CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 5.25 pm

The Minister for Community Development (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Children and Young Persons (CYP) Act was enacted in 1949. It is a comprehensive piece of legislation for the rescue, care, protection and rehabilitation of children and young persons. It strikes a balance between parental authority and responsibility for the care and supervision of children, and the protection of children by the State.

Many of the provisions of the present Act are as socially relevant as they were in the 1950s. However, some amendments are necessary as certain social problems that were prevalent in the late 1940s and 1950s no longer exist today.

The Children and Young Persons Bill 1993, while retaining most of the provisions of the existing CYP Act, will incorporate several major changes to give the State wider powers to protect children at risk and to make the Act more relevant to present day needs. Penalties are also being increased to a more appropriate level. As there are several major amendments as well as numerous drafting amendments to the existing Act, the Bill proposes to repeal the existing Act and to re-enact it with amendments.

The main changes are as follows:

First, increased penalties. Mr Speaker, Sir, the quantum of fines and penalties has not been changed since the Act was enacted in 1949. For example, any person who causes a child to beg is liable on conviction to a fine of up to $250 or to imprisonment of three months, or to both. The penalties for offences against children in the existing CYP Act are now too low to be a deterrent. Under the Bill, penalties for offences have been greatly enhanced, especially for offences like child abuse and exploitation and contribution to the delinquency of children and young persons.

In Singapore, we are fortunate that we are not overwhelmed by offences of cruelty to children and young persons. Indeed, the figures over the last five years show that there has been a downward trend in the number of complaints of child abuse. For example, in 1986, there were about 280 complaints, dropping to 112 in 1991. For the first six months of last year, there were only 47 complaints, of which 18 had evidence of child abuse.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst the incidence of child abuse is low, what is worrying are the instances where child abuse has resulted in the death of the abused child. Between 1985 and 1988, there was an average of one death from child abuse each year. This increased to an average of two deaths a year for the past three years.

The present penalty for both fatal and non-fatal cases of child abuse is a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.

These penalties are manifestly inadequate. The Bill proposes to enhance the penalties to strongly discourage such abuses of defenceless children. In fatal cases, the Bill will increase the penalty to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to both. In non-fatal cases, the penalty will now be a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years, or to both.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another area of concern is that there is no express provision in the present Children and Young Persons Act to protect children and young persons against adults who exploit them for their sexual gratification. With video cameras now widely available, the risk of children and young persons being exploited for pornography is higher. The Bill provides a new provision to deal with such mischief.

The Bill repeals the existing provisions on transferred children. These provisions exist because of historical reasons. After the Second World War, many displaced children were taken care of by relatives and friends and by persons whose interest in the children was questionable. Many of the children were consequently neglected, ill-treated or abused. The transferred children clause served to protect the children. Such a situation no longer exists today, and therefore we are repealing the provisions.

The present Act requires children and young persons taking part in public entertainment to be licensed by the Ministry of Labour. These provisions reflect social problems faced by children and young persons in the immediate post-war period. In those days, children were often employed by wayang operators to perform on stage, or were used by street musicians to collect money.

We do not face such problems today. Children and young people who are in employment are now adequately protected under the Employment Act. The existing provisions on licensing have, therefore, been deleted and a new provision enacted in the Bill. It ensures that no child or young person is allowed to take part in any public entertainment of an immoral nature, or which is dangerous to life or prejudicial to his health and physical fitness.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another important area is the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. The Bill seeks to make it clear that the Juvenile Court shall not try an offender who has already attained the age of 16 years at the commencement of the hearing of the charge. Where an offender attains the age of 16 during the trial, the Juvenile Court will have the jurisdiction to proceed with the trial if it thinks fit.

The provision ensures that the Juvenile Court maintains its distinct forum as a Court which deals with persons of a tender age, ie, offenders between the age of 7 and 16 and even lower, in circumstances where a child requires care and protection either because of abuse, neglect or ill-treatment. The regime and programme of our approved schools and homes are designed to meet the special needs of such children and young persons. These institutions are not geared to deal with young adult offenders, for example, as old as 20 years of age.

The Bill will provide the Juvenile Court with additional powers to order a person who has been found guilty, where it deems fit, to be brought before a district court for sentencing for reformative training.

Under the present Act, juvenile offenders found guilty are sent by the Juvenile Court to an approved school for a minimum of three years to a maximum of five years. In practice, an offender normally spends about 18 months in an approved school with the unexpired portion of his approved school order on licence, under supervision. This is because the institutional rehabilitation programme in the approved school is geared to a minimum period of one year. The Bill therefore reduces the prescribed period of a sentence to an approved school to a period of not less than two years and not more than three years.

Sir, the various amendments incorporated in this Bill will make the measures for protecting children and young persons more effective and more relevant to today's society.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Mr Speaker, Sir, the statistics on abuse of children and young persons, in absolute terms at least on the number of children with evidence of abuse, has declined, from 67 cases in 1986 to 31 cases last year, ie, halved. The number of cases reported or complaints, as has been mentioned by the Minister earlier, also dropped from 280 to 112 within the same period. Judging by these numbers alone, it may appear that our record of offences against children is not as bad as in many other countries. Still, Sir, this is not something we can really be proud about and crow about as it is, to my mind, akin to a man saying that he beats his wife less than other husbands do. Therefore, we should continue to find ways to diminish further, if not altogether eliminate, acts of abuse of children and young persons in our society. Therefore, this Bill is welcomed.

The main reason for updating the Children and Young Persons Act is to remove any ambiguities present in the Act and to make it more socially current, the overriding considerations being to promote and safeguard the interests and well-being of our children. We therefore, Sir, cannot over-stress this important principle as children are our responsibility when they are young and our future when they grow up. I support this Bill, Sir, and I feel that every Member in this House should do so too.

I am particularly glad to note that penalties for offences against children have been enhanced so that they may act as deterrence. The quantum of fine, for example, has been increased and so have been the jail terms. The quantum of fines has not changed since the Act was enacted in 1949, as mentioned earlier. What was a deterrent sum then, which is about 1 1/2 decades ago, is a painless sum to be of any deterrence now. This is especially so for abuses which lead to the death of children. While such penalties may not be the best way of stopping child abuse, it is nevertheless an effective one in most cases.

I am also very glad to note that a new provision has been included in the Bill, which is clause 6, which deals with sexual exploitation of children and young persons. It is high time that we dealt with such vile acts decisively. One concern I have, however, Sir, is the effective implementation of this provision. The nature of such abuses may make it difficult or reluctant for the victims to give evidence or their parents to do so or complain for fear of the social stigma and embarrassment that usually accompany such abuses. I would like to ask the Minister what measures are being taken or planned to ensure that such abuses come to light and at the same time do not jeopardise the identity or the future of the abused.

I am also pleased with the new provision, which is clause 52(3), which stipulates that the Juvenile Court may commit a probationer or supervisee who is above 16 years but not yet 19 years old to be remanded in a remand home instead of a remand prison, as is the situation in the present Act. It is undesirable, Sir, for people so young to be so closely acquainted with prisons so early in life. This is unsatisfactory and I am glad that this situation will be changed.

Before I conclude, Sir, I would like to say a few words about mandatory reporting by medical practitioners to the Protector of Children of cases of possible physical or emotional injury of children under their medical examination. I can understand the difficulties of enforcing such a system - the need for it in the local context and the possibility of such a system discouraging parents or guardians from seeking treatment for abused children. But this could at least reveal more cases which would otherwise be lost or hidden. So I do hope that the Ministry of Community Development and the Ministry of Health would not drop this subject altogether for the earlier mentioned reasons, but would continue to monitor the situation to see whether such an option need to be implemented here in future. In my view, we should look into all measures which can eliminate the abuse of children and young persons in Singapore.

I support the Bill.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments in the Children and Young Persons Bill.

The new provisions will help deter potential child abusers. They will help to protect our children from people who exploit or are cruel to them in any way. The passage of this Bill will send a strong message to these people that such barbaric behaviour will be met with fitting punishments.

Unfortunately, the law can only do so much, but for the victims, their experience can be very traumatic. Professional counselling can help these abused children and their families cope with their bad experience and carry on normally with their life. So too, counselling can help the offenders realise their mistake and change their behaviour. So I would like to call upon the Ministry to give more attention to the counselling service.

I am happy to note that educational and skills training programmes are provided in homes for juvenile delinquents. Such rehabilitation programmes help these misguided children adjust more easily when they return to society. However, the training is often biased towards technical and vocational skills. Perhaps we could offer a choice of technical or academic training in these homes. They will allow children with the potential and inclination to re-join the mainstream for their education after their release.

Our children are our future. I think it is worth our while to see that every child, even those who have made mistakes in the past, get a second chance to make good.

Mr Umar Abdul Hamid: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has, in its effort of introducing this Bill, shown adequate attention to the protection of our children and young persons. The onus of maintaining their safety and care is on us. It has been obvious that of late cases of crimes committed on the young of child abuse and sexual exploitation are evident in disturbing numbers.

As the future well-being of Singapore lies in their custody, it is pertinent that measures and safeguards be implemented and reviewed from time to time to meet current expectations and on-coming challenges. As such, the introduction of this Bill is very relevant today. The sensitivity of this matter is enlarged due to the tender age of this section of the community involved. The amendments, repeals and new provisions are well drafted and they are introduced to provide better measures while retaining the intended purpose and substance of the 1949 Act. However, as this Bill is now open for debate, I intend to take this opportunity to offer my opinion in the light that it will be considered for the improvement of this proposed Act.

Sir, the introduction of a new clause pertaining to sexual exploitation of the young in this Bill is with few justifications. This allows that deterrents be provided in protecting the innocent and the ignorant. The young are proven to be very vulnerable towards any form of well-administered advances that tend to endanger their morality and chastity. The one factor that may be worth further consideration is the penalty imposed on such offenders. This Bill sought to protect the young in this respect. The rationale behind it would be to deter the commission of any obscene or indecent act because of the possible life-long trauma or emotional damages that the victim may suffer. The effects may not be visible in the aftermath of the offence. But one cannot deny the eventuality that the person against whom the offence was committed will be affected in his or her later years. His or her ability to lead a normal life may be impaired long after the offender has been released. Unless it can be scientifically proven that the damage suffered by an adult who is sexually exploited is distinctively more than the young who has been subjected to a similar experience, then it is only prudent that the penalty as recommended in clause 6 of the Bill be increased. May I suggest to the Minister that stiffer penalty be imposed on any person found guilty of sexual ex-ploitation of a child or young person.

Secondly, it is my opinion that the introduction of clause 11, sub-clause (1)(a), which prohibits the participation of young children in any public entertainment of an immoral nature is rather restrictive and misleading. There are situations in which public entertainments are morally acceptable and yet pose the same dangers spelt out in sub-clause (1)(b) of this clause. It is my interpretation that the reason behind this introduction is the safeguarding of a child's life or physical condition. If this is rightly so, then the provision of this clause should be extended to include any procurement of a child's participation which contains therein imminent risk or danger, be it immoral or otherwise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, there is ample justification for such a revised Act. I am sure that this proposed Bill, for all its intents and purposes, will be welcomed and supported by the public, especially parents whose children are (within the age) affected by this Bill. Far more important is our effort to ensure that ultimately at every turn of the generation, Singapore will be left in the hands of a society that preserves and appreciates peace and conscious living.

With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank the three speakers for speaking in favour of the Bill.

Sir, Mr Tarmugi has raised his concerns about two points. First, what sort of measures we have for reducing abuse in the future and, second, how do we make sure that these measures are effective.

Sir, the key to any measure is education of the public. We will continue to educate the public through the support of various voluntary organisations as well as through MCD, and the newly implemented programmes that we have for newly-weds will also make sure that they are prepared for family formation. So education is one of the key platforms that we have and have been stressing, and which we will be further enhancing in the coming years. With education, comes the question of how we ensure that we are aware of cases where abuses have happened and how we are able to intervene before those abuses progress to a stage where fatalities occur? We have to really depend on a few sources. One is concerned neighbours; second, concerned relatives and, of course, third, concerned teachers in the case of children who are in schools.

Sir, these three sources have proven to be very useful and most of the abuse cases that have come to light have been brought up through these avenues. We will have to continue educating Singaporeans, making Singaporeans more aware that if and when they come across cases of child abuse, they should not hesitate to report to MCD where an investigation can then be carried out.

Sir, in the case of doctors, we need to draw a balance between mandatory reporting and the fear that because there is mandatory reporting, parents would then be reluctant to bring their children for treatment. The understanding at the present moment between MCD and MOH is that if the doctors in the public medical system come across cases which indicate that some form of child abuse has taken place, they will investigate further and if there are good grounds for suspicion that child abuse has actually taken place, they will then bring it up to MCD's attention. So far, I think it has worked very well. We will continue with that.

Mrs Yu-Foo has asked whether we can reorientate the training programmes in our approved schools so that those who are academically inclined can then be assisted to take academic courses rather than proceed on to vocational or technical education. Sir, the approved schools do have both academic as well as technical and vocational training. As to which course a detainee is put into, it depends very much on the detainee's interest. So in cases where they are academically inclined, the schools have arranged for them to take up BEST courses as well as WISE, before proceeding on to take their 'N' level examinations. So those two streams (academic and technical) are presently available.

Sir, Mr Umar has proposed that the penalties in clause 6 be further enhanced. This is a new clause which we have introduced in anticipation of future problems. Our assessment is that the penalties should be adequate. But I think the key thing is we should be prepared to monitor the situation and if, as Mr Umar feels, the penalties are proven to be not adequate, we will then be prepared to come back to the House and ask for the penalties to be enhanced. Sir, the penalties of $5,000 fine or imprisonment of two years or both are, in our view, quite adequate at the present moment. But we will review and enhance them in future if need be.

He has also asked for further protection for children against people who use them for immoral purposes. Sir, there are adequate provisions in the Bill here as well as in the Penal Code against adults who take advantage of children for immoral purposes. I think these provisions are, as they stand now, quite adequate.

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. - [Mr Yeo Cheow Tong].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: The citation year will be changed to "1993". This will be done.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 87 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

5.55 pm