Precious2.lee:

Jav:

Yeah v stupid. Then just thinking... Should MOE implement distance priority limit for P2A too? Anyone more than X km has to go ballot etc?

I read a few pages of the earlier discussion and i think this point was raised too. IMHO, yes, I think there should also be a distance priority in P2A.

In fact, someone suggested to group the alumni, pv, clan, church as a common pool so we just have phase 1 (siblings), phase 2 (all with connections), phase 3 (no connection). After phase 1, 50%-50% split between phase 2 & 3. Remaining places will be opened for PRs / foreigners.

:goodpost:

Yes, this is certainly the fairest and simplest system to implement!

Letz all get back in line.....


Some forumers in this thread has proposed `locking' this thread but I disagree as there might be new forumer who has new ideas or opinions to share. If its locked, a new thread has to be created which is unnecessary.

Of course, one of the surest way to get a thread `locked' or deleted in internet forums is to post lots of irrelevant/ `Out OF Topic' posts and/ or defamatory comments.

Therefore I urge the moderators/ KS Chief NOT to `lock' or delete the thread but to instead remove posts that does not discuss the issue of `alumni priority' in P1 registration so that new forumers or visitors to this thread can still be aware of the issues pertaining to the `alumni priority' and post their opinions within this thread.

Thx mod!

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.....

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:

IDad:

[quote=\"vicki\"]So pls tell me - what's sooooo special abt alumni that they warrant unlimited entry criteria vs church n clan?

Very question....I also very interested to know.

For various individual opinions to that question, I look forward to your generous efforts to comb through the 131 pages and consolidate them in the your next post(s).

Still not satisfied with the possibly one-sided opinions?

Then .... for MOE's official Unbiased stand on this, please call / email them directly and post their reply in this forum - for the benefit of everyone here.

Cheers! Here's a tiger for your efforts.
:celebrate:[/quote]If YOU YOURSELF bother to read ALL the posts from#1, you will realise I have been participating in this thread from the beginning. Therefore, do not pretend to act smart and try to brush off mine or Vicki's question. If you do not have any solid reason why alumni deserve priority over church or clan, its better to just keep mum.

Maybe I detest hypocrites who pepper their scarstic remarks with seemingly friendly phrases, if you do not mean it, please spare me the hypocrisy. Its not appreciated nor necessary. I usually ignore or delete such emails because it reflects the writer is either ignorant or trying to act smart. Waste of time....

vicki:

So pls tell me - what's sooooo special abt alumni that they warrant unlimited entry criteria vs church n clan?

Very question....I also very interested to know.

vicki:

Dear phtthp n mum_sugoku,


I give up.

I believe we are on the wrong frequency. Here we all talking abt capping 2A so that more vacancies can be 'allocated' to the 2B n 2C n there u guys are talking abt Yes Yes there is a cap cos not all applicants who apply in 2A will get in if there are more applicants than vacancies available in 2A.

Do u see the diff?
Mine scenario: Cap to free up spaces for 2B n 2C.
Your scenario: Cap cos too many applicants in 2A. Too bad for 2B n 2C cos after 2A is 'capped' n balloted for - there are no more vacancies left for the later phases.

Pls do correct me otherwise if I'm wrong but pls don't quote me a '1977' MOE policy cos we had just had a 'healthy discussion' on a '1990 policy' or a 'school imposed alumni admission restriction (2a1) policy cos 'if cant join alumni then go via 2a2 old boys/ old girls lor'.

Thank you.

I guess some are just trying to create confusion to deflect the suggestion to limit the priority of phase 2A.

If there is INDEED a cap, then its not apparent to me. Its certainly not stated on the MOE website and just to be funny, I called up my son's school (which is a popular school with more than 50% takeup rate at phase 2A (1 & 2) and they confirmed there is no cap. They will admit as many Alumni's child as there are vacancies available. And if its not apparent there is a cap and as what Blessed777 suggested, at the discretion of the school, then phase 2A is not transparent at all just like some suggested church, clan, GRL and PV schemes are not transparent too.

To avoid such arguments of who has more priority (its subjective anyway), just simplify and put all `connections scheme' like alumni, PV, GRL, Clan, Church under the same phase. If there are more applicants than vacancies, ballot. Also remove the `distance based' priority, let the parents decide whether to subject their kids to long commute time or not. This will also remove the arguments that `distance based' priority favours the rich and maginalize the average SC.

I'm sure, in the long run, it will reach a steady state where a lot of such arguments will no longer be valid.

Jav:

Keep only P1 for siblings entitlement. Scrap all phases after that & goes by distance with the school entitlement. It's no brain to see alumni who stay in the east put their kids to central or Bt timah for schooling depriving the little kids sleep & rests.

:salute:

Agree, or should group all the connections (alumni, PV, Church, Clans, GRL) under the same pot (phase 2B) and go by distance priority with Sg Citizens over PR like the revised scheme when balloting is required. This way there is no argument whose connection/ efforts more important. All equally important. Staff/ Teachers should still stay in phase 2A and siblings in phase 1.

I find it strange that some of the forumers here are calling for the scrapping of PV stating that its unfair for the PV to have contributed their hours and yet not given a place. I sense some are just red-eyed that they can't or not willing to PV and thus calling for the abolishment of PV so that the playing field is leveled in their favor.

puff:

IDad:

[quote=\"laughingcat] Really :siao: lah.


Are we encouraging the society to have school only for \"Tan\"? Mixed blood cannot because not pure? :siao: don't know what is all this driving at if that is the case, then might as well self fund your own school then. No need to have government support then. :yikes:

That's my point.... :siao: right? To me, 'Alumni scheme' is exactly propogating the same thing, ie a school only for the `Tans' , only in this case its not Alumni connection but clan and church connection.

My post was directed at those who alluded `Alumni' is akin to `own children', thus is justified to be accorded earlier priority and `clan/ church' are `distant relative'. I disagree: In fact, without clan and church support in the beginning, such schools wouldn't have existed and no way would there be alumni. And furthermore, many clans and churches are still contibuting time,and programes (not just money through donation/ fund raising) to the running of such schools. So no way clan or church memebers are `distant relatives'....they are in fact direct ancestors and applicable to all down the line....

Are we encouraging a society that ignores its roots :roll:

church/clan members is like distant relative coz u r not the founder himself but only related to the founder.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

To me this relationship is equally important as compared to Alumni [phase 2A (1)] because to qualify under clan/ church, they must display commitment or subscribe to the same belief as the founder. No way would a `distant relative' bother to go through such trouble and thus their relationship definitely runs deep. And if I'm the principal of the school, I'll gladly take in those children whose parents tries all ways and means to put their child in my school. Those who just sit there and wait for gold to fall on my lap......please take a queue number.

I notice in recent years, a lot of us just complain and stamp our feet and complain `unfair' when something is stack against us. Gone are the days when we accept the situation and work our way out of the conundrum by ourselves.....

laughingcat:

IDad:

Are we encouraging a society that ignores its roots :roll:

有没有搞错 eh. In this era, still looking at ones roots?

Our President Tan don't even visit his grandparents grave leh. We are a society of doing it for oneself. Gone are those days leh.

没有搞错. Just because you want to ignore your roots doesn't mean I want to follow in your suit. And do I care if President Tan doesn't visit his grandpa's grave (do state your source just for reference sake)? No, I dun really care if an individual chooses to forget his/ her roots

However, if it is the society or institution that I'm living in, yes, I will care.