Mr Speaker Sir, Dr Wong has dealt with most of the questions raised by Members. I would like to thank members for their views and contributions.

Allow me to address the questions from Members on the issues related to enforcement. This is indeed what makes compulsory education different from the current situation today where parents can be persuaded, but cannot be compelled to send their children to school. 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.

Members [ names ] have suggested that prosecution should not be the preferred approach. Some Members [ names ] 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. I agree with them that prosecution and certainly jail is not the preferred or best approach.

Persuasion is 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. CE buttresses this commitment 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 this is already being done.

But if we want to have CE and for CE to take effect, 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 CE the force of law if persuasion fails. It would be better not to have CE if we are not prepared to enforce it through legal means as there would be no action that could be taken if repeated attempts at persuasion are ignored.

Penal sanctions will only be a last resort, after extensive efforts in counselling and community mediation have been exhausted. Schools, MOE, VWOs, MCDS and the CE Board will play a part in this comprehensive process.

Could I ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute a flow chart of the counselling and mediation process.

In the proposed model, which incorporates existing procedures, MOE will identify the children who have not registered with national schools and are not exempted from CE at the end of the Primary 1 registration exercise each year. MOE 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.

MOE 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 VWOs, 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 CE 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.

At every stage, we have provided for counselling and assistance, so that the 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 DGE can decide to compound the offence and impose fines of up to $2000. Only as a last resort, will the DGE 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 CE, 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 CE 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 offences and impose a fine, or refer to the Courts which has a range of options in the penalties to be meted. But I hope that we do not need to use these tools.

Some Members [ names ] have asked if the introduction of CE represents an about-turn in MOE’s thinking. MOE has all along taken a consistent position. And that is - parental responsibility in the education of their children must not be undermined. The recommendations of the Committee on CE 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 CE 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.

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.

CE builds on this sense of parental responsibility by setting out the minimum educational foundation every Singaporean child needs, and overlaying it 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.

Mr Speaker Sir, I beg to move.