MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[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..

[limlim]

laughingcat:

Please close this thread. Also the other thread on about SC vs PR. I hate that thread. It just looks ugly.

because it looks ugly, so it shd be hidden?

Why is it ugly? bcoz of some underlying emotions/reasons.. is it better for everyone to share views/opinions and to educate the correct approach, or dismiss it as \"not important\"?

[limlim]

dorisp:

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.

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

:goodpost:

[dorisp]

limlim:

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.

Agree with you. Yes the ministry has kept the current system for 2A unchanged at this moment but there is no stopping for friendly discussions and exchanging of suggestions at the forum and hopefully some pointers might be picked by policy makers someday. This is a national policy so it is everybody's business.

There is high chance that MOE might face more and more parents coming forward asking for the justification of this extended privilege to alumni. At the present moment, some of us are only asking for a cap to 2A. Who knows, the wave asking for total removal of 2A might just be around the shore.

[IDad]

Lyddon:

IDad:

[quote=\"Lyddon\"]

Considering that you participated for 40 days and 131 pages of posts and there is no safisfactory answer to a question YOU are interested. Isn't it time to take the next step and get a definitive answer ... from MOE perhaps? It's your choice, of course. I merely pointed to MOE to get the absolute solid 'answer' you seek. If you are offended by that, then don't contact MOE.

I'm not offended but I'm surprised you can't read between the lines....in fact, I did feedback to MOE and Govt feedback unit. I did not request for the answer for Alumni priority . To me, its not an issue of right or wrong `answer', MOE just need to review the current scheme based on current situation and sentiments.

...

Or maybe you are just very patient and hope MOE or Mr Heng to respond to this forum to give (I quote) \" solid reason why alumni deserve priority over church or clan\". Keep mum? I am smart enough to know you have no admins right nor the 'solid' justification to request admin to do so.

Note to all forumers, if you do not have (I quote again) \"solid reason why alumni deserve priority over church or clan\" ... be prepare to be told to keep mum too.

Like many others, I have clearly given my opinions on this topic. If you think the pro-alumni views posted so far are not solid enough, it would be futile to repeat or consolidate them for you.

I am perfectly contented with the current Pri.1 registration policies and see no need to question further or seek 'solid' answers.

[/quote]You are contented, but I'm not. Even though myself and my boy have benefited from the alumni scheme, I'm adamant church, clan is on equal footing with alumni. I feel alumni should not even be under phase 2A but classify under 2B together with church and clan. As for GRL priority in 2B, its really debatable. I know their contribution is not always obvious but I have seen some RCs set up after school day care centres and tuition centres for students near to primary schools. While they do not give priority to these students in the after school day care centre, the proximity of the centres were deliberately chosen to minimize the distance between the primary schools and the centres so as to facilitate the ease of movement of students from school to centres. That is just an example of how GRLs might justify their contribution but then not all RCs can contribute this way (either due to lack of funds or there just isn't any schools in that RC zone). Thus its rather difficult to establish a direct contribution of GRLs to justify their priority in phase 2B....but oh well, we are discussing alumni priority anyway, so.....

After pointing out you have wrongly accused me of not reading the posts, in typical `mgmt style' not only did you not apologise for your mistake, you conveniently ignore it, and even pro-offered actions for me like contacting MOE myself, effectively throwing the ball back to my court with admission of guilt. Unfortunately Dude, I'm not seeking any answer per se.....I'm more interested in faciliating discussion and creating awareness so that more people will talk about it. Given time, MOE will get to hear it. In fact, I'm sure they are already aware of the ground sentiments. But the more people discuss the issue, the more likely they would take some action if they deem Alumni priority needs tweaking. In fact, I urge more people to feedback via Mr Heng SK Facebook page, Govt Feeback portal \"REACH\" and MOE directly.

Often times, its the people who knows something is not right who then wants to keep things under wrap and hush hush.....

[dorisp]

IDad:

.........I'm more interested in faciliating discussion and creating awareness so that more people will talk about it. Given time, MOE will get to hear it. In fact, I'm sure they are already aware of the ground sentiments. But the more people discuss the issue, the more likely they would take some action if they deem Alumni priority needs tweaking......

:goodpost: