SINGAPORE: On Wednesday, December 6, a person was given an eight-month prison term for forging an architectural degree from Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and using it to land numerous processing jobs over the course of 16 years.
She had forged the amount, according to her attorney, to “placate” her mother, who put emotional strain on her. According to Fonseka Wannerichega Hema Ranjini’s attorney, the criminal also had to work to support herself and her relatives, which put her under financial stress.
44-year-old Malaysian woman Fonseka entered a guilty plea to two counts of fraud and lying last month, with additional two charges being taken into account.
Fonseka had enrolled in electrical and manufacturing architecture at NTU in 1998. She withdrew from the program in 2004 because she struggled with the labor and the costs.
The girl faked a Bachelor of Engineering level from NTU in 2004 with third-class honors, according to her attorney, who afterwards claimed that her mother had reduced funding for her education.
Over the years, she used the forged certificate to land a number of tasks, starting with the position of assistant managing director at Marshall Cavendish Education for S$ 4,200 per month.
She also held assistant managing editor positions at Scholastic Education International ( Singapore ), Cengage Learning Asia, and Oxygen Studio Designs as a result of the certification.
She worked as a learning editor in publishing for the Walt Disney Company ( Southeast Asia ), where her highest monthly salary was S$ 6,800, with an additional transport allowance of S$ 1, 084 per month, until the company found her forged certificate after conducting checks.
Won CONSIDERABLE SALARY: DPP
Melissa Heng, the deputy public attorney, asked for eight to ten months in prison for Fonseka on Wednesday, highlighting her efforts to make the signature look authentic and the fact that she was able to secure five jobs with it over the course of 16 years.
According to Ms. Heng,” With each subsequent application, she was able to legitimize her continue, indicating her academic qualifications, and in doing so continue deceiving employers.”
She claimed that Fonseka received a” significant income” between S$ 47, 000 and S$ 83, 000 for some fees.
When Fonseka’s dishonesty was exposed, her answer revealed her lack of regret, according to Ms. Heng.
Although Ms. Heng did not request a payment order, claiming that it was difficult to quantify the harm done, she asserted that the employers who hired Fonseka did require specific educational requirements for the positions offered.
It would n’t be an exaggeration to say that Fonseka was expected to apply in her jobs training derived from the obtaining of her purported degree, she said, adding that the fact that this was present showed the employers valued educational qualifications.
Instead, defense attorney Foo Cheow Ming requested a great or, in the event that the court did not reach an agreed-upon fine, an extremely small jail sentence.
She responded to her mother’s force by defending herself.
According to Mr. Foo, the” series of cascading events” started as a result of pressure from Fonseka’s family, who stopped providing funding for her education centuries ago.
According to Mr. Foo,” Fonseka took the first step of forging a ( degree ) in order to appease her mother because of the intense psychological pressure ( her ) mother placed on her sense of worth and self-esteem.
” Following that, the financial strain of having to make a living and provide for her own parents caused the use of the forged ( degree )”
He claimed that while Fonseka’s “filial devotion remains unwavering” and she continues to care for her parents, his customer suffered “physical and intellectual abuse” from her mother, who has an undiagnosed personality disorder.
According to Mr. Foo, the circumstance of his client could be distinguished from other instances of cheating where the accused person’s public or legal status changed as a result of deception on government agencies.
Mr. Foo said it was” not as if she did n’t work at all,” despite the fact that Fonseka’s actions helped her land jobs she might not have otherwise been able to.
According to Mr. Foo, it was also not a circumstance in which she caused her employers” a gross full loss,” as in the case of blatant theft, criminal breach of trust, or lying.
According to the attorney, Fonseka’s employers did receive her solutions and the price she provided as a result.
If Fonseka’s work is alleged to have been bad, Mr. Foo argued that “employing a genuine graduate is no guarantee against poor or underpar performance on the part of the employee.”
Importantly, he added that there was no possible chance to the general public, clients, or employers because Fonseka did not practice engineering in her jobs, which were primarily in the language or journal sectors.
He deemed the prosecution’s proposed prison sentence to be “excessive and inappropriate.”
According to District Judge Terence Tay, the basic rule for financial offenses is that the word will become harsher in cases where there is a higher economic value involved.
A judicial phrase is appropriate, according to Judge Tay,” as long as the offense in question forces the sufferer to part with property that has more than minor value.”
Given that Fonseka actually worked for her employers, he claimed that the damage done in this case was the problem.
Nevertheless, he claimed that Fonseka’s employment was based on his education, and that there would have been some pay differentials and expectations for the companies ‘ contributions.
According to the judge, her crimes may have embarrassed her businesses as well as depriving another deserving workers of the work she had obtained through deceit.
According to him, it was challenging to identify the offenses, and if” this becomes a prevalent condition,” all employers may be required to check every certificate issued by their staff.
If Fonseka’s family was the one who stopped paying her fees, Judge Tay said he was confused by her alleged sorrow at leaving NTU.
He said,” I do n’t understand how it would ever justify her lying about her educational background, which persisted for many years.”
The judge expressed sympathy for Fonseka’s community position but asserted that there was no evidence to suggest that the events gave rise to the crimes.
He claimed that while Fonseka did a good job for the majority of the jobs she held—aside from the one at Scholastic, where she was fired—her offenses may have disrupted the pay structures at the companies, which are typically tied to academic qualifications, though this could have been replaced over time by job performance.
The judge added that Fonseka was still relatively young and still had a bright future ahead of her,” I think it’s been well-documented that education is not everything.”
While some careers require certifications, others do not, and some people have been successful in these positions, according to the judge.  ,
The accused ought to look into for another possibilities, he said.
He concurred with the trial that Fonseka should not be compensated because it is difficult to quantify the hurt the offenses caused.