MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni
-
limlim:
A family's circumstance do change, eg parent's work place change, care-giver place change, financial situation change (better or worse)....like the example I have given, a young couple rents a place instead of buying because ppty price too high. Later use the address to get into the school. Some years down the road ppty price drop or family's financially stronger, decides to buy a place but can't afford the vincinty (dun laugh....maybe majority of residences are private condos) but force to buy HDB further from school. Is it reasonable to deprive this family from sending the 2 child to the same school as the older sibling? Of coz not!I feel that, P1 priority shd be given only if the subsequent address is STILL within a given distance.. say, 2km( if address changed ), OR, the address remain unchanged. If they do not fulfill this, then, they stand in line with the others and not take advantage of the P1 priority.
This is to arrest those cases where pple rent a place to get the 1st kid in for the purpose of getting the first kid in only, and not bcoz it is for the welfare of the child.
If anything, I say do away with address or distance priority scheme totally if we are going to penalise those who rent....this will eliminate the possibility of abuses by not having the ruling there in the first place to be abused....although this is not what I'm would like to see because I think rental address is equally valid from `own address'. -
Lizzie:
Oh yes! Because of distance priority, my property increase in valuation like nobody business. Almost this time of the year, we will have people knocking on our door asking whether do we want to sell or RENT! Singaporean and foreigner. Worse one of my boss actually asked me can he rent so that his son stand a higher chance to be put into the school. Yeah.....this is a serious loophole! Are we encouraging that? Like one of the forumers here blatanly encourage to rent. Tsk tsk tsk....... But i am all for it for my pocket.
Erm, such properties(within 2 km) have already and always seen high prices all this time, thanks to the balloting process based on distance. And yes, such properties are indeed already beyond the reach of many.Lyddon:
Increase in property prices will also have other consequences.
If priority by distance, property prices within the 2km range will escalating further. Over time, this will lead to those schools having only students whose parents can afford it (high property COVs and high valuations) and less popular schools with students whose parents can't. Do we really want to divide public schools by those who have it vs those who don't? -
IDad:
When the address changes to far far away land.. the \"welfare\" consideration of the child is no longer valid.
A family's circumstance do change, eg parent's work place change, care-giver place change, financial situation change (better or worse)....like the example I have given, a young couple rents a place instead of buying because ppty price too high. Later use the address to get into the school. Some years down the road ppty price drop or family's financially stronger, decides to buy a place but can't afford the vincinty (dun laugh....maybe majority of residences are private condos) but force to buy HDB further from school. Is it reasonable to deprive this family from sending the 2 child to the same school as the older sibling? Of coz not!limlim:
I feel that, P1 priority shd be given only if the subsequent address is STILL within a given distance.. say, 2km( if address changed ), OR, the address remain unchanged. If they do not fulfill this, then, they stand in line with the others and not take advantage of the P1 priority.
This is to arrest those cases where pple rent a place to get the 1st kid in for the purpose of getting the first kid in only, and not bcoz it is for the welfare of the child.
If anything, I say do away with address or distance priority scheme totally if we are going to penalise those who rent....this will eliminate the possibility of abuses by not having the ruling there in the first place to be abused....although this is not what I'm would like to see because I think rental address is equally valid from `own address'.
If the parent really cared for the child, continue rent the place or rent another nearby place. Of coz, there could be case-by-case appeal to the authorities if they can justify the reasons which is not for us to judge, to retain the P1 priority. -
:rotflmao: It is equally amazing to see how those parents in phase 2B & 2C can somehow come out with all sort of skewed reasoning as in need to rent lah because no $ to buy property lah, less traffic concern for the overall masses (pulzzz for considering the community) just so that they can put into popular school.
-
ho ho ho ho ho :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
finding all kinds of weird excuses ! -
At the end of the day, i still can’t get it why not do away with phase 2B. Between alumni and phase 2B , alumni has the genuine community bonding to the school. There is "transactional element" in PV (doing something for some gain). GRL - a political association. All these should be removed. There you go, you have more vacancy.
-
laughingcat:
At the end of the day, i still can't get it why not do away with phase 2B. Between alumni and phase 2B , alumni has the genuine community bonding to the school. There is \"transactional element\" in PV (doing something for some gain). GRL - a political association. All these should be removed. There you go, you have more vacancy.
Church members have community bonding to the school too. -
phankao:
Agreed. I am also one of them. That is why never touch on religion.laughingcat:
At the end of the day, i still can't get it why not do away with phase 2B. Between alumni and phase 2B , alumni has the genuine community bonding to the school. There is \"transactional element\" in PV (doing something for some gain). GRL - a political association. All these should be removed. There you go, you have more vacancy.
Church members have community bonding to the school too.
-
phankao:
Yes I agree. Btw, without the church/clan, there won't be the school n hence no 2A members. How come now we forget the roots liao?laughingcat:
At the end of the day, i still can't get it why not do away with phase 2B. Between alumni and phase 2B , alumni has the genuine community bonding to the school. There is \"transactional element\" in PV (doing something for some gain). GRL - a political association. All these should be removed. There you go, you have more vacancy.
Church members have community bonding to the school too.
N it is precisely of this, I feel 2A shd be categorized in the same manner as 2B. Give priority but 'limit' it. -
dorisp:
It would be nice to know what is the underlying message and what is it trying to imply.
What is the underlying message?phtthp:
let's invite all ministers of Parliament to contribute to this forum, esp.those stay > 2km.
let's hear your view.
esp. Ministers (current, ex, retired) who are alumni from Nanyang family, ACS Barker, ACS Junior, Rosyth, Henry Park, Catholic High, Nan Hua, Tao Nan, St Hilda, RGPS, SCGS, etc. or any Minister from SAP schools, Catholic family, Methodist family, Anglican family, Buddhist family, Hokkien Clan Huay Kuan related family, other religious group family, other family, etc.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login