REPATRIATION OF ADOPTED CHILD OF THERAWARDY S/0 MARDAN

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law if he will explain why the adopted child of Mr and Mrs Therawardy s/o Mardan was forcibly sent out of Singapore and if he will be good enough to allow the child to return to live with her parents.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason why this girl was asked to leave Singapore is that this was clearly an adoption of convenience designed to circumvent Immigration rules and regulaions.

Sir, the adopted child is a nine-year-old Malaysian girl. Her natural parents and four of her siblings are also Malaysian citizens. She was first brought to Singapore in 1976 by her natural father. She was granted a Social Visit Pass for 14 days. Her Visit Pass was not extended and she overstayed in Singapore for more than six years. In other words, she was an illegal overstayer and her illegal presence came to light in December 1982. By then, Sir, she had been legally adopted by Mr and Mrs Therawardy on 2nd October 1982.

Who were their adoptive parents? The adoptive parents were none other than the child's maternal grandparents. Her grand-father who has now become her adopted father is a 61 -year-old Singapore citizen who has seven other children of his own. There was no reason for him to adopt another child. Further investigations showed that the natural father was a construction worker in Singapore holding a Block Work Permit. As an unskilled work permit holder, he was not entitled to bring in his wife and children to Singapore on a Dependant's Pass.

Sir, it is precisely to stop adoptions of convenience such as this that the Government has introduced amendments to the Adoption of Children Act.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister not realize that his answer misses the point altogether, completely? As he has mentioned, there were adoption proceedings. Is he suggesting that the Order of the Court granting the Adoption Order is wrong and that his Ministry has decided that that Order should be reversed? Why wasn't an objection taken before the Court when the adoption petition was presented? The Minister is aware, I hope, that all petitions for adoption are served on the Attorney-General and investigation is made by the Social Welfare Department.

Is the Minister not aware that on the 28th February, 1985, the adopted father of this child was forced by Immigration officials to sign a document that he was willingly handing back the child to the natural father? He was forced with prosecution and imprisonment if he did not. And is the Minister also not aware that, following that, the Immigration officers forcibly took the child out of the home of its adoptive family and gave her to the natural father and told him to beat it out of Singapore?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, as to the first point, there is no reversal of a Court Order. It is established practice and law that the Court Order on adoption does not bring with it any legal rights to citizenship or permanent residence. Secondly, when the court makes an order, it does not take into account immigration status or immigration policy. This is precisely the problem with the law. There is nothing which is wrong with the court decision. What is wrong, Sir, is that there is a gap in the law in that neither the Attorney-General nor the Ministry of Social Affairs at that time had to comment on the immigration status of the child. This is the gap in the law that we are now seeking to remedy through the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill in which we propose that the immigration status and the immigration policy will become a relevant factor.

As to the allegations of fact which the Member for Anson has raised, my Ministry has, in fact, ascertained that this is completely untrue. The child as well as the adoptive parents and the natural parents were informed of the breaches of the law, and they willingly took the child back to Malaysia.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister hold a public inquiry into this?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the facts speak for themselves. Here, a Malaysian child becomes an adopted child of the grandparents. By the stroke of adoption, the child's grandparents become the parents; the uncles and aunts become brothers and sisters; the natural father becomes the uncle, and the father is a work permit holder, What more blatant example of an adoption of convenience can be presented to this House than this?

12.01 pm