\n<\/p>\n
The case – and the jail term – sparked widespread discussion among parents in a country where there is keen competition in enrolling children into some schools.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The woman was expecting a fine, as that was what the prosecution sought.<\/p>\n
When she heard of the jail sentence on Nov 13, she reacted with shock in the dock, turning to her partner who was in the public gallery and making gestures.<\/p>\n
She then told the judge repeatedly that she could not go to jail and that she wished for a fine instead.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The prosecution had sought a total fine of S$13,000, saying the case was “a rare instance in which prosecution was pursued at all”.<\/p>\n
Deputy Public Prosecutor Yeo Kee Hwan<\/span> noted that the prevalence of prosecution for such cases had “dropped sharply” from four cases between 2013 and 2015 to zero thereafter, and that fines had been meted out for each case.<\/p>\n District Judge Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz imposed jail due to the aggravated nature of the case.<\/p>\n This included the woman’s repeated lies, her “selfish motives”, the calculation that went into her actions and her willingness to draw her tenants into the lie, the judge concluded.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n