@chenlaoshi Thanks for the shout-out to @ChiefKiasu … I have checked a number of old mega threads, most of them stopped at the time range of around 24-27 May 2013 and are unable to see any updates afterwards. Feeling quite sad that more than 10 years of valuable information and contribution from parents are not showing up, but I am sure Chief Kiasu is more worried than me 🥲

the data still exist somewhere in the cyberspace though… if google "old KSP forum [+ keyword], you can find the old threads but I dunno how long will this data be stored.

@chenlaoshi Thanks for your reply. I can see the navigation to the pages, but the latest posts are missing. Just giving an example - the All About GEP thread, there are 668 pages in the old forum, but now what I see in the new forum only has 482 pages, and the last page (Page 482) is dated 2013. There are some old threads which i randomly checked facing the same issue.

However, i see that from the main forum page that the latest activity of this GEP thread is just 24 hours ago, and I am unable to view this latest reply too.

Sorry I just run into this thread for some random question… this seems to be the most active thread hope you all don’t mind answering my questions

I have been trying to get back to this forum since the migration… i noticed that for those old mega threads, while I see the snapshot of very recent reply from other users at the subforum page, once i clicked into the topic, the last reply stuck at 2013 and I cannot go further to view the replies after that… is it a common issue for everyone? any known remedy? very much appreciate your help… Thanks~

zac's mum\" post_id=\"2116061\" time=\"1691742136\" user_id=\"53606:[quote=\"zac's mum\" post_id=2116061 time=1691742136 user_id=53606]
ACSJ is not the one moving to Tengah. ACSP is.

Which is why i’m also wondering like floppy, why did the <1km folks pick ACSP over ACSJ? GEP status still more important than future kids/grandkids having to travel to Tengah?[/quote]

Oops paiseh remember wrongly

ChiefKiasu\" post_id=\"2116062\" time=\"1691742161\" user_id=\"3:

?? What's the surprise with ACSJ? It has moderately more applicants this year (10) compared to last year. Apart from that, I'm not sure.

The distance for which balloting occurred? Anyway there are several schools which the balloting distance shifted, I wonder if it's because there are less people in the cohort vs the seats offered? I didn't look hard into the data though, so just thinking aloud.

CHIJ TPY also quite surprising to me… Balloting 1-2km… Same goes for Maha Bohdi though a little bit less surprising.

floppy\" post_id=\"2116046\" time=\"1691686487\" user_id=\"97579:

I think RGPS case was partly due to last year's 95 applicants SC < 1km balloting for 90 places. Hence, interested parties this year, especially those > 1km, have probably held back till the last day to make sure there are some vacancies before applying.

ACSJ was a bit of a surprise.

ACSJ is very surprising... Perhaps pple don't want to travel to Tengah in 2030? This coming P1 batch will be P6 in 2030, but I thought parents would still rather adapt than not to apply for the school at all

Wow quite a number of surprises… seems like this year really less applicants

Sorry don’t understand what you mean by "losing massive number of places"?

Some nice updates in the MOE P1 registration website... Now they put in balloting history data for 2022.


The best thing is, they even provided the number of applicants actually involved in the balloting - in the past when say balloting within 1km, we only have the total number of applicants, but not the breakdown of how many are actually going through the balloting. The new update solves this mystery!

Taking RGPS as example, it is shown in MOE's website, for 2022 registration:

Phase 2C
Vacancies / Applicants
90 / 125

Balloting: Yes
Conducted for: Singapore Citizen children residing within 1km of the school.

Vacancies for ballot / Balloting applicants
90 / 95

Very useful info!

floppy\" post_id=\"2037438\" time=\"1631321077\" user_id=\"97579:

Jerseyiv\" post_id=\"2037282\" time=\"1631241051\" user_id=\"54581:

[quote=marshmallow96 post_id=2037277 time=1631239318 user_id=135044]

Actually those already left with 20 seats and balloting in 2B will not have a difference, but it does make a difference for quite a few cases... I've just done a calculation for my friend, using this year's data, from a sure in slot in 2B to balloting >2km. SHHK schools also will be worse.

Indeed, Plmgs would have had 19 vacancies lesser for 2B this year if this new system was applied. There were 51 applicants for 56 vacancies this year and many applicants were more than 2km. Under old system 2B was a sure in, under new system more than 2km definitely needs balloting.

I stand corrected.

Did some calculations for PLMGS based on this year’s data, a 3-year and 5-year average, and the numbers are presented below (apologies for the markdown format). Indeed, Phase 2B will be worse off as a result of this new policy - the 3 results consistently show that Phase 2B will have to ballot, whereas Phase 2C only has a marginal gain.

Applicants: Phase 2A1 and 2A2 data combined as Phase 2A.
Vacancies (old) calculated based on current policy of 20/20 reserved plus 50%/50% split.
Vacancies (new) calculated based on new policy of 20/40 reserved plus 33%/67% split.

**1-year (2021)**

| Phases | Phase 1 | Phase 2A | Phase 2B | Phase 2C |
| ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- |
| Applicants | 73 | 85^ (56 + 29)| 51 | 105 |
| Vacancies (Old)| 230 | 157 | 56 | 62 |
| Vacancies (New)| 210 | 137 | 38 | 74 |

Phase 1 and Phase 2A (2A1 and 2A2) no change.
Phase 2B will have to ballot if the new system was implemented this year. Compared to the old system, difference of 18 places (lost 32%).
Phase 2C gain 12 additional places (gain 19%).

**3-year Average**

| Phases | Phase 1 | Phase 2A | Phase 2B | Phase 2C |
| ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- |
| Applicants | 66 | 72 | 58 | 108 |
| Vacancies (Old)| 230 | 164 | 66 | 74 |
| Vacancies (New)| 210 | 144 | 44 | 88 |

Phase 1 and Phase 2A (2A1 and 2A2) no change.
Phase 2B will have to ballot if the new system was implemented. Compared to the old system, difference of 22 places (lost 33%).
Phase 2C gain 14 additional places (gain 19%).

**5-year Average**

| Phases | Phase 1 | Phase 2A | Phase 2B | Phase 2C |
| ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- |
| Applicants | 67 | 69 | 58 | 108 |
| Vacancies (Old)| 230 | 163 | 67 | 76 |
| Vacancies (New)| 210 | 143 | 45 | 89 |

Phase 1 and Phase 2A (2A1 and 2A2) no change.
Phase 2B will have to ballot if the new system was implemented. Compared to the old system, difference of 22 places (lost 33%).
Phase 2C gain 13 additional places (gain 17%).[/quote]This is a good illustration on the effect on 2B. Those consistently with 20 seats left may be about the same, but many more will see the number of 2B seats reduce, and no longer be a safe choice.