ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 4.08 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, section 3(6) of the Adoption of Children Act provides that a child must be resident in Singapore before an adoption order can be made. However, the term "resident" is not defined in the Act. In practice, the court would normally consider a child to be resident if he has been staying continuously in Singapore for about six months. If the court is satisfied that the child is so resident, it would decide whether to grant the adoption order, after taking the child's welfare into consideration. The child's immigration status and immigration policy are not relevant for this purpose. Consequently, Sir, some Singaporeans have made use of adoption to bring in their relatives from other countries to enjoy our social benefits, including subsidized education and medical services. There have been cases of Singaporeans who already have many children of their own adopting their foreign relatives, thus imposing an additional burden on the State.

The Bill seeks to amend section 3 of the Adoption of Children Act so as to prevent the indiscriminate adoption of foreign children by Singapore citizens and permanent residents. The Bill provides that an infant who has entered and remained in Singapore on a Social Visit Pass, a Student's Pass or a Special Pass, or whose presence in Singapore is unlawful under the Immigration Act, is to be deemed not resident in Singapore for the purposes of the adoption under the Act.

Sir, with this amendment, a foreign child on any Immigration Pass other than a Dependant's Pass will not be considered resident in Singapore and cannot be adopted under the Act. Once it is determined that a foreign child is suitable for adoption, the Immigration Department will grant him a Dependant's Pass to enable his adoptive parents to obtain an adoption order. Thus the proposed amendment will not prohibit the adoption of foreign children in genuine cases and deserving cases.

The proposed amendment, Sir, is necessary so as to prevent adoptions of convenience. We have many examples where adoptions were used to circumvent Immigration policies. In a case already recounted to this House earlier, a 59-year-old Singaporean with seven children of his own adopted his own grand-daughter who had overstayed her Visit Pass and was illegally in Singapore. The child's natural parents, we will recall, were Malaysian citizens with four other children. Her natural father was working as a construction worker on a Work Permit. Although he was not eligible to bring in his wife and children for long-term stay, he sought to circumvent this restriction in regard to his daughter by making her the adopted child of a Singapore citizen.

Sir, there have been many other such cases where Singaporeans have been approached, or attempted, to adopt their foreign nephews and nieces even though they already have children of their own, and there was no reason for them to adopt another child. To deter such adoptions of convenience, administrative measures have been taken by the Immigration Department hitherto to restrict the stay of unaccompanied foreign infants.

However, Sir, past experience has shown that administrative measures alone are not completely adequate to prevent adoptions of convenience. It is therefore advisable to amend the law now before we get more cases of adoptions of convenience.

With this amendment, a foreign child on any Immigration Pass other than a Dependant's Pass will not be considered resident in Singapore. A Dependant's Pass will be granted to facilitate adoption proceedings unless the adoption proceedings are adoptions of convenience or intended to circumvent our Immigration policies. Thus, Sir, the proposed amendment will not prohibit the adoption of foreign children in genuine cases. I should add, Sir, that the Government will be sympathetic in cases where childless couples, who are unable to have their own children, wish to adopt a foreign child.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I see in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the Bill that the Bill "seeks to amend the Adoption of Children Act so as to prevent the indiscriminate adoption of foreign children by Singapore citizens and permanent residents."

The Minister in his speech seemed to imply that there were a large number of these cases. May I ask whether he has the number of these cases, whether there is a large number of people sending their children in to be adopted by families in Singapore.

Secondly, the Minister says this amendment will not prevent adoption of foreign children in genuine cases. As I pointed out to the Minister when I raised the question last week that when an adoption petition is presented to the court, it is served on the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General refers it to the Department of Social Welfare, and the Department of Social Welfare then makes all the investigations necessary to help the court decide whether an adoption order should be made or not.

So even without this amendment, the Government has the wherewithal and the power to make the investigations and to bring the matter up before the court. And I am sure that if the court is informed that the proposed adoption is not a genuine case of adoption but a case of convenience, as the Minister puts it, the court will not make the adoption order. The court must have regard to the welfare of the child, must have regard to the standing and to the genuineness of the application to adopt the child. So I do not know why this amendment is really necessary. You have, as I said, the power and the wherewithal now to make the representation to the court and the court is left to determine in every single case whether it should make the order or not.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may respond to the two points. The first question is: have there been such a number of cases as to warrant concern to justify this legislation? The answer is yes. If it was not a problem which needed a solution by way of legislation, then we would not have recourse to this option.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is the figure?

Prof. Jayakumar: I do not have the figures but I can inform the House that the Immigration authorities were so concerned because people were arriving at the checkpoint with infants in arms requesting Social Visit Pass and long-term Social Visit Pass, and when they were asked why, they said, "Well, we want to have this child adopted by this relative in Singapore." The numbers are sufficiently large to cause concern and to introduce administrative measures requiring these persons to undertake that they will not proceed with adoption proceedings. This is why, Sir, the case which was mentioned a week ago showed that some of the administrative measures are not foolproof because of the large numbers of persons coming here on Social Visit Pass or long-term Social Visit Pass.

As to the second question, as I explained a week ago, under the legal regime on adoption contained in the law as it stands at present, the court's function is guided primarily by the welfare of the child. The Immigration policy or the Immigration status is not a dominant or primary consideration. It is true, as the Member for Anson has said, that the procedure under the law for adoption is such that references are made to the Department of Social Welfare for investigation. But under the law, the Department of Social Welfare's investigation must be circumscribed by the duties imposed by the law, and the law requires the Social Welfare officers to look at the case and put up a report with regard to the interest and the welfare of the child. Whether the child is an illegal immigrant, or what his immigration status is, and so on, are not primary considerations.

Sir, in case anyone should think that we have embarked on a very unusual and novel method, let me mention the practice in the United Kingdom. In the United King- dom, they also have laws on adoption. I would like to read a typical letter sent out by the Secretary of State, Home Office, to any prospective applicant on adoption proceedings, and I quote:

'Immigration requirements. There is no provision in the Immigration rules for a child to come to the United Kingdom for adoption. However, the Home Secretary may exceptionally exercise discretion to allow a child to come here for this purpose if he is satisfied that this is appropriate in all the circumstances of this case. He [the Secretary of State) will first need to consider whether the intending adopters and the child they wish to adopt fulfil the requirements of the Immigration rules relating to admission of children for settlement in so far as these are applicable as if the child had already been adopted and these rules apply. In particular, the Home Secretary will wish to be satisfied that the proposed adoption involves a genuine transfer of parental responsibility on the grounds of the original parents' inability to look after the child and that it is not one of convenience arranged simply to enable the child to gain entry in the United Kingdom.

Sir, if an advanced country with vast resources deems it necessary to have a safeguard such as this before invocation of the legislative procedure for adoption within the country, surely it makes sense for us to do the same.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, may 1, by way of clarification, ask the Minister whether it is not possible to ask the Social Welfare Department to refer a case, where a foreign child is involved, first to the Immigration Department?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, no doubt there can be a host of alternative approaches and solutions to the problem. The solution that my Ministry has proposed is the simplest and the least complicated. It leaves intact the jurisdiction and power of the court in adoption cases which is, quite properly, to look at the case from the viewpoint of the welfare of the child. But before the child comes to Singapore, some authority must be satisfied that the Immigration rules are not circumvented, and surely the proper authority for that must be the authorities which are entrusted with the implementation of Immigration laws and policies.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, on a point of clarification. If I heard the Minister correctly, children, one of whose parents is a Singaporean, would be on Dependant's Pass and therefore they would not come under the ambit of this Bill. But I have come across cases where there is a child, one of whose parents is a Singaporean, but who is on a Student's Pass. What happens in such a case?

Prof. Jayakumar: Is the Singaporean already here?

Dr Augustine Tan: The child is not a citizen but one of the parents is a citizen. So would the child be on a Dependant's Pass or on a Special Pass? Because I have come across cases where they are here on Students' Passes, for example.

Prof. Jayakumar: If the child is already a child of a Singapore citizen or permanent resident, is he going to be adopted by another parent?

Dr Augustine Tan indicated assent.

Prof. Jayakumar: In that case, it would be covered by the Act. But if it is a genuine case of adoption and not an adoption of convenience, then the Immigration authorities would give a Dependant's Pass.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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