Temasek Primary School

501 BEDOK SOUTH AVE 3, 469300

64438134

At a glance

With a robust application rate of 145%, Temasek Primary School is a highly sought-after educational institution in Singapore. This figure, calculated from 290 applications for 200 available placements, underscores its popularity among parents.

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

Mdm Ang Gek Leng Alison Amanda

Vice Principals

Mdm Haslindah Bte Bahrom, Ms Ong Seow Peng

School Image
School Image
School Image

Ballot Results

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

Trend by Year

Applied rate and taken rate compared across ballot years.

Applied Rate Taken Rate
90% 111% 133% 154% 175% 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 121% 101% 166% 101%
Recent format

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

2025
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
200
Applied Rate
166%
Taken Rate
101%
Highest Demand
2A
Highest demand: 2A at 277%
Metric Phase 1 2A 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 140 44 20 50 0 0
Applied 97 122 10 103 0 0
Taken 97 44 10 50 0 0
Taken Rate 69% 277% 50% 206% - -
2024
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
200
Applied Rate
145%
Taken Rate
100%
Highest Demand
2A
Highest demand: 2A at 188%
Metric Phase 1 2A 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 140 69 20 51 200 200
Applied 71 130 9 80 0 0
Taken 71 69 9 51 0 0
Taken Rate 51% 188% 45% 157% 0% 0%
2023
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
200
Applied Rate
136%
Taken Rate
100%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 242%
Metric Phase 1 2A 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 140 56 20 48 200 200
Applied 84 59 12 116 0 0
Taken 84 56 12 48 0 0
Taken Rate 60% 105% 60% 242% 0% 0%
2022
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
200
Applied Rate
159%
Taken Rate
101%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 302%
Metric Phase 1 2A 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 140 49 20 51 200 200
Applied 91 62 10 154 0 0
Taken 91 49 10 51 0 0
Taken Rate 65% 127% 50% 302% 0% 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
200
Applied Rate
145%
Taken Rate
101%
Highest Demand
2A(2)
Highest demand: 2A(2) at 318%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 160 52 11 21 30 200 200
Applied 108 41 35 11 95 0 0
Taken 108 41 11 11 30 0 0
Taken Rate 68% 79% 318% 52% 317% 0% 0%
2020
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
200
Applied Rate
155%
Taken Rate
100%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 379%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 160 53 13 20 28 200 200
Applied 107 40 45 12 106 0 0
Taken 107 40 13 12 28 0 0
Taken Rate 67% 75% 346% 60% 379% 0% 0%
2019
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
200
Applied Rate
121%
Taken Rate
101%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 262%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 160 57 32 20 21 200 200
Applied 103 25 32 27 55 0 0
Taken 103 25 32 20 21 0 0
Taken Rate 64% 44% 100% 135% 262% 0% 0%
2018
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
240
Applied Rate
45%
Taken Rate
100%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 231%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 240 240 240 31 35 240 240
Applied 0 0 0 28 81 0 0
Taken 102 35 41 27 35 0 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 90% 231% 0% 0%
2017
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
240
Applied Rate
41%
Taken Rate
100%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 142%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 240 240 240 38 50 240 240
Applied 0 0 0 28 71 0 0
Taken 100 26 38 26 50 0 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 74% 142% 0% 0%
2016
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
240
Applied Rate
44%
Taken Rate
100%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 115%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 240 240 240 45 73 240 240
Applied 0 0 0 22 84 0 0
Taken 89 27 35 16 73 0 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 49% 115% 0% 0%
2015
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
240
Applied Rate
35%
Taken Rate
100%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 150%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 240 240 240 31 36 240 240
Applied 0 0 0 29 54 0 0
Taken 109 30 39 26 36 0 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 94% 150% 0% 0%
2014
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
240
Applied Rate
39%
Taken Rate
100%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 264%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 240 240 240 25 25 240 240
Applied 0 0 0 27 66 0 0
Taken 118 18 55 24 25 0 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 108% 264% 0% 0%
2013
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
240
Applied Rate
38%
Taken Rate
100%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 193%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 240 240 240 30 30 240 240
Applied 0 0 0 33 58 0 0
Taken 106 13 61 30 30 0 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 110% 193% 0% 0%
2012
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
240
Applied Rate
37%
Taken Rate
100%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 173%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 240 240 240 31 30 240 240
Applied 0 0 0 36 52 0 0
Taken 119 12 48 31 30 0 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 116% 173% 0% 0%
2011
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
240
Applied Rate
53%
Taken Rate
100%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 317%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 240 240 240 29 29 240 240
Applied 0 0 0 36 92 0 0
Taken 121 9 53 29 29 0 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 124% 317% 0% 0%
2010
Historical ballot data
Vacancies
270
Applied Rate
46%
Taken Rate
100%
Highest Demand
2C
Highest demand: 2C at 109%
Metric Phase 1 2A(1) 2A(2) 2B 2C 2C(S) 3
Vacancies 270 270 270 58 68 270 270
Applied 0 0 0 50 74 0 0
Taken 106 8 38 50 68 0 0
Taken Rate 0% 0% 0% 86% 109% 0% 0%

School Reviews

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

"i used to go to that school.the school was the best and i was always looking forward to school.the canteen food was always the best and i loved all the stall vendors as they were the kindest"

Khoo Ye Wen Renee (Bgss)

April 10, 2025

"The teachers are very patient with their students"

Random Dude

March 21, 2025

"the silent signal they think funny when we having fun that mr haziq always make us put silent signal up lah this signal do nothing"

Neon

January 31, 2025

"TPS has good staff by and large. Our son just completed P6. Right from Mdm Has, Mrs Ho, Mr Goh(maths), Ms Soon(science), Mdm Low(chinese) to the vast majority are thoroughly professionally and exhibit palpable intent to uplift children.However, an unrepentant English teacher was largely demotivating and repetitively negative towards the students - the leadership knows and hope they address this. We chose this school because of their track record of partnership with parent groups, parents, etc. And they definitely kept their reputation in this regard. Thank you.TPS team and leadership."

Jason Donovah

November 22, 2023

"The best thing I can say about tmps is the holidays when we don't have to go to school. Even so, the workload is unbearable. The teachers were not caring or passionate, especially a chinese teacher Mdm Liu. Facilities were bad and short recess time. Disliked my time here 👎 really hated it. Content was not even properly taught"

Hehe Boi

November 07, 2023

"This primary school got lucky along the way and became one of the top primary schools in Singapore. In the early 90s, this was just another neighborhood school along New Upper Changi Road. Some of the teachers there were outright and downright abusive in the 90s. One of them was Helene Lim (who no longer teaches there I believe). They'd physically slap you on your face and humiliate you in class for no good reason. Some of the teachers would even slap you repeatedly so hard on one side of your face when you express your views, opinions and thoughts that do not align with what they expect. Helene Lim would even insult your parents by saying "Is your mother as stupid as you?" Highly suspect they are suffering from mental health problems or bad working conditions, so they would take it out on the kids. Some of these low-class teachers would even "condemn" kids who were not as academically inclined at that young age. Which was ironic, because back in the day, talents who could positively contribute to the Singapore economy (in dollar sense) would not have become teachers in the first place. These teachers are very adverse towards outspoken kids and simply just unprofessional. Shame to the teaching profession. There is a need to publicly name and shame these bad sheep in the teaching community. You cannot get away with abusive behaviors even as time passed."

Dan
Dan

September 23, 2023

Write A Review