MumandMe:

I read that you are in support of those who game the system. I beg to differ. As PM Lee mentioned, no one system is sacrosanct. While it is true no one system can please everyone, policy makers must ensure the original system in place is being observed in its true spirit. To me, it is precisely that loopholes are being exploited by those who found a way to \"game\" the current system that it needs to be reviewed. Rules are man-made, and we have to allow for changes to suit the present time.


I am not against the PRs, but it bothers me to know there are many (PRs or otherwise) who rent a place near their schools of choice or make a (false) statutory declaration to increase their odds of getting into the school. This is undeniably a loophole that needs to be addressed. That many PRs fall under the category of those who \"rent a place to be near the school of choice\" is accidental.

Sorry, but just to be clear. I am not supportive of people who defraud or cheat the system. These folks should be caught and dealt with.

When I mentioned that they 'game' the system, it means doing what is necessary, within the rules of the system, to improve their chances of getting the school of their choice. This includes PV, GRL, or whatever. Making false declarations by PRs or citizens, is wrong and should never be tolerated.

BTW, in the only case that has been caught so far of a person renting a house near the school of his choice and making false declaration, the guy who did it is a Singaporean.

Until the law was changed a couple of years ago, children are only entitled to Singapore citizenship if their father is a Singapore citizen. Children born to Singaporean women and a non-Singaporean man are not entitled. When the law was changed, it was not applied retroactively. So, A's children are not entitled to Singapore citizenship unless A himself takes up citizenship.


B has never been back to Singapore except for short holidays. He has never done a day of Reservist/Manning/IPPT/etc.

Anyway, that's my point. A's kids are more Singaporean than B's kids by any objective measurement, except for the colour of their IC. So, why do we naturally assume that a blue IC denotes someone of being 'less Singaporean' & less deserving?

And for those who still insist that B is more deserving because his IC is pink, well, this person does exist and is a family friend. In the end, he did not send his children back to Singapore to study because he didn't want there to be a record of his children enjoying any benefit of citizenship. The day they turned 18, each of his children renounced their Singaporean citizenship & took up US citizenship. So much for loyalty to Singapore.

puff:

Hmm my understanding if I change both scenarios into a more close to heart example
1) A man who want to stay with you but dun want to commit into marriage.
2) A husband after married cannot live with u n will be constantly overseas to work.

Who is more worthy? My choice will be (2) :evil:

Actually, I disagree. If we take citizenship to be a marriage, then 2) is a husband who has an affair but refuses to divorce his wife nor marry his mistress. :rotflmao:

Just curious…


These are two real-life scenarios.

1) A is a Malaysian citizen with Singapore PR. He has studied in Singapore since primary school (he was an ASEAN scholar) all the way to NUS. Since graduation, he has worked in Singapore and has since married a Singapore citizen. His kids were born before the law was changed so his children are Malaysian citizens and Singapore PRs. He does not wish to change his citizenship as he is proud to be a Malaysian but calls Singapore home as this is where his family is.

2) B is a Singapore citizen. After NS, he went to US for his University degree and has worked in the US since. He married an American citizen but never renounced his Singapore citizenship (not because of any loyalty to Singapore, just that there as no reason to convert). His children are thus entitled to Singapore citizenship. He is considering sending his kids to Singapore to study because he thinks the US system is crap. He has family here who can help to take care of them.

So, are we saying that B is more worthy of a place in a Singapore school compared to A, even if B has contributed NOTHING to Singapore (even through taxes) while A has been contributing to Singapore for his entire adult life?

I think what Chief wrote summed it up best.


I want to share this passage with the folks here.

Immigration and multiculturalism are issues that this government is trying to address, but for far too long ordinary Australians have been kept out of any debate by the major parties. I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40 per cent of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate. Of course, I will be called racist but, if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country. A truly multicultural country can never be strong or united. The world is full of failed and tragic examples, ranging from Ireland to Bosnia to Africa and, closer to home, Papua New Guinea. America and Great Britain are currently paying the price. Arthur Calwell was a great Australian and Labor leader, and it is a pity that there are not men of his stature sitting on the opposition benches today. Arthur Calwell said: Japan, India, Burma, Ceylon and every new African nation are fiercely anti-white and anti one another. Do we want or need any of these people here? I am one red-blooded Australian who says no and who speaks for 90% of Australians. I have no hesitation in echoing the words of Arthur Calwell.

These words were not spoken by some radical crazy person. It is taken from the maiden speech to the Australian Parliament by Pauline Hanson, after she was elected as the Member of Oxley as an independent, after being kicked out of the Liberal Party.

I was studying in Australia at that time. I recalled the alarm felt by fellow Asians in & out of Australia that a person with such xenophobic & racist views would be able to win a seat in parliament and was gathering support, that she was able to form a political party based on these themes, One Nation. The party was even able to win a significant number of seats in the Queensland State Government.

The one consolation that I had was that at the end of my education, I will return to Singapore, where not only do we tolerate people regardless of race, language or religion, we embrace them as brothers.

Sadly, in ten years, we have managed to tear all that down. Today, you see similar sentiments to Ms Hansen's being expressed in forums, in blogs, & all over internet. In fact, take that passage above, replace 'Australians' with 'Singaporeans', and 'Asians' with 'Chinese and Indians'. Post in a site like TRE & I guarantee you will get a large chorus of 'YES!'.

The other example I would like to remind us all is another politician, who came to power by promising to return the country to the 'sons of the soil'. He claimed that a certain group of people had conspired to bring hardship and grief to the country and if elected, he would take back what rightfully belonged to these 'sons of the soil' & these people will be made into '2nd class citizens'. He whipped up so much public hatred that when he came to power, nobody blinked an eyelid when he instituted one of the greatest acts against humanity in the 20th century. We know that act today by the simple word, 'Holocaust'. The politician is Adolf Hitler.

I am not deliberately trying to be melodramatic here, but we are on this slippery slope. I hope we as a people are mature enough to be able to think rationally and coherently through the issues. So far, I've been wrong. For the sake of our nation's future, I hope I do not stay wrong.

I think it’s disappointing that in a forum I had previously thought to be full of rational people is letting this wave of xenophobia run rampant.


Before we continue with this railing and chest-beating about PRs & FTs, don’t forget that ALL of us are recent descendents of FTs; our grandparents (or in some cases, great-grandparents) were FTs. Some of our best known and most sought-after schools were built by FTs for FTs.

As for the consternation about the various phases and whether it is right or not, we are just going around in circles. There is no way you are going to convince alumni they are not entitled to their priority. Similarly, clan members, christians, buddhists, and grassroot leaders and PVs all believe they are entitled to that priority (just like many seem to believe they are entitled to more priority just for being Singaporean). Some suggest that distance from home should be the only criteria for determining priority. Personally, I think that’s the worst criteria. Of all the criteria in use today, it’s the only one that can be solved by money.

Finally, rather than expect a system that can be fair to the 40,000+ kids who are registering each year (I have news for you, there will never be a system that can be fair to all), I do have respect for those who just quietly go and do what needs to be done to ‘game’ the system; create chances for themselves in earlier phases through PV, or other routes. Perhaps that’s why many consider the new immigrants such a threat. Unlike many Singaporeans who just sit back, complain and expect the Government to fix it for them, these PRs & FTs just go and do what’s needed and get what they need. I guarantee you that no matter how you ‘stack’ the odds against them, they will work out a way to game the system and get the child into the school of their choice.

zhuangzi:

Celyw:

1) the ex students past psle results contributed to the \"popularity\" of the what the school is having now.
2) the ex students have their fair share of donation and flag days for their school
3) the ex students have done their duties to keep the school clean and neat by doing gardening, picking up litters, etc

They are not free riders as what you claimed. But they are in a position where you does not enjoy hence you are not happy.

The 3 points you brought up are rather weak, but I'm not here to start an argument.

Yes, I may not be in position where I'm an Alumni, but I've never disagree that Alumni should have preference. As long as they pay the fee and actively participate in the building of their ex school future, they deserve every rights to be in P2A1. Those who don't still get some advantage over the others by being able to enrol in P2B, instead of P2A2. Think about those PV who had put in all the hours, and those parents from less fortunate background who can't afford the time off for PV, you are indeed very privilege to be in P2B already! All in all, what I am proposing is the elimination of P2A2.

Put it this way. When I entered my Primary School, it was a truly 'neighbourhood' school. It was named after the road where the school was situated. If the school had 'maintained' that same standard, it will be one of those schools taking in students at Phase 3. It was definitely NOT 'branded' in any shape or form, nor popular with anyone who stayed outside of walking distance.

20 years later, it is considered one of the top schools in Singapore. When I registered during 2A2, I was told old boys & girls were coming in from all over Singapore to register.

While I'm sure the teachers and administrators had played their part, who do you think took the PSLE, got the grades that are being compared and analysed in forums such as this? People think my school is great because of the results that me & my fellow alumni achieved. So, yes, I do think all alumni do deserve that recognition and priority.

BTW, I disagree with the priority for those who joined the alumni association mainly because there is a cost attached. In some cases, this is as high as $1000. Then is it fair to those from lower income family?

g2m6:

So why bother opening up new schools with a brand new name that no one wants to register when you can let (or force) schools that consistently fail to meet demand annually eg Raffles Girls (82 left after P2A2) or Anderson Primary (64 left after P2A2) to open up another campus. This school will follow the same system as the original one and some of the senior teachers and staff can be transferred over to the new school and replicate the successful model.

No danger of cookie cutter because we do not eliminate all schools but just let those which always fail to meet demand increase their intake.

Because parents are not going to 'fall' for that one either. Those with the option are still going to go for the 'Main' school because they assume that the 'Branch' is not as good. Just look at the disparity in registration numbers for the two ACS schools.

Well, my boy's registering for P1 this year as well, & trying to pick where to go is giving me a headache...


First preference is Tao Nan, mainly because I want him in a chinese environment and it's convenient (the school is literally at my doorstep). But, I'll be going through the 2B route and the numbers from last year are quite discouraging.

My other options are Nanyang and Rosyth, where he would be able to qualify under 2A2 but with an increased traveling time (obviously).

Would the 'optimal'/'ksp.com-endorsed' solution be to register for Nanyang or Rosyth at 2A2 while monitoring the situation in Tao Nan? :lol:

tanlengleng:

I think they are not \"IN\" because the top pupils do not take PSLE anymore,

they are in some \"direct path\" scheme...
Please correct me if I'm wrong...

I've heard this reason cited quite often for the seemingly lack of students from the 'top' schools in PSLE rankings.

This is because the best of cohort are already accepted into the secondary school of their choice and they spend little to no effort for their PSLE. Usually for Direct Admission Scheme (DAS), they only need to pass their PSLE.

To be honest, for 99% of all 12 year olds, if you told them that they only need to pass to qualify, then they are not likely to give you anything more...