CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, while I agree with Dr Vasoo and Mr Chong that brevity and succinctness are a virtue in this House, I am sure they would also agree with me that in a piece of legislation this important, at least one Member can be allowed to make a longer speech.

Sir, I rise to speak in strong support of this Bill. It is a major piece of social legislation designed to extend protection to the most vulnerable in society, possibly from the people that they most trust and love. At the same time, some of our young people unfortunately behave in ways that are damaging both to them and to society. It is timely therefore that this House should address these issues in a thorough manner. With the advancement of medical science, particularly in the field of psychiatry, we are made more aware that the emotional injuries inflicted on a child can be more serious and long-lasting than even physical injuries. The emotional scars can even be transferred to future generations. We must be bold therefore in setting up institutions to identify those who have been subjected to abuse or mistreatment and to take a holistic view in prescribing the remedy, whether it be through medical or psychiatric treatment, counselling or social censure, rather than relying solely on the criminal sanction. We must also understand the causes of deviance, and look for solutions that will rehabilitate young offenders, rather than to ostracise and maroon them from the rest of society.

Sir, the legislation we are considering today embodies novel objectives and practical solutions. I am all for it. The point that I made concerning the details of the Bill therefore should be seen as supporting the aim of the legislation and to ensuring that when it comes into force, it is effective and implemented with fairness and objectivity.

Sir, the new Bill extends a level of protection for children and young persons significantly. Under the present provision, cruelty to children and young persons must cause, and I quote, "unnecessary suffering or injury to his health, including injury through a loss of sight or hearing or limb or organ of the body and any mental derangement". This is the present section 4. This is far too restrictive a provision and really contemplates an awful situation of continuing abuse resulting in serious physical or mental injury. I therefore welcome particularly the new provisions contained in clause 4 which are much wider in scope. It speaks of parents or guardians neglecting to exercise proper supervision and control, resulting in a child or a young person falling into bad association or exposed to moral danger, or is otherwise beyond control. It speaks of children being at risk of being ill-treated by their parent or guardian. Ill-treatment is widely defined to include emotional injury or injury to the child's health or development. Development itself is widely defined to mean physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavourial development. Sir, these new terms vastly extend the scope of the legislation and will give rise to several problems, quite apart from the open textured nature of the words used. For instance, reasonable people may disagree as to when a child may be said to be in need of protection. What does being exposed to moral danger mean, or what is the degree of risk of ill-treatment that must be present before it would be right to say that the child is in need of protection? All these terms would have to be interpreted and applied by those involved in enforcing the Act, namely, the Director of Social Welfare, protectors and even police officers. I note especially in clause 5, a police officer of the rank of sergeant can actually take a decision to enter a home without a warrant and remove a child alleged to be at risk. My question is: are police officers trained for this sort of assessment? Indeed, are any of the persons involved trained to assess the wider criteria that are now stipulated?

For that matter, if I were to ask Members present in this House today to give their views as to what is the degree of risk that would be necessary before it is legitimate to intervene, I believe we would not find a general consensus. Some may say that there needs to be a clear and present danger of ill-treatment, others may put it less strongly. The point is there is likely to be as many interpretations of the degree of risk as there are people asked to interpret it.

Sir, I believe therefore that much needs to be done, even if this Bill were to pass through today. There must be a serious attempt to set out clear guidelines as to how these new provisions are to be interpreted and applied. Without such guidelines, I worry that parents and guardians may be wrongly subjected to investigations which may, in turn, give rise to undeserved social ostracism or misunderstanding. In our society, where family values are so enshrined, it would be particularly reprehensible for a parent or guardian to be wrongly accused of ill-treating his child.

I must therefore ask the Minister what are the steps that his Ministry would take to ensure that in no case would there be precipitous action by some over-zealous officials and that each case would carefully and quickly be reviewed before action is taken.

Sir, the concern is even stronger when we realise that those who provide the information on alleged ill-treatment are specially protected under the proposed legislation. The identity of these informers cannot be revealed even in court. Those who inform cannot through their actions be regarded as having breached any code of ethics or professional etiquette. If he or she acted in good faith, there will be no civil or criminal liability. These are pretty strong provisions to protect informers. While I can see justification, in terms of public policy, for protecting identity so given, I am not convinced that such protection should be given when the informer was found to be malicious or acting in his or her own self-interest, or for some other undesirable motive. As the provision now stands, no witness who knows the identity of the informer, can be compelled to disclose the identity of the informer.

But I would like the Minister to confirm that this provision in the new section 84A(4) would not prevent a willing witness, who knows the informer's identity, from disclosing the identity of the informer. This measure is necessary to ensure that there should be some accountability on the part of informers. Good public policy requires a balance between protecting the young and protecting the innocent. In other words, we should ensure at all times that there should be as small a number as possible of false accusations of ill-treatment. There should be no protection for those who falsely accuse another, particularly in relation to ill-treatment of their own children.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

3.57 pm

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I turn now to treatment for juvenile offenders. It is a sad fact that in today's world, crimes, including serious crimes, are no longer solely in the domain of the adult. Therefore, the Bill is clearly right in focusing on the reformation or rehabilitation of the youthful offender, rather than on straightforward punishment in the form of deterrent sentences or incarceration. It is also in the right direction when it seeks to involve a greater number of orders that the Juvenile Court can make, including requiring the young person and parent to undergo psychotherapy or other counselling.

Additionally, in clause 20, the Bill introduces a new institution in relation to the treatment of young offenders and child offenders. This is the convening of a family conference and provides in the new section 44A, a series of measures that a family conference may take to deal with offenders. These include a simple reprimand or formal caution to requiring the offender to pay compensation or to perform community service. It can also require the offender to apologise to the victim. I think now we all understand that the word "apologise" means that saying "sorry" would definitely not be enough.

My concern is this. There is no description of what a family conference is, let alone a definition. One can deduce from the provision that family members of the offender may be included, even though there is no requirement that they must attend. There is no indication as to who else might be in the conference or who should chair it or whether it should have a chairman at all. Sir, given that the family conference appears to be acting in a quasi judicial capacity, I would like to know why its nature and composition are not specifically provided for in the Bill. It is strange that its powers are set out in such detail, but not its nature or composition. Neither is it clear how it would conduct its proceedings, or whether it is possible to have a further appeal against the decision of the family conference, assuming that it does not need to be unanimous in its decision-making. May I ask the Minister to clarify the issues relating to the family conference that I have raised?

Sir, this Bill is ambitious in scope and intent. However, it seems to require also a serious commitment of additional resources to implement it. I would like to ask the Minister what additional resources are available to implement all these new measures. Will there be more child psychiatrists? How many are available now and how many more will be needed? Are Juvenile Court judges or social workers equipped to handle such cases? The Bill seems to place great reliance on doctors who may, of course, be equipped very well to deal with physical injuries, but are they equally knowledgeable about child psychiatry? Essentially, are we ready to implement the Bill's extensive provisions?

Sir, as we consider the Bill today, I am reminded to call it the Children and Young Persons Charter in that it seeks extensively to protect children and young persons from all sorts of abuse. It reminds me of the other charter, the Women's Charter, and I wonder whether it is really not time to bring the two charters together into one family charter. That should be what we should be driving at. The value of the family is central, it is fundamental to Singapore, it is recognised in the S21 report. We should try to make sure that we have a family charter providing for the protection of children or rehabilitation of young offenders and also of course of women.

Sir, I reiterate again my support for this Bill and hope that its coming into force will ensure that more children and young people will sleep better at night.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): Sir, against the backdrop of enhanced powers being given to the state, institutions and officers in passing judgement and directly impacting the lives of family members, I would like to raise my concerns and seek the Minister's clarification. Like what Prof. Chin said, on matters as important as a legislation related to the children and their families which the Ministry and AG's Chambers had taken four years to deliberate on, it is not discharging my due diligence not to raise my concerns, even though it would take longer than my previous colleagues. Sir, I seek your indulgence.

First, on some jurisdictional points in clause 33. Under the current Act, a "child" is defined as below 14 years of age. A "young person" is between the ages of 14 and 16. Any young person 16 or older will be tried at the High Court or District Court, except in those cases where the public prosecutor decides to try the offence in the Juvenile Court. My question is: is the age of the offender when the offence is committed the determining one to decide which court the offender should be judged in, or is his age during the time of the hearing a determining one? The Bill is unclear, and therefore may be unfair, given the differences in sentencing options in both courts. For example, if a child or young person committed an offence when he/she was 15 but turned 16 by the time the child was brought before the court, would this child go before the Juvenile Court or the District or High Court?

I think the age of the offender at the point of the commission of the alleged offence must be a determining factor in directing which court the offender should be tried in, and this must not be left to the discretion of the public prosecutor who has the difficult task of balancing the interests of the State against the interests of the child. In the event that a child is brought before the District or High Court, perhaps it should be the offender's legal representative, instead of the public prosecutor, who should apply for the case to be tried in the Juvenile Court, as he would know the offender better and would be in a better position to act in the interest of the child.

Second, my concern is on what constitutes an "emotional injury". While emotional abuse is a common form of abuse which must be stopped to prevent it from escalating to physical battery and from causing more damage to the self-esteem of the child, I wonder how, in the complexity of the diverse parenting styles which different families adopt, our enforcement officers would be able to determine cases of emotional abuse. My concern is that the application of the standards in determining "emotional injury" is a largely subjective exercise. Are parents who push their children very hard during examinations by locking them up to study and depriving them of leisure, food and drinks, emotionally abusing them?

Further, if caning is accepted by some parents and school teachers who believe it is a positive child disciplinary measure, is it consistent that we now introduce a "softer" standard of "emotional abuse", stating verbal abuse as an offence under the Act, whilst the affliction of physical punishment by the cane on the body of a child is not?

I seek the Minister's views on how he reconciles the use of the cane against the sanction of a foul or harsh word that upsets the child. How then can we convincingly persuade parents to accept the judgment made by the Director or his or her officer that they have committed an offence of emotional abuse when all around them there is more violent behaviour that is being sanctioned?

Could we consider substituting the words "emotional injury" with "psychological abuse or injury"? Dr Vasoo earlier on had not made a distinction between the two words. I feel that "psychological abuse" is a more appropriate standard to be applied, as it can be substantiated by professional medical opinion regarding the impact of parental abuses on the mental health of the child.

My third concern is on insufficient checks and balances on the powers of the Director. The police officer above the rank of sergeant, the approved welfare officer and the Director would now be empowered to effectively pass judgment on parents whom they feel are "unlikely or unwilling" in clause 3(d)(ii), or "unable or unwilling" in clause 3(f)(i) to protect the child from ill-treatment, or are "believed to have committed the offence". Such broad powers being now given to officers to intervene and make moral judgments on the competence of parents are both a welcome initiative as well as a disconcerting one.

The welcome part is that the designated officers have broader scope to quickly make decisions on how the child or young person is to be taken care of, whether this be by removal to an approved home, provided in Part VIA, clause 66, or to undergo a medical examination, in new section 71A, etc. All this is done without the paralysing fear of their actions inviting legal repercussions against themselves.

The disconcerting part arises from the fact that these are serious decisions, because they involve the physical removal of children from homes which, no doubt, would be upsetting to family units. Even though I believe that the Director and his/her officers would be carefully selected and would most likely carry out their official duties in good faith, an inescapable query is who then "directs" the Director and scrutinizes his or her decisions and the decisions of his or her officers?

If we have to accept that someone has to be given the authority to pass judgment on our parenting methods, must we also accept that no body of governance is set up to scrutinize his or her decisions? What if the judgment call is erroneous? The Bill is silent on providing some mechanism of accountability on the powers of the Director and his or her officers in exercising the discretion afforded them under this Bill. Instead, the Bill protects them from any personal liability and no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie personally against the Director and other protection officers, as provided in Part VIII, clause 84.

I realise that this is a difficult balance that the law is being asked to take here in empowering the Director and his or her officers on the one hand, and preventing abuse by these same empowered people on the other. Either extreme would be unacceptable, as it would mean either injury or inaction.

Nevertheless, I hope the Minister can assure me that these officers are qualified by training to carry out professional assessment work and that their judgment will be subjected to experts in the medical and service delivery, including community advocates like informed parents and teachers. I will be even more confident if a board of governance can be set up eventually to maintain high standards.

My fourth point is regarding placing children at a place of safety. The Bill in new section 8 provides broader powers for designated officers to take a victim to a place of safety, but it does not provide indicators to determine the maximum duration and when the offender may be released from the approved home or school. I acknowledge that the probation officers probably know better.

I would like to explore a new school of thought which argues that incarceration of children away from home and family constitutes a form of institutional abuse, and does not contribute to the recovery or rehabilitation of children and their families. I hope the Ministry will examine this perspective and propose as part of sentencing options a live-in therapy period, whereby expert facilitators explore with family members new ways of relating to one another in a new and more loving way. This model is already adopted in several countries.

I want to emphasise that I appreciate that child protection management is a complex and difficult call of duty. Officers have to contend with the wishes of parents who feel it is their right to deal with their children their way. How we balance this inalienable duty with the rights of the parents against the interest of a defenceless child is understandably the most heart-rending and difficult challenges which our child protection officers have to delicately deal with, and very often under conditions of tremendous duress and humiliating assaults from angry and aggressive guardians. The job of child protection officers is admirable, but unenviable. I hope more recognition and training opportunities can be given to motivate these officers to undertake this difficult challenge.

This leads me to one more disturbing point. Sir, for those parents who have no money to find help for their physically or mentally disabled children and yet have to work, sometimes two shifts a day, are they committing an offence when they lock up their children in rooms and let them defecate and scream in private? As there are insufficient public institutions to take in severely mentally handicapped children who are forced to be tied down at home and languish their time away while the adults are at work, is this a form of child abuse and who is responsible for this crime?

Sir, these are tough issues but in the context of arguing for care and protection of children and young persons, the disabled community and their concerns form a critical focus. Parental neglect in these cases is beyond the parents' control, because they do not have the money, time and energy to cope with these difficult cases. I hope when the Director exercises his or her judgment, the socio-economic status of the parents can be taken into consideration before judgment is passed. I hope there are financial schemes being set up to support services to children who have to be committed to the homes when parents cannot afford to pay.

In the more moderate cases of mentally challenged adults who are chronologically 16 or 18 years old, but have an IQ of a child of 6, how do we handle their public offences, such as shoplifting and touching the opposite sex? As they acted without understanding and an intention to hurt, which of the legal instruments relating to young persons can be judiciously applied to these offenders with special needs? With this Bill, the parents are held responsible and become the offender for not supervising their child in the first place. Is this an appropriate judicial response?

I hope the Ministry will review the portfolio of legal sanctions relating to offences committed by the disabled and assess if they are adequate in exercising care and protection over this community.

Let me shift the focus to parents who neglect their children. There are two wonderful words in the Chinese language which, in my view, summarise a perspective on parenting. The words are guan jiao (??), meaning to supervise and to teach; and jiao dao (??), meaning to teach and to guide or lead by example. Parents are not supervising nor are they teaching and guiding their children, because they do not have the time or they conveniently think it is the job of the schools; or they may be disciplining their children with the cane without teaching and guiding them, so that children do not understand the mistakes they have made.

More often than not, parents just simply do not know how to parent, and as inadequate parents and poor role models, they simply are too afraid of losing their children's affection. So they fail to discipline, reprimand, guide and teach. "Neglect", which is an offence in this Bill, can simply mean being unable or disable in the role of parenting.

This is where the new sections of the Bill, sections 44A, 44B as well as 49A, appear the most refreshing and innovative. By providing additional sentencing options for juvenile offenders, such as family conferencing and community services, and by ordering mandatory counselling for parents who have to pay for assessment and treatment services of offenders under their charge, the State is signalling a fundamental judicial perspective in upholding parental cooperation and responsibility in the protection and treatment of their children. This initiative I fully support.

My final query is why is there no mandatory reporting by doctors, neighbours or other persons to report CYPA offences? The lack of service delivery infrastructure arising from high level reporting and a sense of invasion of family privacy by irresponsible gossip mongers are two frequently raised objections to legislating mandatory reporting. These are not good enough reasons, Sir, because we are talking about protection of lives.

In a recent speech made by the Minister, he reported a high incidence of reporting and consultation by professionals who did not hesitate to report suspected child abuse cases to relevant authorities. If this is so, will it not augur well for social responsibility in Singapore to fix a legislation on mandatory reporting among institutional professionals like doctors, nurses, medical social workers, to signal a zero tolerance threshold on violence against children? Especially since in the amendments, the Minister has also made provision to protect socially responsible citizens from civil suits if they act in good faith to report suspected child abuse. Like the Minister himself said, it is better to err on the side of caution than to let a child suffer. I seek the Minister's response on why this legislation leans against imposing such a duty.

Sir, on the whole, the legal framework, as proposed in this Bill, is comprehensive enough to allow front-line officers the discretion to intervene early to prevent further injury to the child and young person. In order that the law be properly enforced on the ground, it is critical that the responsible Ministries, critically MCDS, MHA, MOE, MOH, have sufficiently comprehensive and coherent guidelines with which to follow through on orders made by the courts.

I am glad to learn that following the formation of the Inter-Ministry Committee on the Management of Child Abuse in January 1997, numerous initiatives were undertaken by MCDS in this direction: the launches of the manual for management of child abuse in July 1999 by MCDS, an abridged manual for Professionals and Service Providers Working with Children and a public education booklet "Love Our Children - Prevent Child Abuse" in February 2001 - the booklets are here [indicating], very colourful and child-friendly; as well as this manual which has been told to me that it has been very helpful to service providers - and the recent Child Protection Link in March this year which is a networking platform for key Ministries' officials involved in child protection work. All these are positive initiatives. The Ministry has indeed worked very hard in the last four years. Thank you, Minister and your dedicated officers. We need to continue now to strengthen collaborative training and public education programmes for all involved in child protection work to enhance skills levels and greater communication between agencies.

At a broader level, what we need is a positive child-friendly environment at home, in school and within the community. What we need to do more is to help families in trouble. This Bill has kick-started a central focus on safeguarding the welfare of children and responsibility of the family, which in a resource-scarce Singapore state and in view of our declining fertility rate matched against a rapidly ageing population, are significant social pillars in shaping our sustainability.

Sir, on that basis, I support the Bill.

Mr Gerard Ee: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill.

Finally, at least family members are now drawn in the process. With this amendment, a parent or guardian of a child can be made to undergo counselling, psychotherapy and other programmes or activities. Also, the Bill seeks to widen the scope of punishment where more meaningful and appropriate punishment can be meted out. I see that the court can prescribe shorter detention, such as over weekends or even to require supervision of the offenders under probation. New section 44, which will allow younger offenders to be sent to the reformative training centre, takes cognisance that there are unfortunately very young offenders who have the capacity for extreme violence and are recalcitrant in their acts of violence.

I think there are many good points in the Bill. Like earlier speakers have pointed out, we need to refine and work out some definitions. But while it is going on, I recall horror stories that are published in the press of child being abused, and I am glad that new section 8 will allow prompt action to be taken where there is reasonable ground that a child or young person is in need of care and protection. Prompt action is the only thing that will prevent further damage being done, whilst I acknowledge earlier speakers' concern that there are definitions to be worked out.

I am also happy to see that new sections 84 and 84A will provide protection from suit or other legal proceedings to the enforcer and witness. Without such protection being offered, I can envisage that people will be reluctant to be a notifier and pretend not to notice what is going on. Also, enforcers will be hesitant to take prompt action if they are being constantly bombarded with harassment and stress of suits and other legal proceedings.

I like the amendments to the Bill but I have one major reservation, and this has to do with new section 35 on the restriction of publication of information relating to the proceedings involving children and young persons. This section is there to protect the identity of a child or a young person. I am surprised that the punishment for a breach of this section is a mere fine not exceeding $2,000 for a first offence and a fine not exceeding $10,000 for a second or subsequent offence. Such sums are pocket expenses for the media. Besides, we should expect the highest standard of governance on the part of the media and a breach of section 35 must not be tolerated. In my mind, such a breach could not be accidental. It must be deliberate and the fines should be at least $100,000 for a first offence and even more for subsequent offences with a possibility of imprisonment. How does one value the damage done to a child? Could the article be used in the future against the child who has made good and is successful in society? Could it destroy the prospect of a child succeeding in life? Could it be a future source of blackmail? The offender would have been fined $2,000 or $10,000 which will probably be covered by increased subscription and advertising revenues for being a sensational press. I urge the Minister to increase the fines proposed under this section to one that is truly punishing and not offsettable by any commercial gains from the act.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, I would like to thank Members for their contributions and strong support for the Bill which is very timely. We need these amendments to improve the protection of our children and young persons.

Let me, first, address the general concern about definitions and assessments, and whether or not we are trying to judge or take over the parents' role of how they ought to look after their children. Sir, we at the Ministry are very concerned about these too. We have thought long and hard about how we define things, how do we ascertain that whatever we are doing is correct, what do we know about what people think of their children and how they ought to be dealing with their children. So we are very aware of the difficulties of definitions, coverage, assessment and abuse. But, unfortunately, it is inherent in the issues that we are talking about. We are talking about relationships, we are talking about the psychological condition of a person. These are things which are difficult to really put your finger on and truly measure them.

So where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line between abuse and discipline? Where do you draw the line between what is accidental and what is wilful? Where do you draw the line between what is private good and what is public good? And where do you draw the line whether it is in the interest of the child or in the interest of the family that we are talking about? These are questions which we agonise over and, indeed, it took us long and hard to really find the answers. But, nevertheless, Sir, the line must be drawn. We cannot not draw the line simply because our failure to do so will mean that there would be children out there who are damaged by the actions of either parents or relatives who abuse them either psychologically or physically. So the line must be drawn. But what we can do, Sir, is to minimise the subjectivity and sharpen the ability for us to assess correctly what ought to be done and what should be done for the child. Therefore, we tilt towards the interest of the child.

So how do we go about trying to minimise the subjectivity, if at all, in the issues? One is to make sure that we approach the problem holistically. In other words, we look at each issue in context, from all angles and perspectives - individual differences, cultural differences, norms. We take all these into consideration and we make sure that we cover all angles, as it were, by making sure that we include all professions, all expertise, all experts (psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, social workers, teachers, community leaders). We have an inter-disciplinary and inter-agency approach towards assessment so that we get as wide a variety of minds to bear on the problems and as many experts to bear on the problems that we have in mind and at issue. And we also have protocols, guidelines and procedures which my officers follow stringently because we know that if we make a wrong decision, our decision would mean that a child may bear the scars of what he or she suffers during childhood right up to adulthood.

So we are very well aware of the problems that Members have raised in terms of subjectivity, sharpening our assessment, and in terms of whether we are doing it in the interest of the child, the family or the community. So that is, in general, Sir, what I would like to respond in terms of the fears and concerns about subjectivity of the issues that are involved in child abuse.

Let me now go to specific questions and comments from Members. For example, Prof. Chin asked what we mean by family conferencing. The word "family", I think, here is a bit of a misnomer because it really does not mean only the family is involved, but it includes significant others too. It involves relatives, it involves those who are victims of a child's offending behaviour. This family conferencing is part of the judicial process. In other words, it is an option during the case discussion, before the magistrate passes sentence, and it brings together those people who are affected by the juvenile's offending behaviour and this will include the offender, his or her parent or guardian, the victim, victim's family, and we have a family conferencing facilitator, an expert at facilitating and mediating such meetings. Through this mediation process, a family conference attempts to reach a consensus on what is the most appropriate way an offender can make reparations for his or her offending actions. The goal of the conference is for the juvenile to realise the impact of his or her offending behaviour or to express contrition to the victim and his or her family. The facilitators of this conference are selected based on their broad abilities to understand the processes of the juvenile court and the juvenile rehabilitation process as well as their skills in facilitating such meetings.

Next, the question of jurisdiction of those below 16 years old. Mdm Claire Chiang asked about the jurisdiction for hearings of cases involving those who are below 16 and whether the system is fair in hearing the child and in meting out sentence. Sir, the system that we have now is an efficient and restorative one and it ensures that the young person who is about to turn 16 or who is below 16 is given the priority to be heard in the juvenile system. In other words, we try as much as possible and, indeed, given the efficiency of our courts, such children will be heard in the juvenile system. The Act provides for such cases to continue to be heard in the juvenile court even after the child turns over 16. All efforts will be made to expedite his or her hearing so that the principle which governs the juvenile court is extended to young persons.

Mdm Claire Chiang also asked how do we know that the child is to be released and who is going to determine the child is to be released. Sir, this depends very much on the progress that the youths make during their rehabilitation and also the circumstances of their families. Our policy is not to keep youths in institutional setting. That is the last thing we want to do. In my speech just now, I reiterated that institutionalisation is the last resort. But while the policy is not to keep these youths in institutional setting longer than necessary, we need to strike a balance between what is public safety and whether or not the young person is ready to return to the community and to his or her family.

There is a multi-disciplinary team, comprising psychologists, social workers and vocational instructors, to look into the different needs of each resident. Therefore, there is a committee, there is a group of people. In fact, as a principle, we have groups of experts rather than one individual person trying to determine whether or not the juvenile ought to be released or what kind of punishment, penalty or option which has to be imposed on a child.

Prof. Chin asked whether we have enough professionals to accommodate the changes that we have made. Indeed, the changes are very comprehensive, and this is in fact one of the biggest changes that we have made to the CYPA. We too are very concerned whether we have enough people. We are still trying to produce enough psychologists, social workers and psychiatrists. Right now, we use both the expertise that we have in Government and also in the private sector. In other words, we also marshal the expertise - doctors, social workers - in the private sector to assess and also help us understand the cases that we have. But, certainly, we would continue to train people. We have, for example, engaged trainers from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which is based in UK, to provide professional training to our child protection officers. We also have joint training conducted with the agencies, such as the police and medical social workers, to ensure that the inter-agency system is sufficient and work in the interest of children. We are also working with the various agencies to secure the additional manpower and resources to run additional programmes. And we are also tapping the manpower and resources in the voluntary welfare organisations, in terms of psychiatrists and psychologists, to provide these specialised services for the programmes.

Prof. Chin asked whether we ought not to merge the CYPA and also the Women's Charter. Sir, the purpose of the CYPA and the Women's Charter is different in the sense that the CYPA is to protect vulnerable and dependent children, the young persons who are at risk of abuse or have been abused and they cover young persons between the ages of 14 and 16. Whereas the Women's Charter provides for the protection of women and girls below 21 years who are in moral danger. So they are two different pieces of legislation which cover two different sections of the population. But I do concede that, at some point in time, perhaps we could consider merging these two pieces of legislation and also other legislation on family issues and family matters. We have not abandoned that idea. This is an idea which we could pursue later when the time is ripe.

On the question of safeguards against malicious complaints, indeed, Sir, we are very well aware of this too, given the fact that it is easy for people to complain about their neighbour's children being abused, not knowing the reality or the full story. There may be instances where, just because you have a rather lower threshold of discipline, you also want to complain. We are aware of this. My officers will certainly sieve through the complaints and applications to ensure that only those which are fair and bona fide will be pursued and those which arise out of malicious complaints or very spurious complaints would be dropped even before we proceed further.

On the question of mandatory reporting, this is something which has actually been debated a long time ago. In countries where mandatory reporting is applied, especially among professionals, we found that the level of non-compliance even by the professionals themselves is as high as 60%. We have consulted the professionals here in Singapore and, by and large, they feel that such laws are not necessary here. In particular, there is concern that mandatory reporting may in fact deter parents, who are abusers themselves, from seeking help, in particular, medical help for themselves, their children or their victims. And they may also be tempted to keep their children at home rather than send them to pre-school programme or to the doctor, thereby in fact insulating their children from the very people who could help them.

Thus, on balance, we feel that the education of professionals who have regular contacts with children, such as doctors and teachers, is a much better approach so that they know how to detect and report child abuse. We have been conducting public education programmes for professionals and service providers. Mdm Claire Chiang mentioned it. Earlier this year, I launched an abridged version of a manual on "Marriage and Child Abuse" and, certainly, it has been helpful in educating the people on how to identify child abuse and also how to go about reporting child abuse.

The issue of discipline and abuse is high in our minds too. Maybe, we must also be sure that, in some cultures, what is abuse is really discipline. In other cultures, what is discipline is really abuse. We are very well aware of that. Whenever we do come across cases whereby there may be a very thin line between what is abuse and what is discipline, we will bring in, as I said, all the expertise and various views to ascertain whether whatever is reported is really abuse or discipline.

In the case of parents who are unable to take care of their children, either because the child is disabled or has got some mental problems, we will not straightaway say that the parent is abusing the child just by chaining the child to the wall. We will look back much further, and not just look at the picture which is presented to us. In other words, we will go further and deeper. Parents who are unable to pay, because of low income or no income, we have other avenues to help them. So we are very open in that sense. We are very flexible. We understand that, ultimately, the child must go back to the family or, hopefully, the child can go back to the family. Because we too would not want to put all abused children and all victims into institutions. We would rather that they be rehabilitated. We would rather that they become stable and, hopefully, they could go back to their family because that is essentially where the children ought to belong.

Mdm Claire Chiang also touched about the fate of intellectually disabled (ID) offenders. This is important. There are provisions to first ascertain the intellectual level of these children, either by speaking to family members, interviewing them about their background, mental capacity and medical conditions and even interviewing the complainant about the offender's behaviour. This screening and identification process will help us manage the case appropriately so as to reduce unnecessary trauma experienced by the ID offenders and their families. During the sentencing stage, the courts exercise their discretionary powers and take note of the special characteristics of the offenders, such as their mental or medical condition, in the courts' decisions. If an offender is intellectually disabled indeed, the courts can request for a social report on the offender with a view to granting probation, for example.

Indeed, when a probation is granted or recommended for an ID offender, the probation officer will work closely with the probationer to attend specialised programmes run by community agencies, such as the Association for the Educationally Subnormal or Bizlink Centre, and upon placement on the probation, the ID offender will be assigned a psychologically trained officer for supervision where possible. In MCDS-run homes where there is an ID offender, we have our own psychological services unit to assess the intellectual functioning of the offender and recommend the appropriate rehabilitation programmes.

Mr Gerard Ee asked whether we ought not to impose heavier penalties on the media who disclose the identities of victims who are under 16. Sir, I cannot agree more with the Member that the penalties which we are imposing do not impose any financial hardship on the media. For sure, it will definitely not compensate the child, the young person and their families for any distress that they may have caused resulting from the disclosure. But although the fine seems very nominal, it has to be commensurate with the other proposed fines provided for in the Act. So that is something we have to follow.

However, we would like to assure the NMP that my Ministry has worked and will continue to work with the media to ensure that they are mindful of the social implications and ramifications of reporting or disclosing what they ought not to disclose, through continuous education and dialogue. But, actually, the media here are generally very responsible in their coverage on matters relating to children and young persons. Of course, there are rare incidents whereby they have the identities of the juveniles revealed to the public and when we investigated further, we found that these could have been genuine mistakes, and not through wilful disclosure of the facts.

Dr Vasoo asked about contamination. He feared that putting the new juvenile offenders together with the hardcore residents of rehabilitation homes would somehow contaminate the former. We are aware of this, Sir, and we are very concerned about contamination too. What really happens is that before residents are put into the homes, we classify them, ie, they go through a classification system. We have a system called CLASS, which is a classification and assessment system. This tool helps the Ministry to identify the needs of each juvenile offender in a very professional and objective manner. All newly committed juveniles will be assessed by a multi-disciplinary team for their character, behaviour and also their rehabilitation needs. And from the outcome of these assessments, we will consider an individual care plan for each juvenile. That is one strategy. The other strategy is to separate the two groups and, based on the results from CLASS, the homes make a decision on the physical placement of the boys and girls into different residential blocks within the homes.

Dr Vasoo also asked whether institutionalisation is always the last resort. As I said, we believe in that philosophy. And, since 1999, we have been getting the community very much involved in the rehabilitation of the young person and child. Since 1999, for example, we have been very active in forging ties with the community to initiate numerous community-based services and programmes that are closely linked with wholesome youth developments. Our results have shown that community-based rehabilitation indeed, when used appropriately, provides the most cost-effective and least disruptive means to rehabilitate the juvenile offender.

This is also, in a way, a response to Mr Charles Chong who is very concerned that we do not really go into the realm of the family, to intervene in what ought to be a family matter. Again, as I said, ultimately, our objective is for the family to take charge of the child and we make it such. The rehabilitative process that we go through is not only to rehabilitate the child but also to ensure that the parents would be able to take care of the child and, therefore, bring the child back into the family later on. That is our ultimate objective.

Mr Charles Chong also raised the question about the interpretation of the term "undesirable activities". The term really is meant to protect any child who may be used by adults for activities, especially illegal ones, which are detrimental to the well-being of the child, eg, illegal lotteries, illegal hawking, gambling or activities of such magnitude or like. The context referred is to illegal activities.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: Could the Minister elaborate on one query? How do we check the powers of the Director? Is there a mechanism of accountability already set up?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: As I have said, in most, if not all cases, we have a multi-disciplinary team to assess. In other words, even the protector himself or herself is subject to the assessment of this team.

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 Abdullah Tarmugi].

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