CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

6.07 pm

The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Children and Young Persons Act was first enacted in 1949, and it provides for the welfare, care, protection and rehabilitation of children and young persons. This Act was last revised in 2001 and a decade later, we are revising it again. I would like to touch on the key proposals that this Bill seeks to put in place.

To provide greater clarity, we have articulated the guiding principles; these are actually principles which have been in place, but not enshrined in legislation over the past 60 years. The Bill includes two guiding principles. First, that the parents of the child or young person have the primary responsibility for the care and welfare of the child or young person, and should discharge their responsibilities to promote the welfare of the child or young person. This statement reflects our belief that the family is the key institution for nurturing our young. The Government can encourage and support families in their discharge of their familial responsibilities, but the Government cannot be a substitute for the family.

The second principle states that in the administration and application of the Act, the welfare and best interest of the child or young person shall be the first and paramount consideration.

_Licensing of children and young persons homes
_

Clause 25 of the Bill refers to the licensing of Children and Young Persons

Column: 2098

Homes. Historically, these Homes have been operated by voluntary welfare organisations. Some of them have very long histories of compassionate service dating back to the early 1900s. Over the years, the Homes have evolved from providing basic shelter and attending to the needs of the children, to the point where now they are providing care and rehabilitation to children, helping children to reintegrate with their families and promoting educational opportunities so that these children can fulfil their full potential. Currently, we have 19 such Homes with about 900 residents. MCYS runs two Juvenile Homes with about 300 residents. My Ministry has worked very closely with the Homes over many decades, journeying with them through the changing trends in child protection and youth rehabilitation work, and ensuring that we continue to meet the needs of the residents and their families.

Sir, the licensing of Children and Young Persons Homes is an important step and a key milestone in the development of the residential care sector. It signals our commitment to enhancing the welfare, protection and care for our children in residential care and formalises the standards of care that we expect the Homes to provide. The Bill proposes powers for MCYS officers to inspect the Homes and to issue licences to operators who have met the licensing requirements. These requirements would include the adequacy of the physical premises of the Home, the quality of personnel and processes to ensure that appropriate care and supervision is available at all times to the residents. New Homes will also need to comply with the licensing requirements before they can begin operations. The Act will provide avenues for operators to take remedial actions when requirements have not been met and for appeals on decisions made with regard to the issuing and revocation of licences.

Column: 2099

The licensing scheme will also extend protections to children with special needs in three other Homes for the Disabled currently that take in such children.

_Review Board
_

There will be a Review Board to review all cases of children in residential care. This is in keeping with international practice and we want to have a system which will ensure that there is early planning for each child’s welfare and it provides for a multi-disciplinary platform for workers from the Homes and other professionals to work towards a care plan for the child that will best meet his or her specific needs. A Review Board comprising individuals with relevant expertise will be established to review all children residing in all licensed Homes.

_Early intervention with children and families
_

This Bill also seeks to enhance early intervention for children and families that require assistance in providing for their safety and well-being. Let me touch on this point of voluntary care arrangements.

_Voluntary care agreements
_

The Bill introduces a new provision on voluntary care agreements which provides for care agreements promoting the welfare of the child to be made by the parents or guardians of the child. Child protection work has often been associated with Court orders and removing the child from his or her home. But I want to stress that this, in fact, should be a last resort. There is much more that can be done to enable or empower a family to take better care of the children and to nurture their children before the situation spirals out of control. Too often, serious cases of child abuse occur when there is no early detection or failure of early intervention for families who are struggling to cope with raising their children.

Column: 2100

The voluntary care agreements represent an attempt to formalise and encapsulate the joint efforts of both the parents on one hand and the child protection officers on the other hand to work together to collaborate on a voluntary basis to ensure the safety and well-being of the child. Currently, child protection officers work with families on care plans for the child, and such care plans will address issues such as the child’s educational needs, supervision of the child, support and assistance that may be rendered from community agencies, etc. Having such explicit plans or agreements – drawn up and agreed – help the parents to better understand and to better implement the steps that are needed in order to address the needs of their child. My Ministry will also issue regulations as to how these voluntary care agreements can be made, how they will be reviewed and how they will be adjusted according to the needs of the child and family, and in particular, to safeguard the rights and interests of the child and the parents.

This provision does not compel the parents to enter into a care agreement involuntarily. I want to emphasise that such agreements must be voluntarily entered into. There may be situations where parents may decline to comply with the advice of the Child Protection Service at an early stage. In such cases, the Child Protection Service will have to simply be extra watchful. And if the situation worsens to the point where the child is in danger or is clearly in need of extra care or protection as defined in section 4 of the Act, only then will an application to the Court for a formal care and protection order under section 49 be made. So, we need to achieve the right balance.

Obtaining information to establish if child/young person is in need of care and protection

In line with the objective of early intervention, the Bill also proposes

Column: 2101

clarification to section 8 to enable a Protector to make inquires where he has reasonable grounds to believe that a relevant offence has been, is being or will be committed against any child or young person or if any child or young person is in need of care or protection.

Currently, the CYPA provides that the Protector may obtain information only when an offence is believed to have been committed in respect of a child or young person. However, there may be situations where a child is in need of care and protection, before an offence has actually been committed. Consequently, this amendment will enable a Protector to make inquiries at an early stage, so long as he has reasonable grounds to believe that such a child or young person is in need of care or protection. The objective in both these provisions is early detection and early intervention and, hopefully, without having to drag the case and the parents into Court and be subjected to the full litany of legal processes and procedures, whilst we still keep that power in reserve.

Enhancing the management of child protection cases

When a child is established to be in need of care and protection, it is important that we make sure that each case is managed in the best interest of the child. And this Bill, therefore, seeks to enhance the management of child protection cases, in the following areas.

First, protecting children or young persons who have been removed. Clause 10 of the Bill includes a proposed amendment that will allow the Protector to restrict access or require supervised access to a child or young person that has been removed under the CYPA. Such children usually require medical attention or temporary care while arrangements are

Column: 2102

being made to bring the case to Court within three days of the removal, for child protection proceedings. For example, there have been cases where the alleged perpetrator or the family members appear at the hospital to threaten and intimidate the child into retracting his or her statement. The priority during this period is to ensure, first, that the child is safe. Secondly, that the child receives medical and other emotional treatment and, furthermore, that we do not allow the child to be further re-victimised or harassed by the alleged perpetrators or perpetrator while the investigation is underway.

The other area which we are working on is on exempting children and young children from Court appearances. Court proceedings are often very intimidating for children, especially when proceedings take place over several sessions, or if the perpetrator is in Court in person. Clause 23 of the Bill proposes that the Court be given discretion to exempt a child or young person from having to attend Court proceedings, in cases where it is assessed that Court attendance may adversely affect the child.

Another area is in protecting the identity and privacy of the child or young person. In 2001, section 35 was introduced in the CYPA which prohibits the publication and broadcast of information that would identify a child or young person involved in Court proceedings. However, the child’s privacy may also be compromised during the investigation period leading up to Court proceedings, for example – and this is in real life – sometimes you get news reports or a photograph of the child or identifying details of the child and sometimes even the address is available either in the mass media or on the Internet. Such exposure and infringement of privacy would negatively affect the recovery process for the child or young person. Clause 15, therefore, introduces

Column: 2103

a new provision that will extend current protections such that the identity of the child or young person who is or has been subject to an investigation under the CYPA to such protection. In particular, this provision is meant to address the publication of information in the mass media or other broadcast or online platforms but it does not prevent the sharing of information among the appropriate, relevant professionals who are providing help to these specific children or young persons.

To further safeguard the child or young person’s privacy, another provision will be introduced to prevent breaches of confidentiality by persons who may be in receipt of information on the child that was shared with them in the process of exercising any powers or duties under the Act.

It is vital that the systems and processes put in place to protect children do not end up, inadvertently, further traumatising the child or young person. The amendments I have just elaborated on are key to ensuring that Singapore’s child protection system continues to be child-centric whilst efficient, expedient and safe.

Penalties for sexual exploitation

Sir, I would like to mention the penalties for sexual exploitation of children and young persons in the Act. The Bill proposes for the penalty for sexual exploitation of children and young persons under section 7 to be raised from a minimum two years' imprisonment and a maximum of four years, to a minimum of five years and a maximum of seven years. Penalties for sexual exploitation of a child or unlawful transfer of possession of a child and importation of a child under false pretences have been adjusted to align with penalties against similar offences in the Women’s Charter to

Column: 2104

ensure that equal protection is accorded to both boys and girls.

Serious child sexual abuse cases may also be prosecuted under the Penal Code which carries even higher penalties. The Penal Code had also been reviewed and amended in 2007. Under section 376A, the penalty for sexual penetration of minor below the age of 16 years is 10 to 20 years of imprisonment. For less serious sexual offences, sections 354 and 354A provide for imprisonment terms of five or 10 years where the victim is a minor below the age of 14 years. Together, the penalties within the CYPA and the Penal Code should provide for adequate deterrence against sexual exploitation of children and young persons.

Age definitions of the child

At this juncture, I would also like to address recent comments and discussions concerning age definitions of the child and young person. In our law, currently, we define a child as a person below the age of 14 years. A young person is defined as a person 14 years or above and below the age of 16 years.

During the public consultation of the Bill, we received sometimes contradictory suggestions on these definitions. Some suggested increasing the threshold to 18 years, meaning more people would be defined as children and young persons whilst others suggested decreasing the threshold to 15 years. This was especially in response to some more violent episodes involving young people in recent times. We decided not to make any changes to our long-standing position. I would like to assure Members that there are currently adequate safeguards and mechanisms to protect and rehabilitate both young as well as older youth offenders who are more than 16 years old. The Guidance Programme, which is a

Column: 2105

Court diversionary programme for first time offenders, will be further extended to accommodate youths up to the age of 21 years of age. New community based sentencing options, such as the Community Service Orders, Day Reporting Orders, Mandatory Treatment Orders, Short Detention Orders and Community Work Orders have also been provided for through the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code which came into effect on 2nd January.

The upshot of all this is that we have more rehabilitation options for the Community Court to use in dealing with offenders between the age of 16 and 21 years of age, and for the continued approach of deterrence, restorative justice and rehabilitation of young offenders. Where young offenders are assessed not to be suitable for community-based rehabilitation, reformative training is another option in lieu of imprisonment.

Our justice system, and I have taken some lengths to emphasise this point, is both based on restorative and rehabilitative and deterrence. All these elements are available and operate in conjunction to deal with this problem of young people who may be at risk. The approach has worked well so far and we have in Singapore a robust rehabilitation and protection system for young people, and I believe we should continue in this direction.

At the same time, I know that there had been calls for us to adjust the definition of children and young persons down to below the age of 15, thereby making those who are 15 and above liable to be dealt with outside of the juvenile justice system. The argument behind this call is that youths appear to mature at an earlier age nowadays compared to a generation ago. I believe that while providing deterrence is one of the

Column: 2106

considerations for the juvenile justice system, I would like to emphasise that our objective of the CYPA and our juvenile justice system is not only to punish but also to rehabilitate. I hope Members of this House will agree that we have the right balance at this point in time.

So, Sir, I would like to conclude with a note of caution. This Bill updates and improves our child protection framework. But we must bear in mind that despite all our best efforts, there will, inevitably, from time to time be some tragic cases. There will also be occasions when we may be over zealous in our efforts to protect children and young persons, and we have to get the balance right both in legislation as well as operationally on the ground. It is not an easy matter but it is an important matter, and I would also add that the State cannot unilaterally protect all children and young persons. This is a sacred duty that all of us as parents, family members, members of the community, professionals, officials and law makers will have to perform this duty collectively.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

6.25 pm

Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef: Mr Deputy Speaker, the Children and Young Persons Act first enacted in 1949 safeguards the care, protection and rehabilitation of children less than 16 years. It has gone through several amendments and review over the years. The Singapore family size is small. Our population is ageing. Children and young persons are valued members of the family and are our assets of the future. I strongly support our approach to maintaining their well-being, education, health, physical and emotional development regardless of race and socio-economic status.

Column: 2107

With regard to section 49(1) which stipulates that if the parent does not enter the bond in a timely fashion or is unable to meet any of the conditions of the bond, they will be liable to a fine. I understand the need for strict enforcement. But can I ask the Minister to consider for the multiple-challenged families, where most of these cases are coming from anyway, who are often over-stressed, stretched to the maximum and under-supported? Such action and measures can be counter-productive and not supportive of parents' effort to care for the children. To their burden, we will now be adding stress with further fines and arrears. This may only tend to worsen their existing condition.

I do, however, Sir, support very strongly the penalties stipulated for sexual exploitation of a child.

Pertaining to the Part IIIA on the "fee for and duration licence", can I ask the Minister how much is the fee that a VWO has to pay for the issue of and also renewal of their licences? I do hope that this can be kept affordable as we are dealing with VWOs.

Sir, I strongly support the formation of the Review Board to review all cases residing in CYP homes and to visit these homes to ensure conducive environment. Can I also inquire who and which personnel will make up the members of the Review Board?

I support the removal of the minimum length of the Approved Home Orders and Approved School Orders, now to be known as Juvenile Rehabilitation Centres for CYP who are beyond parental control. The current duration is rather long and it will be better to have this meted out on a case-by-case basis with some flexibility. Can I also ask, on the average, how many beyond parental control (BPC) cases are reported annually and where the BPC order is invoked? How many of these do

Column: 2108

we manage to eventually return to the mainstream?

I would like to speak in Malay, Sir.

( In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Singapore has achieved much in terms of the development of children and young persons as well as in fulfilling many resolutions under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). In fact, some of Singapore's efforts exceed the prescribed requirements. We have moved forward from a Third World country to a First World country in a short time.

In the UNICEF's report on "The State of the World's Children" in 2001, Singapore is placed first in the list together with countries like Sweden, Switzerland and Japan.

However, it is distressing and embarrassing to see that we have incidents like the Nonoi case and, more recently, the Danish Iman case. There are cases where small children are sexually abused by their own parents. Issues like young marriages and multiple re-marriages, dysfunctional families, single mothers and other socio-economic problems will surface from time to time. The lack of social morals and ethics will become more pronounced among those affected. The widening generation gap among some families must also be given attention to.

As a society and nation, we must lead the effort to help these families start their lives anew, and reshape their minds and lives. We must continue to educate and increase awareness. Our community spirit must compel us to monitor our neighbours and report suspicious cases. We must possess a high level of awareness in order to save innocent children and young persons.

Column: 2109

This Bill must send a strong signal about this issue. We must strengthen efforts and implement its enforcement. We must defend our children.

*Cols. 2167-2168.

( In English ): In deciding whether CYP is in need of care or protection and in deciding what intervention is best for the welfare of the child, all stakeholders must actively and sincerely participate in the decision making process in line with Article 9 of the United Nations CRC which states that, I quote, "State Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will except when competent authorities, subject to judicial review, determine in accordance where applicable law and procedures have been applied that such separation is really necessary for the best interest for the CYP."

The law must provide guidance and set out principles upon which removals are appropriate. As mentioned by High Court Judge V.K. Rajah in overturning the decision of the Juvenile Court in the case ABV and Another versus Child Protector (2009 SGJC 4): "the removal of a child from the parents must be a very drastic remedy and that must only resorted to only when there is real fear of imminent physical or psychological danger." He also said that instead of using the blunt instrument of removing a child, parties should work together to ensure the child's welfare.

Indeed, protecting the CYP must be a collaborative effort with all hands on deck – from the family, schools, peer groups, NGOs and VWOs personnel, the neighbourhood, the community and, of course, the Ministry.

Sir, I support the Amendment Bill.

6.32 pm

Ms Ellen Lee: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as our society matures, we all have to

Column: 2110

grapple with the challenges of child abuse and the care of our children. The Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill has introduced significant changes and additions to the way we deal with child protection issues. Whilst many of the amendments have been pro-active and show tenacity in confronting many prevailing problems, there are several areas which I hope the Minister can take cognisance of.

The proposed section 9 is worrying. As the Minister himself has just explained, the power to remove children should only be exercised when there is a real fear of imminent physical or psychological danger. The suggested provision may well be too drastic as the law does not prescribe or give specific guidance or even boundaries as to when this power is to be properly exercised.

In most cases and contrary to common public perception, the neglect and abuse of children are hardly intentional. Parents do treasure their offsprings. Unfortunately, if the adults in the families are unemployed, in ill health or are over-stressed and under-supported in other aspects, then it is quite common for them not to have any inclination or time to be fussing over their children. The forcible separation of children from these families prevents the guardians or parents from fulfilling their role in society meaningfully. The stigma unwittingly created by the authorities will only marginalise them further. Rather than treat parents as risks to their own children, how can we as a society come together to assist these families to raise their children? I feel that it will be a great societal boon if legislation, Government agencies, civil society and the community work hand in hand to tackle these difficult issues collaboratively and with understanding. The Ministry's "many helping hands" approach should be applied in this situation as well.

Column: 2111

In a similar vein, the proposed section 27A restricts the publication of information leading to the identification of a child or young person who is the subject of any investigation, or has been taken into care or custody, or is the subject of any order under the Act. While it is imperative to keep their identities confidential to prevent stigmatisation, such measures should not be an impediment to professionals and others offering help and assistance to these children, young persons and their families. The Director who grants approval to reveal any information should do it with clarity and reasonableness so as not to stumble the helping partners rendering assistance in the best interests of the child or young person.

With regard to the provision of Voluntary Care Arrangements, the new section 48A which specifies when this power can be exercised gives the impression that the Director may enter into such agreements merely to promote the welfare of a child or young person without declaring him or her in need of care or protection. There is therefore a need to clarify what "welfare" means, who the law pertains to and how the State should respond to it. A real danger is that middle-class culture, standards and values be imposed on a range of families with multiple challenges, including poverty, chronic illness, mental health concerns and physical and intellectual disability. As such, decisions should not merely be in the sole purview of the Director. There should be appropriate safeguards so that the good intention upon which this power is given can be materialised. Without clear and objective standards of welfare, this might give rise to unhealthy or unnecessary competition between parents, foster families and institutions over who can better provide for or take care of the children.

In situations where the child is clearly not in need of protection and is not being

Column: 2112

ill-treated, struggling parents can easily be persuaded of the benefits of alternative care for their children, simply because they love their children and want what is best for them. The State should perhaps act in line with first principles and only assume responsibility for children who are clearly in need of care and protection. As such, informally or formally made care agreements or arrangements should empower the families, with appropriate support, instead of further marginalising them.

With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

6.37 pm

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is an important Bill as it aims to provide better protection and care of children and young persons against violence, abuse and neglect. In particular, the new licensing provisions will ensure highest standards of professionalism, better quality in the care and protection of children and young persons.

However, Sir, I have mixed feelings over some of the provisions of this Bill. On the one hand, I recognise the need to enhance the powers of the State so that we can better protect innocent, defenceless children from neglect and abuse. Even as we are sitting here debating this Bill, we are reminded so painfully of the recent death of a young, innocent child, the victim of horrible abuse and neglect that forever robbed him of the chance to grow into adulthood and fulfil his own dreams and hopes. We shudder to think of how many more such cases could possibly exist, and we want to do everything possible to prevent such a tragedy from recurring. But even as we wrestle with these emotions, we also recognise that family relationships are so complex and that families today are under tremendous stress and need all the help

Column: 2113

that they can get so that they can provide children with the kind of warmth, support and care that only families can truly provide. The ideal place for children must be in the bosom of their families and not anywhere else. Children should be removed from their parents only in the most severe situations where there is real or imminent danger to them or where there is real neglect.

So, I read with some trepidation the new paragraph 4(c) which describes one of the situations in which a child or young person is in need of care and protection as when, and I quote, "a parent or guardian of the child or young person is unable or has neglected to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid, lodging, care or other necessities of life for the child or young person". I wonder whether MCYS may be over-reaching itself and this provision is too expansive. The key word here is "adequate" but standards of adequacy would obviously differ from family to family depending on their financial situation. Poor, needy families surviving on the barest minimum may consider what they are providing to their children adequate but it may not be adequate in the eyes of someone used to a higher standard of living. Also, there are families because of various reasons such as illness, disability or loss of employment who may find it difficult to provide for their children not because they do not want to but because they cannot. In such situations, they need help and a declaration that they could no longer provide care and protection to their children will not be helpful. So, I seek some clarity on this clause and how it would be interpreted and implemented in practice.

Sir, this clarity is also important as it has a bearing on the other clauses of the Act which empowers the Juvenile Court to remove a child from his family or to

Column: 2114

order his parents to enter into a bond to exercise proper care and guardianship. On the latter point, I am also concerned whether the Bill is overly punitive by criminalising parents who breached a Court-ordered bond to exercise proper care and guardianship. Could this lead to a situation where overworked social workers frustrated with parents' failure to execute the bond, then decide to refer the parents for prosecution instead of taking the longer and more arduous route of convincing and persuading them and helping them to overcome the difficulties that they are facing in providing for their children?

We should be very careful before criminalising any situation which involves family relationships as such actions could even be counter-productive to the welfare of the child. I note that we had lengthy discussions when we were part of the review on the Parents' Maintenance Bill and the same issue of whether we should make it a lot more punitive for people who do not support their parents cropped up but we felt that we should not do so because of the complexity of family relationships and we do not want to criminalise a parental act of neglect which is considered as neglect by the authorities or some other agencies. So, we need to have a balance. I understand the need to protect the child but, at the same time, I also understand that we need to ensure that parents are not deprived with the ability to take care of the welfare of their children.

I am reminded of two cases that I had dealt with which show how diverse and complex family situations are and no two situations are the same. One family which I had helped had nine children and, of course, they were very tight financially but the children were all well taken care of, well brought up, disciplined and they were all in school. But the situation of another family with seven children was not so good. I had to assist in the

Column: 2115

placement of two of the children in a home because of the mother's fear of physical abuse by the father, and the MCYS had to take over the care of the infant child because of the parents' neglect.

So, I hope, Sir, that even as we strengthen the regulatory framework, we would also continue to provide enough resources and support to families in need of help so that they can take care of their children.

Sir, my final point is that the success and effectiveness of the Child Protection Service (CPS) depend not only on tighter legislation, but also on adequate staff and resources as one observation is that this service is understaffed whereas the cases that they have to deal with are complex and need intensive follow-up actions. As the Bill now gives greater powers to MCYS to ensure early detection and intervention, there is clearly a need to review the staffing requirements and resources needed to ensure that the Bill meets its objectives. The other equally important point is the need for effective and strong coordination among the agencies dealing with violence against children as there is currently no automatic referrals of all criminal cases involving children. The referral agencies involved are usually the Police, health authorities such as hospitals and schools. In the most recent case that fell through the cracks, a father was jailed for four years for molesting his daughter but after his release, he returned home and re-victimised his daughter by further abusing her for four years until his conviction for rape last year, by which time the girl was already above 16.

I have already raised this issue in November, but I think it is really an important point and since we are debating this Bill, it is important in my view that this point is reiterated. In both cases of abuse, the Police had not referred the

Column: 2116

case to MCYS for case management. So, the question to ask, in addition to adequate staffing and resources as well as good coordination among the agencies, is how to put in place an early warning system so that before a perpetrator is released, the family is adequately prepared and there are follow-ups by the Child Protection Service to ensure that the child is safe and protected. For example, I hear of cases where perpetrators go back to the home, but in the home the victim does not even have a room to herself so that at night, for instance, she can lock the door and protect herself from any potential abuse by the perpetrators upon returning home. Also, when a victim was abused before she was 16, follow-ups should cover her case until she is at least 18 years old.

I have heard the Minister's explanation as to why, for the moment, this law will now continue to be restricted to those of the age of 16 and below. But if the case is already on the radar screen and with the MCYS before the person reaches the age of 16, then follow-ups should be even after the person is 16, at least until the victim is 18 years old. There should also be effective counselling of the victim and her mother to ensure that they are properly rehabilitated and can continue with their lives despite the violence and the abuse perpetuated against the victim.

In short, Sir, what we need are clear guidelines and protocols to deal with children who are victims of abuse so that there is consistency, continuity and no one falls through the crack.

In November last year, Sir, I had raised these issues and the Minister had said that the Ministry is doing a review of the Child Protection Service and how it investigates, intervenes and resolves cases of violence against children. Can I ask the Minister for an update of this review and whether the Bill also addresses some of these points?

Column: 2117

On this note, Sir, I support this Bill. It is a good Bill, aimed at providing greater protection to our children, but I do hope to have some clarity on some of the points which I have raised.

6.47 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

I rise in support of the Bill, especially I record my full support for the raising of the penalties under section 7 of the Bill as it shows the Government's strong resolve to protect our children from sexual abuse and it also sends a strong signal that this House will not tolerate any form of sexual abuse of our children including child pornography. Anyone caught for sexually abusing children under section 7 should be given nothing less than a deterrent sentence. We must protect our children simply because of their defenselessness and innocence.

The other important change in the Act, Sir, is introduced through clause 25. It inserts a new Part 3A introducing a licensing framework to ensure the welfare and safety of children and young people in residential care. Families form the basic blocks of our society and strong families make for a cohesive nation. Our family members especially our vulnerable children should be provided with the necessary assistance and protection for their well being and growth. The licensing framework will spell clearly the requirements for homes and the standard of care in homes. A board will be appointed to review all the cases of children and young people residing in licensed homes and visit the homes to ensure a safe environment. I support this amendment as it will go a long way to raising the standard of care for the young residents.

Column: 2118

Clause 5 amends section 4(c) to clarify that the child or young person may be considered to be in need of care and protection where his parent or guardian is unable or has neglected to provide adequate necessities even though the neglect was not deliberate. The debate has thrown up the fact that section 4(c) may be worded too widely, but I take a different view, Sir, because I think it is important to give MCYS and the officers as much room and discretion as possible, and provided of course that discretion is exercised accurately and, if that discretion is exercised accurately, then the children's best interest will be met. So I do support the width of section 4(c) as it is now in the Bill.

I think we all agree that parents, guardians and immediate family members are primarily responsible for their children. Hence, as our system strives to provide protection for our children, we want to do this within the family environment as far as possible. We would ideally want to avoid separating children from their families unless there is physical or psychological danger.

Where children are neglected or abused, then as part of our "Many Helping Hands" approach, the Government and the community must come together to assist such families to correct their ways and then attempt to raise their children. This approach is much preferable to removing the children from their families and transferring them to an institution of foster home. However, as I said earlier, removal in instances where there is abuse or neglect is the sad but better choice for the children.

I strongly urge the Ministry to consider providing more resources and infrastructural support to such distressed families to enable them to raise their children in a reasonable home environment focusing on the child's health and education. In addition to financial and

Column: 2119

other resources support, counselling and courses on how to manage their families and children should be given on a regular, sustained basis. Follow-up visits by welfare officers are also necessary. Also, the officers in question should not hesitate to notify the Police if there are signs of abuse. Therefore, I agree with Mdm Halimah Yacob that there should be interfacing between MCYS, Police and cross-referencing between the two.

The new section 9A empowers psychologists or approved welfare officers, in addition to registered medical practitioners, if they find evidence of abuse or neglect to commit a child or young person to a place of temporary care. I would like to know if the Ministry will provide the appropriate training to the concerned personnel to ensure that they are qualified to make such judgement calls to ensure all steps are taken in the best interest of the child.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

6.51 pm

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Sir, I have three short queries for the Minister relating to this Amendment Bill.

First, the amendment to section 8 facilitates early intervention in cases of suspect abuse. While I appreciate the importance of early intervention, I am also mindful that an over-reactive system may result in more "false positives" which will result in traumatising the families involved. Sir, may I ask the Minister to comment on the safeguards that are in place to ensure that a balanced approach is taken for child protection?

Second, while I agree with the expanded scope of well-being covered by this Amendment Bill, I am also mindful that notions of emotional and psychological abuse are hard to establish.

Column: 2120

What constitutes emotional abuse? Or psychological abuse? If a parent overindulges her child – does that constitute abuse? Some might argue that it does – that it is a case of I quote, section 4(c), part (ii), "neglected to exercise proper supervision and control”. Unlike the hon. Member, Mr Christopher de Souza, who is my MP, I am not as comfortable with section 4(c) compared to his comments on it. I am not comfortable because I do not agree with the expanse that it is important for MCYS officers to work because it covers many dimensions of well-being but my discomfort with section 4(c), both parts (i) and (ii), is in notions of adequacy because I think that is hard to establish.

Moving along, I think that when it comes to a debate on the well-being of children, it is necessarily a difficult one because parenthood in itself is a learned process. As meanings of childhood and responsibilities of parenthood evolve, as our society matures, we must have in place consistent messages and processes to aid parents and empower them to be effective guardians.

My final concern relates to the punitive tone of this Amendment Bill. While there are cases where parents and guardians inflict pain and suffering on their young charges deliberately and with intent, I believe that, in many instances, neglect and abuse are unintended outcomes due to constraints in circumstances.

As a family sociologist, I believe that in most situations, the family is the best place to raise a child.

The amendments in this Bill are focused primarily on measures in place to remove the child from dysfunctional families. However, there is very little mention on how interventions can be

Column: 2121

invoked to alleviate the disadvantages faced by such families, and to equip them with the necessary skills and resources so that they are in a better position to safeguard the well-being of their young charges.

I am pleased to note the inclusion of the voluntary care agreement in section 48A. Can the Minister comment on how the voluntary care agreement can serve to empower disadvantaged families and enable them to raise their children in a safe and conducive environment? For example, does invoking the voluntary care agreement include helping the parents identify the constraints faced by the family and provision of aid to the family?

In addition to ensuring adequacy in financial resources, do we also have schemes in place that help educate and raise awareness of what good parenting entails?

At the end of the day, I believe that the first reaction should be to help families help themselves. We should only remove the child from the family as a very last resort.

These concerns aside, I support this important Bill.

6.55 pm

Dr Lily Neo: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand to support the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill.

Every child is a gift from God and is precious. Every child needs all the care and love that he or she deserves. All children are dependable on their parents or caregivers as they are helpless and vulnerable especially when they are very young. I believe that all parents love their children because it is a natural human instinct. Thus, parents will give the best

Column: 2122

care to their own children. It is in this context therefore that I have concerns about section 48A of this Bill legitimising "voluntary care agreements".

There is already provision in section 9(1)(a) of this Bill where the Director, protector or police officer may without the warrant and by such assistance and force as is necessary to remove a child or young person to a place of temporary care and protection, and so on. Sir, the question is whether section 48A is really necessary. In England, the government no longer uses a voluntary care arrangement to get a child into care. All such cases must go to the Court. They have stated in their June Act 1989 that the government will provide respite accommodation if the child has no person caring for him, is lost or abandoned or whose caregiver for whatever reasons is unable to continue caring for him, eg, the caregiver is sick, in hospital or incarcerated. In this sense, the "voluntary care arrangement" was removed by the Children Act 1989 and replaced with respite accommodation. The Children Act 1989 prevents voluntary care arrangements being used to remove children from their families.

Sir, while I understand that we may have the best intentions in preventing harm or possible harm to some vulnerable children, we must make sure that we are not over zealous and cause more harm than good by taking children away from their own parents. Do we have trained professionals to give each case its due diligence? How do we ensure that when the State takes over the management, the replacement home is indeed in the best interest of these children and their families? Is there any safeguard in place? Are there set criteria to ascertain that removing the child from his or her home is indeed the appropriate solution?

In any case, may I ask the Minister if there are avenues for parents to resume care of the child when circumstances or

Column: 2123

conditions change sufficiently to allow the child to return home? Sir, I would like to quote the General Assembly of the United Nations:

"We are convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community."

Many a time, contrary to common public perception, the neglect and abuse of children is hardly intentional. Sir, much more often, these families are over-stressed and under-supported. Instead of just prescribing separation of children from these families and thereby preventing them from fulfilling their role in society meaningfully and marginalising them further, can more constructive efforts to help these families raise their children be put in place? Strategies like assisting them in removing any aggravating factors and those that help them maintain the child in his or her home have to be fully explored. It will be much better if we can identify such families early, assist them early and show them preventive measures in parenthood failure. May I request MCYS to allocate resources and implement measures for this?

Sir, I am suggesting that disadvantaged children be given better attention and assistance by our Government. They need a holistic approach in assistance for their well-being, education and upbringing.

Therefore, in order to help these children, we often have to help the adults to be better parents to them. Such adults need a hands-on approach in parenting skills, in job opportunity or job upgrading. It will be good if vulnerable families are identified and assigned social workers, in order to identify their needs and follow them through individually. What we need now is to have more permanent

Column: 2124

constructive programmes and resources, and also the right policies implementing assistance to them. It may be necessary to help the parents provide better and more conducive environments to bring up their children. The dysfunctional families may need help in many areas to ensure stable homes. Some parents of these families may even need medical care or psychiatric/psychological help.

Another, and perhaps the best, approach is aiming at preventing dysfunctional homes or potential dysfunctional homes from getting worse. It will be good, while improving their well-being, to help the children get social-levelling opportunities through education. It will also be good for their parents to get out of their poverty traps and not end up as failures, future dysfunctional families. Therefore, through a hands-on guidance by designated social workers tailoring to each family's needs, taking better advantage of available schemes suitable for improving their family status is then possible.

7.02 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, while I note and support the Government's intention to protect the safety and well-being of children and young persons, I have several concerns about the Bill.

Sir, the first concern is whether, under this Bill, poor families are at greater risk of being broken up. Clause 5 amends section 4, regarding situations where the child is considered in need of care and protection. The amendment was introduced into section 4(c), a new category of families, where the authorities may consider removing the child from his parents. This scenario is where the parent is unable to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, medical aid, lodging, care or other necessities of life, even though the parent's failure has not been wilful or

Column: 2125

unreasonable. So this new scenario is quite different from the existing scenario of children being taken into care, where the parent is usually blameworthy in some way. An inability to provide one's family with adequate food or lodging could result simply from reasons like poverty or lack of employment prospects. In this respect, I share the concerns of Mdm Halimah Yacob and Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan. This amendment potentially puts poor families at risk of being broken up and their children fostered out or institutionalised, simply because they are poor.

To take a child out of his own family to grow up, raised by strangers or institutions is a drastic step which would change lives forever. If the parents are found to have a good relationship with the child, should the Government not instead support the family while keeping them intact? If the parents cannot provide adequately due to poor resources, is it not the Government's duty to provide or mobilise resources to assist the family in food, medical aid and lodging?

Next, Sir, my concern is about voluntary care arrangements. Clause 22 introduces a new section 48A about voluntary care arrangements. Such arrangements enable the Director of Social Welfare to have a child placed in a care arrangement so long as the parents consent. There would be no need to seek the approval of the Juvenile Court in such voluntary cases. I note that there is some concern among welfare workers about the lack of court oversight in voluntary arrangements. It was pointed out, during the public consultation of the Bill, that even when people act in good faith, there is a danger of over-reaction, resulting in false positives, ie, children assessed to be in need of care and protection when they were not. It was recommended that Court oversight should be an integral part of all

Column: 2126

such care and protection arrangements, including voluntary arrangements, to give further assurance that the child's welfare has been thoroughly considered. This appears to be a sound recommendation but it is not in the Bill.

Sir, it is likely that the sort of parents who would be asked to agree to voluntary care arrangements would be facing other struggles in life and may not have the luxury of legal advice. We should, therefore, be more vigilant to guard against the situation when parents perceive that they have no choice but to agree to care arrangements suggested by the Director. Why not provide for Court oversight, even for voluntary arrangements, to make the process more rigorous?

Sir, my next concern is about how much due process there is for parents at the Juvenile Court. Clause 23 amends section 49 on the Juvenile Court's powers in care and protection. The Court's powers include power to order that the child be removed from the parents' care and placed in a foster home or an institution. Sir, while we are concerned to protect children, the process should also be a fair one. Although the parents have a right to attend the hearing and to be heard under section 49(3), it is not spelt out that they are entitled to see and challenge the report put up by MCYS to the Court.

In a recent case of ABV and Another v Child Protector , mentioned by Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef earlier, the parents' appeal to the High Court from a Juvenile Court order, placing their child into care. The High Court disapproved of the then practice of not providing the parents with the case information given to the court. In answer to my parliamentary question subsequently, the Minister indicated that MCYS will henceforth provide information or leave it to the Court to direct them. While I note that the Ministry has heeded the Court's opinion, why is there no

Column: 2127

provision in this Bill to ensure that the parents are duly informed of their case which MCYS is presenting against them?

On a related point under section 49, the Court can order a child or young person or his parent or guardian to undergo medical and psychological assessments which outcome must be reported to the court. Section 49(7) is being amended to say that a copy of this assessment must now be given to the protector as well. But there is no mention of a copy of the assessment being given to the parent or guardian. I would like the Minister to clarify what the practice is and if a copy is not given to the parent, this seems rather high-handed, especially since under that section, the parent is supposed to pay for the assessment to be done.

Sir, also under the current section 49, one of the options that the Court has, in care and protection cases, is to require the parents to enter into a bond to exercise proper care and guardianship over the child. This Bill introduces a new subsection 11, where the parents fail to enter the bond in time, they will be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of up to $2,000. Sir, as mentioned by Members earlier, I wonder whether this provision will actually help or hurt the distressed family more.

Sir, finally, to end off, I would like to make a general comment about homes instituted under the Children and Young Persons Act. I note that under the existing arrangements, the same institution could be gazetted for a variety of purposes under the Act. For instance, the Singapore Girls' Home is a place of safety and an approved home, an approved school as well as a place of detention. Is it right for us to put all these different children, with different needs, in the same institution? The children in need of care and protection were removed from their parents to be placed in a place of safety.

Column: 2128

Should we not separate them from those who have committed offences?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions.

Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef asked about licensing fees. We will charge a nominal $12 a year, $1 a month, and bear in mind the fact that MCYS is actually funding the VWOs. I think you will agree with me that the licensing fee is not an issue.

As for the Review Board, it will consist of a multi-disciplinary team, in order to provide all the necessary insights into the cases being reviewed. We would, of course, have to go on a massive recruitment campaign to get enough people in order to ensure that every case is reviewed appropriately.

Mdm Halimah, and I believe also others, asked whether the formulation of section 4(c) is too broad and whether there would be different standards on what constitutes adequate care. A political point was raised by Ms Sylvia Lim and she asked whether this will result in poor families being exposed to a higher risk of being broken up. I think we need to put this lie to rest.

We are trying to protect children. Children, through no fault of their own, will sometimes be exposed to risks or harm and neglect. The greatest danger is to assume that it is a natural reflex that all of us will look after our children or the corollary to that is to use poverty or some other social disadvantage as an alibi for neglect and that somehow excuses the family from being held accountable for care. So, I want to state this categorically that this is not about a group of child protection officers imposing middle-class values on poor families and using that as an excuse or a pretext to take children away from their families. That is not the

Column: 2129

intention and I want to reiterate that categorically.What we are after is simply to identify children at risk and to take appropriate actions.

Having said that, I think Mdm Halimah Yacob has a valid point when she asked what is the definition of "adequate". Well, the working definition for "adequate" will actually be a very basic threshold. In other words, what is necessary for the child's survival, physical development, emotional and psychological help. It is at a basic level. We are not saying that everybody needs to be at the middle-class or upper middle-class level in order to look after their children. In fact, I would go so far as to state that there are many – in fact, the vast majority of poor families are well able to take care of their children. Usually when there is child abuse, the dysfunctionality relates more to values and relationships, and not to poverty. So, please do not raise poverty as a "bogeyman" in this debate.

There have also been questions about safeguards. When you read the Bill, it appears that the Director of Social Welfare has got enormous powers at his or her disposal. But the due process is that every case is discussed at the multi-disciplinary platform within the Ministry, in order to tap the different and relevant professional perspectives and the views of the team. In other words, this is not a case of one-man or one-woman's decision being imposed unilaterally. I would also go on to emphasise what I said earlier, that the removal of a child is the last resort. In fact, even if you were to look at this purely from a utilitarian perspective, it is far more efficient, far more effective and, ultimately, also the morally right thing to do, to bring up a child within the context of an intact family.

I give Members the assurance that all our child protection officers, wherever possible, wherever it is safe, wherever it

Column: 2130

is practical, will do their best to ensure that the child is looked after in the context of an intact family. And I also give Members the commitment that the reason Child Protection Service is under MCYS is because where additional resources – financial, emotional and social – are necessary in order to support and empower the family to look after the child, MCYS will do so. And I make that assurance in this House to all of you.

There have also been questions of what constitutes emotional and psychological abuse. I know that is difficult to define easily but, again, I would go on a practical basis and I think that anything that causes damage to the behavioural, social, cognitive, affective or physical functioning of a child, including things like terrorising a child, rejecting or degrading a child, isolating, exploiting or corrupting a child would constitute emotional or physical abuse. I think most Members here, in this House, would agree with that definition.

There has been much talk on this issue of voluntary care agreement and that is why I took pains to go into at length in my opening speech.

Again, I want to emphasise that this is not an attempt to take children away from their families without judicial review. That is not the intention at all. In fact, as I alluded to earlier, it is intended to provide for early intervention and early support to be given to the families to work out collaboratively with their families what are their needs, how can we support their needs in order to better look after and protect their children. If children need to be removed, and that is the last resort, we will go to Court.

Now, let me cite you some actual numbers so that you get an idea what actually happens on the ground in Singapore. In 2009, there were 169 cases that were investigated by the Child Protection Service. Of the 169 cases, 124

Column: 2131

of the allegations were substantiated. That is actually quite a high number. Of these 124 cases that were substantiated, however, only one-third – 60 of them – proceeded to a formal care and protection order awarded by the Court. In these 60 cases, we had no choice but to do so because of the seriousness of the abuse. What about the others? The remaining cases were assessed – first, that the allegations were substantiated; secondly, we will assess that there were welfare concerns that had to be addressed and it had to be escalated so that the children would have access to further child protection measures.

The Child Protection Service therefore works with these families together with the support of other community agencies to address these concerns and formulate a concrete plan of action in which support and assistance would be given to improve the family situation, proper supervision and monitoring of the child's welfare was in place and that we have created a synergistic partnership between child protection officers, parents and the community organisations and the resources. So this is actually what happens on the ground and I am glad to report that, in fact, the majority of the families are actually very cooperative because they do want what is best for their child. You know, the key to solving this problem is to acknowledge that there is a problem, and then to commit to resolving the problem to the best of his or her ability as a parent and together with the support and supervision of the community organisations and the child protection officers. So that is what is going on. I just want to reassure Members that all this is not a back-door attempt to remove children from their families without judicial oversight. That is absolutely not the intention at all.

There were questions on not complying with the bond and the penalty. I think both Mdm Halimah Yacob and Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef asked about it:

Column: 2132

whether the proposed penalty would end up being punitive and make it more difficult for the families. When a child or young person established by the Court to be in need of care or protection, it means, by definition, that there are already sufficient concerns about the child's welfare. The Act provides that the Court may order the parents or guardian to enter into a bond to ensure the proper care and guardianship of the child. Now, we all know we tend to put a dollar value to bonds but the real issue when we are imposing a bond is to impose a change in behaviour – to incentivise, to persuade and focus the minds of the families that a change in behaviour is needed in order to improve the outcome for the child. I do not think the Court derives any satisfaction from collecting or levying the penalty for failure to discharge the bond but, nevertheless, we do need to have a system in which there are both incentives and penalties if parents do not comply with the recommended changes which are necessary in order to protect their children. So that is what it is about. It is not about money, it is about a change in behaviour.

Mdm Halimah Yacob also brought up a very valid point about coordination between agencies. Unfortunately, we all know about the case that the Member referred to when the father was released from jail years after his initial offence and then re-victimised his daughter. This tragic case illustrates the need for greater and stronger inter-agency management and flow of information. I can assure you all the relevant agencies have learnt their lessons from that case. Our agencies will work closely to make sure that there is an integrated and comprehensive community safety net for victims and we will also commit to working in the long term for the safety of these potential victims. Simply because a case has been identified, prosecuted and jailed is not the end of the story. Family relationships go on for a long time and it may be that

Column: 2133

there are some families that are in need of long-term supervision. So we will have to maintain a register, that is internally within the Ministry, of such cases, and we will also work with our other agencies. So I will give you an example of that. We have this thing called the child abuse protection team. This team includes the Police, medical social workers from the hospitals, psychologists and other professionals, and it meets weekly for case discussions. Where relevant, the teachers, the school counsellors, the staff from the Children and Young Persons Homes are also invited to participate in a discussion where relevant and where the cases involve their oversight. This child abuse protection team has proven to be an effective and is an ongoing feature of our child protection system. Besides this team, we have also set up another team that meets on a regular basis to discuss the ongoing progress of individual cases. This is called the child abuse review team. This is attended by child protection officers and managers, professionals with experience in the child protection sector as well as others who are involved in the management of the specific case who have detailed knowledge of that individual case.

Let me conclude by coming back to first principles. It is still about families and about parents discharging their responsibility. We recognise that some families will need additional help in order to discharge those responsibilities and we will do so through policy and through operations run through MCYS. Having said that, this is not a simple case where you penalise people if they do not fulfil their end of the bargain because there is this other element called a "child or young person" whose interest we are committing in this House with this amendment to put paramount. What that means is that sometimes we will have to achieve a difficult balance – a balance between

Column: 2134

fairness, due process, the rights of the parents versus the real danger and risk of neglect or harm to children. We have to get the balance right. I, as the Minister for MCYS, would confess to having a bias and, if in doubt, I would rather err on the side of safety for children. Nevertheless, what we have is a system with proper checks and balances, proper reviews and a system which is sufficiently resourced to make sure that people who need help get help and children who need protection will be protected. But, again, I want to emphasise that this is something which we cannot do alone and it is not something which we can do with legislation. This is something we have do as a community.

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. – [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan].

Bill considered in Committee.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan:

The Chairman: The citation year "2010" will be changed to "2011", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Clauses 1 to 37 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Column: 2134