\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE \u2013 The judge who handed down a rare jail sentence to a woman who gave false information when enrolling her child in a primary school said the case was aggravated by the accused\u2019s repeated lying.<\/p>\n
In her judgment on Nov 13, District Judge Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz said the mother\u2019s repeated lying was \u201cexceedingly aggravating as it betrays an enduring and entrenched commitment to law-breaking\u201d. <\/p>\n
The woman was <\/p>\n sentenced on Nov 13 to a week\u2019s jail<\/p>\n <\/a> after she pleaded guilty to one charge of giving false information to public servants and another charge of giving false information when reporting her change of address. <\/p>\n The mother had lied at least five times to keep her daughter at the school, and persisted despite multiple opportunities to come clean, the court heard.<\/p>\n Even when informed by the school that her daughter was going to be transferred, she did not retract her lies.<\/p>\n The woman cannot be named due to a gag order to protect her daughter\u2019s identity. The gag order extends to the name of the school and the personnel involved.<\/p>\n In sentencing the woman, Judge Sripathy-Shanaz noted that there has been an upward trend of such cases.<\/p>\n Data from the Ministry of Education showed investigations into such cases had averaged about one a year from 2008 to 2018, but <\/p>\n rose to nine a year<\/p>\n <\/a> from 2020 to 2024.<\/p>\n The judge said that just because there have been few prosecutions for such instances of abuse, it does not mean that they are rare.<\/p>\n She said some cases may have been resolved through administrative rather than penal means.<\/p>\n Judge Sripathy-Shanaz said: \u201cParents must be under no illusion, that the deliberate subversion of the school admissions framework through deceit will, in certain circumstances, attract penal consequences.\u201d<\/p>\n She added that subverting the admissions process potentially deprives another eligible child of admission to that school, and such offences \u201cstrike at values that lie at the heart of our society\u201d. <\/p>\n \u201cThey confer an undeserved advantage, erode public confidence in a system carefully designed to balance competing aspirations, and unfairly disadvantage those who abide by the rules.\u201d<\/p>\n Education holds an exalted place in Singapore, the judge said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe selection of a primary school in Singapore stands as the first and often most defining milestone in a child\u2019s journey through formal education,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n \u201cCompetition for places in certain schools, often highly sought after for their perceived academic rigour or developmental opportunities, has become especially keen.\u201d<\/p>\n As such, those who seek to subvert the system should expect consequences, said the judge.<\/p>\n \u201cSuch conduct must therefore be met with unequivocal disapproval, for the legitimacy of the admissions process rests on the same values of integrity, honesty and fairness that the education system strives to instil in the very children it is meant to nurture.\u201d<\/p>\n The woman, who was not represented, and the prosecution had both asked for a fine, but Judge Sripathy-Shanaz said a jail term was warranted.<\/p>\n She said the daughter had gained an unfair advantage, and the school\u2019s resources also had to be used to uncover the truth.<\/p>\n The judge said such actions risk undermining the credibility of the entire system.<\/p>\n \u201cThe legitimacy of the admissions framework depends critically on public confidence,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n \u201cThat confidence is undermined by the perception that dishonesty in the registration process \u2013 being relatively easy to commit yet inherently difficult to detect, as illustrated by the time taken to uncover the falsehood in this case \u2013 can confer an unfair advantage on those prepared to deceive. <\/p>\n \u201cIf such conduct is not met with adequate sanction, it risks engendering cynicism that honesty and compliance place law-abiding parents at a disadvantage.\u201d<\/p>\n The case is the fourth reported in the past decade involving parents lying to get their children into a primary school. Previous cases have seen parents handed fines of between $4,000 and $5,000.<\/p>\n The last known case involving a prison sentence was in 2007. The district judge noted at the time that there were aggravating factors in the case.<\/p>\n Besides premeditation, the accused had abused his position of trust as a lawyer, and his conduct had undermined public confidence in the legal profession, the judge said.<\/p>\n The man was sentenced to 11 months\u2019 jail for forging and lying about his residential address in order to get his daughter into a reputable school in Bukit Timah.<\/p>\n In 2018, <\/p>\n a woman was fined $5,000<\/p>\n <\/a> after she gave a false address to enrol her child in a prestigious school during the Primary 1 registration exercise in 2015. Her husband was fined $4,000 for giving a false contact address to a registration officer at a police post.<\/p>\n