Princess Elizabeth Primary School, with an application rate of 263%, is a highly competitive choice for Singaporean parents. It's renowned for its exceptional achievements, including being a consistent performer in the National Primary School Track and Field Championships.
The school, located conveniently in Bukit Batok, offers a well-rounded curriculum with a strong emphasis on STEM education, nurturing young talents for the digital age. Given the high demand of 529 applications for only 201 primary 1 placements last year, securing a spot can be challenging.
However, Princess Elizabeth's commitment to excellence makes it a worthwhile choice for your little one's educational journey.
Princess Elizabeth Primary School
Principal:
Mr Bucktha Seelan
Vice Principals:
Ms Ngiam Wee Heng, Ms Chu Sing Ee
Session Type:
Single Session
Email:
Nearest MRT:
Bukit Batok MRT Station
School Type:
Government School
Ballot Results
Learn About the Phases Here
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Vacancy | 140 | 52 | 20 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Applied | 88 | 145 | 28 | 232 | 0 | 0 | 493 | |
| % Applied | 63% | 279% | 140% | 566% | - | - | - | |
| Taken | 88 | 52 | 20 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 201 | |
| % Taken | 63% | 100% | 100% | 100% | - | - | - | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2024 | Vacancy | 140 | 45 | 20 | 41 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
| Applied | 95 | 142 | 22 | 270 | 0 | 0 | 529 | |
| % Applied | 68% | 316% | 110% | 659% | 0% | 0% | 265% | |
| Taken | 95 | 45 | 20 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 201 | |
| % Taken | 68% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 101% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2023 | Vacancy | 140 | 53 | 20 | 48 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
| Applied | 87 | 89 | 12 | 283 | 0 | 0 | 471 | |
| % Applied | 62% | 168% | 60% | 590% | 0% | 0% | 236% | |
| Taken | 87 | 53 | 12 | 48 | 0 | 0 | 200 | |
| % Taken | 62% | 100% | 60% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2022 | Vacancy | 140 | 42 | 20 | 55 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
| Applied | 98 | 60 | 5 | 278 | 0 | 0 | 441 | |
| % Applied | 70% | 143% | 25% | 505% | 0% | 0% | 221% | |
| Taken | 98 | 42 | 5 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 200 | |
| % Taken | 70% | 100% | 25% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Vacancy | 160 | 68 | 55 | 26 | 45 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
| Applied | 92 | 13 | 44 | 7 | 236 | 0 | 0 | 392 | |
| % Applied | 58% | 19% | 80% | 27% | 524% | 0% | 0% | 196% | |
| Taken | 92 | 13 | 44 | 7 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 201 | |
| % Taken | 58% | 19% | 80% | 27% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 101% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2020 | Vacancy | 160 | 40 | 40 | 20 | 38 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
| Applied | 120 | 0 | 50 | 2 | 226 | 0 | 0 | 398 | |
| % Applied | 75% | 0% | 125% | 10% | 595% | 0% | 0% | 199% | |
| Taken | 120 | 0 | 40 | 2 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 200 | |
| % Taken | 75% | 0% | 100% | 10% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2019 | Vacancy | 160 | 92 | 92 | 40 | 82 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
| Applied | 68 | 0 | 52 | 0 | 205 | 0 | 0 | 325 | |
| % Applied | 43% | 0% | 57% | 0% | 250% | 0% | 0% | 163% | |
| Taken | 68 | 0 | 52 | 0 | 82 | 0 | 0 | 202 | |
| % Taken | 43% | 0% | 57% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 101% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2018 | Vacancy | 210 | 210 | 210 | 34 | 68 | 210 | 210 | 210 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 163 | 0 | 0 | 164 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 240% | 0% | 0% | 78% | |
| Taken | 96 | 0 | 47 | 0 | 68 | 0 | 0 | 211 | |
| % Taken | 46% | 0% | 22% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2017 | Vacancy | 210 | 210 | 210 | 36 | 71 | 210 | 210 | 210 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 114 | 0 | 0 | 116 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 6% | 161% | 0% | 0% | 55% | |
| Taken | 84 | 0 | 55 | 0 | 71 | 0 | 0 | 210 | |
| % Taken | 40% | 0% | 26% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2016 | Vacancy | 210 | 210 | 210 | 44 | 91 | 210 | 210 | 210 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 110 | 0 | 0 | 110 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 121% | 0% | 0% | 52% | |
| Taken | 85 | 0 | 37 | 0 | 91 | 0 | 0 | 213 | |
| % Taken | 40% | 0% | 18% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 101% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2015 | Vacancy | 240 | 240 | 240 | 48 | 96 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 103 | 0 | 0 | 104 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 107% | 0% | 0% | 43% | |
| Taken | 97 | 0 | 48 | 0 | 96 | 0 | 0 | 241 | |
| % Taken | 40% | 0% | 20% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2014 | Vacancy | 240 | 240 | 240 | 46 | 92 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 116 | 0 | 0 | 116 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 126% | 0% | 0% | 48% | |
| Taken | 107 | 2 | 39 | 0 | 92 | 0 | 0 | 240 | |
| % Taken | 45% | 1% | 16% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2013 | Vacancy | 240 | 240 | 240 | 57 | 107 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 126 | 0 | 0 | 133 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 12% | 118% | 0% | 0% | 55% | |
| Taken | 85 | 0 | 41 | 7 | 107 | 0 | 0 | 240 | |
| % Taken | 35% | 0% | 17% | 12% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2012 | Vacancy | 240 | 240 | 240 | 64 | 124 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 153 | 0 | 0 | 156 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 123% | 0% | 0% | 65% | |
| Taken | 79 | 0 | 34 | 3 | 124 | 0 | 0 | 240 | |
| % Taken | 33% | 0% | 14% | 5% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2011 | Vacancy | 210 | 210 | 210 | 28 | 53 | 210 | 210 | 210 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 117 | 0 | 0 | 122 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 18% | 221% | 0% | 0% | 58% | |
| Taken | 115 | 0 | 39 | 5 | 53 | 0 | 0 | 212 | |
| % Taken | 55% | 0% | 19% | 18% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 101% | |
| Year | Phase 1 | 2A(1) | 2A(2) | 2B | 2C | 2C(S) | 3 | Total | |
| 2010 | Vacancy | 210 | 210 | 210 | 19 | 36 | 210 | 210 | 210 |
| Applied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 138 | 0 | 0 | 141 | |
| % Applied | 0% | 0% | 0% | 16% | 383% | 0% | 0% | 67% | |
| Taken | 128 | 0 | 43 | 3 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 210 | |
| % Taken | 61% | 0% | 20% | 16% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
Google Reviews!
Hear from parents about their experiences with Princess Elizabeth Primary School.
"I have been in PEPS for 5 years and I can tell that their education for students are excellent. They bring us on field trips to the Indian heritage (example) and have lots of amazing activities during class! We can go to the computer lab to take the chromebooks ( laptops) and learn from slide -shows! So therefore, I have to rate the school 5 stars"
December 17, 2024
"P5(2025) in this school 3 star the teachers are a mix of good and bad students is ok lah but the school level 4 toliet is very smelly overall:3 star mid/good school"
December 14, 2024
"The toilet is top notch mdm halimah leave but idc she was the best principal🙏🙏💯💯💯💯🤤🤤🤤🤤💀💀💀💀 and also i didn't have to use my gun when I was getting bullied🤩🤩🤩"
June 20, 2023
"One of the best school in bukit batok. The school used to be very interesting in the late 90s. Many students playing balls, badminton and catching spiders. Physical fitness corner was one of the best place to hang out during recess and before assembly. Some students got injured when they were exercising, playing catching and etc. Some students tend to misplace their school bags because of their actvities. TAF club can be fun and boring. There were bad and good teachers in the school. This is the history of PEPS. I believes that you can't experience this anymore in the current era (2020s). Wish peps good luck..."
August 14, 2024
"Princess Elizabeth Primary School 伊丽莎白公主小学 Nice name. Little girl will love it. Obviously not the boy. Last update/ review Feb2017"
February 27, 2017