换址报名校　捉到要坐牢孩子也须转校

大刚需 · 发表于 7-8-2012 16:00:20|来自：美国

租房换地址，为孩子报名校，被捉到要坐牢，孩子也必须转校！

据《海峡时报》报道，许多家长为把孩子送进好学校，出尽法宝，有些人甚至砸钱租靠近名校的房子，却不住进去，拿着空屋地址为孩子报名，孩子被录取后就走人。

教育部规定，住在学校1公里内的孩子，在报名时有优先权。但小一新生报名上月展开以来，有人在网上申诉一些家长租房用假地址，引起许多家长不满。

教育部：违例家长交由警方处理；家长批评：名校成有钱人乐园；受访名校：虚报地址并不多见。完整报道，请翻阅07.08.2012《联合晚报》。

大刚需 · 发表于 7-8-2012 16:01:23|来自：美国

so, 租房住进去，就不违法，不住进去，就违法？

jjrchome · 发表于 7-8-2012 16:13:12|来自：美国

大刚需发表于 7-8-2012 16:01
so, 租房住进去，就不违法，不住进去，就违法？

Kiasuparent上有这样一个问答：

Q: Can I use a rental address to register my child?
Variations:
Q: Can I use the address of my uncompleted property to register my child?
Q: Can I move house after my child's successful Primary school registration?
Q: How long must we stay at the address that was used to register my child?

A:
Based on what is published on MOE's website, MOE permits the use of the addresses of incomplete properties for Primary 1 Registration as long as the property is ready for the child to stay in no later than the start of Primary 3.

Aside from this, there are really no regulations pertaining to how long before or after P1 registration that parents are required to rent or stay at an address.

The most important principles are:
1. Your NRIC must always reflect the address you are currently staying in, or
2. you have papers to prove that you will be staying with your child in a yet-to-be completed address near the school, and
3. your child must be staying in the address you used for the registration when he/she enters Primary 1, or before Primary 3.

MOE (and KiasuParents.com) strongly encourage parents to stay put in that address for the full six years of their children's Primary school education, and for a good reason.  However, this is difficult to enforce as people do have to move for various valid reasons.  So it becomes an honor system for parents to report to the schools they are registering in that they do not intend to stay in the address for too long, and leave it to the school to decide what priority they should be giving to the registrant.

This is a loophole, exploited by some parents desperate to get a place for their child in the very popular schools.  The most obvious modus operandi would be to either rent or purchase a property near the school which they have no intention to stay in for more than a few months, and change their NRIC address to the property's location for use during the Primary 1 Registration.  In doing so, they would have violated the 1st and 3rd principles, since their child is not staying in that property for any extended period of time.  They can be charged with lying about their home address, which is a serious and chargeable offence.  There have been cases where parents have been caught and thrown into jail, and the child had to leave the school even after she has completed up to 2 years of Primary school.

So, yes, some parents may have been able to get away with it.  But even if we do not consider the dire consequences of being found out, is the need to get into the popular schools so important that we have to lie and teach our children to lie in order to get into the schools?  I think not.

Some valid reasons for changing address after P1 registration:
1. You are moving to another address within the vicinity of the school.
2. You are making some alternative child care arrangements, eg. you decided to move, but the child either stays with the care-giver in the original address, or close-by.

大刚需 · 发表于 7-8-2012 16:53:42|来自：美国

jjrchome 发表于 7-8-2012 16:13
Kiasuparent上有这样一个问答：

所以，原告是谁？原告是学校？

jjrchome · 发表于 7-8-2012 17:56:58|来自：美国

大刚需发表于 7-8-2012 16:53
所以，原告是谁？原告是学校？

简单的刑事案件可以由侦查或调查部门直接将被告控上法庭，警察部队的警察主控官也有这个权利。

扣扣妈 · 发表于 7-8-2012 19:00:19|来自：美国

其实大部分的人，租房报名，如果上了，最后也就住那儿了。所以不存在欺骗什么的。
只要在报名之前没有居住时间的限制，就是一个loophole，就有空子可钻。
除非你真的只是弄个地址不住那儿，那就是违法的。
若干年前，有个律师这个搞，后来孩子被转校，他自己被吊销律师资格，得不偿失。当时这个事儿引起很大轰动。

jjrchome · 发表于 8-8-2012 10:31:28|来自：美国

扣扣妈发表于 7-8-2012 19:00
其实大部分的人，租房报名，如果上了，最后也就住那儿了。所以不存在欺骗什么的。
只要在报名之前没有居住 ...

那个“新闻”是这样的：

Lawyer jailed 11 months for forgery and lies

He altered stamp duty payable by client and lied about address to get his child into top school

HE WILL spend the next 11 months in jail but the immediate future of his 10-year-old daughter is less certain.

Lawyer Tan Sok Ling, 40, pleaded guilty last week to lying about his residential address in order to secure his daughter a place at a reputable school in Bukit Timah. He also admitted to altering the stamp duty payable for a property transaction from $8,100 to $13,500.

Yesterday he was sentenced to nine months' jail for forgery and two months for giving false information. Two other forgery charges and another of giving false information were considered.

As for his daughter's fate in the school, the Ministry of Education (MOE) said it will consider the court's ruling in deciding the course of action for the child.

Tan, who was called to the Bar in 1993, is currently under a 12-month suspension for breaching the Solicitors Accounts Rules between 2002 and 2003.

The owner of the now-defunct firm of Tan S.L. & Partners was representing Mr Kwang Siang Jin, 46, a buyer of a Thomson Park house, when he forged the stamp duty certificate in March last year.

Mr Kwang paid $13,500 for stamp duties for the purchase of the property, not knowing that the actual figure was only $8,100.

When he found out three months later, he demanded a refund and Tan complied.

Earlier in 2003, Tan's family was living in Bedok when he decided to rent a place within the 1km radius of the Bukit Timah school in order to enrol his daughter there.

He managed to find a unit at Maplewoods Condominium and paid a $1,600 monthly rent for 41/2 months from April 2003. He told the property agent that he was not going to live there but wanted to use the address.

After signing the licence agreement, he went to the Siglap Neighbourhood Police Post on July 6 that year to change his address to the Bukit Timah one when he knew that it was false.

His daughter, now 10, was admitted to the school. But he was found out after an MOE official lodged a police report on Dec 19 that year stating that two applicants at the 2003 Primary 1 registration exercise had used the same address.

Mr Peter Cuthbert Low of law firm Colin Ng & Partners said his client cooperated fully with the police, made restitution even before he was charged, and was genuinely remorseful.

Citing aggravating factors in the case, District Judge Liew Thiam Leng said the offence involved fraud and dishonesty as well as premeditation. Tan had abused his position of trust as a lawyer and his conduct undermined public confidence in the legal profession.

Tan could have been jailed for up to seven years for forgery. For giving false information to a public servant, the maximum penalty is six months' jail or $1,000 fine or both.