MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[dorisp]

janet_lee88:

Hi Chief,

This thread is not going anywhere...it's advisable to close case.
MOE has already made the move to give priority to Singaporeans and even that can stir up issues with comments like 'PURE' Singaporeans and converted ones. It's not healthy.

Yes, just get to know more about the \"PURE\" Singaporeans comments from the other SC priority over PR thread (ok a bit slow lah....) from a very active forumer. It is so ........... :yikes:

[phtthp]

Chief, appreciate if you can kindly Close both thread. Thank you.

[IDad]

I think it’s not necessary to lock the thread. Keep it open so that whenever new comers join the forum and have opinions to share can just add their views. Otherwise, they would have to add a new thread…


I actually like this thread a lot as it brings up a lot of important issues. I also wonder why should I bother when my DS1 is already in P1 and DS2 is following him closely. But i simply can’t agree with the arguments put forth by alumni fourmers…this is despite the fact 3 generations of my family have benefited from this scheme. I maintain church, clan, alumni is on equal footing.

[Lyddon]

vicki:

Dear Lyddon,

:offtopic:

You just reminded me. Generally,
- Most pple who push work to others always dont think they are doing so.
- Most pple who think they are doing things efficiently and effectively are often so - cos they delegate.
- Most pple who claim they are not rich are often very rich - cos stingy mah - how can let pple know - otherwise pple will ask for treats...
- Most pple who think they are connected to their school, probably are - and probably is a little 'atas' also - ie, my genes et all deserve the best - and probably several others in that school also has such similar attitude too.
- Most pple who pass sacarstic remarks rarely think they are - cos they are so in-built into the way of passing their comments - they just cant see it.

Yup - we are all here to share our friendly opinions and just like the many times i feel :stupid: cos either the same qns are asked or pple who mis-interpret the regulations wrongly and hence mislead others around - i believe inthusfar - most pple are still decently polite (albeit with a slight irritated tone) in their reply.

Obviously i do not take to pple who speaks with sacarsm well, esp those who think they are 'smarty pants'.

So, good to know you, my friend.

Yours Sincerely,
Vicki

Hahah....
I am aware I can be sarcastic sometimes but I bear no ill intent or malice.
I do not think I am smart. Just smart enough to get smarter people to work with me and for me.

Good to know you too, Vicki.

[dorisp]

Yes agree with IDad.


I feel this is like a \"head\" (distance) vs \"heart\" (alumni) issue. Where national policy is concerned, the ideal situation would best be a balance of both.

I am of the humble view that during 1998 (could be earlier I am not sure) when the current system (alumni priority) was applied, MOE then had carefully sought the balance between the two.

But 14 years had since gone by. Our society has become more affluent and an affluent society has brought about stronger emphasis on transparancy, equality and fariness in a national policy. In addition, a more affluent society also sees more people placing stronger emphasis on education.

Today, as priority for alumni 2A are not capped, 2A figures in some schools grew bigger and bigger and begins to eat more and more into the pie of 2B and 2C. Some in 2A are singing the tune of \"....I'm just glad I am on this side of fence with the greener grass.\" Am sure such will not go very well in our current society.

Take public housing, healthcare, transportation etc. One usually does not expect \"too much priority\" be given to a certain group. Where an exception is granted, it is usually to the \"under privileged\".

The demerits of granting P1 places in school solely by distance could be valid but could not be used as the main reason to keep the system that by itself had overrun its rightfulness. Where equilibrium not longer exist and moving forward, policy makers might face the same question over and over again every year on extended privilege to alumni. And the justification for it, might get harder and harder.

IMHO, I agree and support \"alumni\" be accorded some \"privilege\" but it should be capped, or shared evenly with 2B and 2C and not be given in an \"unlimited\" manner.

Just friendly share share my opinion. I do not mind if anyone disagrees so let's discuss peacefully.

[limlim]

Dino_Mummy:

:?


How come never reply post on vk2010 or LOLMum's post on this huh? :?

bcoz you included the post comment so kill 2 birds with 1 stone lor.. :evil: :evil: :imsorry:

I'm not too sure what 3B meant by the term \"nonsense\".. if he intend to meant that it is \"irrelevant\" to the topic on hand, then, I fully agree with him. It is \"nonsense\" in the context of this thread.. The fact that the resource is limited doesn't have any bearing on who shd hv the priority.. it only affects the \"need for priority\".

[limlim]

dorisp:

I recall this earlier post:

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.

Has the invitation been done? I am interested to know what is the implication for selecting this group of people to contribute their views and am sure many people would be very interested to know what is their reply. Do share so that \"the Truth will set us free\".....

I bet 500 post counts that they will not appear in their official capacity in this thread.

Bcoz I believe they will be whacked left right up down center.. :evil:

many times.. their \"so-called\" justification is w/o substance.. \"it happens once in 50 years..\" \"no amount of engineering will solve it etc..\" \"I feel proud to be a Singaporean so I meddle with my handphone when singing the national anthem\" \"GST is to help the poor\" etc.. etc.. (ok, it's different person.. but if they post in public forum.. we'll be in for a show.. :evil: :evil: ).. and not forgetting the famous one when the COA say something that directly contradict the minister of defense.

A public forum is not like the ST.. you say and pple can only listen..

A forum is 2 way communication.

anyway.. I declare my post is :offtopic:

[limlim]

LOLMum:

dorisp:

[quote=\"Dino_Mummy\"]

How come never reply post on vk2010 or LOLMum's post on this huh? :?

:?

i think we said something and dino-mummy replied and she was quoted. but too lazy to go and dig up my post. a bit sian of this topic already .[/quote]vk posted something in the line of \"the reduction of vacancy being a key factor\" somewhere in this thread when the debate is on whether a certain group shd hv priority over the other. 3B commented that \"reduction of vacancy being a key factor\" is nonsense (If I read correctly). lolmum commented in the same tune as vk I guess.

dino commented on 3B post saying it is not \"nonsense\".

I replied to dino's post.

While the content points to invalidating vk's comment, my intention is to point out that 3B's comment is valid, hence, I replied to dino's post instead of vk's.

[limlim]

laughingcat:

LOLMum:

a bit sian of this topic already .

Me too. Wondering is it time for Chief to seal this topic before everyone gets too heated up and being too confrontational? Really, this forum is for sharing of opinions and it will not get anywhere since there is no representative of MOE officials here. Really don't want the KSP forum to continue on in bashing each other. I hope.

So peace. :xedfingers:

I don't see why this thread should not continue.

Those afraid of \"changes\" might not want MOE to hear of this.. I don't know.. But, the discussion itself is a valid concern and consideration for MOE.

[limlim]

janet_lee88:

Hi Chief,

This thread is not going anywhere...it's advisable to close case.
MOE has already made the move to give priority to Singaporeans and even that can stir up issues with comments like 'PURE' Singaporeans and converted ones. It's not healthy.

Deal with it or run away from it..?

the choice can be subjective..