Mother Charged with Providing False Address During P1 Registration to Secure School Placement


Advertisements
 

A 41-year-old woman was charged in court on 5 June 2025 with providing false information during the Primary 1 registration exercise.

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

Her identity cannot be revealed due to a gag order to protect her child’s identity.


Advertisements
 

False Address Provided to School Officials During P1 Registration

According to court documents, between June and September 2024, the woman gave false information to the principal and vice-principal of the school during the Primary 1 registration exercise in 2023.

The name of the school was redacted in charge sheets.

Between 24 Jun and 20 Sep 2024, the woman allegedly gave false information about her residential address to the school’s principal and vice-principal so that they would continue allowing her daughter to be enrolled in the school under Phase 2C of the 2023 Primary 1 registration exercise.

The given address was less than 2km away from the school. During P1 registration, priority is given to Singapore citizens and permanent residents who live closer to the preferred school when there are more applicants than vacancies.

The address used for Primary 1 registration should be the child’s parents’ official residential address, as reflected on their NRICs.

The woman’s two charges under the National Registration Act are for giving false information when she reported a change in address to a registration officer. She allegedly did so on 17 Jun 2023 and 3 Jul 2024.

On both occasions, the woman gave the same address that she provided to the school principal and vice-principal.

Read Also:  44-Year-Old Man Charged with Murdering 79-Year-Old Woman at Sengkang Flat

Legal Consequences

The woman appeared in court without representation and said she intends to plead guilty and will not be engaging a defence lawyer. She is expected to admit to her offences on 18 Jul 2025.


Advertisements
 

Those convicted of giving false information to a public servant and intending for the public servant to omit the true state of facts can be jailed for up to two years, fined, or both.

If convicted of giving false information to the registration officer, the woman may be jailed for up to two years, or fined up to S$3,000 (~SGD$3,000), or both.

The Ministry of Education said on its website that it takes a serious view of parents intentionally using an address solely for the purpose of Primary 1 registration.

MOE said that if it finds there was an intention to abuse the system, or if parents cannot prove that information provided during Primary 1 registration was accurate, the child will be transferred to another school.

Parents will not be able to choose which school the child gets transferred to.


Advertisements
 

In a parliamentary reply in 2018, the Ministry of Education said that in the last 10 years, there were fewer than 10 cases of parents falsifying information for the purpose of Primary 1 registration.

It added that in cases where the parent is convicted of the charge, the child who was previously registered in a school based on false information would be transferred to another school with available vacancies.

Previous Cases of P1 Registration Fraud

In 2018, a woman was fined S$5,000 (~SGD$5,000) 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 S$4,000 (~SGD$4,000) for giving a false contact address to a registration officer at a police post.

Read Also:  24-Year-Old Taiwanese Influencer Known for Eating Cosmetics on Camera Suddenly Dies

The couple had lied that their residential address was in Bishan when they were still living in Serangoon Garden.

In another case in 2015, a man was fined S$5,000 (~SGD$5,000) for lying to a school principal about where he lived to get his daughter admitted to a primary school.


Advertisements
 

The man had indicated his address as being within 1km to 2km of a particular school, allowing his daughter to secure a spot there. His identity card showed the same address, but the man actually lived in Balestier Road, which fell outside the priority radius.