Why PRs should not be competing with citizens for limited primary school places
January 2nd, 2010 | 
Author: OPINION
The recent move by the Ministry of Education to give an additional ballot to Singapore citizens in application for primary school places has won it much public approval and support.
In the past, PRs are able to compete directly with Singapore citizens for place via the Phase 1C scheme which has caused alot of resentment and anger on the ground.
The state media is quick to praise the government for making a clearer distinction between citizens and PRs without asking the fundamental question on why PRs are allowed to compete with citizens for coveted places in schools in the first place.
The additional ballot only gives Singaporeans a higher chance of getting into a school of their choice, but is likely to be diluted with the increasing number of PRs and new citizens.
So long as the government’s underlying liberal immigration policy remains unchanged, Singaporeans will forever have to fight with these newcomers for school places.
According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, there are over 90,000 PRs and 20,000 new citizens last year. Given that there are few good schools to go around, the demand is going to far exceed the supply soon.
To the Singaporean who has to compete with more and more PRs, an extra ballot is nothing more than scant consolation. If one still fail to ballot for a place, then one has to blame providence and not the government.
All primary schools are funded directly by taxpayers under the Ministry of Education. Since they are public institutions, their doors should be opened only to Singapore citizens.
The Minister of Education is an elected official. He should take care of the interests of the voters first and not PRs who do not have a stake in the country.
PRs can be allocated left-over places only after Singaporeans have made their pick. The best schools such as Raffles Girls Primary School, Nanyang Primary and Roseyth Primary should be reserved solely for citizens.
The children of PRs may not be settling down in Singapore after all. They may pack their bags and return to their homelands or study overseas when they reach 18 years of age. They should not deprive locals of chances to pursue a quality education in a school of their choice.
Besides, there are international schools which can cater to the needs of the PRs and they provide an education on par with Singapore schools.
Granted that PRs pay taxes as well, but they should not forget that they are here for economic opportunities in the first place and they should be thankful that Singapore is generous enough to accept them.
If they truly want their children to enjoy a first world education in Singapore, then they must be prepared to take up Singapore citizenship and sink their roots down here.
Perhaps the new rule should be applied to differentiate between old and new citizens as suggested earlier by a writer to the Straits Times Forum.
Singapore men has to sacrifice two most productive years of their lives to serve the nation where they are exposed to all sorts of risks and dangers.
Upon the completion of National Service, they still have a 13-year reservist obligation to fulfil. Surely it is not too much to ask the state to grant preferential treatment to their children?
The new immigrants who flock to Singapore are enjoying the fruits of our National Servicemen without having to pay the price. As such, their children should not be entitled to the same rights and privileges as NSmen.
NSmen are given an income tax exemption of $3,000 in recognition of their contributions to the nation. Why not extend this to primary school application as well?
The superficial changes introduced by MOE are hardly enough to make a “clearer distinction” between citizens and PRs which should be made not only more acute but extended to differentiate between old and new citizens as well.
Singapore citizens should not be competing with PRs for primary school places at all which is hardly heard of in the rest of the world.
We propose that MOE make the following changes to better reflect the contributions of NSmen and Singapore citizens:
1. Two ballots for citizens whose fathers have served National Service.
2. One ballot for citizens who fathers did not serve National Service.
3. PRs are only allowed to ballot only for left-over places in selected neighborhood primary schools after Singaporeans have taken their pick.
Not only will it appease rising disaffection and angst on the ground among citizens that they have been unfairly treated by the government, it will also give PRs more incentive to take up Singapore citizenship.
Posted in Opinion
32 Responses to “Why PRs should not be competing with citizens for limited primary school places”
Loading ...
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Foyce Le Xuan George Yeo GIC highnote5 highnotes5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo press conference Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism Malaysia MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League Sex silviu ionescu Singapore Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Wendy Chong
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
Citizens are not allowed to apply for international schools, whereas PRs are. This already gives the PRs a significant advantage.
We should not blame the PRs taking advantages of the loop holes. We should not blame them when they rip off and leave Singapore. We should thanks them for making the food cheap and understand that they do not have a easy life too. So we take the blame that we are not hardworking enough. We are not hungry enough and not push our children to the roof.
I do not know what is becoming to Singapore. Maybe the bright and well educated one did the right move to leave. Regardless I love my country – Singapore.
As leaders of Singapore, give us a straight direction to follow, don’s blame us and take responsibility. You can still make a few million dollars, for all I care if your conscience and loyalty remain serving the best of Singapore and Singaporean. Don’t tell me Singapore and Singaporean is your top priority, they should be because we elected you as our leaders to do this job. We have paid our ministers and public servants well enough to support our leaders. Simple just do your job properly and don’t worry about not be elected or not.
Why stop at balloting for primary school places? I suggest TR go the whole nine yards to lobby for removal of all education subsidies and preferential treatment for PRs / foreigners at all levels. This should cover all the way from primary, secondary, JC, polytechnics and universities.
Scholarships from public education institutions should also be restricted to citizens and foreigners who are taking up citizenship before completing their studies.
@Googler – what you said make sense and I support your suggestion. However I also want at least one of the parent of child must be a Singapore born citizen or new citizen who has served national service to be eligible to compete for primary one school places.
Being born in Singapore has its privileges.
I thank the author for speaking for the citizens. And the govt too, for introducing more policies, over the last 3-4 yrs to differentiate PRs from citizens. I’d like to add a point on foreign workers, specifically middle class executives from the nearby countries who are doing jobs that s’poreans CAN and are willing to do. Perhaps we should be stricter and tighter on who we allow to fill these jobs (accting, engineering etc). I urge the govt to ensure foreign workers who come in either have specific skills that s’poreans don’t or willing to do jobs that s’poreans won’t. I know a PR family from nearby with the mum and daughter converted to citizenship while the dad, an engineer and his son still a PR. Hmmm.
It is not only PRs taking up school places.
Foreigners who are non-PR are getting many places in local schools too!!
The article stated: “then one has to blame providence and not the government”
Please cut the bullshit. Blame PAP, not providence. pap is the one who gave these privileges to foreigners at the expense of the Citizens. The writer should not mislead the readers into to thinking that it’s their luck to blame just because pap devised an unjustifiable balloting system.
Singaporean should be given the first priority in our homeland. That’s the ministers jobs ! If not, why paid them millions of dollars. Only when they have taken care of it, then the remaining places to be allocated to the PRs. If you think you are being treately unfairly, then apply for citizenship. Why should you be treated on par like us!
The scheme is flawed.
Assuming there are equal number of local and foreign applicants for primary school. The local child’s success rate will be 66.6%.
This merely is an act to pacify the locals. There are glaring loopholes and this policy might be worse off for locals.
In reality, the gahmen can continue to freely let the foreigners flood into Sg. As an extreme example, if there are 8 foreign children applying together with every local applicant, then the local child’s success rate drops to merely 20%.
And Bargain Hen can tell you to shut up because you did not object to his proposal to have 2 chances for local students.
Of course, it is not surprising that he would cook up such schemes, especially after how he forced ALL Singaporeans into his CPF Annuity Scheme a few years ago.
Makes one wonder in whose interest does he craft policies for.
Personally I’ve always felt that the small number of foreign students contributed something special to the class. Diversity and all that you know? Plus, I think it helps Singaporean children know that there is a world outside of these borders.
In other words, the foreign students and the local students can learn alot from each other, so I don’t think a purely local school would be good. It’s a fine balance I guess, ensuring all Singaporean kids get an education while having some foreign kids in the schools to create students with aware of the world outside their borders.
great suggestion! i love it. popular and RIGHT!
Judging from the various commentaries all written in rotten English, Singapore’s education system Must have been a dismal failure. Lest you forget, Education is a right, not a privilege.
Stop kidding yourself in projecting Singapore as an advanced model nation when you can’t get past bickering over an issue as basic as education. What’s next ? Who has a right to use public washrooms ?
The ignorance is rather telling, don’t you think ?
@Anon, who says sillyporeans can’t apply for international schools? There was a report not too long ago that had a 5% figure.. the number of locals in Int’l schools.
And isn’t MM LKY’s grand dotter or was it grand son a singaporean? he/she manage to study in American School leh. Just blame that you are not an elite and you are not of the high calibre standard to put your kids into those schools. After u have finish blaming yourself, when you have a chance to vote, do so CORRECTLY.
@adam rapport, so what if you speak better english than the rest of us here? Is there any sentence you do not comprehend? Are we sitting for english exams here or are we merely using the english language as a communication tool?
If Sillypore’s education ISN’t an abject failure, do you think the PAP will be falling head over heels begging foreigners to come here? And who’s projecting Sillypore as an advanced nation? the same people who is flying around the world lecturing/advising/teaching others how to govern? You believe that lot? It says so much of your education level then.
Re: “If they truly want their children to enjoy a first world education in Singapore, then they must be prepared to take up Singapore citizenship and sink their roots down here.”
This is a joke, right?
Singapore’s education system a First World one? How has the writer come to this conclusion? From the grades obtained through memorization of information that is never used?
RE: “All primary schools are funded directly by taxpayers under the Ministry of Education. Since they are public institutions, their doors should be opened only to Singapore citizens.”
This is an inherent self-contradiction here; non-citizens – even a tourist who visits Singapore for all of one day – pay taxes proportionate to the length of stay in Singapore and do have the right to all public institutions whenever the need arises.
If Singaporeans want to deal with the massive overflow of non-Singaporeans into Singapore intelligently, you just have to ask yourselves how YOU would wish to be treated if YOU were in the same position in a foreign country. (Many Singaporeans actually are.)
You also need to understand the fundamentals of law and administration to deal effectively with the issue.
That’s why there will be no Malaysian tsunami to hit Singapore shores anytime soon. I have previously written that if the racist pig Lee Kuan Yew’s “cultural deficit” nonsense in reference to Malays can be justified as a basis for discrimination against them – something some racists in this racist magnet called TR advocate – then by the same “cultural deficit” theory, the Chinese should be barred fro law and politics.
We indeed have people from the wrong race making a pretense of leading on issues.
adam rapport on Sun, 3rd Jan 2010 1:09 am
Re: “Judging from the various commentaries all written in rotten English, Singapore’s education system Must have been a dismal failure…The ignorance is rather telling…”
Never mind the language use, even in grammatical English, the majority of them cannot make logical or rational sense.
I think it is kind of shameful that Primary School education has so much disparity that some would rather go one instead of another. These are like the rudimentary 6 years of a child’s life. Many complains of education disparity stems from the old Public vs Private divide in other countries leading to unfair distributions in universities. Why should one primary school be any different from another? Why should a neighbourhood school be shortchanged in facilities and teaching as opposed to a good school? If our primary schools were equal this would never be a problem. In fact it is moving from the topic at the first place on the unfairness of our funding and support given to our primary schools.
TR please take this up thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vO_n76zBE0
This incident happens in a Local Swimming Club at Tanjong Rhu, The in-house Chinese Restaurant at its 2nd Floor is run by this lady mananger from China. (As given by Raymond, the assistant manager, her name is Sammi and she is the manager there and fully in charged)
Their buffet dinner is priced at $28 / pax , our company booked 29 pax for our annual dinner.
First their manager (over the phone) insisted that we must order our food in the afternoon because they were “fully booked” and for not doing so, we cannot blame them if they are slow in serving or if they “run out of food”.
Obviously, my colleague who made the booking did not know what to order as majority of our colleagues were not in the office.
Reluctantly, she made some order. She was told that we must order at least 3 vegetable dish or “dont blame them if they run out of vegetable” if we do not place the order early. (I suppose vegetable dishes are cheaper in cost).
When we arrived, only 25 of us made it, we were told to pay for 29 pax since we booked for it. After some bargaining, it was settled for payment charge by head count.
We were being sqeezed into 2 tables instead of 3, she claimed that we do not have enough people to occupy 3 tables.
After some struggling as the tables were really cramp, we protested. eventually they agreed to let us have one more table after some unpleasant exchange of remarks and finger pointing (The restaurant manager did most of it and shouted at my colleagues).
I had to fill my hunger with the 3balanced dishes served when i arrived late and when we went over to the newly set up table we placed some orders but it takes long time to be served, some dishes didnt make it either out of stock or the order just vanished.
The table was empty (without food) for at least 20 minutes and i called the assistant manager to remind him of our orders, this was my first experience with buffet dinner where the table is totally empty for such a long time.
We were told that they run out of fish and two small plates of prawns which were ordered were finally served.
My first experience again, for buffet dinner which ends up feeling hungry. I had a packet of instant noodle when i reach home.
They didnt even bother to ask for last order which most if not all restaurant do.
Then came the last straw where the pushing incident which were recorded for your viewing pleasure.
Oh, the manager claimed that we wasted food , it was her excuse for causing such a ruckus.
Her claims were unfounded, how i wish there were an in- house camera that had taken all the events throughout. If the restaurant have one, i will be most happy if they can put it up here for everyone to see how they accuse us of wasting food.
One point to note is that the restaurant was about half empty at any point of time throughout our patronage, those members and guests happens to be there can verify that.
She claimed that we pointed finger at her, can see in the video clips she has been pointing her fingers whiles talking ? Can you trust her statement ?
Is this kind of service attitude we deserve ?
Can we allow this foreigner to tarnish the reputation of Singapore while we are striving for a country with excellence in the service industry. ?
I hope the owner of the restaurant make a thorough
investigation and get to the bottom of this.
Please note that all incidents listed are true to the best of my knowledge.
For those who are present, please give your account or comments in case i missed out some parts or mislead the readers.I will be glad to amend them after verification.
PRs should not be considered for a place in a school which is already over subscribed by Singapore citizens full stop.
Cut the crap about one or two bids face the problem in its face.
I have known PRs who were here for 15 years, some 20 years & others longer. Their others spouse is a Singaporean. Why did the government allow them to remain as PRs for such a long period of time? Why didn’t they legislate to plug this loophole. How come these PRs didn’t apply for citizenship? They are smart peoples. Should there be a necessities for them to pack-up, they have an escape route…just drive-up or fly north, be it Malaysia or China. They get to enjoy the best of both worlds.
Just cut the crap!
Singaporean should be our first & top priorities when placing our own kids in the school system. Only when there are any leftover, then we consider the rest of them.
@Rainnix – first saw your posting at vote out PAP in face book. It must be an horrific experience with this PR.
Notwithstanding the issues in hand, as a service personnel, she is a total disgrace. Personally I have never experience such behavior from native Singaporean manager before all my life. For native Singaporean professional, when issues arise, usually they would sort to explain or call for assistant by a third party to resolve such issues instead of challenging a client head on.
Now with PR issued to people from China so readily, how can native Singaporean PMETS not lose out. If you tell me this type of job no local Singaporean wants to take up and it has to be given to PR from China who are uncouth and poor in upbringing and who are more hard driving, its makes my senses tantalizing. It is absurd if you call this foreign talent coming here help us to create job, who are you bluffing.
Further to this, their kids have half a chance of bidding for a better school than native Singaporean makes us extremely fuming. Then again all the anger in us has gone and it has morphed into strength to do whatever we can to see that Singapore become a society that favor its native citizens.
@citizenosSG,
Yup, I picked it up from there. Singaporeans no need to go to overseas to be bullied, they get it when they vote for PAP and PAP imports bullies back to Singapore.
That is why many people want to become second class citizens in other countries rather than third class in their own country. Maybe Singaporeans are so hard driven to bring sufferings to themselves.
Most of these comments are simple-minded and based on beliefs that are factually wrong. E.g.
- PRs are also taxpayers;
- PR male children also have to serve in the Singapore Armed Forces;
- Singaporeans’ restrictions to enter international schools is not because they are excluded by those who run these schools or those who are studying at these schools but because the Singapore Government does not allow them. I am sure they would be more than welcome – but it would cost Singaporeans – like all parents of children at international schools – an arm and a leg.
- Not every immigrant is of the same background and here for the same reason. There are immigrants from emerging or developing economies who have a higher tendency to come here to take up low-paying jobs and there are other immigrants who are sent here by multinationals incorporated or based in their country of origin or there are skilled people for whose skill-set there is a shortage in Singapore. Before you make sweeping comments, you may in future think about which group you are referring to.
About some quotes:
“…Besides, there are international schools which can cater to the needs of the PRs and they provide an education on par with Singapore schools…”
Note: not every foreigner can afford to pay SGD 20 – 30K for private education at an international school.
Besides, those who are concerned about Singaporean children losing out to foreigners at local schools – rest assured, they are not. Long ago, I tried to enroll my children in a reputable local school – we stayed in its vicinity (hence the choice) but no such luck and there were no reasons given for the decline.
Another quote:
“…The Minister of Education is an elected official. He should take care of the interests of the voters first and not PRs who do not have a stake in the country….”
If the lack of vote makes PRs “stake-less” why don’t you push the government to give them one (a vote)?
Last but not least, there is many a foreigner who is doing a higher service to this nation than many a “original” Singapore citizen – believe it or not.
if true blue singaporeans are no different from new citizens and PR, then it is time to elect opposition as ruling party.
VOTE PAP OUT !!!
VOTE PAP OUT !!!
VOTE PAP OUT !!!
Raffles Girls Primary School, Nanyang Primary and Roseyth Primary … What good if the kids cannot make it? Why don’t let best performer secured. Current scheme of donation is flaws, it only serve the rich.
fyi, PR / Foreigner are tax payers which contribute to e nation building from edu to retirement.
Dear Stefan Steinfeld:
From your comments, I presume that you are not a Singapore citizen. May I ask, in the country that you are from, does your government –
- Subsidize education for the children of PRs and foreigners in your country?
- Give equal or greater priority to PRs/foreigners than citizens in allocation of scarce resources (such as primary school places, public housing, etc)?
Now please ponder over this analogy – suppose you are a full paying member of a prestigious club. Would you agree to –
- Use your membership fees to subsidize non-members?
- Allocate use of club facilities to (subsidized) non-members ahead of full paying members?
Sure not all foreigners can afford sending their children to international schools. But nobody forced any foreigner to bring their children to study in Singapore. Charity should not be expected.
Even if there are foreigners who are doing a higher service than ordinary Singaporeans (please, kindly quote an example to convince us, for many of us have seen evidence to the contrary), this is irrelevant. It is simply because scarce resources of the country should only be allocated to citizens. If foreigners would like to part-take, they can do so after converting their citizenship.
Boy oh boy this debate is getting hotter. Lets get to the principles of a PR. Permenant Residents…right? and Citizens origins of the nations or conversion by individual rights to be one. When a PR is in town they contribute to taxes, growth to economy and giving a hand to boost the economy. When some PR comes here they will bring their families and where do you expect their child to study?. Of course there are some international schools but not all would have a vacant place for so many kids in particular to last years of surge in PR. So it’s a habitual of demand and supply issues. When demand hits above the supply curve, it simply translate it into a sort of “Oligopoly” industry. In this case the education industry. There must be enough coordination amongst ministries to cope with demand if we were to welcome more immigrants. If we were to flood all gates of avenues then it’s normal that there would be bribes and other privillage cum connection to get their child into the school of choice. But the funny thing is…we knew this, don’t we.
PRs in other countries get a heck of a lot more benefits than PRs in Singapore. our educational subsidies for PRs is actually much lower than that for UK, US and even Australia. and in Australia, if you are a PR, and not able to work, for whatever reasons, you get social assistance (much more than PRs in Singapore get…). so it’s not something that’s uniquely Singapore. of course, we could say that its erroneous to say that something is alright just because other people are doing it. but, do we really want to make being a PR in Singapore so unattractive compared to being a PR elsewhere? are we sure that we don’t want ANY PRs at all? at the end of the day, it’s a fine balance that we have to strike isn’t it? we may have overshot it one way so now the government is pulling it back by further differntiating the privileges of being a citizen and a PR. of course, there may be more that could be done. but that’s how public policy making goes. do something, review, fine tune. no government has EVER gotten it right the first time round.
@ Googler:
The narrow-mindedness and ignorance displayed in your rebuttal of my comments is telling. But if my contribution helped you to let of some steam and relief you of at least some of your frustration, it may actually have been worth posting it. No further comments needed.
@stefan steinfeld – from your name I presume you are not from China. Could you tell us what nationality you are from?
The issue of PR is a little tricky and it is not so much about PR per se, there is some underlying reasons our local is against PR which you might not be much aware. Perhaps if you are kind enough to tell us your nationality we could further engage you on this issue.
rc on Tue, 5th Jan 2010 6:49 pm
PRs in other countries get a heck of a lot more benefits than PRs in Singapore.
==>Why don’t you switch country?
in Australia, if you are a PR, and not able to work, for whatever reasons, you get social assistance (much more than PRs in Singapore get
==>Why don’t you go to Australia? Or is it simply because it’s so darn hard to get one Australian PR compared to Singapore PR which you can get in 2 months time by simply filling in some application forms?
Balloting should be for PRs not Singapore citizens.
Steffan Steinfield. i have no respect for netizens/ppl like you whose rebuttal/argument is to get personal and insult the opposition. By the way, there are many holes in your argument. Here’s one e.g. You said “If the lack of vote makes PRs “stake-less” why don’t you push the government to give them one (a vote)?
There are many other ways to give PRs a stake. Many many. Also, this assumes letting PRs vote gives them a stake. Might not be totally true.