COMPULSORY EDUCATION BILL

Debate resumed.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Yatiman Yusof): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the Compulsory Education Bill. This is an important but also a sensitive subject that requires careful and rational handling.

Sir, key to our success in remaining at the forefront in an increasingly competitive world is our ability to create and produce the educated, qualified, skilful and creative people. To achieve this objective, there is no substitute to a sustained effort in improving the level of education and skills training for our citizens. Those who wonder why we place so much emphasis on our education system should understand that this is the only way for us to keep abreast of and remain relevant in the changing world.

Looking back over the past 40 years, we could see how responsive our education system has been to the changing needs. When we launched our industrialisation programme to provide employment to our newly independent country, we introduced technical education. As we progressed, we set up VITB and pressed on with our vocational and industrial training programme. We expanded our polytechnic education in response to the demand created by the variety of industries set up here. Our tertiary institutions too had undergone change in both areas of studies as well as the number of intake. These qualitative and quantitative changes were made to meet the demand in the labour market.

As the world moves from an old economy to the new knowledge-based economy, we can anticipate changes taking place at a faster tempo. Newer frontiers will be opened, thus throwing challenges and at the same time offering new opportunities to those who are able to see and grab them. Only two decades ago we were struggling to sustain our role in the mainstream of the world's industrial community through an attempt to restructure our economy by applying and attracting capital-intensive production. Although the recession in the mid-80s had forced us to shelve our plan and caused a setback, it was temporary. We remained on-gear towards keeping ourselves relevant to the world. While the world economic upturn and downturn necessitate us to make adjustment, we remain on-track in seeking and securing a role in the sunrise industries.

Today we are talking not only about the super microchips but also about the potential genetic discoveries and what other advances in life sciences have to offer to us. An article in the Far Eastern Economic Review dated 15th June this year quoted Prof. Chris Tan, Head of Singapore Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, as saying that the 21st century will belong to biology, just as the 20th did to physics. He said that at the start of the last century, scientists were beginning to map out the periodic table of elements; now they are starting to sequence the human genome. This discovery of DNA sequence in scientific journal itself did not change anyone's life but it could lead to new medicines, agricultural advances and the ability to accurately predict whether you are genetically predisposed to heart disease.

Now as we enter the era of borderless or globalised world characterised by the movement of knowledge, technology, talents and capital across the border, the need to develop the potential of our people to the highest possible level is even more urgent. This is the era where those in control of information hold the power, those in possession of great knowledge ensure their success and those who are able to use technology create wealth. This is also an era of rapid change with greater threat of digital divide between those who are able to ride on the new tide and those falling off to the side.

Sir, the phenomenon with all its ramifications mentioned above is universal. It affects every society and every country in the world. I believe that the best way to prepare our people to face the challenge of a globalised world is through education, training, re-education and retraining.

There are a number of reasons why education, training, the acquisition of knowledge and improved ability of every citizen is of great importance to us. Firstly, our people are our only natural resource. We have to manage and develop this resource as best as we can. Secondly, as a country that upholds the principle of meritocracy, education is a crucial vehicle for our social mobility. It is the best answer to the threat of digital divide facing our society in the years to come. Thirdly, as a country with a small population, it is important for Singapore to develop the potential of its citizens to the maximum.

Sir, students of demography may be familiar with the concept of population pyramid. Countries with bigger population can continue to survive, and even prosper, with their broad-based educational pyramid. This is because the talent pool of those at the top of the pyramid is big enough to meet the requirement and propel their economies. As our population is small, we need to create a rather narrow base educational pyramid. This means we have to ensure that we increase the educational qualification of our people at every level, be it PSLE, GCE 'O', post-secondary or tertiary.

Sir, the operative phrase here is "at every level". It is in this context that Compulsory Education should be seen.

As I understand it, the Committee on Compulsory Education, chaired by the Senior Minister of State, Dr Aline Wong, had gone at great length in its consultation and in seeking views from the members of the public before presenting it to the public. I generally agree with the substance of the Bill, especially on matters pertaining to the six-year period of CE and the manner it is to be enforced. I subscribe to the objective underlying the CE in meeting the need for a minimum foundation for every student in the core subjects - English, Mathematics and Science. This is to prepare such school leavers for the knowledge-based economy.

Sir, the general public appeared supportive to the proposal. Those who had expressed some reservations on the legal and enforcement aspect were assured on knowing that there is a mechanism in place to deal with individual cases. Most people would agree, in principle, that there must be a shared responsibility in achieving the objectives of the CE.

However, Sir, there has been some disquiet among the members of the Muslim community. While nobody seems to disagree that the broad objectives of the Compulsory Education were there, some were concerned about the impact the CE has on madrasah education in Singapore.

Sir, as a Muslim, I share their concern. I even understand their fear. However, I could not agree with those who questioned the motive behind CE and viewed Compulsory Education as a means to effect the closure of the madrasahs. Expressions, such as the Government has "sinister motive", were reported in the media. I am sad at the atmospherics surrounding the debate on the issue. Some quarters had even taken advantage of the prevailing debate in the media and Internet then by stirring up the emotions and religious sentiments even though they fully know that such an approach would not help in solving the problem.

Collectively, the Malay MPs, who sensed that the issue had developed into a political one and that some groups were trying to split the Muslim ground and putting the Muslim community on a collision course with the Government, persuaded the hon. Prime Minister to intervene. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Prime Minister Goh for his timely and masterly intervention through dialogues with the Muslim community leaders and for his assurance that madrasahs would not be closed. My colleagues and I have never believed for a moment that CE would result in the end of the madrasah education. We are nevertheless happy with the assurance given by the Prime Minister.

Sir, the Prime Minister had continuously kept in close consultation with the Malay MPs on the madrasah issue. In one of such heart-to-heart discussions, the possibility of exempting the madrasah from CE was raised. This was then discussed in the dialogue the Prime Minister had with the Muslim community leaders and the proposal received their support. Now, the benchmark has been agreed and I am encouraged to learn that the madrasahs are now focusing their mind on the need to make the necessary qualitative change in their curriculum to prepare themselves for the inclusion of required examinable core subjects at the PSLE level.

However, Sir, there are people out there who still have a lingering doubt about the Government's motive. If there is such a doubt, we would certainly be doubly happy if the Minister could assure this House again that it was not the Government's intention to close or effect the closure of the madrasahs.

Sir, it is my unwavering belief that religious education is important for the Muslim community and it is more so for rapidly changing Singapore with all its open characteristics. However, I strongly believe that it is equally important that the Muslims, just like other people in Singapore, be sufficiently and properly equipped to face the era of the knowledge-based economy.

For this reason, the Muslim community will have to continue to examine this and other issues related to our well-being. This is due to the fact that the world is not static. It is changing and the change is becoming even more rapid and it includes the requirements for education. Upmost in our mind is to ensure the balance between the educational and spiritual needs of our community.

Sir, CE is the manifestation of our desire to carve a better future for everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim Singaporeans. It involves making changes and being sincere about its objective. I know changes are not easy to make, but our track record shows that if a change is necessary, we will endeavour to effect the change no matter how difficult and how painful it can be. Time will be the ultimate judge on whether the change is beneficial or otherwise to the community.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Tan Boon Wan (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Bill.

I remember well the reply that Minister Teo Chee Hean gave just over a year ago in response to an Oral Question by NMP Mdm Claire Chiang on Compulsory Education. I agree with the response. With some 97% of our young already in the national education system at the primary level, there is no pressing need to make education compulsory. So when Prime Minister announced some two months later that the issue of Compulsory Education was to be reconsidered, I was surprised. However, the Prime Minister went on to explain that, to the Government, the statement that every Singaporean matters is not merely a slogan. We have the means to give every Singaporean child an education. So we should do it. In the new economy, life would be better for every educated Singaporean and his or her family.

Sir, the decision to take another look at the issue of Compulsory Education thus has its origin in the heart, not just in the head. For everyone who thinks that the Government has an ulterior motive, let him or her dispel this doubt. The PAP Government cares for the people. It has the interest of Singapore and every Singaporean at heart. Our children need the knowledge to fit into the new economy. They also need the knowledge and experience to help build national identity and cohesion. These are the two key objectives of our national school system.

Sir, recognising that here are needs that cannot be met within the national school system, the Bill proposes to allow some of our young to be educated outside of it. I am confident that parents of these children have a vested interest to ensure that their children receive the needed knowledge for their future economic wellness. But they may not be as concerned about national identity and cohesion or, most probably, they do not know what needs to be done to ensure that their children grow up to be strong Singaporeans. Hence, I hope that the Ministry would develop a basic national education syllabus with materials that can be used to inculcate this important integrative spirit in these children. The national education syllabus adopted by the national school system can be adapted for this purpose. Immersion programmes during vacation time, like those organised for young Singaporeans living abroad could be part of the syllabus. The Ministry should then make this syllabus compulsory under clause 4(1).

Sir, a good policy is not only strong in concept, but also effective in its implementation and enforcement. Implementation and enforcement will cost money and bodies. I presume the Ministry of Education will have people to administer and enforce Compulsory Education. I believe that principals and teachers will also get involved, adding to their responsibilities. They must be trained and prepared for the task. Enforcement will be an issue and effort must be made to thoroughly investigate each case and to ensure that only those really guilty of neglect are punished. I am assured by the Minister's assurance.

Children may not be in school for many reasons. Some may be family problems and others may be financial in nature. Making primary education compulsory does not automatically change the financial ability of families to afford the education. The Government must recognise that in moving towards Compulsory Education, additional efforts will be needed to help these families register and keep their children in school. The efforts will not only be in monetary terms, but also non-monetary support for the children in their school work, for example. The community will be asked to do more, but the Government must take the lead. The Government must be prepared to provide the funds to help those needing financial assistance and to enable grassroots and community organisations to provide other support.

Sir, our parents have done a marvellous job in providing and caring for their children. They must continue to take responsibility for their children's education. I hope that the availability of Government and community assistance to parents does not constitute a moral hazard in respect of this responsibility. However, given the keen concern and interest of parents in general to the education of their children, I am hopeful that making primary education compulsory will not diminish this sense of responsibility.

Sir, Senior Minister of State for Education, Dr Aline Wong, and her Committee on Compulsory Education and many other people and organisations have put in much time and effort to study, discuss and understand the issues involved in Compulsory Education. Their contributions have strengthened this Bill. We owe them thanks for their time and effort. Mr Chiam is unfair to cast doubt on the report and therefore the efforts and time of so many people. Where is the politics? Anyone reading the report cannot fail to see that it is an excellent, fair and comprehensive report which is sensitive to the nature of the Singapore society. In his speech as a whole, Mr Chiam has in fact agreed with the report. He only squabbles over some fine details which would after all change with time and circumstances. I am sure most Singaporeans will not agree with Mr Chiam's criticism of the report.

Sir, in conclusion, let me say that with over 93% of each year's cohort completing secondary education, we have achieved almost universal education at both the primary and secondary levels. In making primary education compulsory, the country is putting a lot of efforts for the few who drop out. We are doing this because every Singaporean counts. To the PAP Government, this is not merely a slogan. The money and efforts used to make primary education compulsory will be money well spent and effort well expended. However, for Compulsory Education to work, society, especially our parents, must understand and support it. I urge the people to give Compulsory Education for our young their fullest support.

Sir, I support this Bill.

Mr Hawazi Daipi (Sembawang): (In Malay): Firstly, I would like to inform the House that I am a member of the Committee on Compulsory Education led by Dr Aline Wong that had made recommendations to the Government. I would also like to inform Mr Chiam See Tong that although there were five Members of Parliament in the Committee, a number of feedback and dialogue sessions were conducted and views and feedback from various community groups were received. Therefore, I am unable to understand when he said that there is a political motive in the recommendations of the Committee on Compulsory Education.

I support this Compulsory Education Bill because it will ensure that children in Singapore will have the basic education relevant to Singapore. We will be facing keen competition. The technologies being used in companies are more advanced and they require our workers to acquire new skills in order to work in such companies.

The working world has also changed. As a result of globalisation, our companies also need to change their operational structure constantly and this will affect our workers' employability.

Compulsory Education offers a basic minimum education for every child to face a new era based on knowledge. Although I agree that Compulsory Education is meant for the primary level at this moment, I believe those who are involved in the education of every child, whether teachers, parents, schools or community leaders, should ensure that every child receives a minimum education up to secondary level. With a strong foundation in education, each child will be better prepared in receiving quality education and acquire new skills in the years ahead. With this, they are also able to grab all opportunities provided by the Government, the employers or the trade unions, and they will also be able to benefit from the opportunities provided by the ITE, polytechnics or the universities. In short, what is emphasised is basic education for life-long learning and in obtaining skills. This, I believe, is the best way to ensure that our children will remain employable when they begin to work.

Mr Speaker, when the recommendations on Compulsory Education were first studied, some members of the Malay-Muslim community had raised their concerns that the madrasahs will be closed when this is implemented. The Committee on Compulsory Education did not make any recommendation for the closure of the madrasahs. I am also confident too that the Government does not intend to close the madrasahs. I hope the Government, as mentioned by Mr Yatiman, will explain its policy on the madrasah system of education. It must give an assurance that the madrasahs will not be closed and the Government does not have the intention to close the madrasahs by virtue of this Compulsory Education Bill.

Mr Speaker, the Government has already announced that some schools, eg, the madrasahs, San Yu Adventist and those involved in home-schooling, will be exempted from Compulsory Education. Facilities should be provided for the children in preparing them for the PSLE examination, together with the other students in their cohort.

But the question is, especially among the madrasahs and the Malay-Muslim community, what will happen to the madrasahs when the students are not able to attain the minimum standard. I hope a clarification by the Ministry of Education will help them to understand how the exemption criteria will be implemented.

I believe that science, mathematics and English are important basic subjects for our children. Therefore, it is important for every student, who is exempted from the national school under this Compulsory Education system, to sit for the PSLE examination together with their cohort.

Some members of the Muslim community have earlier given a negative response to CE. They were concerned that the madrasahs will be closed, and some of them felt that the Government intends to close the madrasahs.

Their concern for the future of religious education is understood: who will become the religious leaders who will then educate the Muslim children with the moral and Islamic virtues if we are unable to produce religious teachers in Singapore among ourselves? This is a relevant question or issue, although some of the bases of these questions are not accurate.

The Malay-Muslim community will be able to focus themselves on how to assist their Malay-Muslim children to receive religious education. For children whose parents want them to be religious teachers, there are ways in which the religious or madrasah leaders can offer them to achieve this objective. But there is also a group of madrasah and religious leaders who need to understand more about the majority of the needs of the Malay-Muslim children whose parents want them to have religious education besides having secular education.

Whatever had been decided, every community leader and parent should be aware of the global changes that had taken place, including Singapore. In a knowledge-based economy, and with globalisation, the working world has changed tremendously. If we do not equip our children with the basic education to help them to acquire new or additional skills for the future, we would not be able to guarantee our children and the country's future. The children who do not have a good basic education will not be able to get good employment or to learn new knowledge when these are the basic necessities of survival in a competitive working world.

The challenge for the Malay-Muslim community in Singapore as well as others is to continue to study such issues and to bring about a balance between their worldly and spiritual needs. We should assist our community in enhancing their ability to discuss this matter at a higher level so that we will be able to understand the challenges that Singapore is facing.

The world that we are facing now is not static. It is rapidly changing. Therefore, requirements in education should change accordingly. The Malay-Muslim community should enhance the way we educate our children in religion so that it will be in tandem with the changes in this world. This is to ensure that the Malay-Muslim children in Singapore will be able to fulfill their educational, employment and spiritual needs.

Mr Speaker, some members in the Malay-Muslim community found that the decision of the Prime Minister to exempt madrasahs from Compulsory Education is a victory for them. For me, this is not a game to be won. In fact, the Compulsory Education system proposed by the Government is to assist or to help every child in Singapore, including the Malay-Muslim children, to be winners in this competitive world so that their future will be guaranteed.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak about the wider implication of this Bill to Singaporeans, especially to those outside the Malay-Muslim community. To me, the issue that has generated a lot of strong and emotional response has been the issue on madrasahs, and, for this reason, I wish to touch on a few aspects of this issue.

Sir, there have been two types of reaction, both outside and inside the community, and I wish to touch on them.

Many people outside the community became very uncomfortable about the the way, the zest, in which Muslims want to preserve madrasahs, and find that perhaps they cannot understand why in this present day and age - it seems very illogical - that Malays want to preserve madrasahs which are not producing the kind of educated students that they hope to achieve.

I wish to assure these people that this is far from the truth. Instead, what they should see is that Malay-Muslims in Singapore, in their short history compared to Chinese history, have been able to make economic progress and education as a very important agenda for all of us in Singapore. And, I think, in that sense, we have made tremendous progress.

However, we need to realise that when we look back, the Malay culture has provided quite inadequate examples of how education is developed in the community. In fact, if you look back, a typical Malay-Muslim has to dig far deeper into his religious roots, because it was Islam that really promoted education when Islam was first introduced in the region. And because of that, it is clear that, not only to counter some of the social problems that they have, Malay-Muslims need to use religion which has motivated its people to really acquire knowledge not only as a choice but really as an obligation as Malay-Muslims.

However, the problem seems to be that, in fact, Malay-Muslim religious leaders, and even these Muslim religious leaders - non-Malays, Indians and those of Arabic origin - have taken it upon themselves, when they evangelise, to develop schools. It is then difficult to really separate what is the religious motivation, and that of really providing secular education in this day and age. So I think the problem really is a question of balance and content - how can we continue to make sure that Malay-Muslims of the future and today continue to be inspired to ensure that they acquire the kind of education but making sure the contents in schools and all that could prepare them for the future needs of the economy? In this regard, the Compulsory Education Bill does provide an answer for the future, and I hope the sceptics can see it in this light and give this Bill their full support.

The other reaction from within the community is slightly different. A lot of people are concerned that the Bill would inevitably lead to the closure of madrasahs. I think this is where the Prime Minister has given assurance. I am very happy with the assurance that the Prime Minister has given because it has been made quite clear that while madrasahs must continue to exist, at least to provide for the future leadership and its religious leadership for the Malay-Muslim community, it is through madrasahs that we can produce religious leaders for the future. Whether it will continue to produce other scholars outside the religious needs of the community is another question. Here, I would like to respond by saying that no amount of institutional help can assure success in this area. Rather, the success of the madrasahs should be seen more beyond the point whether the institution would exist in its artificial sense but whether the future generation of Malay-Muslims will choose madrasahs as a means of education to meet both their religious and secular needs, and whether students that go through the system can become useful citizens of the future, not only for the needs of the community, but the needs of the country at large. That is a challenge for madrasahs to ensure that they continue to produce good students for the community.

The other point is that a lot of the members of the community tend to look at the past as a means to try and defend and preserve whatever that is available. I would rather, if we look at our unique Singaporean way, and the way that the Bill has been drafted that we look into the future. If we can find a nice blend to ensure madrasahs continue to exist, it is an unique opportunity in fact for Malay-Muslims in Singapore not only to solve some of the problems that we face, but be an inspiration and guide to other Muslim communities in the region who are also facing similar problems. There are similar madrasahs in the region. This is where we can look forward and they could be quite useful in our contribution to the Malay-Muslim world at large.

The other issue that had caused a bit of controversy of late, I must say, has been the issue of what has been termed collective leadership. A lot of community leaders and religious leaders felt that they want to play equal roles with the Government in ensuring that madrasahs continue to survive. I respect their intention and their enthusiasm which is very, very important to ensure that this is achieved. However, we have to be very clear on what we mean by collective leadership. Elected Members and Government must be responsible ultimately for the achievement of its people and population, that is, the education system must produce the desired outcome. NGOs must be responsible to its members. It can only be responsible to its members. It cannot be responsible to the population at large. Therefore, its role must be one to support whatever existing policies it has or if it does not agree with it, to lobby and change and pursue certain decisions that the Government would take. But to call for collective leadership to be equally responsible is not relevant in this case because when you agree with the policies, that is fine, but if you do not agree, like what we have seen in some discussions preceding this, who will be responsible, who will be accountable? At least for the Government, you have a choice. If you do not meet the desired outcome, you can vote them out. But I do not see how you can exercise those rights if this responsibility is given to a group of people to be responsible to take the community forward. This is an issue which has generated a lot of debate recently but I wish to put this issue in perspective. At the end of the day, it is the Government and the Minister, together with the other Elected MPs, who will have to decide. I am sure that they are responsible to ensure the outcome. To have collective leadership, to me, is irrelevant at this stage.

I just wish to touch on two other points, and one is about the assurance. Although the Prime Minister has given assurance to the Malay-Muslim community, I personally would have preferred a more concrete assurance in the form of legislation, in the sense that this Bill should have been more specific about what it sees as the role of madrasahs, at least to continue to provide education for the future religious leaders. If that can be preserved, I think we are quite happy about it. I am sure some may come up in the subsidiary legislation but I would prefer a bit more concrete assurance from the Minister on how he sees the status of madrasahs today.

The other point I would like to make is that there has been a lot of zest and enthusiasm among a lot of people in the community to want to play a part or at least influence the teaching of religion in school. I would like to ask the Minister whether representatives from the community can be put on the Compulsory Education Board because this is where we can see some participation. Like I say, you cannot have collective leadership but you can have very strong participatory involvement in this process. And because the Compulsory Education Board is formed, their involvement in the Board would send a very strong signal.

It is one thing to say that we hope the madrasahs would continue to prosper, but it is another thing to do something to ensure that it prospers. The madrasahs need to be a bit more well-funded. The facilities are usually not so good. The teachers are not that well-paid. How more assistance can be directed to ensure their continued survival, maybe not for all, but at least for some selected madrasahs, is something that may be necessary at this stage. The madrasahs must be given the vital ingredients to ensure success. By leaving them on their own, I am afraid the success of the madrasahs' survival might be quite questionable.

Finally, I observe a small loophole in the case of home-school. I would like to ask the Minister how that exemption would be exercised because in other countries, in Malaysia, for example, it is very hard for them. You can stop madrasahs but you cannot stop pondok schools, five or six fellows in a small corner being tutored by one person. That could be interpreted as home school as well. In a way, a small madrasah can emerge out of home school, and how that will be seen by the authorities as they seek for exemption.

The Minister for Community Development and Sports and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi): Sir, I thought I would join the debate at this juncture because there have been some issues raised about madrasah education which I think, as the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, I ought to address.

I would like to thank Messrs Yatiman, Hawazi and Zulkifli for their support of the Bill. The three speakers had alluded to the concerns and sentiments of the Malay-Muslim community about madrarsahs and the fear whether Compulsory Education will really mean the demise of the madrasahs or whether it is one of Government's ploy to close the madrasahs. In actual fact, Government recognises the importance of madrasahs for the Muslims and the importance of religious education for Muslims. Therefore, it was never the intention of Government to close down madrasahs and far from Compulsory Education or legislation being a reason or an excuse to close down madrasahs. The Prime Minister himself had several times assured the community that it was never the Government's intention to close down madrasahs. And at two specific meetings with the madrasahs and other stakeholders of madrasah education, Prime Minister reiterated the point, and I would also like, on behalf of the Government to reiterate the point again here, that it was never the intention of Government to close down madrasahs and there was no ploy to close down madrasahs.

Based on the input and feedback from the community, the Government has agreed to exempt madrasahs from the Compulsory Education system, provided that they meet certain minimum PSLE benchmarks which they themselves would have set and which they themselves would have to agree to. So far, the madrasahs have agreed to certain benchmarks and that is something that they will adhere to and hopefully that is something which, as time progresses, they will increase; in other words, make the benchmark higher.

I empathise with the concern of the community and also agree with the views of Mr Yatiman and Mr Hawazi on the need for the madrasah students not only to acquire religious instructions and education, but also for madrasahs to produce enough religious scholars and religious teachers for the future. But, at the same time, we must also ensure that madrasah students receive at least some basic education to ensure that they will be able to prepare themselves for the coming knowledge-based economy.

On this issue, you have heard of Government's intention to assist one particular madrasah by facilitating some funds to be given to it so that it could be assured of having enough good teachers to ensure that the students are being taught well in English, Mathematics and Science. On my part, I had also formed a Madrasah Steering Committee last June and to-date, they have had three meetings. The most immediate task which they had to do was to decide on the PSLE benchmark which they did. Apart from that, the Committee would also look into the curriculum of the madrasahs, not only of the assisted one, but also of the other five. There are six madrasahs in all. They will also look into the necessary training of the teachers to ensure that they are equipped with the necessary knowledge to teach English, Mathematics and Science properly.

The Steering Committee would also look into financial help. This is what the Nominated Member alluded to about the kind of help that could be given to madrasahs. We will be looking into the financial aspect of not only the assisted madrasahs but also the other madrasahs, in other words, all the six madrasahs, to ensure that they will be provided with sufficient funds so that they can carry out a proper system, have enough trained teachers in order to achieve the twin goals of producing religious teachers and also, at the same time, providing themselves with enough basic education to prepare them for the knowledge-based age. As the Member rightly mentioned, we have to provide a proper balance between the economic and the spiritual for the madrasah students.

Lastly, the Committee will also look into the management of madrasahs to ensure that they are professionally and properly managed so that they would fit themselves, as it were, into the whole Compulsory Education environment.

At this point, I would like to urge the community to look forward, instead of dwelling on the past about the concerns and worries. I think we have gone beyond that. The thing to do now is to look forward and to ensure that we set up the system and infrastructure so that the madrasahs will be able to deliver and achieve a balance, as the Member mentioned earlier, between the needs of the economy and the spiritual needs of the community.

As to the representation on the Compulsory Education Board, I will leave it to my colleague, RAdm Teo, to answer. As to the comment on AMP's collective leadership issue, I think it is beyond this debate for us to discuss.

Mr Tay Beng Chuan (Nominated Member): (In Mandarin): Sir, since time immemorial, bringing up children has always been the responsibility of the parents. There is a well-known Chinese saying that "If a child is brought up but not educated, the fault lies with the father." This has become the philosophy adopted by most parents in the upbringing of their children. Moreover, parents nowadays have a common expectation that their children would grow up to become somebody of importance and to do well in life. The future progress and prosperity of the nation depends on whether we could comprehensively raise the level and quality of the education of our people.

In the interest of the people and the future of our nation, the Government has been devoting substantial energy and resources to develop our education system. Well-equipped primary and secondary schools with full facilities are built all over the island, to ensure that every child in Singapore will have the opportunity to receive a holistic formal education in comfortable school campuses. This benefits not only our own people but also attracts a lot of foreigners to try all means to send their children to Singapore to receive our primary and secondary education. Therefore, I am puzzled and saddened by the fact that some parents are still refusing to send their children to school to receive the most basic primary education.

As a progressive and civilised country, we have all the conditions and responsibilities to ensure that every Singaporean child would be given the opportunity to go to school happily, like all the children in their neighbourhood, and to enjoy an enriching school life. This is a special privilege of the children of every Singapore citizen, and the happiness they are entitled to enjoy. I therefore support the Bill to prevent irresponsible parents from depriving their children of the opportunity to receive formal education in school, thereby causing them to face the serious consequences later on in life when they want to go for further studies or look for employment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Second Reading speech, the Minister for Education pointed out the two key objectives of the Compulsory Education Bill. The first objective is to give our children a common core of knowledge which will provide a strong foundation for further education and training to prepare them for a knowledge-based economy. On this point, I feel that Compulsory Education should be for a period of 10 years rather than just six years of primary education. In the era of new economy and new technologies, in order to make a living in society, a child should have at least 10 years of education in primary and secondary schools. At the moment, the majority in our workforce has only primary school education. They have to depend on the Government and the enterprises to provide them with opportunities for re-education in order to upgrade their level of knowledge. The long-term solution is to implement 10 years of Compulsory Education to lay down a strong educational foundation for everybody, thereby generally raising his or her educational level. In this way, we would not have to spend too much time, energy and money later on to provide the remedies.

On the other hand, we should also pay special attention to children of special needs, such as the handicapped children, mentally handicapped or otherwise. They should be given the opportunity to a longer period of education so that they could have more support and a stronger foundation to enable them to become self-reliant in future.

The other key objective that the Minister for Education seeks to reinforce is to give our children a common educational experience which will help to build national identity and cohesion. This is a very noble political ideal, but it is not easy for every young child to grasp and comprehend this ideal within a short period of six years in the primary school. On this basis, I would like to reiterate that it is all the more necessary for our Compulsory Education to be fixed at 10 years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the objective of education is not confined to imparting knowledge and cultivating a sense of belonging of the people. A sound and ideal education system should embody a clear and firm goal to inculcate in our next generation the correct outlook on life, moral values and good traditional and cultural values that have been passed on from generation to generation before us. These excellent qualities will enable our children and their children to have rounded physical and spiritual development, so that they would have the strong will power to counter any undesirable influence or emerging challenges in the new age. In the absence of this objective, any form of Compulsory Education will not go to the root of the matter to effectively inspire the next generation to strive to achieve greater success in life, thereby enhancing the quality of education of our people.

As such, I would like to urge the Ministry of Education to avoid putting too much emphasis on science, mathematics and technical knowledge at the expense of physical and spiritual development and moral education when formulating policies and curriculum for the primary and secondary schools. The Government intends to increase its education budget from the present $6 billion or 3.6% of GDP to $7.5 billion or 4.5% of GDP. I hope that the Ministry of Education will be resolute in putting into optimum use the rich resources to fortify the important task in this respect, and to ensure that every Singaporean child is provided with 10 years of free, compulsory and effective basic education, in order that Singapore will continue to enjoy sustained progress and prosperity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. 4.38 pm

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, nowadays, it is trendy for people to talk about the "new economy". Every day, in the newspapers, we read a lot of reports or articles on the new economy. Recently, I read in the newspapers that Dr Tan Chin Nam, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Manpower described this era as the "new economy era", one which requires a high degree of transparency and a brand-new environment to get things done. It is under this new environment that we are debating here on the question of Compulsory Education.

For many foreigners who do not know Singapore well, they think that we are very backward and remote. They may think that many children in Singapore are not attending school and that is why the Government has to introduce Compulsory Education now. In fact, we have 97% of students in every cohort registering for enrolment to the primary schools. This percentage is comparable to Australia, Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan which have introduced compulsory education many, many years ago. In the Chinese community in Singapore, many people told me that they thought there was already Compulsory Education in Singapore. They feel that it is not necessary to introduce legislation to make education for children compulsory in Singapore. As a matter of fact, in Singapore, most parents have brought upon themselves to see to it that their children not only go to a good primary school, but even to a renowned kindergarten before that. It is not uncommon to see many parents queuing up overnight to get a place for their children in the more popular kindergartens.

As such, when we are talking about Compulsory Education, our main concern is on the 3% who are not receiving formal education under our mainstream education, and how they are going to face the future challenges in the new economy.

Sir, I support the Bill and the recommendation of the Committee on Compulsory Education that those attending the madrasahs and San Yu Adventist School be exempted from Compulsory Education. In a multi-racial and multi-religious society, racial harmony and inter-religious tolerance have to be exercised. This has been entrenched in the recommendation of the Committee.

I think Compulsory Education of six years is practical, not 10 years or 12 years. The reason is very simple, because we are a progressive society. We are upgrading ourselves all the time. As it is, only 3% of each cohort failed to register for places in the primary schools in Singapore. There are actually more than 80% in each cohort who go all the way to complete their secondary education, and more than 60% completed their tertiary education. It is envisaged that these percentages will be further improved every year.

A small group of students drop out after primary school. They either do not want to study or lack the ability to do so. If we force them to remain in school, there will be a lot of difficulties administratively and in the enforcement of discipline on them. This is one consideration of the Committee when debating on this matter.

The vast majority of families in Singapore support Compulsory Education. In a feedback dialogue session that I conducted, most of the people feel that there should be 6 to 10 years of Compulsory Education. Nominated Member Mr Tay Beng Chuan has suggested 10 years. I believe this is the collective view of the Chinese community in Singapore. Most of the representatives of the Chinese community in the dialogue session felt that we should not be too harsh with parents who violated the provisions under the Compulsory Education Act. We should look into the circumstances of each and every case. If the children do not wish to study, there is nothing their parents, the principal and even the police could do to confine them in the school. Therefore, it is no point setting up an impractical target. I think we should have a more realistic target. I support the recommendation of six years' Compulsory Education.

The emergence of the new economy is affecting every sector of our society. Those who are not adequately equipped are blaming themselves for not having enough education, and life is difficult for them. Yet, in the new economy, even if we are well educated, we are not guaranteed a good job. The computer, the Internet and information technology have changed our whole competitive environment.

In the past, we said that Government policies changed very fast - "One small change every three years, and one big change every five years." But now, in the IT era, changes are taking place every day. The new environment is changing very rapidly. Compulsory Education will be implemented in Singapore in three years' time. By that time we cannot predict what will be the competitive environment then. But one thing we can say for sure is that if our younger generation of students do not have the basic knowledge in mathematics, English and science, they will not be able to cope with the many challenges in the new economy. Therefore, I suggest that when the Ministry of Education start to implement Compulsory Education, they should also anticipate the problems that will follow the implementation. There is a Chinese saying to the effect that when you encounter difficulties, you make changes and look for alternatives. Once you find the right alternative, the problem is solved. In other words, we make changes when there are difficulties. Even when we have started implementation, we have to make changes to adapt to the new circumstances.

Mr Chiam See Tong alleged that almost all members in the Committee are PAP Members. I do not agree with him. If he bothers to read this Report of the Committee on Compulsory Education in Singapore, he will see that more than half of the members constituting the Committee are educationists. Even for the Members of Parliament who are in the Committee, we represent different communities in our society. For example, Mr Hawazi represents the Malay community and I represent the Chinese community.

In implementing Compulsory Education, the emphasis of the Ministry of Education should be on how to reduce the attrition rate in the secondary schools and the tertiary institutions. We always lament the lack of talents and emphasise that everybody has opportunities to improve themselves in Singapore. Compulsory Education will ensure that every Singapore student has an equal opportunity to be educated to meet with the challenges of the new economy. So, if the Ministry of Education can do something to reduce the attrition rate in the secondary and tertiary levels, then more people will benefit from the system.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Compulsory Education Bill moved by the Minister for Education. First and foremost, it is my belief that this Bill is quite overdue, considering that we are already plugged to the globalised world and also the fact that we are reasonably aware of the dramatic changes in education happening in the United States and other advanced economies. But as the saying goes, it is better late and, in our case, perhaps slightly late, than never.

Sir, the importance of providing an increasingly higher quality of education that could enable all children to succeed in their future careers is becoming increasingly apparent. The amount and quality of education an individual receives not only affects his earnings but, increasingly evident, the quality of his employment as well. According to Jacob Mincer in his book Studies in Human Capital, educated workers have three advantages relative to less educated workers. These are higher wages, greater employment stability and greater upward mobility in income.

There are two factors which contribute to increased earnings of workers with higher education levels - first, increased human capital results in higher productivity that allows workers to earn higher wages. Second, higher education levels in turn increase labour force participation, decrease the probability of unemployment, and also decrease job turnover. It follows, therefore, that highly educated workers put in a greater number of hours annually for higher hourly wages in comparison to less educated labour market competitors. In other words, higher wages for better quality jobs.

As Singapore transforms into a knowledge-based and information-driven economy, it is imperative that high quality education ranks high in our priorities. It is inevitable that income gaps will widen, but we must ensure that a quality education is secured for all children, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to prevent the emergence of an underclass in our society.

It has been proven in advanced economies that the more education individuals acquire, the better will be their likelihood to absorb new information, acquire new knowledge and skills and familiarise themselves with new technologies. By investing in human capital, workers are able to increase their labour productivity and that of other capital they employ at their workplace.

If increased productivity reflects higher levels of human capital, which are primarily a result of increased education, it follows that a positive relationship is likely between educational attainment and earnings. The United States Census Bureau, in its 1998 study of individuals aged 25 and older by educational attainment, reported that a bachelor's degree holder tends to earn US$20,000 more per annum compared to the average high school graduate.

In terms of the investment costs of education, evidence in the US again indicates that a tremendous increase in the value of schooling has occurred since 1979. According to a private study by two researchers at Princeton University, the return to an additional year of education rose from 6.2% in 1979 to about 10% as far back as 1993. Recent trends in the new economy clearly show that the demand for high levels of human capital is steadily rising, which correspondingly increase the future financial returns to education.

Sir, there are also other intangible benefits tied to the effect of better and higher quality education. Apart from increased earnings, individuals with higher educational qualifications also tend to look after their health better than those with lower education. They tend to protect the investment in themselves by taking greater preventive measures to increase the probability of better health. Individual initiatives such as regular annual medical check-ups, proper eating habits and regular exercise can also be looked upon as investments in the maintenance of human capital.

The effect of education is usually also extended to their loved ones. There is generally a positive association between an individual's level of schooling and his family's health status and overall well-being.

The emphasis on education of the last several decades has enabled Singaporeans to be better fathers, mothers, children, citizens and responsible voters. Investment in education has also generated positive "neighbourhood effects", ie, outcomes that yield significant benefits to others. As Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman puts it, "a stable and democratic society is impossible without a minimum degree of literacy and knowledge on the part of the citizens and without widespread acceptance of some common set of values. Education can contribute to both."

There is also strong correlation between educational attainment and items associated with a stable and democratic society, ie, informed and interested voters. The better people are educated, the more they want to be kept informed about the issues and the environment surrounding them, and the more active will be their interest in public affairs.

Sir, the advent of the new knowledge-based economy is rapidly evolving a new kind of information fabric in which learning, working and playing co-mingle with each other. The World Wide Web, in particular, is proving to be a transformative medium, as important as electricity was first discovered more than a century ago. Most noticeable is the fact that the Web is two-way, in contrast with the one-way media we have all been familiar with - from books to newspapers to television. It combines the one-way reach of broadcast with the two-way reciprocity of a mid-cast. Its user can at once be a receiver and sender of "broadcast". This will present a new set of dimensions and shifts along with them.

The first has to do with literacy and how it is evolving. Literacy today is not only concerned with text but also image and screen literacy. This new literacy, beyond text and image, is concerned with information navigation. The real literacy of tomorrow entails the ability to be one's own personal reference librarian - to know how to navigate through complex and confusing data and information, and feeling comfortable about doing so. "Navigation", Sir, may be the main form of literacy in this new 21st century we are in.

The next dimension concerns learning. We are all accustomed to formal learning in a lecture-oriented classroom setting. Now, with large amounts of information available through the Web, we are finding a new kind of learning that is assuming pre-eminence - learning that is discovery-based. We are constantly discovering new things, new information as we surf and browse through the emergent digital libraries.

Sir, I know the Minister for Education and his Ministry are doing everything within their means to prepare our children for these new dimensions. This Bill is therefore, important and I cannot imagine anyone not supporting it. It is clearly noted in the Bill that one of the key objectives is to equip our children with a strong educational foundation that will enable them to pursue life long learning in a knowledge-based economy.

My concern is for madrasah students who will be given exemption from Compulsory Education. While I truly appreciate the Government's sensitivity in accommodating the needs of the Muslim community to exempt madrasah students from Compulsory Education, I am worried of the madrasah's readiness to evolve an infrastructure that can adequately prepare Muslim children to confront the KBE environment. Passing the PSLE is one thing but whether madrasahs can bring about a learning environment that can simulate national primary schools, which incorporate the latest in teaching and learning techniques, is another. This is a choice that the community has made and as such, it must take responsibility to ensure that the madrasah system is reviewed and revamped so that they produce students who are not only religiously inclined but also can comfortably co-exist in a rapidly changing economic and global environment.

Other concerns I have, such as the need to have religious teachers who are also proficient in science and mathematics and who could relate with a globalised world, have already been addressed by the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs and prior speakers in this House or in other forums.

In conclusion, Sir, investment in human capital enables individuals to increase their future earnings and enhance their employability in the job market. In the information-driven and knowledge-based economy of the 21st century, education is of paramount importance. Investment in education leads to enhanced productivity and paves the way for individuals to become more responsible citizens and parents, apart from being better workers.

Once again, Sir, I wholeheartedly support the Compulsory Education Bill.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be quite brief in what I have to say. There is no doubt, of course, that this Bill is long overdue. But may I say that this is another instance of the PAP Government introducing half measures to meet the problems confronted.

At the last sitting of Parliament I moved a motion on the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and I referred to the measures that the Prime Minister announced at his National Day Rally as lollipop measures totally inadequate to meet the problem that had arisen. Similarly, I think this Bill is a half measure. Why do I say this?

Other speakers have referred to the period of six years. We in the Workers' Party have called, way back in 1987 or even earlier, for a minimum of 10-year education for our children. Now, 13 to 14 years later, Government still talks about a 6-year minimum education. May I ask how is just primary education going to prepare our children, our citizens, for the 21st century? Is that enough? We have heard a speaker or two talk about the quality of education, about the need for our children to be better and higher educated. Is primary education adequate? Why are we stopping with primary education? Why should they not be extended further?

The other fact is about the quality. Mr Chiam has referred to the Committee which sat to consider this Compulsory Education Bill as consisting mainly of politicians. We have called, again for a long time, for a Commission to be appointed to inquire into the whole purpose, the why and wherefore of education, a Commission which would receive representations from parents who are widely interested in the education of their children, from any member of the society who is interested, and then come up with what they think should be the education for our children in Singapore.

Mr Zulkifli talked about collective responsibility but he seemed to be asking what is meant by "collective responsibility". He was suggesting that it has to be left to the Government or to the leaders. The collective responsibility lies with our people. It is they who are responsible in the end, not the Government or a Committee or a few people, but our people as a whole. The collective responsibility lies with them. So they should have been consulted on this. There should have been a public hearing, representations received from people who are interested.

The other thing is this. Some speakers have spoken about the difficulties parents may have in sending their children to school, and one of them of course is the financial restraint, straitened financial circumstances. This Bill will not achieve its purpose unless, at the same time, the Government announces its readiness to take over the education bill for our citizens, particularly in primary schools. I do not want to be told that education is free, but what they pay is for something else. I think we should stop all this pretence of education being free in Singapore. We should assure parents that there will be no payment required at all for anything if they wish to send their children to school, at least at the primary school level. Can we not find the money for that? It is only if we are prepared to go that far, can we say that we are really intent with one purpose, with one mind, to see that all our children are better educated and prepared for the future that lies ahead of them.

May I finally touch on this drafting problem, if I may say so, and that is the Director-General is given permission to exempt any child if the parent submits a prescribed reason. No guidance is given as to what is the prescribed reason for which the parents may be exempted. Should that not be spelt out? At least, should it not say that families whose household income is below $1,500 will be given free education, if that is the reason put forward by parents that they may have financial difficulties or problems in sending their children to school? So I would urge the Government to rethink about this Compulsory Education Bill and to bring in a full measure to provide free education for children of families whose household income is below $1,500 a month and, at the same time, to rethink whether primary education is good enough. Should our children not deserve a bit more than just the primary education?

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): Sir, I would like to raise several interconnected issues relating to first, the objective; second, the duration; and third, the coverage and content of Compulsory Education.

Within the context of a broader discussion on how to sharpen Singapore's global competitiveness, the Minister for Education must be congratulated for taking a fresh approach towards a range of issues which impact on the learnability and creativity of students from pre-school to tertiary levels.

The policy of Compulsory Education being introduced at this juncture is therefore timely. I want to thank the Prime Minister for paving the way. This will be a millennium initiative which he will be remembered for.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

5.05 pm

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): What bewilders me still, Sir, is the rationale for fixing the compulsoriness up to Primary 6 only. As several categories of children are already exempted, the cut off level is not a relevant issue for them.

However, for those who have no reasons to be exempted, how is six years of primary level education sufficient to make a person prepared in any way to meet even the most basic challenges of our knowledge-based economy? There is no need for me to convince this House that a 12-year old is not equipped to face the real world. For those of us who are parents to teenage children, we know that the ages between 13 and 16 years are critical formative years when teenagers need good instruction, strong guidance and enforced discipline.

The Report of the Committee on Compulsory Education in July 2000 showed that in 1997, there were a total of 1,677 children not registered with national schools or special education schools at the end of Primary 1 registration exercise. Apart from those living or studying overseas, or schooling in madrasahs, private schools or enjoying home tuition, there remained 700 children who were deprived of education due to family-related or individual problems. Other than these unregistered children, there are about 2,000 premature school leavers every year, the majority are from secondary schools and about 200 are primary school drop-outs.

In short, the Compulsory Education policy, as it is, will affect or sanction a student population of only 200 at the primary level while there are more than a thousand at the secondary level who will fall out of this policy net. These are unlikely the exact numbers as there will be more drop-outs whom we could not track.

Under this Bill, no adult, including parents or an institution, is empowered to compel a recalcitrant teenager to go back to school to get the common core knowledge for further education and an educational experience which provides them an outlook in life that serves as rudders against an uncertain future. They are the likely candidates for becoming dysfunctional adults. In many countries in Europe, the current debate is about keeping children longer in school up to 19 years so that the right social outlook and values can be inculcated to prepare their youths for life, not simply to score 288 points in PSLE examinations!

I am afraid the Bill, as it is, falls short of targetting the student population which is more problematic and critical in our overall concern with manpower shortage and a growing digital divide. The objective of this Compulsory Education Bill is hence limited in scope and myopic in reach, because it fails to send out a strong enough signal that a minimum education of at least 10 years to the equivalent of an 'O' level is what a Singapore youth must be assured of and be equipped with to meet the challenges of the knowledge-based economy.

Not having had a Compulsory Education Bill for so many years, if we now adopt one, it should not be to simply redress past oversights, but to signal our society's intentions for the future. If we had this one chance to fix a policy, why not aim for the ideal? Why instead settle for pragmatic compromises, an incremental tweaking of a policy? And for those who say that the State should not compel young people to do things and it should be left to the family, then why do we have laws governing the social behaviour of minors, such as smoking and drinking? I would in fact argue that sanctions regarding minimum levels of education are more important and have longer and lasting impact than sanctions on smoking and drinking!

Indeed, parents have the moral responsibility to make sure that they have the best interests of their child at heart by sending them to school. However, on a matter as significant as education which is the cornerstone of nation building and considering the huge sums of capital as well as human resource investment involved, the State has to assume the primary role in shaping the direction and management of the educational experiences of youths.

In Hong Kong, since the enforcement of Compulsory Education up to Form 3 secondary level 20 years ago, only one case has been brought to court and the parent was convicted with a fine of HK$400. The student resumed school after the sentence. In the past 10 years, 23 warning letters were issued to parents who failed to bring their children back to school without reasonable excuse. No court proceedings were necessary because all parents complied with the requirements of the attendance orders. This information was obtained from the Education and Manpower Bureau in December 1999. Sir, only with a Compulsory Education policy can we guarantee that a youth will stay in school to be protected from the snares of street gangs. By compelling parents to act, a compulsory school education restores, not take away parental responsibility. And if finance is an issue, let the community step in to help. Judging from the pocket fund initiative organised by the Straits Times - and I congratulate their success - we note that Singaporeans are generous and they will contribute to help a child get the education.

I urge the Government to rethink the extent of coverage of this policy and if this House today so decides that the Bill is sufficient, and I am a reluctant consenter to it, then I would request for serious intervention effort by the school administrators to reinforce counselling services in schools or work with parents and neighbourhood VWOs to track school leavers at the secondary level to try to bring them back to school.

I know that schools are already working hard toward this direction, and projects like Project Bridge organised by the National Youth Council are targeting this problematic youth segment. But I also know that their effort will be all the more effective and fruitful if they are backed by a strong Government policy and adequate community resources committed to upholding a compulsory policy. The importance of continuing secondary school in reforming young offenders is shown in studies on the after-conduct of a cohort of probationers. The report published by MCDS in July 1999 showed that probationers with post-primary education had consistently higher completion rates than those with primary education, and those with upper secondary education were more likely than those with lower secondary education to complete their probation.

I propose that we commit resources to provide for youth drop-outs to attend some kind of courses or academic institutions which are able to help them realise their life interests apart from pure academic pursuits. Here, Compulsory Education at the secondary level would take on a more flexible perspective. As long as a teenager under 16 who dropped out of a mainstream school due to various personal, family and academic reasons, continues to be engaged in an accredited teaching institution, not necessarily government-run secondary schools, to learn a skill, a vocation, an art or other subjects of interest, he or she has more of a chance to become a useful and worthy Singaporean in the long run. Denmark's continuation school and liberal education curriculum catering to youths of diverse needs and aptitudes as well as a diverse programme in challenging the gifted and building the capacities of the average student in the US are good case studies worth learning from.

By creating more teaching and learning institutions of a broader range to meet the diverse and changing expectations of the growing numbers of "Generation Y" youth - those currently under 20 years old - we will not risk losing precious human resources due to a restricted school assessment structure, but instead we will gain by complementing the mainstream education structure with other flexible, open curriculum which taps the multiple intelligences and interests of our young population.

We will also clearly uphold the fundamental principle of meritocracy which our society thrives on and that is - to each according to his or her own capability; and live up to the S21 promise that everyone counts, by helping each individual structures his or her learning. This is one critical step in bridging the digital divide between the more-educated and the less-educated in a KBE. It achieves in an overall sense, an even higher level goal beyond economic ones, that is, the goal of educating for the good society.

Let me turn now to the exemption of children who have disabilities or special needs. I agree that Compulsory Education must have exemptions as long as we put in place safeguards on setting the appropriate standards. However, I would like to know how is the term "children with special needs" being defined. How do we balance the judgement of parents with that of an educationist or vice versa, in the case of a marginal child who has merely slower learning capabilities but not limiting enough to stay home or attend a school for the mentally challenged? The Bill is silent in defining this category and in imposing restrictions on those parents who neglect to send their children under the cover of giving them "home tuition". Will the Ministry of Education's experts be the final decision-maker, or a panel of outside experts? It would be useful to have this spelled out.

I am glad to read in the Straits Times an informative reply by Mrs Mok Choon Hoe from the Ministry of Education about the development of nine more schools for children with special needs. It reflects the Ministry's strong signal that the State regards them as a precious resource and does not shirk from its responsibility in giving them the education that they rightly deserve.

I also hope that some of these schools are built next to the mainstream national schools to minimise the social stigma and exclusion of children already disadvantaged, by encouraging some designated area of shared activity and study to enhance peer interaction and motivation. Another concept of a satellite school, meaning a special school within a school catering to the moderately handicapped class of children who will not benefit from the segregated schools for the severely handicapped but also cannot completely cope in mainstream schools either, would be very welcome.

There is sufficient evidence, Sir, that children with moderate learning disabilities thrive under mainstream school settings and interacting with other children; over time, these children will grow up to be useful citizens, and less of a liability to a society. In the USA, for example, between 1986 and 1996, the percentage of children with disabilities who were educated in regular classrooms increased from 26% to 45%.

I hope the Ministry will broaden its multi-tier approach to special education by encouraging and committing more resources to schools which wish to integrate children with special needs within a normal teaching programme. Empirical evidence has shown that this integration benefits even the advanced students who will learn to respect differences and reach out to offer a helping hand. This is a start in nurturing graciousness, a subject that Dr Lily Neo had eloquently spoke about in the last session. I make one plea to the Minister, to put the agenda of the integration of children with special needs in mainstream schools as one priority in his next plan on the desired outcome of education.

Let me now turn to a slightly different, but no less controversial issue. In the context of fixing compulsory school attendance at primary school level, is it an opportunity for the Minister to rethink the school assessment system by examining if the streaming exercise is disabling students from wanting to go to school and killing the joy of learning far too early? Surely, it is not an intended outcome that our educational machinery becomes a sorting device that celebrates the examination-smart ones at the expense of committing emotional damage to children as young as nine years old who have other kind of aptitudes?

Sir, can we think out of this habitual box which entraps our thinking, and look at other ways of enhancing competences and skills without channelling children into gifted, express, normal, above-average, average and below-average streams? Certainly, for the past two decades, we spoke of our students as digits in an industrial economy, as manpower to be efficiently produced for industrial needs. But, surely, when we now talk about creativity and maximizing our young peoples' potential in a knowledge-based economy where they will undergo several different careers in their lifetimes, some of which have not even been created - how can streaming be appropriate for this new environment?

Streaming at an early age has been controversial for many years, but it has always been a sacred cow of the Education Ministry. If we are to start from first principles now and examine every aspect of our education system, I urge that we re-examine streaming and, at the very least, modify it substantially. The recent report by the Teachers' Union published on 15th September, offered numerous insights and discussions on the principles of education which are worth reflecting upon. Some aspects of our education system need to undergo creative destruction. With declining fertility, it is all the more important to focus on every young Singaporean, and maximise his or her full potential. That potential, I would argue, is certainly more than a Primary 4 or 6 education. Let us make sure that every single Singaporean completes a qualifying education programme up to 16 years old - is that too ambitious or unrealistic a goal, Sir?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, may I be permitted to seek a clarification from Mdm Claire Chiang? In her opening remarks, she referred to the problem of registration of children in Primary 1, and she mentioned a number that is close to over 700 children who are not registered in Primary 1 because of family situation. Did I hear it correctly?

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: Yes.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: If we are referring to the same data, my impression is that there are very few children not registered in Primary 1 as a result of family situation. In fact, if I recall correctly, if we were to exclude children not already living in Singapore, children who have migrated, children attending madrasahs and all the designated schools, in fact, the numbers must be very, very small, maybe one or two, or no more than a handful. Maybe we are interpreting the number differently. Of course, I also exclude children with special education needs in this respect.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: This is from a summary report from the National Council of Social Service, which probably obtained their data also from the report.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: If you refer to Annex 4.1 of the Report of the Committee on Compulsory Education, page 35, actually the numbers are very, very small. Of course, there are over 400 pupils not contactable. They just cannot be traced, despite all the efforts by the Ministry of Education. So we must be referring to very different data. I do not know which one is correct. But I think this is perhaps quite authoritative.

Dr Vasoo: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. Claire Chiang has given such a long exposition on the whole issue so I shall be very brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I support the Bill on Compulsory Education in principle. However, I have a few reservations to make, which I hope will be addressed by the Minister.

Sir, a very simple question that I will ask is: why should we make education for children compulsory up to Primary 6? The issue is very simple, but I think there are complex problems related to this. I hope we are not giving the wrong signal to people that we now have a lower expectation in education. I am afraid that such a benchmark is not in sync with our aspirations to make Singapore a learning nation and give priority to educate people to the fullest. Sir, fixing Compulsory Education at Primary 6 is just saying to some people, "Play in the primary league, that is enough". I hope this is not the thing that we want to promote.

Sir, surely we can be more ambitious than that. What has happened to our Singapore 21 drive? That, Sir, is what I am asking. I think we should be bold and make education compulsory up to at least Secondary 3, if not Secondary 4. This is at least to ensure that we have a more educated workforce and prevent premature school leaving, which is quite conspicuous at lower secondary school level. I think we should address this upper end of the issue so that we can tackle educational wastage and, perhaps, enhance the potential of this group of people who otherwise may drift out of the secondary education net.

Sir, I am also disappointed that we have excluded disabled children or special children from the purview of Compulsory Education. We may argue that they have special needs and they should be catered for separately. I see that such a reason is persuasive but, it is unconvincing. Sir, all that I am appealing is, should we not protect disabled children by ensuring they are not denied education like normal children? All the more we should protect them, because they are most likely to be neglected in their education. Therefore, I see no cogent reason for disabled children to be excluded from Compulsory Education. Sir, in this respect, are we not discriminating against disabled children? One may argue we are not, but by excluding them, we are keeping them out to some extent from the mainstream.

Sir, it is good that we should accord the same Compulsory Education status to all children, irrespective of their background.

What I would like to say is that it is not Compulsory Education requirement that will have an impact on the development of our children. It is not the legislation that counts. Many countries have Compulsory Education, but many children remain unschooled. It is the software which is very important, eg, good teachers, principals, good schooling culture, which will make the difference in the learning of our children. In this respect, I would like to ask the Minister whether we are taking more bolder steps to make primary education more effective and exciting, and to ensure that it is able to maximise the potential and provide a very good headstart for our children themselves.

Sir, many countries have Compulsory Education, but many children are not able to get the best from education itself. So I hope that the Ministry of Education would be deploying more resources to provide the best of support we can for very young children who will be entering into our primary schools.

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Aline K. Wong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to address some of the points that have been brought up by Members so far in this debate on the Compulsory Education Bill.

As Minister Teo has said earlier, the Singapore education system has always played two roles, firstly, in preparing our young for work, and, secondly, moulding them as citizens. These objectives were foremost in the minds of the Committee on Compulsory Education, which I chaired. Indeed, when the Prime Minister asked the Ministry of Education to consider the introduction of Compulsory Education in October last year, he reiterated the need for our children to attend school and be given the same headstart in life to develop his or her full potential.

Our Committee recommended Compulsory Education to be introduced in Singapore, and I must thank all the Members of this House who spoke this afternoon; all of them were in support of introducing Compulsory Education. I think it is an important step for Singapore. It is an important step in ensuring that our children are prepared for the future, particularly for the requirements of the knowledge-based economy in an age of globalisation.

However, my Committee also shared MOE's long standing position that Compulsory Education does not, in itself, ensure full enrolment in schools or solve the root problems of non-attendance. Nor was it the intention of the Committee to use Compulsory Education as a means to improve access to and support for children with special needs. These are already taken care of by existing measures, and improvements will continue to be made by the Ministry of Education. Let me deal with this and other issues in turn.

First, the issue of parental responsibility. My Committee was very clear that the principle of parental responsibility must be upheld so that Singapore society will continue to be rooted in strong families. Again, this was one of the long standing concerns of the Ministry of Education. But because the future of all Singaporean children is important, we need to provide the State with the power to compel parents to send their children to school when all other methods of persuasion fail. Such children, though small in number, would otherwise miss out on the benefits of education in the national schools. This number is small. Mdm Claire Chiang has probably looked at the wrong source of information. What is provided in the Annex of my Committee's Report is the accurate number. The number was obtained when some children failed to register during the time of P1 registration. So we came up with 1,500 children, two-thirds of whom did not register either by choice or by circumstances, and the remaining one-third could not be traced in spite of all efforts by the Ministry of Education.

A lot of questions on the recommendations of the Committee deal with the reasons why we recommended Compulsory Education only up to primary six. This point was brought up by Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Mr Tay Beng Chuan, Mr Chiam See Tong, Mdm Claire Chiang, Dr Vasoo and others. I think we have to look at the total picture and the amount of careful deliberation the Committee had put in before we came up with this recommendation. We spent a lot of time in deliberating on this. We looked at the experience of other countries and we realised that in the context of Singapore, the duration of Compulsory Education, as well as the form in which it should take, are two issues which are closely inter-related and they must be considered together. In coming up with our recommendation that Compulsory Education should cover up to primary six education in our national schools, our main reasons are two-fold.

Firstly, the problem of school drop-outs at the secondary school level. At the secondary school level, the problems of school drop-outs are quite complex. In fact, these would not be solved with the introduction of Compulsory Education. Sir, when adolescents reach secondary school, some of them drop out for various reasons, often by choice, such as the loss of interest in their studies. No doubt we can compel them to remain in school under Compulsory Education, but there is no guarantee that they will be motivated to study and complete secondary education. In fact, even Mr Chiam, who advocated eight years of Compulsory Education, that is, to cover up to secondary two, said, "It is useless. It is a waste of resources to compel them to study beyond that because if they had lost interest, there is no point to keep them in the system."

Apart from the question of loss of interest, there is the question of how to make sure that they attend school regularly - the question of enforcement. The experience of other countries shows that at the secondary school level, more and more resources and more severe penalties will have to be put in place. The government in the United Kingdom, for example, is devoting more than 500 million pounds in the next few years to crack the problem of truancy. They are also considering whether to issue warrants of arrest to the parents whose children do not turn up in school. In some states in America, they are considering whether to issue warrants to the students, the adolescents themselves, for not attending school regularly. On the one hand, advocates of Compulsory Education feel that every means must be brought to bear to ensure children stay in school up to the secondary level. On the other hand, they do not want extreme measures.

Sir, we have to make up our mind, we have to balance the pros and cons, the practicality of enforcement, the amount of resources required and see, whether in the end, we would still be able to ensure 100% enrolment and 100% attendance. The experience of other countries proves that this is not assured. In fact, 100% is not possible. Mdm Claire Chiang quoted the example of Hong Kong where, over so many years of Compulsory Education, only one case had been brought to court, and only a few cases had been fined. But this does not mean that there is 100% compliance. This means that the machinery of enforcement may not be 100% working. I think this is the question.

So we considered and recognised the impracticality of implementing Compulsory Education at the secondary level. In fact, in the interest of the students who have lost interest in their studies, a more desirable outcome for them is to receive some vocational skills training to prepare them for employment. This course of action is presently available in the various training schemes that the ITE has designed for them. Specifically, there are courses that lead up to the NTC-3 level of certification for those without 'N' level qualifications. There are also NTC-2 courses, as well as Certification in Office Skills for those students who left school with 'N' level qualifications only. In other words, there are existing schemes and educational programmes for students who drop out of secondary school. The better solution for students who have lost interest in studying is not to force them to attend school, but to give them more opportunities to receive pre-employment or vocational training. As for other students who drop out because of family and financial reasons, please be assured that the school and the community have been doing their best to render assistance. In fact, before one single student is marked down as a premature school drop-out, the school would have gone through several layers of tracking, persuasion, help and assistance rendered by the teachers, school counsellers and social workers already. So we do not give up on them as easily as you would have thought.

The second reason why the Committee recommended Compulsory Education up to primary six level was because we wanted to accommodate the wish of the Muslim community to train their religious leaders and teachers in madrasahs. The Muslim community was concerned about the introduction of Compulsory Education even for a duration of four years. Members will remember that the Prime Minister suggested four years of Compulsory Education up to Primary Four at the beginning. And even then, the madrasahs were concerned whether, with Compulsory Education in national schools, they would be able to have enough students who would want to study in madrasahs afterwards to become religious teachers. Six years is therefore a practical and workable compromise.

To reiterate, the stand of the Committee on the duration of Compulsory Education is that the recommended six years should not be seen as the ideal length of education. We do not pretend that it is the best length of education that each child must have. In fact, we know its shortcomings. It is not the ideal. It is not an adequate amount of education to equip you and go right into the workforce. But it is the foundation or base from which the children can go on to further education and training in secondary school. In fact, more than 94% of our primary school children go on and receive 10 years of education in total.

In coming up with the recommendation for Compulsory Education up to primary six, the Committee was mindful that any proposal should take into consideration the views and aspirations of our different communities. I think the criticism of both Mr Chiam and Mr Jeyaretnam that the composition of the Committee was biased or political in its orientation from the beginning was unfair. Yes, there were Members of Parliament on the Committee. There were PAP Members, but they represented the views of different ethnic communities in our society. There was also a Nominated Member of Parliament on the Committee, Dr Jennifer Lee. The others were educationists. They were professionals. There was a representative from the Ministry of Community Development and Sports as well. In our process of deliberation, we consulted a very wide section of society. We had feedback sessions, closed-door focus group discussions with representatives from all walks of life. So I think it is unfair to say that, because of a certain political bias, therefore we came up with this expeditious political solution.

Our Committee found that generally, there was widespread support for Compulsory Education. But the various groups that gave us feedback wanted sufficient flexibility in its implementation to accommodate their interest and concerns. I believe our recommendations have indeed accommodated the concerns and interests of the various communities.

Since Minister Tarmugi has already replied to the points on madrasahs, I would not dwell on them. However, I do not think Mr Zulkifli Baharudin's suggestion that the madrasahs should be represented on the Compulsory Education Board is a workable one, because Compulsory Education, in the context of our intention, is Compulsory Education within national schools. Madrasahs are schools outside the national school system. They are concerned with the religious education of Muslim children and the Muslim community has to decide on what role the madrasahs play and what would be the future directions for its further development.

Mr Chiam said that we should give the madrasahs or the designated institutions, including San Yu Adventist School, a reasonable period of time for them to adjust and to meet the benchmarks. He suggested five years. In fact, in our Report, we recommended that the madrasahs have up to eight years to look into how they could improve the teaching, teaching resources, total environment and so on, in order to meet the PSLE benchmark. We are quite mindful of the fact that they had no experience in meeting the benchmark and we are prepared to give them up to eight years because Compulsory Education would be introduced two years later, in 2003; and six years afterwards, they would have the first batch of primary six children graduating who would be benchmarked against the PSLE average aggregate scores.

Mr Hawazi expressed concern that he had heard among the Malay-Muslim community that if some of the madrasahs could not reach the benchmark by that time-frame, what would happen to the pupils. The institutions which, by the agreed time-frame, cannot still meet the agreed minimum standards, I am sure you will agree with me, would not be providing satisfactory instruction in the core secular subjects to the students. It would be unreasonable for the Government to continue to allow these madrasahs in question which fail to meet the minimum standards to continue teaching indefinitely the core secular subjects and admit students full-time into their fold. In such cases, the affected institution will not be allowed to admit pupils who are required to attend national schools for full-time education. For madrasahs, however, they would still be able to continue offering religious education to students who want it on a part-time and after-school hour basis. The students themselves can enrol in national schools or they can enrol in the other madrasahs which meet the PSLE benchmark. So, their interest would not be compromised. They would still be able to attend school in the national school system, just like now. We have cases where some parents want to transfer their children from madrasahs to national schools. The receiving school will give them a test and see which level they could be placed in. So, it will be like now, but the students can also transfer to other madrasahs which meet the PSLE benchmark.

As regards home schoolers, I think Dr Wang has put it very well regarding the deliberations of the Committee and the kind of dilemma we faced. But I would also like to correct a slight misimpression, which I think either he or another speaker conveyed, that the home schoolers are actually doing a very good job in schooling the children at home. I do not doubt their keen interest, their good intentions, in wanting to home school their children at home. They put in a lot of energy. As one Member put it, the wife, in one case, quit her full-time job and stayed at home to take care of the schooling needs of her children. But my worry is that in spite of the good intentions, in spite of the efforts they put in, are they really able to give the children the best? And the best they give, can it match what we can provide in our national schools?

In fact, when I met with them during a couple of the dialogue sessions, I was a little bit disturbed with the vehemence in which they pleaded their cases. In fact, they even went on to say that our schools do not provide a good education. They said, once the children go into the national schools, they imbibe the wrong values and fall into the wrong company. Therefore, they are very worried and withdraw their children from school. I think this is not the right perspective on our schools. Our national schools provide a good rounded education. The home schoolers have a certain belief that they could do the job of the school. We said that if they have such keen interest in their children's education and if they could provide the Ministry of Education with enough evidence that their education meets the twin objectives of Compulsory Education, then we could consider exemption for their children, but only if we are satisfied that the twin objectives of Compulsory Education are met. It is also why our Committee was a little stricter in prescribing the criteria which the home schoolers must meet before we would continue to grant them exemption. And MOE would look into the methods of monitoring the home schoolers.

Mr Zulkifli pointed out that there is a loophole. I think it will be incumbent on the home schoolers to provide evidence that they could provide a curriculum which will meet MOE's standards and requirements. The children are required to meet PSLE standards, pegged at the same benchmark as those required for children who are exempted from attending national schools but who go to San Yu Adventist School. They are also required to pass the national education quiz. I think we have to watch the situation of the home schoolers a bit closely. MOE will look into various methods of monitoring their progress and will assess whether the criteria for exemption, as recommended by the Committee, are adequate as we go along.

As regards special education, Mdm Claire Chiang, Dr Vasoo, Mr Loh Meng See as well as some other Members have asked why we have exempted children in special education schools from the requirements of Compulsory Education in national schools. They reflect the sentiments of some members of the special education community in Singapore who expressed, as I said, some disappointment with the recommendations of the Compulsory Education Committee. But let me say again that our Committee had examined very carefully the existing measures to support special education, and found that the Government together with the National Council of Social Service and the voluntary welfare organisations have given extra resources to the educational needs of children with disabilities. Far from ignoring or discriminating against such children, the Ministry of Education actually provides funding up to 2.5 times the recurrent cost of educating a primary school pupil in national schools. The National Council of Social Service provides funding of another 1.5 times, bringing the total recurrent funding for special education schools up to 4 times the recurrent cost of educating a primary school pupil in national schools.

The Ministry of Education also funds 90% of the development cost of each new purpose-built school. And NIE provides teacher training and the Ministry seconds teachers and principals to these special education schools upon request.

On the question of integration, let me point out that there are different models in providing special education and how integration is promoted should differ according to the needs of the different groups of children with different needs. This is so with many countries in the world. There is no one single model. We learn from them. We will adapt their practices to our local context. The important point is that whatever the setting of providing special education, it should be one that provides an appropriate learning environment that can best cater to the specific needs of the special children.

Recently, there was a spate of letters in the Forum page about my Ministry's provision for special education children. On 3rd October, my Ministry made a detailed reply on what we have been providing to the special children. Let me reiterate, very briefly, that for those with mild disabilities and those who are able to cope with mainstream education, MOE has already incorporated facilities and resources in our national schools for the integration of these children. There are in our mainstream schools the physically handicapped, the mildly hearing impaired, and visually handicapped and others who are studying in our mainstream schools. They follow our national curriculum. They are given extra resources. They are given remedial help and so on.

For those with more severe learning disabilities, we feel that it would be better off for them if they are taught and educated in special schools where they are given specially trained teachers, special facilities, and they are given time to pursue their education according to their own pace. So, the present situation of providing for special education children, in the view of the Committee members, is adequate and we are assured that the Ministry of Education will continue to help the voluntary welfare organisations, through the National Council of Social Service, to address the needs of the special children. In fact, because we define "Compulsory Education" as education within national schools that provide the curriculum and the total environment that will meet the two objectives of Compulsory Education, special education schools are outside the ambit of the Compulsory Education framework. Their request for funding, for more resources and better curriculum can still be addressed by the Ministry outside this framework of enforcement of Compulsory Education. If we enforce Compulsory Education on families with special children, I think it may become a bit too harsh for them. These families need all our help. We should help them overcome the difficulties, financial or otherwise, the problem of coping and so on. They need help. They should not be brought under the purview of the Compulsory Education Bill which prescribes penalties. Do not forget that the Compulsory Education Bill prescribes penalties for parents who fail to comply.

Why do we need penalties? As I said, most of the people whom we talked to are for Compulsory Education. They have a good heart. They want every child to have the same headstart. They want every child to have an education. But, at the same time, they do not advocate harsh measures. We are not advocating harsh measures. In fact, we are instituting a mechanism of many rounds of community help - counselling, mediation and so forth. But in cases of persistent flouting of the law, in cases where parents wilfully flout the law and are not cooperative with the assistance given by schools and counselling agencies, the law must be brought to fall on them. Otherwise, our legal system will be brought into disrepute. Our intention is not to use this liberally. In fact, our intention is that the full force of the law will be brought only as a last resort.

Mr Zulkifli Baharudin said that the Compulsory Education Board has a very difficult task. It should treat its work with the greatest sensitivity and flexibility. The Compulsory Education Board will certainly do so. In fact, the Compulsory Education Board will comprise members from the voluntary welfare organisations, community development councils, Community and Parents in Support of Schools (COMPASS), self-help groups, grassroots organisations and concerned individuals. Members can be assured that we have a broad representation of people who have the compassion and the sensitivity to deal with these issues.

Lastly, I would just like to echo both Mdm Claire Chiang and Dr Vasoo's concern that our primary school education should not just emphasise the academic kind of outcomes, but that we should address the multiple intelligences of children. We should help to develop the child in a holistic manner and we should pay attention closely to the quality of education provided in primary school, now that primary school education is compulsory. I would like to assure both of them that the Ministry has been paying close attention to the review of the entire spectrum of education, not just in primary schools, but also secondary schools, pre-University and tertiary education. In fact, we have introduced new curriculum, new subjects, new approaches and assessment methods, beginning with the primary school level. We emphasise the holistic education of children, not just the intellectual aspect but also the social, moral, physical, aesthetic aspects of education. We emphasise thinking skills, creativity, life skills, management of self and so on in our new approach in education. We will give education to these children our best, not only in terms of infrastructure. The PRIME programme, for example, will renew many of the existing primary schools along with secondary schools within the next five years. They would have spanking new facilities up to the latest standards. Teacher training will be improved. Curriculum has been improved and is being continuously reviewed.

In conclusion, let me say that Compulsory Education can only be effective if it has the fullest commitment from parents and the community. The recommendations of the Compulsory Education Committee, in my view, signify a very significant step forward for education in Singapore. We affirm the commitment of the Government to give every child a good headstart in life and give him the foundation on which he can acquire further knowledge and skills to be productive workers and to be good citizens in their adult life.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: Sir, may I respond?

Mr Deputy Speaker: You may not respond. If you want to make a clarification, I will allow you. Mr Simon Tay.

Mr Simon Tay: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not quite sure what I can add after so many people have spoken and the clarifications by the Senior Minister of State. But I think we all have a great belief in education and this is why so many of us have spoken today. Let me try not to repeat what has been said before and let me try to add what I can.

I think our belief in education stems from the fact that we believe that whatever our beginnings, we can improve ourselves and be the best that we can be. Secondly, when we face social problems, we often look to education to address the root problems. How do we promote education in our society? We basically have a system of centralised system of education. This compares to other countries that emphasise more private, family and community-based education. Instead, our state provides the vast majority of education for most people. There is, of course, in any case of state provision, a danger of having one-size fits all. But with the various fine-tunings to our system, we are improving our system, creating a centralised system, but one with enough variety, one with the participation of community and one that emphasises not just the KBE, of raw knowledge and thinking skills, but also citizenship, an attribute of being part of being Singapore. In that sense, despite the many points that have been raised today, this debate reveals that there is actually quite a broad consensus that our education system is on the right track and that we are trying to do what is best for the children and the best in the interest of the child. We then come to this particular question of making this relatively good system compulsory for all. Again, it is very important to emphasise how many people already are in the system voluntarily and therefore we are trying to deal with actually a very small number and targeted means may be very necessary to reach these people.

When this issue was first raised in the House, I expressed an initial scepticism. Although I am a lawyer, I do not really believe that something really becomes so much better when it is made compulsory by law. It is part of my instinct that it is sometimes wrong that whenever we think something is important but often unpopular we think make it compulsory is the solution. It is like the debate we had about learning literature or history. Making it available, interesting, relevant and appealing, is even more important. While we take the step today to make primary school education entry compulsory, that is the way of making sure that after six years of Compulsory Education, as recommended by the Committee, students can and will want to go on further and their parents will want to support them to go on further. Once they are in the system, this attitude plus counselling and encouragement, can be as effective as legal compulsion. If we do not take this approach, and we just rely on the bare law, we are doing the wrong thing. We may intend to be beneficial and liberal in our aims, but we end up being dictators in our means. I still believe that making it illegal is not enough. Parents need to be informed, tracked and counselled and the cause of the problem, Government and civil society groups should help address those problems. I am glad for the assurance just given by the Senior Minister of State in this regard.

I would like some more clarification about how in the first place do we find all the children and all their parents. We have some way of tracking them at birth. Perhaps some may enrol in pre-school, but perhaps not all. Then we have child doctors who can help track children. But we are talking about some significant numbers, although a very small percentage, who just simply do not register in our system. Though Singapore is often called the "nanny state", we simply do not have a fool-proof net. No one has. That is something we should bear in mind when we talk about compulsion. The Director-General in that sense will need more resources.

Let me move on to my second point. This is that the schools and the criteria for allowing exceptions are not in the Bill before us. Much would therefore depend on the discretion of the Ministry and of the Director-General to be appointed. More guidance and principles within the Bill perhaps would have been preferable. I certainly would argue that we have to read in part of the Constitution such as Article 152(2), which recognises the special rights of the Malay-Muslims as the indigenous people of Singapore. I would also urge that the rights of the Child Convention should be read into the criteria for this is the relevant Convention, an international UN Convention, that Singapore has signed.

My third point relates to the Government's allowance of diversity. Let me first touch on the point of madrasahs. There was some initial fear that the Government would close down the madrasahs. I am very glad to see that the Government now would allow them to continue with certain provisions and certain benchmarks to be set. In a sense, I am welcoming Government's allowance for other forms of education and the recognition of diversity as an important part of Singapore. This upholds Article 15 of the Constitution which promises us freedom of religion, Article 152(2), which, as I said, recognizes the indigenous position of the Malays and their religion. While I recognise and welcome the Government's attitude to diversity, I would also ask the Malay community to take that step forward. That is to ask them to recognise not only the leeway given to them to have their religious instruction, but also the responsibility they have to the wider community and to their own children. In many cases, in many countries, where they have tried a separate schooling system, this school system has never become equal. Separate and equal is a principle that has failed too often times. I would then ask them, as an outsider, to seek a balance and I am glad to see that most polls show Malays in Singapore among the most patriotic, most Singaporean segment of the people. Therefore, I have the confidence that they will find this balance.

In helping madrasahs meet these benchmarks, there has already been talk that Government will support the madrasahs. There is obviously some need for people to support the community project even from outside that community. But I do want to express a concern about Article 16 of the Constitution. This sets limits to using Government funds for educational institutions that discriminate based on religion. I hope that no unconstitutional and unrealistic expectations are placed on Government coffers to support basically a community project.

Let me move on to my last point. This is in regard to home schooling which is to be allowed in principle, according to the report. Again, as I said, this is welcome because it has a sense of diversity based on educational values. I bear in mind what the Senior Minister of State has said, that some parents are well-meaning but may not actually provide well-thought out, well-delivered programmes, not on par with what our schools deliver. But I do think that under this category of home schooling, consideration must be given to options such as Montissori and what is called the Steiner or Waldorf Education schools. These are already in existence in Singapore, especially the Montissori for pre-school. But as the Senior Minister of State well knows, in other countries these are offered for school years. I think this is recognised in many countries and it is something that should be considered seriously in Singapore.

The Minister for Education had earlier refused to agree on Compulsory Education but the Government has now reconsidered. Some thought that madrasahs and other religious or particular types of schools would not be exempt from Compulsory Education. But this has not been the case. Again, the Ministry, as guided by the Committee, has listened and allowed diversity. In so doing, it has now created a very broad discretion for the Ministry and the Director-General to exempt or to decide on whether to prosecute in some cases. I ask that discretion be exercised within the principles of valuing diversity in accordance with the Constitution and the best interest of our children.

Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the wealth of our nation lies in our people, especially in our next generation. Our future in the New Economy will depend on how well we equip ourselves and the next generation of Singaporeans for the challenges ahead.

Towards this end, this House has been focusing on people, seeking to put in place people-oriented policies to address the needs of the elderly and less successful, to cultivate an attitude of lifelong learning, to bridge the digital divide, to forge social cohesion, and to encourage active citizenship and closer bonding between the various racial and religious groups.

These people-oriented policies will help our generation to collectively face the New Economy challenges. But it is not enough. We have the responsibility to ensure that every one of our next generation is also equipped with the basics to face the New Economy challenges. It is in this context, Sir, that I speak in support of this Bill.

Sir, teaching our young ones is such an emotive subject. Almost everyone has a personal stake in it. Almost every parent wants to have a say on it. Almost everyone has a statement to make and expectations to raise. Almost everyone has his own concerns about how his children ought to be educated.

Some concerns, on the one hand, are justified and deserve closer attention. I shall elaborate on them later on.

On the other hand, there are concerns based on parochial interests, without a fuller understanding of the long-term consequences or impact on our nation. We must not dismiss such concerns lightly - both now and in future. To do so, is to seriously under-rate the emotions of the individual and the community on this emotive subject of educating the young. Instead, we need to be perceptive, sensitive and patient. The warmness of a genuine heart can melt an iron resolve.

I am encouraged to note from the Committee's very well written Report, that they undertook a rigorous consultation process. I am also extremely delighted that an agreement has been reached with the madrasah leaders on how to move forward. The Bill has provided the flexibility for exemptions to be made in this regard. The Report also indicates that non-registration and drop-out cases are very minimal. I am thrilled that the Ministry's serious intent to upgrade both the hardware and software aspects of education has started to bear fruits.

In terms of its vision, purpose and articulated plans, MOE has done very well. But, there is a reality gap between what MOE intends to achieve and the current situation. How well equipped is every one of our children for the New Economy? I do not think that we are up to the mark yet. We still have a long way to go.

We still have a long way to go, because I know for a fact that some Primary 6 EM3 students are not even able to string together a grammatically correct sentence in English. Can we say that these primary school leavers have been equipped with the basics to face the New Economy challenges? I do not think so.

Sir, we must not content ourselves with just casting the education net over the entire cohort using this Compulsory Education Bill. Casting this net is but a prelude to a more important task - that of preparing the next generation for the challenges ahead. We must not only be aiming for a 100% attendance figure. We must go beyond the statistics and honestly ask ourselves how well we have taught all our children.

To this end, I wish to raise four main points for the Minister's clarification. Assistance to parents and schools

Firstly, our schools must be given sufficient resources to prepare our children for the New Economy challenges.

Let me elaborate on this point. MOE correctly recognises that the critical success factor in implementing compulsory education is not by imposing fines or jail terms. These are deterrents that we hope will never be effected. These are measures that will end up punishing both the parents and the children. Instead, there will be a mediation process involving MCDS and voluntary welfare organisations to help parents and children. Non-registration and drop-out cases will not be referred to the courts unless the counselling and assistance prove to be unsuccessful.

I fully agree with MOE's approach. But I am concerned as to whether we are fully equipped to deal comprehensively with all counselling and assistance cases.

The Committee's Report indicated that the number of parents with financial or family problems is very small. These are the only known cases surfaced to MCDS for assistance. I am concerned that the number may not be reflective of the situation faced by some of our neighbourhood schools. Is this number only the tip of an iceberg? I am sure that there are many unreported cases of parents struggling to put their children to school. Some parents do not seek help because of their pride, or because they are too busy to pay attention to their children.

MOE's team of psychologists and guidance counsellors and the teachers in our schools may be able to cope with the situation now, but you need time to deal with such cases. You need additional resources, more specialists, to provide proper and proactive counselling to struggling parents and children.

Our assistance to struggling parents and children should not be on a reactive basis. We must not apply the counselling medicine only when the trouble sets in, only when the child has stopped attending school for a few days. We must instill in our teachers the mindset that every student matters. Our teachers must be trained to have a keen eye to nip problems in the bud. They must be assured that when they encounter difficult cases that they cannot handle, there are adequate specialist resources to back them up.

Sir, if we are serious about helping every child, then we need a more proactive and ongoing assistance process, it cannot be touch-and-go. We must not be satisfied with just giving the child back to school. We can only be contented when we see a motivated child returning to school with full parental support. For this reason, we should provide our schools with additional resources to achieve this.

The Prime Minister stated in his National Day Rally speech that he has asked MOE to see how our schools can be provided better administrative support so that teachers can spend less time on administration and more on teaching. I fully support the Prime Minister's initiative. May I add, in relation to this Bill, that schools should also be given more counselling and specialist support so that teachers can devote more time to teaching. In any case, not all teachers are gifted to counsel. Those who have just graduated are too young and inexperienced to handle difficult cases.

Hence, my first point of clarification to the Minister is whether there is any intention to shore up the resources to help teachers, especially in the neighbourhood schools. Given the current resources available, when does the counselling process end - will it stop once the child returns to school or will there be follow-up counselling and assistance to parents and students? What steps will be taken to help our schools to be more proactive in identifying in helping struggling parents and troubled children?

The second point, Sir, is that to render Compulsory Education more effective, all children should begin their learning journeys on a fairer footing. According to the Bill, Compulsory Education will begin only at Primary 1 and not earlier. This means that children with pre-school education (or PSE) have a headstart over those with no PSE. Children who did not attend kindergarten classes are way behind the starting line when the Compulsory Education whistle is blown.

Sir, I am not exaggerating. To illustrate my point, I know of a kindergarten requiring its student to spell our national pledge. Can you imagine the kindergarten students spelling, "to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation"?

The fault-line for the digital divide really begins very early. I am also told that some kindergarten children already know how to make a simple Powerpoint presentation.

Nowadays, children who have completed PSE are expected to spell and read simple words, not just alphabets, and have attended computer enrichment classes. When you put these children together with those who did not go through PSE, slower learners will lose their confidence and may even be labelled and stigmatised. They are not necessarily slower due to a lower IQ but because of deprived opportunities and the lack of PSE. Some parents do not send their children to kindergartens simply because of the fees involved. It is much dearer than the subsidised primary school fees and the amount vary according to the prestige and facilities of the kindergartens.

I am sure that MOE understands that children left out of PSE have to play catch up on Day 1, and that the disparity in standards can be quite startling. I am glad that the Minister recently announced in MOE's workplan seminar that MOE intends to devote more resources to give Singaporeans a headstart in PSE and to review the PSE syllabus. We should, and I quote him, "give every child a fair shot at achieving his or her hopes and aspirations."

It is in this context that I pose my second point of clarification to the Minister. Can we give every Singapore child a fairer opportunity to enrol in a PSE institution? Can we keep PSE fees at an affordable rate for the lower-income families? How much would it cost to provide subsidies to all kindergartens to make the fee more affordable? We have a much more intelligent new generation. Should we consider if Compulsory Education should begin at PSE level?

My third point, Sir, is that there is a need to review how we are educating our less successful students. On a national basis, we have been adopting people-oriented policies to help the less successful in society, and we also pay more attention to help students with special needs.

Sir, our concern must not end with just simply implementing Compulsory Education. Our responsibility extends to ensuring that proper and adequate assistance is given to all our students so that their learning journey will not lead them to a dead end.

It is to MOE's credit that it seeks to address the special needs of students who are slow learners. MOE's Learning Support programme, started in 1992, is an excellent programme, except that it is only for students up to Primary 2. About 12,000 students in Primary 1 and 2 are currently receiving regular, individualised support in language and literacy skills under this programme. The Learning Support programme is supplemented by the Encouraging Achievement and Better Learning programme, or Enable, to help students up to Primary 3 level in English and Mathematics. Students with special needs have benefited from the two programmes.

Who are these students with special needs? There are two main groups - those with learning difficulty and those with learning disability. A sizeable number of students experience learning difficulty because they did not fully attend kindergarten classes or face family problems. About 1,029 are born with learning disabilities, like dyslexia, mild autism, attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder, or are educationally subnormal. These students are the less successful in our schools. They run a high risk of dropping out from the system. They cannot even read simple words like "the", "cat" or "dog" when they are in Primary 2.

If the House agrees that every child matters, I think that we should pay more attention to help those less successful children with special needs. Our mildly autistic and dyslexic children require specialist attention, attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder (ADHD) students are often branded as deviants, as the teachers, given the class size that they have to manage, cannot give these students the attention that their condition demands. Educationally subnormal (ESN) students are those with IQ between 50 and 70 and need more individualised coaching.

Students with learning disability may attend special education schools. But some parents prefer them not to. Some parents want to hide the fact that their children are ESN. Some special education schools are too far away, too tiring and inconvenient for the children. The cost of attending special education schools is also a deterrent.

I know that MOE is very supportive of special education schools. MOE has been helping the Autism Resource Centre and the Dyslexia Association of Singapore with their funding and start up of new centres. But the fees are still prohibitive to some parents. For example, the term fee for dyslexic children is $450, not for full-time study, but just for twice-a-week tuition. Not all parents can afford this amount.

The long waiting list is another reason. I understand that three new special education schools are being built and another nine are being planned. But they can only be completed in year 2004. This is a very long wait for those on the waiting list.

Sir, my third point of clarification is whether MOE can devote more attention to help our less successful students with special needs? Can the Learning Support programme be extended to go beyond Primary 2? Can the Government review its funding level for special education schools, making their fees more affordable? Can we give more recognition to teachers in special education schools, who have a more difficult job than most teachers in mainstream schools? Can we speed up the planning for the nine proposed special education schools and in the meanwhile provide alternatives for students on the waiting list?

Sir, if Compulsory Education is premised upon the principle that every child matters, we must do more to help our students with special needs. We must provide more support to the voluntary welfare organisations and special education schools helping these students. We must give more recognition to our teachers in the Learning Support and Enable programmes in our mainstream national schools. We must also give credit to the teachers and staff in special education schools for their love, patience and care for these students.

My fourth and final point, Sir, is how we are preparing our students for the challenges in the New Economy. I have already mentioned that some Primary 6 EM3 students are unable to construct a grammatically correct sentence in English. Clearly, this defeats a key objective of Compulsory Education.

In the past, one reason for keeping the below average students in school is to keep them off the streets. EM3 students can fail all their subjects from Primary 1 to 6 with no risk of being detained in the same level or kicked out from the school. Even if they fail to pick up any skills in schools, at least their time with bad company and negative influence has been minimised.

But the New Economy has redefined the requirement of basic skills. It is not good enough just to keep below average students in schools, to keep them off the streets. It is of little use to have Compulsory Education in the New Economy, if some of our students are not equipped with the basics at the end of their learning journeys.

We must dedicate more resources to help our weaker students. We should do more to help those weaker students who are under-prepared for the challenges for the New Economy.

On the other hand, Sir, we have parents who over-prepare their children for the New Economy. Many parents complain that our education system has become too competitive. Perhaps, they are partly to be blamed as they inject their kiasuism into the system. But if so many parents engage private tuition teachers, and you are not doing it, you wonder if you are giving enough to your child.

Many busy dual-income parents engage private tutors for their children in the lower primary. Many secondary school students have different private tutors for different subjects. The private tuition fee per hour for a junior college student is a hefty $100. Not every parent can afford this. I am not sure what our private tutor to student ratio is, but our ranking in the world must surely be very high.

They have been selling photocopied past year test papers for the top primary schools, including papers at the Primary 1 level. Believe me, these are much coveted by eager parents. Bookstores are flooded with assessment books, and there is usually a long queue for these books at the end of the year, because parents want their children to have a headstart on next year's syllabus.

Perhaps, this is why we have the undesired tag as being the most-bespectacled nation in the world. It is also not surprising that many of our parents are stressed up when their children's examination approaches. I sometimes wonder who is taking the examination in school - the parents or the children.

I know of many working parents who apply leave to coach their children for their examinations, the children's examination, that is. I know of many couples who refuse to have any more children because of the stress of raising children through our education system. Some of these stress factors were self-inflicted and unnecessary. Nevertheless, they are very real to almost every Singapore parent. And the last thing that we all want is a generation of overly stressed-up parents and students.

But, Sir, we cannot put the blame entirely on our parents for this kiasu attitude in our education system. If our school system is fully adequate, will there still be such a prevalent need for private tuition? If we have a smaller and more manageable teacher-to-student ratio, such as students get more individual attention from teachers, will private tutors still be in such high demand? If we have single session primary schools where weaker students are given extra coaching, will there still be a need for so much help outside the school system? If we recruit, retain and train more teachers, if we ensure more teaching time for students in school, will parents still need to spend so much time and additional money on their children's education?

Sir, the litmus test for a successful education system in Singapore is in making the system so adequate for all students that, parental support aside, there is still need for extra private tuition. If a huge number of students have to turn to outside help, then the system is surely not fully adequate. On this basis, I am not convinced that we are preparing all our students and their parents adequately for the challenges in the New Economy.

On the other hand, are we sufficiently preparing our below average students for the challenges in the New Economy? Should the EM3 system be reviewed? Can we do more to help our weaker students? Can we help them and ensure that they have at least the basics before they are allowed to leave school?

On the other hand, are our parents unduly stressed and over-taxed due to the inadequate teaching time in our education system? Are our students getting enough individual attention from our teachers? Are we contented to maintain the same teacher-to-student ratio of 1 teacher to about 30 to 40 students, a ratio that we have probably been keeping for the past decades? Are teachers getting enough attention from MOE to help them reduce the administrative workload? Are we creating a conducive environment for our teachers to reach out to individual students and transform their lives?

Sir, I support the Bill on the premise that every child matters, especially as we move into the New Economy. Given our population size, the scarcity and value of human resource, every child does matter. If every child does matter, we need to move away from the current system based principally on a mass production process.

Sir, I know that most of the issues that I have just raised in relation to the Bill are not necessarily new to MOE. I know that MOE is considering single session primary schools, but is only prepared to make a decision on this in two to three years' time. I know that MOE is seeking to recruit and retain more quality teachers, and with that, we can hopefully have a smaller teacher-to-student ratio. I urge MOE to do so speedily.

Sir, many businesses are able to thrive in the New Economy because they dare to adopt a paradigm shift in how they operate. We have, similarly, come to a juncture where a paradigm shift is needed in how we teach our children in the New Economy.

The Minister once said, and I quote him, that "In the 21st century, Education must not just respond to change but be at the forefront of change. For education to be relevant, it must embrace change, while remaining rooted in timeless value."

I support the Minister in making these changes and urge him to quicken the pace of change. With these changes, including Compulsory Education, we can hopefully graduate to a world-class education system where every child really matters.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank Members for their views and contributions. Some of them have given extensive recommendations on how to improve the education system which are not directly connected with Compulsory Education, and the Ministry will certainly take on board all these recommendations and study them.

Dr Wong has dealt with most of the questions raised by the Members earlier, and Minister Abdullah Tarmugi has also responded to the issues related to madrasahs. I would like to reiterate on this issue of the madrasahs, that the Government had no intention, and has no intention, to close the madrasahs. And quite on the contrary, the Government recognises the need of the Muslim community to train religious leaders from among its own numbers. This is something good for the community and also good for Singapore.

I would just like to address one important issue with regard to Compulsory Education before rounding up the debate. This is on the issue related to enforcement. And this is what indeed makes a difference between Compulsory Education from the current situation today where parents can be persuaded, but cannot be compelled, to send their children to school. This is really the basic difference between having Compulsory Education and not. Today there are no powers to compel parents to do so, and no recourse if parents refuse to discharge this responsibility even after all efforts at persuasion have failed.

Several Members have suggested that prosecution should not be the preferred approach, and some Members - Mr Chiam, Mr Iswaran - have also expressed concerns that fining or jailing parents will not help to solve the problem of non-compliance but may instead adversely affect the children and their family and make things worse. I agree with them that prosecution, and certainly jail, is not the preferred or best approach, and I have said so in this House.

Persuasion is, indeed, the preferred approach to take so that parents will understand and want to send their children to school to take advantage of the excellent education opportunities available for their children. The Government provides school places for all children who want an education in national schools, and will continue to ensure that no child is deprived of an education because of financial reasons. In fact, primary school education is free and there are a variety of financial assistance schemes in the schools, in the community, from voluntary welfare organisations and, most recently, in the Straits Times, to help ensure that beyond school fees, for the daily needs of the children when they go to school, whether it is pocket money, uniforms, textbooks - there are various schemes to help ensure that children can go to school regardless of the financial situation of their families.

Compulsory Education buttresses the commitment of the Government by setting out a framework for counselling, mediation and further rounds of counselling and mediation to make sure that every effort is made to get parents to send their children to school. Indeed, these things are already being done.

But if we want to have Compulsory Education and for Compulsory Education to take effect, then penal sanctions must be put in place. This will send a strong signal that this House means business when it says that education is so vital for our children that it should be made compulsory. And Government must be prepared to enforce such sanctions to give Compulsory Education the force of law if persuasion fails. It would be better not to have Compulsory Education if we are not prepared to enforce Compulsory Education through legal means as there would be no action that could be taken if repeated attempts at persuasion are ignored, or if the person just refuses to turn up to be persuaded.

Penal sanctions will only be a last resort, after extensive efforts in counselling and community mediation have been exhausted. Schools, the Ministry of Education, voluntary welfare organisations, the Ministry of Community Development and Sports and the Compulsory Education Board will play a part in this comprehensive process. This process is detailed in the report of the Committee on Compulsory Education. I believe the Clerk of Parliament has some papers (Cols. 971-972), which I have requested him to pass out, detailing this process. Chart - Mediation Processes for Cases of Non-Registration and Dropout (Cols. 971-972)

In the proposed model of mediation and counselling before we take any action, which incorporates existing procedures I must say, the Ministry of Education will identify the children who have not registered with national schools and are not exempted from Compulsory Education at the end of the Primary 1 registration exercise each year. The Ministry of Education will attempt to contact the parents of these children at their last known addresses and find out why these children have not been registered for Primary 1. As Mr Simon Tay has said, despite our reputation for being a nanny state, we do not really know where everybody is all the time, and I think most Singaporeans will be glad to know that.

The Ministry of Education will advise the parents to register their child for a place in a national school. If the advice is not heeded, these cases will be referred to the relevant organisations, such as Family Service Centres run by voluntary welfare organisations, for counselling and assistance. They will follow up to counsel families, help them deal with their root problems and persuade the parents to send their children to school.

If all counselling and assistance efforts to convince these parents to register their children for schooling fail, the cases will be referred to counselling officers who had not handled the cases previously, to bring to the parents' attention the legal consequences of non-compliance, and to persuade them to enrol their children.

If the parents still refuse to send their children to school, the Compulsory Education Board will examine their case and, if necessary, call them up for a formal hearing to determine what further action should be taken. The Board may then decide whether to refer the cases back for further counselling or to the Director-General of Education. It is not intended for the Board to be heavily staffed for the occasional case that may arise and which it may have to deal with. Instead, the Compulsory Education Board will be able to call upon the resources of the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Community Development and Sports, voluntary welfare organisations and other organisations which will be able to provide counselling services.

At every stage, we have provided for counselling and assistance, so that parents have every opportunity to be given the necessary advice and assistance to register their children for school.

Only parents who persistently refuse to send their children to school, despite elaborate and exhaustive efforts to counsel and help them, will be referred to the Director-General of Education to consider taking action under the proposed Act.

Even at this stage, the Director-General can decide to compound the offence and impose fines of up to $2000. Only as a last resort, will the Director-General refer the case to the courts. I am sure that the courts will mete out penalties in a judicious manner so as to strike a balance between sending a clear signal to parents about this House's seriousness in wanting to enforce Compulsory Education, and the long term interests of the affected children and their families.

So, the tools to give effect to the law have to be put in place. Enforcement using legal means is exercised only as a last resort when all else fails - when the Compulsory Education Board is of the opinion that the case has to be referred to the Director-General of Education. And even then, there is a gradation of legal measures. The Director-General can compound the offences and impose a fine, or refer to the courts which have a range of options in the penalties to be meted out. But I hope that we do not have to use these tools.

The Ministry of Education has all along taken the position that parental responsibility in the education of their children must not be undermined. The recommendations of the Committee on Compulsory Education are consistent with this position. The Bill has made it clear that parents are responsible for enrolling their children in school and ensuring that they attend school.

The responsibility of sending children to school still rests firmly on parents, and Compulsory Education will continue to uphold the tenet of parental responsibility. The Bill reinforces this position by making it clear that parents have this responsibility under the law. All the opportunities are there. The Government provides opportunities for children to get up to 10 years of primary and secondary education, and indeed well beyond that. And most children go on to do so: 85% to 90% of every cohort go on to post-secondary education in our ITEs, polytechnics and the universities, one of the highest percentages in the world.

Fortunately, in Singapore, most parents recognise their responsibility to ensure their children receive a good education. Singaporeans do want the best possible future for their children and know that this is best secured through quality education.

Compulsory Education builds on this sense of parental responsibility by setting out the minimum educational foundation, and I stress minimum educational foundation - and on this matter I agree with Members of this House - that every Singaporean child needs, and overlaying this with a formal set of procedures to reach out to parents of children who have not enrolled their children in primary schools. This sends out a strong signal to everyone, especially parents, that education is critical for their children to do well in the knowledge age. It also lends force to Government's commitment that as many young children as possible have an education to equip them for the future.

I would like to thank Members for their interest in the subject, for their support and the many suggestions that they have made that will help us to implement Compulsory Education smoothly.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [RAdm Teo Chee Hean].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.