'My daughter how?': S'pore mother, 42, after 1 week jail term for lying about address to get child into popular primary school upheld

A 42-year-old Singaporean mother who previously lied about her residential address multiple times in order to enrol her daughter in a popular primary school had her one-week jail term upheld by the Chief Justice on Apr. 22, 2026.

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said the sentence was lenient and he would have effectively doubled it had he heard the case in the first place, CNA reported, adding that he did not because he did not have material before him, such as submissions and case precedents, to inform such a decision.

According to CNA, the woman, who is a single mother, began crying soon after the verdict and told her lawyer: "My daughter how?"

While she had appealed for a fine of S$9,100 instead, the prosecution did not seek a higher sentence, only to uphold the one-week jail term.

Chief Justice Menon allowed her two weeks to settle her affairs before beginning her jail term, CNA reported.

Pleaded guilty, sentenced

Earlier reports mentioned that the woman had previously pleaded guilty in September 2025 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, CNA reported.

She was then sentenced in November 2025 to one week in jail and cannot be named due to a gag order imposed by the court to protect 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.

Address

This comes after the woman had previously enrolled her daughter at a school via distance-based priority admission during the 2023 Primary 1 registration exercise.

She used the address of a flat she was renting out, but was not staying at, which is not allowed under the Ministry of Education's rules.

The woman later emailed the school about changing her address to her partner's address, after which the school management began investigating when the matter was flagged.

This was due to the new address being outside the radius for priority admission, CNA reported, adding that the 30-month requirement to stay in the declared address had not been fulfilled.

She kept lying that she lived at the place and instructed her tenants to say she stayed at the flat with her daughter.

CNA reported that she lied on at least five occasions between August 2024 and October 2024, and misreported her change of address to a registration officer as part of her plan to maintain the appearance of living at the address.

Lawyer appeal in court

The woman, who was unrepresented when sentenced to a week's jail in November 2025, hired a lawyer and appealed against the jail term on Apr. 22, 2026, seeking a S$9,100 fine.

According to CNA, her lawyer, Deepak Natverlal, tried arguing that his client had been staying at the declared address some of the time, but the Chief Justice repeatedly corrected him by pointing to the statement of facts, which stated clearly that the woman was not living at the declared address during that time.

In response to the lawyer trying to say that his client thought it was an administrative issue, the Chief Justice said she had lied five times, and had  "lied in order to beat the system".

Issue of harm

Separately, CNA cited Natverlal questioning the issue of harm done in this case, asking if a child was deprived of any placement in the school and saying the information was "not there".

The Chief Justice later said at least one other child was not able to get in because of the woman's offence, even if the prosecution was unable to show the numbers.

"If every parent couched it this way, the entire system would break down. So why should your client get away with it?" asked Chief Justice Menon.

To this, Natverlal said he was not saying that his client should get away with it, but that the harm was not as serious as it was being made out to be.

He added that the woman was a single mother of two, and this case needed a proportionate sentence that fit the offence.

Justify jail term

The Chief Justice, in explaining why the threshold was crossed in both possible ways in order to justify a jail term, said aggravating factors in this case included heavy premeditation, active and deliberate steps to bolster the deception, repeating of the lie five times, and the instigation of seven other people to further the lie.

He said this was a series of offences and she did not have past convictions as she "hadn't been caught".

Not an excuse

It was no excuse for the woman to say she wanted to help her child, he said.

Noting that the offence had resulted in the school expending resources to investigate the offence, it created a risk that public confidence in the Primary 1 registration system would become eroded.

Lenient sentence

He found nothing wrong in how the district judge arrived at her sentences, finding it lenient for the charge of giving false information when reporting her change of address.

CNA reported that he would have been inclined to run the two individual one-week jail terms consecutively rather than concurrently if he had heard the case in the first instance, because the offences were distinct and protected different legal interests.

Top photos via Canva