Gan Eng Seng Primary School

100 REDHILL CLOSE , 158901

64717451

At a glance

Located in the heart of Bukit Merah, Gan Eng Seng Primary School boasts a 100% application rate. This competitive school is known for its dedication to holistic education, integrating both academic and character development.

School Type
Government School
Session Type
Single Session
Nearest MRT
Redhill
Latest Ballot Year
2025
Government School Co-ed School Single Session sessions Nearest MRT: Redhill
Principal

MR LEE WEI YAP, ROY

Vice Principals

MR KYAW SAW LYNN, MADAM WONG SEOK GHEE

Website

http://www.ganengsengpri.moe.edu.sg

Email

gesps@moe.edu.sg

School Image
School Image
School Image

Ballot Results

See each year at a glance, then compare phase-by-phase demand in a cleaner format.

Learn About the Phases
P1 Registration Phases
  • Phase 1: For siblings of current students.
  • Phase 2A(1): For children of alumni and School Advisory/Management Committee members.
  • Phase 2A(2): For children of former students and staff.
  • Phase 2A: Combined 2A phase used in newer ballot records.
  • Phase 2B: For parent volunteers and selected community affiliations.
  • Phase 2C: For children with no prior link to the school.
  • Phase 2C(S): Supplementary phase for remaining vacancies.
  • Phase 3: For international students.
Trend by Year

Applied rate and taken rate compared across ballot years.

Applied Rate Taken Rate
35% 46% 58% 69% 80% 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 65% 65% 40% 40%
Recent format

Vacancy shows available places. Applied rate shows demand. Taken rate above 100% means the phase was oversubscribed.

2025
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
150
Applied Rate
40%
Taken Rate
40%
Highest Demand
Phase 1
Highest demand: Phase 1 at 31%
Metric Phase 1 2A 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 90 62 39 116 100 92
Applied 28 7 0 17 8 0
Taken 28 7 0 17 8 0
Taken Rate 31% 11% 0% 15% 8% 0%
2024
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
150
Applied Rate
52%
Taken Rate
52%
Highest Demand
Phase 1
Highest demand: Phase 1 at 42%
Metric Phase 1 2A 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 90 52 36 107 90 73
Applied 38 6 0 17 17 0
Taken 38 6 0 17 17 0
Taken Rate 42% 12% 0% 16% 19% 0%
2023
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
150
Applied Rate
55%
Taken Rate
55%
Highest Demand
Phase 1
Highest demand: Phase 1 at 34%
Metric Phase 1 2A 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 90 59 38 115 88 67
Applied 31 4 0 27 21 0
Taken 31 4 0 27 21 0
Taken Rate 34% 7% 0% 23% 24% 0%
2022
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
150
Applied Rate
58%
Taken Rate
58%
Highest Demand
Phase 1
Highest demand: Phase 1 at 40%
Metric Phase 1 2A 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 90 54 37 112 84 63
Applied 36 2 0 28 21 0
Taken 36 2 0 28 21 0
Taken Rate 40% 4% 0% 25% 25% 0%
Older format

Vacancy shows available places. Applied rate shows demand. Taken rate above 100% means the phase was oversubscribed.

2021
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
210
Applied Rate
43%
Taken Rate
43%
Highest Demand
Phase 1
Highest demand: Phase 1 at 24%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 170 130 130 83 167 141 123
Applied 40 0 4 0 29 18 0
Taken 40 0 4 0 29 18 0
Taken Rate 24% 0% 3% 0% 17% 13% 0%
2020
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
210
Applied Rate
74%
Taken Rate
74%
Highest Demand
2C(S)
Highest demand: 2C(S) at 48%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 170 112 112 75 152 107 56
Applied 58 0 2 0 45 51 0
Taken 58 0 2 0 45 51 0
Taken Rate 34% 0% 2% 0% 30% 48% 0%
2019
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
180
Applied Rate
65%
Taken Rate
65%
Highest Demand
2C(S)
Highest demand: 2C(S) at 34%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 140 97 97 66 132 96 63
Applied 43 0 5 0 36 33 0
Taken 43 0 5 0 36 33 0
Taken Rate 31% 0% 5% 0% 27% 34% 0%
2018
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
180
Applied Rate
48%
Taken Rate
93%
Highest Demand
2C(S)
Highest demand: 2C(S) at 77%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 180 180 180 50 100 56 13
Applied 0 0 0 0 44 43 0
Taken 73 0 7 0 44 43 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 44% 77% 0%
2017
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
180
Applied Rate
33%
Taken Rate
73%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 36%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 180 180 180 54 107 68 48
Applied 0 0 0 1 39 20 0
Taken 67 0 6 0 39 20 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 2% 36% 29% 0%
2016
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
210
Applied Rate
34%
Taken Rate
71%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 41%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 210 210 210 66 133 79 62
Applied 0 0 0 0 55 17 0
Taken 71 0 7 0 54 17 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 41% 22% 0%
2015
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
210
Applied Rate
53%
Taken Rate
95%
Highest Demand
2C(S)
Highest demand: 2C(S) at 76%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 210 210 210 61 123 49 12
Applied 0 0 0 0 74 37 0
Taken 80 0 8 0 74 37 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 60% 76% 0%
2014
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
240
Applied Rate
62%
Taken Rate
96%
Highest Demand
2C(S)
Highest demand: 2C(S) at 88%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 240 240 240 78 156 77 9
Applied 0 0 0 0 80 68 0
Taken 79 0 6 0 78 68 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 51% 88% 0%
2013
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
240
Applied Rate
56%
Taken Rate
102%
Highest Demand
2C(S)
Highest demand: 2C(S) at 106%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 240 240 240 65 127 36 240
Applied 0 0 0 2 95 38 0
Taken 98 1 12 2 95 36 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 3% 75% 106% 0%
2012
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
240
Applied Rate
60%
Taken Rate
100%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 114%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 240 240 240 64 126 240 240
Applied 0 0 0 1 144 0 0
Taken 98 0 15 1 126 0 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 2% 114% 0% 0%
2011
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
240
Applied Rate
63%
Taken Rate
101%
Highest Demand
2C(S)
Highest demand: 2C(S) at 120%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 240 240 240 70 140 40 240
Applied 0 0 0 2 100 48 0
Taken 91 0 9 2 100 40 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 3% 71% 120% 0%
2010
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
240
Applied Rate
68%
Taken Rate
101%
Highest Demand
2C(S)
Highest demand: 2C(S) at 113%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 240 240 240 78 155 47 240
Applied 0 0 0 0 110 53 0
Taken 74 1 10 0 110 47 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 71% 113% 0%

School Reviews

Read Google and parent-contributed reviews for Gan Eng Seng Primary School, or share your own experience below.

"mid school, good food but bad teachers that dont listen to you or adapt to your way of learning i left in p4 and transferred to another sch becos of this, but theres good ppl in here, and the experience was ok"

cloud
cloud

March 22, 2025

"My son attended this school, and it has been the best experience we've ever had. This school is outstanding, not only for my son but also for many of his friends and their parents who share the same sentiment. The teachers are wonderful, always going above and beyond to care for the students. I have no complaints at all and truly feel fortunate that my child had the opportunity to study here. A big thank you to all the teachers and staff!"

Th Vo
Th Vo

November 21, 2024

"Although it is not a popular school, we still like going there to learn with all the funny teachers"

Natalia Holzherr
Natalia Holzherr

September 16, 2024

"My first daughter has been there for 6year(P6) and my second daughter has been the almost a year(P1).. My first daughter has been bullied since P3. It's stop for awhile and continue again stop continue..... worst this year my P6 daughter was physically abused by her classmates twice a week after another, first was girl the next week was boy, my daughter was bullied by threatening words too.. we talk to the teacher incharge and the teacher mentioned my daughter isn't the 'popular kind' in school. So if someone isn't popular it's ok to be verbally physically emotionally abuse???? What a stupid thing to say to the victim parents so ya we make a police report and came down to the school they suspended some of the kids but still they didn't learn anything from that they still badmouth my daughter. And today My P1 daughter was verbally bullied by some P6 student.. Ridiculous.. Poor discipline. They have kids smoking vaping at a very young age and they do it int the school toilet. At a very young age the kids started to have a boy girl relationship.. They can't control the kids, the kids acting like gangster , fighting vulgarity, rudeness mannerless Something really need to be done.. Currently they don't have a discipline master."

raden rahida
raden rahida

September 28, 2023

"I went there last year. The teachers and discipline master don't care about the rowdy students after a while and if you protect yourself from them you will be punished and reprimanded for defending yourself. Overall the teachers were a 60% percent of the teachers were nice."

Somebody Someone
Somebody Someone

June 23, 2023

Write A Review