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 stir 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 cynicism. 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.
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.