jail for lying about address to enrol daughter into popular primary school

SINGAPORE: A 42-year-old woman was on Thursday (Nov 13) sentenced to one week's jail for lying about her address to enrol her daughter in a popular primary school.

The prosecution had sought a fine, but the judge found that a jail term was warranted due to the aggravating nature of this case, including her calculated deception and "selfish motives".

After hearing of her jail sentence, the woman asked the judge to give her another chance, saying she could not go to jail and that her daughter needed her.

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, which has since transferred the girl elsewhere.

The woman had pleaded guilty in September to one charge each of giving false information to public servants and giving false information when reporting her change of address. A third charge was considered in sentencing.

THE CASE

The court heard that the woman lived mostly with her partner and her eight-year-old daughter at another address.

She owned a Housing and Development Board flat, which she had been leasing out for about two years from 2023 to tenants.

During the 2023 Primary 1 registration exercise, the woman enrolled her daughter 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.

A school administrator later alerted the vice-principal that the woman 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.

The woman then said she would remain at her flat, although she had not been staying there.

The school began investigating and sent staff members for house visits to the woman's declared address.

They found only the tenants at home, and the offender began repeatedly contacting the real estate agents representing the tenants to instruct the tenants to state that she and her daughter stayed at the flat.

She asked them to conceal the occupancy of the flat with measures like closing all the windows, and continued to lie to the school management about where she stayed.

In early October 2024, the woman was informed that her daughter would be transferred to another school. She met with the school's principal and vice-principal and said she would terminate the lease that the flat was under.

On at least five occasions between August 2024 and October 2024, the woman lied so that her daughter would continue to be enrolled at 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 woman was unrepresented as she said she could not afford a lawyer.

The prosecution had not objected to a S$10,000 (US$7,690) fine for the charge of giving false information to public servants, saying this case was "a rare instance in which prosecution was pursued at all".

She noted that the prevalence of prosecution for such cases had "dropped sharply" from four cases between 2013 and 2015 to zero thereafter.

For each case, the courts meted out fines, said Deputy Public Prosecutor Yeo Kee Hwan. The fines for the reported cases in a table prepared by Ms Yeo ranged from S$4,000 to S$5,000.

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

She said she was not being reimbursed by her company insurance for her daughter's medical bills and said she could not go to jail.

JUDGE IMPOSES JAIL INSTEAD OF FINE

On Thursday, District Judge Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz said education holds an exalted place in Singapore's society, and that few decisions stir parental instinct or evoke as much hope, anxiety and resolve as those relating to a child's schooling.

She said the school admissions framework implemented by the Ministry of Education (MOE) seeks to ensure that the process remains transparent and orderly.

Offences that seek to subvert it strike at the values that lie at the heart of society and confer an "undeserved advantage" on the offender, said the judge.

She found that it would be "unduly narrow" to regard the benefit conferred on the woman's daughter as the full measure of the harm caused.

She also noted that the harm had "taken root" when the woman first falsely declared her child's address during the 2023 exercise, securing her daughter's admission under the 1km priority scheme.

The judge said that while no other child was shown to be directly displaced because of the girl's enrolment, this does not detract from the fact that an illicit benefit was obtained.

Each place secured through a false representation carries the potential to deprive another eligible child of admission to the school, noted the judge.

"It is this risk that carries potential harm to the integrity and fairness of the system," she said.

The actual harm was further compounded by the fact that the school was "compelled to expend not insignificant time and resources" to ascertain the child's actual residence on multiple occasions.

"The need for such verification measures underscores the administrative burden and inconvenience caused by (the offender's) sustained deception," said the judge.

There was also a "needless misdirection of resources" from the school's usual functions.

The judge noted that such conduct, if not met with adequate sanction, risks engendering cynicism that honesty and compliance place law-abiding parents at a disadvantage. 

The number of prosecutions says little about the true prevalence of offending and cannot be taken as evidence that such offences are rare or inconsequential, said the judge.

She noted a report after the woman's case was publicised, where MOE stated that more parents have been caught providing false addresses in the past five years to secure spots for children in popular primary schools.

MOE used to investigate an average of around one case a year between 2008 and 2018, but this jumped to about nine cases annually from 2020 to 2024, with no reported cases in 2019.

The judge found that the woman's culpability was high, and that her deception was "conscious and deliberate" and driven by "pure self-interest".

"Such selfish motives are relevant in assessing culpability," said the judge. There was also planning and premeditation, and it was "especially aggravating" that the woman "took active steps to bolster the deception and fortify her falsehoods".

"She showed no compunction in involving innocent third parties," said the judge, referring to the tenants.

She said the offender's falsehoods were "calculated to entrench the false narrative she had created", and she made "no attempt to resile" from her wrongdoing or retract the falsehoods.

"This demonstrates great persistence and dishonesty. Such serial offending heightens (the offender's) culpability and reflects a total disregard for the law," said the judge.

She said that any personal hardship that resulted from the jail term was the "unavoidable consequence" of the woman's criminal conduct.

The "short, sharp custodial sentence" underscores the seriousness of the woman's offences and serves as a clear deterrence to others who might "contemplate a similar deceit", said the judge.

In closing, she said that while parents naturally seek the best educational opportunities for their children, they must remember that they are their children's first and most enduring educators.

"They must therefore act with honesty and integrity with their dealings, ever mindful that their children learn not only from what they are told, but what they see," said the judge.

"Integrity begins at home, and the lessons children draw from their parents' example will endure far beyond the walls of any educational institution."

The offender appeared devastated on hearing that she had to go to jail and begged the judge repeatedly for a fine instead.

She said her daughter needed medication daily and was not fully recovered. The judge told her that the decision of the court was final.

After considering her options for a few minutes, the woman said she wanted to appeal to the High Court.

In a previous statement to CNA, MOE 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 a spokesperson for the ministry.

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

Parents who are found to have provided false information about their registration address will be referred to the police for investigation, the spokesperson added.

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 had faced double the penalties.

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