Mr Speaker Sir, first of all, I would like to thank all Members for their very constructive comments and suggestions regarding this very difficult and important subject on the teaching of Religious Knowledge in our schools. I think all of us must feel some regret that we have had to take this new policy direction. It not only means that at the very least, Sir, seven years of very hard work put in by the Ministry of Education will eventually have to be scrapped but not entirely scrapped, because the experience, the knowledge, which we have gained in working out the Religious Knowledge programme will not be wasted. Also, whenever there is a change of educational policy, I realise that it must bring apprehension and concern to children and to their parents. That is why I emphasised in my statement that we have not come to this decision lightly. I announced in March of this year that we were going to review the teaching of RK in our schools. I believe the review was necessary in the light of the circumstances which have changed since 1982. But we have given ample time for all views to be heard. The arrangements which we have made to phase out the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools are, I believe, fair. They will cause as little disruption to school schedules as possible and I hope that they will cause as little disruption as possible to the education of our children. Sir, this has always been the guiding principle in the Ministry of Education. We cannot promise Members, the public and parents, that we will not change educational policies from time to time. It is necessary as times change. But what we can promise is that each change will be considered carefully as this has been done and we will try to make arrangements so that whatever happens, parents and students will not be stranded mid-stream and changes will be implemented with as little disruption to our children's education as possible. Sir, many of the Members who have spoken today have touched upon the new Civics/Moral Education Programme which is under construction at the Ministry of Education at the present time, and which we hope to introduce by 1992. Members who have touched on this topic and in general include the Member for Ayer Rajah who have suggested that perhaps it could be made a non-examination subject. So have the Members for Braddell Heights, Tiong Bahru GRC, Jalan Besar GRC, Moulmein and Bukit Batok. I thank them for all their suggestions. It is not an easy topic. What we are trying to do is to construct a syllabus which will not only involve Moral Education but also teach the elements of good citizenship, and a particular appreciation of what it means to live in a multi-racial, multi-religious society like Singapore. I cannot say, Sir, that the product which we will come up with in two years' time will satisfy everyone. It cannot be. But we will have a try and we will get the subject ready by 1992 and we will teach it. I hope that all Members will take an interest in this new subject so that after a period of time we will be able to have a Moral Education Programme which is suitable for our type of, multi-racial, multi- religious society, which will reflect the aspirations of parents and of Singapore society. I think if we put our hearts to it, if we apply our minds, if we have the will, there is no reason why we cannot succeed, although we may take a bit of time. In that case, Sir, I hope, within next year and in 1991, to inform Members from time to time of the progress of this subject, possibly when we debate the estimates of the Ministry of Education in March each year. It is still in its infancy. So I cannot say very much about it. Now, Sir, on the topic about the inclusion of Religious Knowledge as a subject for junior college and pre-university admission purposes, which was touched on by the Member for Cheng San GRC and the Member for Bedok GRC, I think that, as I tried to stress in my Ministerial Statement, we have to start from a general principle first. Is it right for schools to be used as a major vehicle for the teaching of Religious Knowledge to children? If that principle is not right, then it should not be made a compulsory subject to be taught within curriculum time. As I said, neither in principle should it be included as a subject for junior college and pre-university admission purposes. I think you cannot have it both ways. If that is the principle, then this must follow logically. But what we can do is to ensure that the phasing out of RK as a subject for junior college and for pre-university admission purposes is done in such a way so that it will give children the maximum time to adjust their subject combinations so that they will have the best opportunity to qualify for junior college and pre-university admission purposes. I stressed in my Ministerial Statement, Sir, that we were not unconcerned with this aspect. And if I may be so bold as to correct the Member for Cheng San GRC, I did not say that the impact will be insignificant. I said that while the number will be reduced, the figure showed that the impact should not be too severe. I think this is the case. Our children have shown a great capacity and the schools have shown the ability to advise the children and to prepare them. Now we are going to allow the use of RK as a subject for junior college and pre-university admission up to the year of admission 1994. This means that it will not affect any child who is presently in secondary school today. The only children who will be affected will be those who are going into secondary school from next year. Therefore, they will have at least four years for those in the Express Stream and five years for those in the Normal Stream to prepare for this change. We cannot go beyond that. Once we go beyond 1994, we have to make it permanent and I think this would be wrong in principle. Sir, a number of Members have touched on the very important topic about what would be the result of this new policy change on our mission schools, on the schools set up by the various religious groups. The Members include the Member for Cheng San GRC, the Member for Fengshan, the Member for Potong Pasir. This, Sir, is a very important point. I think we have to recognise that schools which are set up by the various religious groups, whether they are church groups, the Mission Schools or the Buddhist Schools, these schools have their own distinctive identities. I do not think that we would wish all our schools to operate in exactly the same way. Indeed, it is for that very reason that we have encouraged some schools to go independent. It is good for our children that schools should be differentiated, that each school should have its own character. And a mission school is a mission school, a Buddhist school is a Buddhist school, and a Catholic school is different from a Methodist school, a Methodist school is different from a Buddhist school. And if you eliminate all vestiges of that particular religion from that school, then I do not see what you are left with. But having said that, Sir, I think it would be wise of mission schools and schools set up by religious groups to take cognizance of the particular circumstances in which they are located in Singapore and that is within the context of a multi-racial, multi-religious society. Sir, this is not a new subject. We have always been that way. I would like, Sir, in this respect, to advise mission schools to follow the examples which have been set many years ago. When I spoke at the opening of St. Joseph's Institution in April this year, I made the point that in fact this particular issue had been addressed by the founder of St Joseph's, a Catholic priest by the name of Father Burel, who issued a prospectus for St. Joseph's in 1848, ie, more than 140 years ago. I think what he said then is still relevant today. In his prospectus, Father Burel made a point, that he recognized that St. Joseph's will be drawing its pupils from a multi-racial community with people of many faces. Therefore, for St. Joseph's, he said, and I quote from his words: 'St Joseph's will be open to everyone, whatever his creed may be; and should, for instance, a boy of a persuasion different from that of Roman Catholics attend it, [that is the school] no interference whatever will take place with his religion, unless his parents or his guardians express their wishes to have him instructed in the Catholic religion. Public religious instructions will be given to Roman Catholic boys either before or after the hours for school; but at all times, the Masters of the school will most carefully watch over the morals of the whole school, whatever their religious persuasion may be.' Sir, as a statement or principle to guide a mission school or any church school in our multi-racial, multi-religious society, I think it will be difficult to work out a more far-sighted and enlightened policy. So long as our mission schools and our church schools and the schools set up by the various religious groups adhere to this philosophy, which actually was set up 140 years ago, I think we should have no problems. I may say that before deciding on this policy, I had a meeting with various school principals, including principals from some of our mission schools and schools set up by other religious groups. I asked them whether they would have difficulty in implementing this new policy. I can tell Members that all of them said that in fact they would welcome this change of policy. These are people on the ground. They have the job of operating the schools and I am satisfied when they tell me that they can work with this new policy. Indeed, I asked the principal of St. Joseph's what would be his philosophy regarding the teaching of different religions in his school. Sir, his basic philosophy is that as principal of St. Joseph's his job is to look after the education of all his children. "All his children" means all children and the majority of the pupils in his schools are in fact non-Catholic children. To look after the education of all his children fully, he must provide for their moral instruction and, where necessary, also for teaching of the various religions within his school. As a result, St. Joseph today, in addition to the teaching of Bible Knowledge, the school also provides within curriculum time, as is the current practice, the teaching of Islamic Religious Knowledge, Buddhist Studies, Hindu Studies and Confucian Ethics. When this new policy comes into palece, he intends to make these subjects also available as optional subjects outside shcool hours. Sir, if all our mission schools and I hope all the schools set up by religious groups will take this approach, I think there is no reason why they cannot thrive as before. I would emphasize, Sir, that I have discussed this with them and they have raised no objection to this change in policy. In fact, they welcome it. Now, Sir, following on that, I want to touch a little bit on the point made by the Members for Cheng San GRC, Aljunied GRC and Bedok GRC concerning the particular position of the members of our minority religions here, particularly the Muslims, the Hindus and the Sikhs. I know, that they will be disappointed with this change in policy. In my dialogues with them, they have expressed their wish very strongly to see the status quo being maintained and, that is, RK to be a compulsory subject to be taught within curriculum time and to be used as a subject for pre-university and junior college admission purposes. It is not possible because in principle we have to change. But the arrangements which we have made, I hope, will enable the pupils of these minority religions to continue the study of their religions but as optional subjects outside curriculum time. I would encourage all the schools to accept this arrangement and the Ministry will provide facilities where necessary, for example, for Islamic Religious Knowledge and the other minority subjects provided there are enough pupils within the school for the subjects to be taught outside curriculum time which is necessary but within the school premises, and we will try to provide the facilities as far as we can for that purpose. In this connection, Sir, I also want to refer to the point made by the Member for Fengshan regarding our tertiary institutions and whether we would allow religious groups and societies to operate there. I see no reason why there should be any change. They should continue. They add to the life of the polytechnics, to NUS and to NTI. I think they will conduct themselves in a responsible way. We have had no trouble with them so far and I do not see why this change of policy should in any way curb their activities. The position of Confucian Ethics was brought up by the Members for Jurong, Tampines GRC, Marine Parade GRC, Jalan Besar GRC and the Member for Leng Kee. I also understand the sentiment behind their comments and their reluctance and their regret at having to see Confucian Ethics treated as a subject within the Religious Knowledge programme. But, Sir, it is not possible to allow Confucian Ethics to be taught as a subject within curriculum time without allowing Islamic Religious Knowledge, Buddhist Studies, Bible Knowledge, Sikh Studies and Hindu Studies to be taught within curriculum time at the same time. Whether or not Confucian Ethics is regarded as a religion, you cannot allow one without allowing the others. Once you allow the others you breach the basic principle. But there are many elements of Confucian Ethics which I think are quite universal which would serve well within our society. And there is no reason why in the construction of this new Civics moral education programme we should not take the best of what there is and implement it. I think it will make for a richer programme and this will benefit not only our students but also Singapore society and we will make an attempt to see what we can put within the context of an overall moral education programme. But to teach it specifically as a subject within curriculum time is not possible within the present context. Just one point from the Member for Potong Pasir who regretted the change because the teaching of RK was, as he said, a basic institution within our education system. I think this is not the case. In fact, before 1982, it was taught as an optional subject. We have now returned to what it was before. The change in 1982 was when we made it a compulsory subject and this is a change which we are now making. It was never a basic institution and we are not uprooting a historical tradition. I do not think, Sir, that the changes which we have made will in any way weaken the ability of those students whose parents would like them to study Religious Knowledge. Before I wind up, Sir, and pass on to the last point, I would like to thank all Members, as I said, for their comments today. The general tone of the debate I would sense, has been that in principle all Members recognise the necessity for this change. I welcome all the suggestions to modify or to make amendments to the transient arrangements. We welcome all the suggestions and, as I said, unwelcome as this change may be and disappointing to some groups, it is necessary. I would be quite satisfied if at the end of the day people regard it as fair and in the interest of Singapore and of all Singaporeans. The final point I want to make, Sir, is the point made by three Members of Parliament - the Members for Cheng San GRC, Fengshan and Jalan Besar GRC - concerning the ground-rules for the separation of politics and religion which was mentioned in the President's Address. Sir, this is outside my jurisdiction. Perhaps my colleague, the Minister for Law and Home Affairs, might like to comment on it. Much obliged, Sir. [Applause].