S'pore mother, 42, jailed 1 week for lying about address to get daughter into popular primary school

A mother in Singapore lied about her residential address multiple times in order to enrol her daughter in a popular primary school.

She was caught when school administrators realised her lies and she was charged with giving false information to a public servant and giving false information when reporting her change of address.

The 42-year-old, who cannot be named due to a gag order to protect the identity of her minor daughter, pleaded guilty to two charges and was sentenced to one week in jail on Nov. 13.

The gag order extended to the name of the school involved.

The prosecution had only asked for a fine, but the judge found that a jail term was warranted to "underscore the seriousness of her offences" and "serve as a clear deterrent to others who might contemplate similar deceit".

Lived with partner and rented out her flat

The woman, whose identity in court documents seen by Mothership was "Ms J", was the owner of a residential apartment which she had leased out for a two-year period from January 2023 to December 2024.

During the tenancy, J and her eight year-old daughter resided at her partner’s residence elsewhere in Singapore.

Despite this, J enrolled her daughter to the school near her rented out unit during the 2023 Primary 1 registration exercise via the home-school distance priority admission scheme using her flat's address, instead of where they were actually residing.

A child admitted under this scheme is required to remain a resident at the declared address for a minimum period of 30 months from the start of the exercise.

Her daughter was eventually enrolled successfully as a Primary 1 student at the school despite not residing at the flat declared.

School realised lie in address

Around a year later on Jun. 24, 2024, J notified the school of a change in her residential address to her partner's address.

As the address laid outside a 2km radius of the school and contravened the minimum residency period her daughter has to abide by, the school informed J that the change would permit the Ministry of Education (MOE) to transfer her daughter to another school with vacancies.

J then responded that they would remain in the flat.

However, this interaction prompted the school to verify the daughter's place of address by conducting a house visit on Aug. 1.

Staff met the tenants residing there, and discovered the mother and daughter were not present.

J later met with the school staff and further lied, explaining that she and her daughter stayed at the flat from Mondays to Thursdays and that the tenants were relatives.

She was also found to have instructed the tenants through their real estate agent to not speak with anyone who visited the flat and also directly told the tenants to state that both of them lived there.

The school staff conducted another house visit on Aug. 20 where they again did not find J and her daughter at the declared residence.

Despite the woman maintaining her lies, the school informed her that her daughter would be transferred to another school on Oct. 3.

She then met with the school's principal and vice-principal and said she intended to terminate the existing tenancy of the flat.

J continued to lie to the school another time via email before the school principal finally lodged a police report on Nov. 15, 2024.

False declaration potentially undermine MOE system: Judge

Both the prosecution and J, who was unrepresented, sought a fine for her offences.

However, the judge found that the woman's culpability was high, saying that her deception was "conscious and deliberate".

Her offence was driven by "pure self-interest", the judge noted, in pursuit of an advantage in securing admission for her daughter.

Additionally, the offence was committed with "planning and premeditation", which requires a deterrent sentence as "planned wrongdoing is inherently more insidious and poses a greater threat to society", the judge said.

In looking at the harm caused by J's offences, 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.

The integrity of MOE’s admissions framework rests on the assurance that school places are allocated based on a set of transparent criteria applicable across all schools, the judge said.

"When individuals deliberately subvert the admissions framework through false declarations, they do not merely distort the outcome for their benefit; their actions carry the potential to undermine the credibility of the entire system," she said.

She also noted that J's actions led to time and resources by the school being directed to verify the child's actual residence, which was a "needless misdirection of resources".

The judge ultimately sentenced J to one week imprisonment, saying the gravity and persistence of J’s actions warrant a short, sharp custodial sentence that "underscores the seriousness of her offences and serves as a clear deterrent to others who might contemplate similar deceit".

Appealing

According to CNA, the woman appeared "devastated" when she heard the sentence and begged the judge for a fine instead.

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

The woman plans to appeal against the sentence.

Top photos from Canva