u/Fuzzy-Board-6318

I happen to see this judgement and here's my view on all the facts present in the judgment.

1. This mother owned a flat, stayed in her partner flat, and rent the flat out to 6 people yet argue that the prosecution’s proposed $10,000 fine was “too high”.
2. This mother change address to the flat (near the good school) before registration, then later changed it back to the partner’s flat address before the 30-month requirement expired. Boom, story begin.
3. How unequal landlord-tenant relationships can become in Singapore. The tenants first cooperate with spot check from the school, then turn evasive (original word from the judgement) after the mother (the landlord) "told" them to keep quiet and support her lies. Tenants complies.
4. The priority admission based on the home-school distance category, created "crime" like in this case: temporary address and its hard to detect.
5. People like the mother in this case, own a flat - rented out to 6 people, stay with her partner in another flat, yet need to "gamble" the system to get her kid into good primary school. This shows the priority admission based system may not be perfect, but equal to all income families