PAYMENT OF FINE BY PARENT FOR CHILD'S OFFENCE (Criteria)

Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Law if he will clarify the criteria that are taken into account in deciding which parent is ordered to pay a fine when a child is found guilty of an offence by a juvenile court, having regard to the Government's policy of designating the father as the head of the family.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Law): Sir, the criteria for the exercise of the power are set out in section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act. The Juvenile Court has the discretion to impose a fine on either or both parents depending on the circumstances of the case. In two recent cases, the Court exercised its discretion under section 39 of the Act. In one case, the Court found that both parents failed to exercise due care and imposed a fine on both of them. In the other case, the Court found that both parents failed to exercise due care, but exercised its discretion to impose a fine on the mother only, as the father has a serious medical condition. As such, the issue of who is head of the family does not arise.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Sir, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agree that if the father has the privilege of getting medical benefits for the children as he is the head of the household, then he must also have the responsibility of bearing the burden that due care has not been exercised and the child has been neglected?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think we should not mix the two issues. The father has the legal responsibility of maintaining and upkeeping the family, wife and children. But here we are talking about bringing up the children, looking after the children in terms of their behaviour. I think here both parents have a responsibility.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Sir, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agree that privileges have to go with responsibilities? And if the man is the head of the household, then ultimately the man would have to bear responsibility even if the wife did not bring up the child well.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Under section 39, the court will look at the circumstances of the case. In fact, before the Juvenile Court makes a sentence, there is a pre-sentence report. The probation officer will interview the juvenile, the parents, members of the family, school teachers, peers and, if need be, a psychological assessment is taken. So all these facts are put before the court, which may sit with two assessors, which then decides, based on the criteria found in section 39, whether one parent or both parents have neglected to exercise due care over the child. If it is both parents, both will be fined. If it is one parent, the neglecting parent will be fined.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Sir, would the Government therefore give some direction to the court, in the sense that if both parents are found to be guilty, then the practice should be that the father should be fined and not the mother, as the father does have the privilege of being the head of the household? We may have to consider changing legislation, if necessary.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I do not think it is the business of the Government to give direction to the court. In any case, the court is guided by the specific words of section 39 which, as I said, give it the power to look at the circumstances and determine which parent has been at fault. I think this fault principle is a good one. Otherwise, we may get a situation where the father is a model father but the child still goes wayward because the mother has neglected to exercise due care, then the father would be fined for what he has not done. In fact, he has been a good parent but he has been fined. Is that right?

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Sir, with the indulgence of the House, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agree that we do not take this into consideration when we designate the man as the head of the household? Would he agree that it could be the woman who is actually the de facto head of the household and yet it is the man who gets the medical privileges for the children?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: We should not mix the two issues. I think Dr Soin has got this binge about head of household which has been raised in this House many times, the last one being in March, when she had an exchange with the Deputy Prime Minister. We should leave that aside. In so far as the philosophy of the section is concerned, looking at the wording of the section, the question is one of defaulting parent. Because, as I said, both parents have a responsibility of bringing up the child. And that is separate from the legal responsibility of the husband or father to maintain the child financially. I think we should not mix up the two issues when considering how the court should exercise its discretion under section 39.