COMPULSORY EDUCATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Education (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Rationale for Compulsory Education

The Singapore education system has always served both an economic and social function - to prepare our citizens for work and to provide a common educational experience to our young.

Over the years, with improvements and refinements, the participation rates in primary, secondary and post-secondary education have been rising. Achievement levels are high, and our education system enjoys a well-deserved international high reputation, especially in Mathematics, Science and Information Technology.

For the future, the role our schools play will become even more critical, in providing Singaporeans with the necessary foundation to become knowledge workers, and in imbuing our young with a robust sense of national identity in the face of globalisation and rapid change.

As Singapore is a small country with limited resources, we need to ensure that children who would otherwise miss out on the full benefits of an education in national schools, will have the opportunity to get the education they need to develop to their fullest potential, and be ready for the future. The introduction of Compulsory Education in our national schools signals this intent.

Compulsory Education will help assure that our children have firstly, the necessary common core of knowledge and strong foundation for further education, and secondly, a common educational experience to build national cohesion. Re-cap of CE recommendations

The duration and form of Compulsory Education, proposed by the Committee on Compulsory Education chaired by Dr Aline Wong, and accepted by the Government, balances these two key objectives with the views and aspirations of the different communities in Singapore. The recommendations also re-affirm the appropriate balance in responsibilities of the family and of the State for a child's education, while taking into consideration practical problems in terms of enforcement. Permit me to briefly go over the key recommendations of the Compulsory Education Committee.

Compulsory Education up to primary 6 is recommended, even though 10 years of general education would be ideal. This is a pragmatic compromise given the practicalities of introducing and enforcing Compulsory Education during secondary education. Compulsory Education should therefore be seen as the minimum period of education for all Singaporean children, and not the ideal duration.

Compulsory Education will need strong support from the various communities to be successful. The form in which Compulsory Education is implemented should therefore give due consideration to how the aspirations and needs of the various communities can be taken into account in the implementation of Compulsory Education. Hence we have provided for certain groups to be exempted from Compulsory Education subject to certain conditions. These are children attending designated institutions which have a long historical record in our society, like madrasahs and San Yu Adventist School. Home-schoolers are exempted. Children with special needs are also exempted as their needs are catered for in accordance with their specific requirements.

Although some children will be given exemption from Compulsory Education in national schools to receive alternative forms of education, we are putting in place mechanisms to ensure that we can try to meet the objectives of Compulsory Education as best as practicable, like prescribing a minimum standard to be attained in the PSLE. All children who are given exemption to attend full-time madrasahs, San Yu Adventist School and home-schooling will be required to sit for the PSLE with their cohort. Each of these institutions must meet stipulated benchmarks in order to be allowed to admit children exempted from Compulsory Education, and parents of home-schoolers need to satisfy the Ministry of Education that the two key objectives of Compulsory Education can be achieved for their children before they are granted exemption from Compulsory Education.

As for children with learning disabilities, some are already admitted to mainstream schools if that is the best for them. But others are much more able to develop their full potential if they attend special education schools where they can learn at their own pace. There they are taught by specially trained teachers who are assisted by medically trained personnel and support staff, with a curriculum and environment specially tailored to their needs. Children with special needs are therefore automatically exempted from Compulsory Education.

Even with the introduction of Compulsory Education, parents will still be responsible for ensuring their children attend school regularly. The family and community should play an active role in convincing and helping parents send their children to school before the State steps in to compel them to do so. This is consistent with the principle of self-reliance and sense of parental responsibility which undergird the family as the basic unit of society. At the same time, penalties, in the form of fines and in the extreme case, a jail term, will be provided under the law to allow effective enforcement of Compulsory Education and to deter irresponsible parents. However, penalties will need to be meted out judiciously to ensure that they are not to the detriment of the long term interest of the children and their families. CE Bill

The Compulsory Education Bill will provide the necessary framework for implementing Compulsory Education. It sets out the key definitions, gives powers to the Minister and the Director-General of Education (DGE) to enforce Compulsory Education, and lays down penalties. It will give regulatory effect to the key objectives of Compulsory Education while operational details are regulated by administrative means. In this way, the Ministry can better respond to changes in environment and circumstances. Whatever can be facilitated by administrative measures and regulations have not been duplicated in the Bill.

Permit me to highlight the key clauses of the Bill:

(a) Clause 3 sets out the definition of Compulsory Education. Every Singapore citizen born after 1st January 1996, residing in Singapore and of school going age is required to attend a national primary school regularly.

(b) Clause 4 makes provision for exemption from Compulsory Education. The conditions for granting exemption will be spelt out in the subsidiary legislation.

(c) Clauses 5 and 6 provide for the establishment of the Compulsory Education Board, and defines the duties and powers of the Board to investigate cases of non-compliance.

(d) Clause 7 prescribes the penalties for non-compliance with Compulsory Education.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker Sir, the recommendations of the Compulsory Education Committee represent a considered and balanced response to the demands of the new knowledge-based world. To succeed in the future, we will need Singaporeans to have the necessary educational foundations to undertake lifelong learning; and a keen sense of what it means to be a Singaporean.

Compulsory Education, by providing a common core of knowledge and a common educational experience, is a first step for all communities to move forward together into the future. Compulsory Education can only succeed in meeting its objectives with the strong commitment of parents and the various communities. I therefore urge Members of Parliament and community leaders to encourage all Singaporeans to give their full support to making Compulsory Education a success, and help give all our children the best possible start in life.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is stating the obvious to say that education would allow a person to develop his inherent capability and fulfill his full potential as an individual. It is through education that children from poor families could move up the social ladder and escape the poverty trap. In so doing, the able and the diligent lift their families out of poverty along with them and prevent social stratification. We, as a people, are passionate about our children having the best possible education. And many of us in this House have benefited from the education policy of this Government and are in full support of the Government's education programme. This is reflected in MOE's budget, which is the second largest in our annual Government expenditure, standing at 3.7% of our GDP. As a result of our steadfast effort, 97% of our cohort are enrolled in Primary 1 of our national schools. 59% have achieved at least five "O" Level passes and about 60% are enrolled in tertiary institutions such as the polytechnics and the universities. All these we have achieved without making education compulsory.

Our current education policy, as the Minister of State stated earlier, has served us well. So, why are we introducing Compulsory Education now - 35 years after independence?

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to go through the history of Compulsory Education elsewhere. History shows that countries with Compulsory Education can be grouped into basically two categories. In the first category are western countries that introduced Compulsory Education in the late 1880s or early 1900s as education of the common person had become recognised as the cornerstone of democracy. The State of Massachusetts in the United States was the first to enact compulsory education attendance laws way back in 1852. By 1918, all the states in the US had laws on Compulsory Education. In England and Wales, Compulsory Education was introduced in 1880, close to 120 years ago. Over time, Compulsory Education spread throughout the western countries as one country after another implemented CE. By the 1920s, the concept that every child has a right to education was fully implemented in the western countries.

This has strong influence on emerging countries. These countries too aspire to implement Compulsory Education as part of their nation-building process. These are countries in the second group. Their founding fathers set out to build new societies out of the old. They saw education as the means for their population to bootstrap themselves out of poverty. Let us look at a few countries in Asia. Taiwan introduced Compulsory Education for primary schools in 1945 after the Second World War. By 1951, six years after the enactment, the enrolment rate in their primary schools was only 81.5%. Nonetheless, by 1968, when Compulsory Education was extended to nine years, their enrolment rate stood at 97.7%. India's 1949 Independence constitution provided for Compulsory Education. However, compulsion to-date has not been enforced due to socio-economic and political considerations. Hong Kong introduced Compulsory Education in 1971. Indonesia made primary education compulsory in 1987 and extended it to nine years in 1993. Thus, emerging countries tend to introduce Compulsory Education early in their nationhood. They primarily use it to enshrine a certain set of principles.

The second objective is to use it as a political platform to bring education to all their children, those in the cities as well as those in the countryside. It was also common to implement Compulsory Education for six years in the first instance and then later extend the duration to a longer period such as nine years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, by now almost all nations or self-governing territories in the world have implemented Compulsory Education. The 1998 UNESCO Statistical Yearbook on National Education System yields some interesting data about the universality of Compulsory Education. In the Africa region, 50 out of 56 nations or territories implemented Compulsory Education. In North America, 35 countries out of 35 did so. In South America, 14 out of 14. In Europe, 40 out of 42. The standouts are Andorra and Latvia. In Asia, only 37 out of 50. In the Oceania region, 16 out of 19. In the ASEAN region, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Brunei Darussalam have Compulsory Education laws on their book. Only Singapore and Malaysia do not. We are in the company of Bhutan, East Timor, Lebanon, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. On paper, Sir, at least, it is indeed an anomaly that Singapore, a progressive country, does not make education compulsory.

In terms of duration, Compulsory Education duration ranges from as low as five years in Iran, Turkey, Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar and Vietnam, to 12 years in Belgium and Germany, with the Netherlands as high as 13 years. It is nine years in Japan, 10 years in the US and 11 years in the UK. There is only one small territory in Africa that implemented a Compulsory Education of four years. Nine or 10 years seem to be the duration of choice for most countries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have chosen to make primary education compulsory when practically all our children are already enrolled in schools of one sort or another, if we include private schools and religious schools. In fact, 90% of our children are already in the national schools. At this point in time, our education system is more focused on the quality of education to enhance creativity and originality in our children in response to the changing world instead of focusing on the number of children being enrolled in primary schools.

So, based on past events in this House, it would appear that the Government was galvanised into action after NMP Claire Chiang raised an Oral Question on 4th August 1999 on the topic "Children Not Registering for Primary School". When she declared that "one child not in school is one too many", it did strike a chord in many of us in this House. The Minister, responding at that point, reiterated the argument that since we have already passed the stage where we need to make education compulsory, there is actually very little need to do so. Therefore, when the Prime Minister addressed the House on 13th October 1999 proposing that MOE consider the introduction of Compulsory Education of a 4-year period, the impression in the public mind is that NMP Claire Chiang had won the argument against a long-standing policy of MOE.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that impression would not have given credit to other Members of Parliament, past or current, who have spoken on this subject because the call for Compulsory Education in this House was not new. I looked through the Hansard, Sir, and it shows that Mr Tang See Chim first brought up the subject in December 1966. Mr Goh Chee Wee and Mr Liew Kok Pun raised the issue in March 1982 in the context of reducing school dropout rate. Compulsory Education has been a favourite topic of Mr Chiam See Tong who raised it in no fewer than seven occasions from 1989 till 1999, and Mr Chiam will be speaking after me as well. NMP Kanwaljit Soin brought up the subject in February 1993 and again in December 1993. Mr Lew Syn Pau raised the same topic in March 1994.

One could only conjecture as to why we did not implement Compulsory Education in the early years of our nation building. Perhaps, Singapore being a multi-racial and multi-religious society, Compulsory Education would be perceived differently by the various communities. Instead, the Government had chosen to make education as widely available to our children as possible without making it compulsory. In retrospect, this would appear to be a wise decision.

As we all know, there were strong reactions by the various interested parties, in particular, the Muslim community, regarding the future of the madrasahs after the Prime Minister's suggestion on 13th October 1999. Some of these reactions were rather emotional ones, with the extreme ones even expressing doubt regarding the Government's intent. The community was only reassured when the Prime Minister personally met with the representatives of the Muslim community.

From the past ministerial statements on this subject, we can also deduce that the Government was preoccupied with the problems of enforcement when it comes to Compulsory Education. This might be true, because while other governments might be comfortable about not having 100% compliance, this Government would have wanted 100% compliance. Yet, we are aware that in most cases, penalising parents for not sending their children might make matters worse for the families. When a child is not attending school, the root cause is traceable to the family, often times broken families and dysfunctional families. These are not situations or problems that can be resolved with the stroke of a pen.

Nonetheless, Sir, we recognise that a child not given the opportunity to blossom to his full potential is a terrible waste. At a time when our birth rate is below replacement level, this becomes an inexcusable and an intolerable waste. In proposing Compulsory Education, the Prime Minister has decided that it was time for the Government to make an affirmation that every Singaporean matters. Making education of a child compulsory elevates the visibility of this commitment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, once the Government decided that Singapore should have a Compulsory Education Act, it is a logical step to define what Compulsory Education means for Singapore. This task was entrusted to the Compulsory Education Committee set up in December 1999 under the chairmanship of Dr Aline Wong, Senior Minister of State for Education. I was the Vice-Chairman of the Committee. After examining the role of education in a young country like Singapore, the Compulsory Education Committee reaffirmed the two objectives of the National Schools system:

(1) to give our children a foundation for life-long learning in the preparation for the knowledge-based economy;

(2) to give the children a common educational experience to enhance national identity and social cohesion.

These two principles are still the basis of this Compulsory Education Bill.

It is useful to reiterate that, even after the enactment of this Bill, the responsibility of the upbringing of the child still rests primarily with the parents. This is the right approach as our parents have been very serious about the future of our children. In fact, the main reason why the Singapore education system is stressful and highly competitive is the strong emphasis on education placed by our parents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me now to elaborate upon some of the deliberations of the Compulsory Education Committee leading to its recommendations. The Feedback Unit has reported that the majority of respondents polled by the Unit felt that four years of Compulsory Education is too short. Many felt that six years is the minimum, with 10 years the ideal. This view is also reflected by the Minister in his speech. Several members of the Committee felt that to truly meet the objective of preparing our children for the knowledge-based economy, the minimum requirement is 10 years of Compulsory Education. After extensive deliberation, the Committee finally agreed to confine Compulsory Education to primary education in the first instance. This is so because it is more important to get every Singaporean, every community, to accept Compulsory Education at this juncture than to aim for the ideal of Compulsory Education at the first go. If need be, the Act could be amended in future to provide for another four years of secondary education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as expected, some members of the Muslim community are concerned that Compulsory Education would or could legislate the madrasahs out of existence. This is of course not the intent of Compulsory Education. It is also very positive that the community itself understands the challenges of the future and is prepared to deal with the problems.

As we know, the madrasahs' curriculum is geared towards the training of religious teachers and leaders. Yet, for those who do not take up religious vocation as a career, these young people trained in madrasahs are not well prepared for the KBE. I would like to quote some recent studies that have shown that in the knowledge-based economy, the wage gap increases as jobs go upscale in skills and training. A recent study by a Stanford professor using real life data from a US corporation proved this conclusively [Stanford Business School Social Scientist Roberto Fernandez]. As the study surveyed working adult Americans, it showed that the correlation between race and income was very strong as jobs move upscale. As the corporation turned towards high technology, white workers with higher wages were hired to replace African American workers with lower wages. So it seems that the digital divide not only increases income disparity between the skilled and unskilled, but also widens the chasm between racial groups of different aptitudes towards technology. It would be a tragedy for this to happen in Singapore. This we must avoid at all costs. The Prime Minister had done a great job, convincing the Muslim community to accept Compulsory Education for their children, while making special provision for the needs of the community for religious teachers and leaders. The madrasahs themselves have voluntarily set a PSLE benchmark for all madrasah pupils to aim for after the Compulsory Education Act comes into effect.

Besides the pupils in the madrasahs, the Compulsory Education Committee has recommended exemption for two other groups of children, namely, children attending designated private schools and children who are being tutored at home by the parents. The Minister has indicated that he has accepted these recommendations.

Sir, why did the Committee recommend that home schooling be exempted from Compulsory Education? Since there is only a very small number of children every year being tutored at home, the question could be asked as to why a special provision should be created just for these children. In fact, several members of the Committee felt that no exemption for home schooling should be made. Firstly, parents could make use of this provision as a loophole to circumvent the Act. Secondly, unlike the educational institutes such as the madrasah and the San Yu Adventist School whose exemption could be revoked if they fail to meet the PSLE benchmark, there is no such recourse when it comes to home schooling. These are very strong arguments. However, I have the privilege as a member of the Feedback Unit to have met a few parents who are tutoring their children at home. I can reassure the House that these are dedicated and committed parents. A few of them are former school teachers themselves. In almost all cases, one of the parents will give up his or her full-time job so as to stay home to tutor the child. If we truly believe that education is primarily the parent's responsibility, these parents are the exemplars of dedication and commitment. To forbid home schooling will be sending a wrong message. Therefore, I support the exemption for home-schooling from Compulsory Education. I believe the safeguards and the guidelines contained in the Compulsory Education Committee's Report to monitor the progress of these children would be sufficient to prevent home-schooling from becoming a loophole.

There are also advocates who would like Compulsory Education to address the issues of handicapped children, including their call to integrate these children into our national schools. They would like all children to grow up and attend school together, instead of being segregated today into special needs schools. The objective is to promote awareness and compassion of our children of the handicapped and the less able from a very young age. Sir, since our education system is an ability-based system, with children with different learning abilities streamed to different streams, this idea would have required a complete overhaul of our education system. The Committee feels that the current approach involving the voluntary welfare organisations with regard to children with special needs is the right approach and we recommend that this be retained.

Sir, clause 7 of the Bill contains provision on penalty for recalcitrant parents. Most members of the Committee feel that penalty should only be imposed as a last resort. Counselling instead is a preferred approach. In this respect, I am glad to note that this Bill provides for the establishment of a Board of Compulsory Education. The duties and powers of the Board are given in clause 6 of the Bill. It is appropriate that no person should be charged for any offence under this Bill except on a complaint from the Director-General of Education. When the Board of Compulsory Education has exhausted their avenue to persuade a recalcitrant parent, it would recommend to the Director-General of Education to bring the parents to court. Unlike other laws, for instance, the Maintenance of Parents Act, other interested parties cannot bring the parents to court on their own. This is a recognition that since such families are already in distress, bringing the family to court should be the very last resort and should only be left to the Government.

The Bill has the support of all the communities in Singapore. There is one major shortcoming in my opinion, which is its duration. By any measure, six years of Compulsory Education is not enough for a person to hold his own in the future. Globalisation is an irreversible trend and is picking up pace across the world. Singaporeans have no choice but to be fully engaged in the race. To be able to stand up to the best in the world, we should put all our children through at least 9 or 10 years of education instead of just six as provided in the Bill. Hopefully, after Compulsory Education has been implemented for several years, the worries and concern about Compulsory Education would be assuaged and we could think about extending the duration to a longer period. Hopefully, this could be done soon. Even now, more and more of our children are already voluntarily having at least 9 years of education, if we include technical education. This is so because those without such an education would find it increasingly difficult to find a job in the job market.

Sir, this Compulsory Education Bill as it stands is the most appropriate one at this point of time for Singapore. I support the Bill.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Sir, I rise to support the Compulsory Education Bill. I wish to congratulate the Committee on Compulsory Education chaired by Senior Minister of State for Education, Dr Aline Wong, for the clear, comprehensive and balanced report on the issues the Committee had to address and deal with. They have clarified what Compulsory Education means and the process that led to this Bill.

Sir, Compulsory Education is defined as education in national schools, aimed at giving children a strong foundation for the knowledge-based economy and building a sense of national identity and cohesion in the young Singaporeans. Up to now, we have allowed the parents the choice of whether to send their children to school and the vast majority of parents have done so. This is because the parents generally appreciate the value of a good education for their children. Public opinion is not against those parents who wish to teach their children differently but rather the parents who do not educate their children at all.

By making education compulsory, the schools are not about to take over the responsibility of educating the children. The responsibility rightly belongs to the parents. At best, it is a joint responsibility when the child is in school. With Compulsory Education, the Government and the community must be prepared to extend help to parents who face serious difficulties in sending their children to school. I hope the community organisations can make a positive contribution in helping families who face difficulties living in their neighbourhood. Besides the madrasahs, San Yu Adventist School and home schooling programmes, children with physical and other disabilities are also exempted from Compulsory Education. This, to me, is a practical approach because we do not want to put the added pressure and undue burden on parents of children with disabilities. If we are not careful, we may compound the problems of parents who would feel guilty if they could not afford to send their children with disabilities for appropriate education and training on a full-time basis. Of course, some cynics may be quick to surmise from this exemption as a way of the Government to avoid the responsibility of committing funds and resources needed to look after this group of children. I am sure it is not due to a lack of compassion on the part of the Government. Indeed, a special programme is required to cater to the special needs of children with physical and other disabilities. I know that the Minister has just now alluded to this point. Perhaps, it is also useful later for the Minister to clarify the position of the Education Ministry regarding the provision of educational facilities and resources for disabled children.

As a result of the study and consultation undertaken by the Committee, we have a better understanding of the madrasahs and what they are doing. I am quite surprised at the low standards of achievements of the students in madrasahs compared to the Malay students who attend national schools. I wonder whether many Malay students from families that needed special help have been directed or gravitated towards the madrasahs instead of national schools. Is it because of the real or perceived help they are able to receive only from the madrasahs in the education of these poorer children? Perhaps, the Education Ministry can help redress this area.

As the madrasahs' role is to produce Muslim religious teachers, we should not allow the number to grow beyond what is required. I therefore support the move to cap the maximum number of students in the six madrasahs to 400 pupils. I also hope that the benchmark set for the madrasahs at PSLE aggregate scores that match those of EM1 and EM2 Malay pupils in the six lowest national performing schools be only a start because the benchmark set is six lowest performing national schools. This relatively low benchmark should be reviewed a few years later. The standards should be raised gradually so that the target set is higher and the madrasah students will be encouraged to constantly improve their performance over time.

I am disturbed by the comment in the Report alluding to the possibility of parents defying the requirement for Compulsory Education in the form of civil disobedience if they are not allowed to instruct their children through home schooling programmes. The impression might have been created that the concession is given because of the threat of civil disobedience. I thought the whole exercise is to ensure that the children receive proper education. In fact, and I echo what Dr Wang Kai Yuen had said, parents who consciously chose home-schooling could be considered to be the most conscientious and fully committed to ensuring that their children receive the best education. I hope these parents also appreciate the inadequacies and shortcomings of home schooling programmes. Their children will not have the necessary exposure and experience they would otherwise receive in school. These children miss the opportunity to interact with teachers and fellow pupils. I am very sure that these parents will take steps to plug the gaps that the home schooling programme lacks.

It is through instruction, discipline and practice that we learn the skill of living our lives in such a way that will amount to something excellent or worthwhile. We all have that desire to educate our children to the fullest. We want our young children to grow up leading meaningful and fulfilling lives. I hope this Bill to make education compulsory will help the 1,000-odd children who missed school the opportunity to have a good start in their lives.

Sir, I support the Bill. 3.00 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I have spoken up in Parliament on the need to have Compulsory Education during the debate on the President's Speech in March 1985, and I have followed up that call for Compulsory Education on many other occasions during the debate in Committee at Budget time.

Last year, the Government agreed to implement Compulsory Education and appointed a Committee on Compulsory Education to study the issues and prepare a report. The Report has been prepared and presented to the Minister, and the Minister has accepted all the recommendations of the Committee. The Chairman of the Committee is the Senior Minister of State, and I note that many of its members comprise PAP Members of Parliament. With such a strong presence of politicians in that Committee, what I am afraid is that the decisions of the Committee may be heavily influenced by politicians, rather than looked at from the educational point of view. This is an educational matter and if the Government wants what is best for our children, then they should leave the decision on Compulsory Education to professional educationists, and not be influenced by politicians. We can see that the decisions of the Committee are not purely based on educational conditions.

It was pointed out in the Report that for those countries which have chosen to have Compulsory Education, they have fixed the Compulsory Education period between 9-11 years, while Singapore decides only to have 6 years of Compulsory Education. Six years of compulsory schooling, from the educational point of view, is definitely not enough for a pupil to master the three Rs - reading, writing and arithmetic. In Singapore's context, reading involves the reading of two languages. Therefore, how can six years be enough? The Committee's recommendation of six years compulsory primary education is merely a political expediency to satisfy the needs of the Government's policy as envisioned in Singapore 21, which inter alia says that every Singaporean counts. Under this policy, the Government cannot be seen every year to be abandoning 1,000-odd young Singaporeans who do not attend school at all. Therefore, the Government has to implement Compulsory Education but grudgingly at six years. I say that six years of compulsory attendance in school is not enough. The minimum number of years we should make a pupil attend school is eight years. At eight years of schooling, our pupils would then have a chance to master the core subjects.

The Report says that, ideally, a pupil should attend school for 10 years. But 10 years' education, from my own experience, is too long for pupils who show no interest in schooling, and it is a waste of the students' time and State funds. For this reason, many countries implement a nine-year Compulsory Education programme. But I think that in the Singapore context, we can start with eight years' schooling. If it is proven that it is still not sufficient, then the Government should increase it to nine years. I call on the Government to increase the period of Compulsory Education to eight years and not stick to its proposed six years. I think if our Government wants to give our children the best education, then it should make Compulsory Education at eight years rather than just a token six years. The Government is purported to have reserves of $110 billion. Then it should have funds to maintain Compulsory Education at eight years.

As regards enforcement, I agree that the parents should be made responsible for ensuring attendance of their child at school. However, I do not agree that the parents should be punished with imprisonment. How can the law force a parent to ensure that his child attends school if the child for some reason refuses to do so, although such cases are few and far between? I think the maximum fine of $2,000 should be sufficient punishment for a parent whose child of compulsory age fails to attend school regularly. The fine of $5,000, in my view, is too excessive. Normally, I would imagine that once a parent has been apprehended by the police and made aware that he has committed an offence by not sending his child to school, the parent would certainly make sure that his child does go to school unless, of course, he is deep in financial difficulty, in which case the MCDS should step in to assist. A hefty fine or a jail sentence would definitely be counter productive. That would only antagonise the parent and make him less cooperative, to the detriment of the interest of the child. The best course is to win over the parent and make him know the benefits of education for his child and induce him, on his own accord, to want to send his child of compulsory school age to school.

As regards the madrasahs and San Yu Adventist School, I think the recommendations of the Committee are fair. The pupils of madrasahs and San Yu Adventist School should be made to attend minimum standards for the PSLE. I would like to add that those schools be given five years to upgrade themselves. In that period, they should bring up their standards and be at par with those in the national schools. The Government should give a helping hand in teacher training for these schools.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.08 pm until 3.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm