Singapore Woman, 41, Charged for Proving False Home Address During her Child’s P1 Registration

A 41-year-old woman was charged on Thursday, June 5, for allegedly lying about her home address to enroll her daughter in a primary school.

The woman was handed one charge of giving false information to a public servant and two charges under the National Registration Act.

She cannot be named since she is under a gag order to protect her child’s identity.

According to court documents, between June and September 2024, the woman provided false information to the principal and vice-principal of the school during the Primary 1 registration operation in 2023. The name of the school was redacted on charging sheets.

The woman stated that she plans to plead guilty and will not retain a defense lawyer. On July 18, she is set to plead guilty to her charges.

Those guilty of providing false information to a public servant with the intent for the public servant to conceal the true state of circumstances may face up to two years in prison, a fine, or both.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) stated on its website that it takes parents’ purposeful use of an address just for Primary 1 registration seriously.

The MOE stated that if it discovers that there was a purpose to exploit the system, or if parents cannot show that the information provided during Primary 1 registration was correct, the kid will be transferred to another school.

The government noted that parents will not be able to choose which school their child is sent to.

In 2018, a woman was fined S$5,000 for using a false address to enroll her child in a top school during the 2015 Primary 1 registration operation.

Her husband was fined S$4,000 after providing a bogus contact address to a registration officer at a police station.

The pair lied about their address being in Bishan while still living at Serangoon Garden.

In another example in 2015, a man was fined S$5,000 for lying to a school principal about his residence in order to gain admission to a primary school for his daughter.

The man said that his address was within 1 km to 2 km of a specific school, allowing his daughter to gain a slot there. His ID card listed the same location, but the man actually lived on Balestier Road, which was outside the priority radius.