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.