DEATH OF TODDLER JOEL PETER

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Community Development whether the tragic death of the toddler Joel Peter could have been prevented.

The Minister for Community Development (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi): Mr Speaker, Sir, my response to the Member's question is "yes". Joel's death could have been prevented if those who had seen, heard or known of the abuse of the child by the father had alerted the relevant authorities such as my Ministry, the Police or any social service agency of the abuse. In this instance, neither the mother nor her friends who knew of the abuse did so.

I would like to encourage those who knew of the abuse to refer the matter to my Ministry or the Police or to approach any social agency for advice. Victims of abuse who are able to do so should also seek help to stop the abuse.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): How does the Ministry classify the case?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: If the Member had read the newspaper report, he would have known that the case was classified as a case of "abandonment". The case arose from a complaint by the foster parent to the Ministry because the foster parent was not paid for the services rendered to the couple. As a result of this, the Ministry of Community Development intervened and took the child and placed him in a foster home and looked for the parents. So it was a case of abandonment and not a case of child abuse in the first instance.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: How many times was the child abandoned?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Twice.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Since the child was abandoned twice, did the Ministry not suspect anything more than just abandonment?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, there was no cause for the Ministry to suspect anything beyond abandonment because on occasions when the Ministry's social workers interviewed the parents and the child himself they found no evidence of child abuse.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Since the child was abandoned twice, does the Minister agree that the parents must be quite irresponsible in this case? And since the Ministry first came to know about the case when the parents were unable to pay the fostering fees, did the Ministry take the initiative to further look into the problems faced by the family?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Perhaps it would be beneficial if I give in detail what the Ministry did in this particular case so that it will at least give the Member a proper understanding of what actually happened.

As I said earlier, it was a case of abandonment when the parents did not pay the fees of the foster parent. The Ministry took over the child and placed him in the care of a foster parent under the Ministry's fostering scheme while efforts were made to trace the parents. When contacts were subsequently made with the parents, the Ministry continued to place Joel under the Ministry's fostering scheme though his parents requested for his return. The parents had no proper home and both were jobless and they were facing financial difficulties. The mother was also at a very advanced stage of pregnancy. The Ministry wanted to give the father time to look for a job and to give a proper home for the family.

Joel was returned to his parents after his father proved that he was stable in a job and had a home and that both parents were observed to be coping well with the new baby that was born and were interacting very well with Joel. So there was no instance at any time where there were any indications that there was child abuse.

Before the decision was made to return Joel to the parents, the case was deliberated by a committee which comprised individuals from the public who are appointed by me to oversee the fostering scheme, and they include psychologists, medical officers, social workers as well as people from other fields. There was no indication at all that the child was abused. Neither the mother nor her friends informed the Ministry of the abuse.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin (Nominated Member): Sir, would the Minister agree that abandonment is a form of neglect? If it is, would it not be an offence under the Children and Young Persons Act?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, that is a separate issue, but what the Member for Hougang is implying is that the Ministry's officials should have probed further to look into evidence of abuse. We did, and we did not find any evidence of abuse in this particular case.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: I would request the Minister to reply to my question. If he thinks that abandonment is a form of neglect then that would have been liable under the Children and Young Persons Act so the Ministry could have proceeded on that ground of neglect by the parents.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: We could have, but certainly not under child abuse.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, is abandonment, twice in this case, considered a form of abuse?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: I think we are trying to look into the definition of abuse. The Member is trying to stretch the definition of abuse to include abandonment. Here, abandonment is not a question of the parent leaving the child, let us say, in a deserted place. He was placed in foster care. It was just that the parents did not visit the child and they did not pay the fostering fees.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Is the Minister implying that if a child is abandoned in a public place, then it is considered as abuse?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: I did not say that.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The Minister did say that in this particular case the child was with the foster parent and therefore it was not viewed as abuse. My question is whether abandonment should be considered as a form of abuse.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, I think the Member is trying to split hairs here. I know what he is leading to. His question was whether it leads to abuse and the death of the toddler. He is trying to include abandonment as a case of abuse here.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: That was not my intention, Sir. I am surprised that the Ministry closed the case and classified the case as abandonment when the child was abandoned twice. Eventually, the question that arises is: is abandonment a form of abuse?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: In this particular case, although he was abandoned twice, for all intents and purposes, there was indication that the parents loved the child and there were good relations between the parents and the child. It is well known in social work that we always try to return the child to the parents and that is the end purpose of our interference. In other words, we try not to separate the child from the parents as far as we can and if we find that there is reason for the child to be returned to the parents, we do so.

Mr Low Thia Khiang rose ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Low, unless you have any fresh points to make, I intend to move on to the debate on the Budget Statement. You keep on asking the same points again.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I would like to know whether the officers concerned from the Ministry did make any surprise visits after the child was returned to the parents and what are the follow-up procedures in cases like this.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: The officer concerned indeed made checks on the parents and the parents were also called to the Ministry for interviews. During these visits, again, there was no indication of abuse seen by the officer concerned.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: When was the interview conducted?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, I do not think the Member expects me to have all these details here. I can give him all the details if he wants, but certainly not here.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Based on the press report, the case was closed on 16th July and the last visit by the welfare officer was 27th June 1994. But a family member, Ismail Abdul Karim, had noted in June or July 1994 that the toddler's face was swollen and he had seen his father punched him. I would like to know why there was this discrepancy. Secondly, is the social worker concerned equipped with the necessary medical background to understand and note any form of injury, abuse and things like that, or was it just a casual observation?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Let me answer the second question first. The social worker is a trained social worker and has a good reputation in the Ministry. He is a very careful worker. No, Sir, social workers do not have medical training. I do not think they need to. They are trained enough to be able to discern any evidence of abuse.

On the first question about the visits, the incident was reported by a family friend, not by a relative. There were visits before the report and there were no indications of any bruises or injuries as a result of abuse.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Could I ask the Minister, if he agrees that it could be a case of neglect, why did the Ministry not proceed to charge the parents with neglect under the Children and Young Persons Act? Why did the Ministry choose not to carry the case to its logical proceeding? I understand the Minister's concern about wanting to return the child to the family but would the Minister not agree that the child's welfare is paramount in situations like this?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: The child's interest is not less taken care of had we not charged the parents. If the implication is that we would have catered to the interest of the child more had we prosecuted the parents, it would be an erroneous assumption.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: I presume it is hypothetical, Sir, but if the parents had been charged then Joel Peter's death could have been prevented.

Mr Speaker: Your question is hypothetical. The Minister need not answer that. Mr Low, do you have any other questions?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The Minister said that the case was closed but the press report mentioned that there were bruises. The Minister said that there was no sign of it when the social worker visited the child. Is the Minister saying that these bruises occurred after the social worker visited the child and probably the case had been closed by then?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Yes.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Is there any time-frame or duration in which cases like this will be followed up?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: No, Sir, there is no time-frame. Again, if the Member had read the newspaper articles on this, it took more than a year after the first report when the case was closed. I think the first report was in February and the child was on the fostering care under the Ministry some time in April 1993 and the case was only closed in July 1994. There is no time-frame. It depends on the judgment of the social worker and also the Fostering Committee.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, can I take it that in this particular case, the Ministry has made a wrong judgement in closing the case?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: No, Sir, we do not think so. I think that the Member is trying to insinuate that my Ministry or the officer is incompetent and not doing his work. Unless the Member has got substantial proof, I do not think the Member should pursue this line of questioning.