Debated in Parliament on 3 Sep 2019.
Order for Second Reading read.
Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". With your permission, Sir, may I request the Clerks to distribute an infographic on the Bill to signpost the debate.
Please do.
Thank you. Sir, sometimes, in our work as Members of Parliament, we encounter families that have faltered, where the children have been abused or neglected, or have gone wayward or run into trouble with the law. These families need a lot of support and intervention, to make sure the children have the best shot in life in spite of their circumstances.
This is where the Children and Young Persons Act comes in. It provides for the welfare, care, protection and rehabilitation of children and young persons below 16 years of age, whom I will subsequently refer to collectively as "children". The Act was last amended in 2011 and a review is, therefore, timely.
In preparing for this Bill, we consulted many stakeholders, including social service agencies, volunteers and professionals, and I met some of them in May this year. They gave strong support for the proposed changes and also provided valuable feedback. The concerns and suggestions they have raised helped us to make many refinements to the Bill that you see now before you.
Let me begin by highlighting the two guiding principles behind the Act. These are set out in section 3A of the existing Act. First, parents have the primary responsibility for the care and welfare of their child; and second, in administering or applying the Act, the welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration.
Section 28 of the existing Act also sets out the considerations that the Youth Court must take into account when it hears cases.
Under clause 24 of the Bill before you, we propose to widen this. The Youth Court should not only aim to facilitate the protection and rehabilitation of the child, but also facilitate his reintegration with his family and with society; and second, the Youth Court should have regard to the needs of and risks faced by the child and prevent any further ill-treatment or offending. We do this to ensure better outcomes for children and break the cycles of abuse, neglect and offending.
Let me now run through the other main features of the Bill, which fall broadly into four categories. If you look at the infographic that we have just distributed, you will see four pockets of amendments. I will take you through the Bill in the course of its Second Reading and you can follow accordingly.
First, we will cover provisions that safeguard the interests of abused or neglected children. So, taking action and intervening for children who are abused or neglected. The second group of amendments relate to improving the rehabilitation and re-integration of youths with offending behaviour. The third relates to guiding families in their parenting, with support from the community; and most people would refer to this as the beyond parental control regime (BPC). Lastly, strengthening partnerships with the community to care for vulnerable children.
Let me start with the first set of amendments: protecting abused or neglected children. Currently, the Act allows us to intervene to protect children below 16 years of age. Clause 2 amends the definition of "young person" and "juvenile" to raise the age limit to cover children below the age of 18 so that we can intervene when the safety of older children is threatened. This is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Singapore is a signatory.
Under the Act today, we can intervene to provide care and protection to a child in a range of situations. One of these is if "there is such a serious and persistent conflict within the family that relationships are seriously disrupted and the child suffers emotional injury". However, the term "emotional injury" is not defined, giving rise to confusion about whether we can intervene. MSF has also encountered other situations where a child's emotional well-being has been severely affected and help should be rendered.
To address this, clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill define emotional harm, which includes manifestations, such as delayed development or post-traumatic stress disorder. Emotional harm which causes serious impairment to the child may not always be as readily or immediately observable as physical injuries, such as bruises or burns. The clause also provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which a child is deemed to be in need of care and protection because of emotional or psychological abuse by parents. These are based on established child protection guidelines, such as those from the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children.
By sharpening the meaning of emotional or psychological abuse, the amendments give better guidance to all stakeholders – MSF, social service agencies and the Court – on when we should intervene and when we need not.
Take the example of Valerie, not her real name. She is 10 years old. Valerie's mother would deliberately isolate her at home or confine her to her room to minimise her interactions with other people. She frequently told Valerie that she was dirty, smelly and unclean and refused to hold her "unclean" hands. She also frequently blamed Valerie for anything and everything that went wrong. When a relative who took care of Valerie fell ill, the mother would call Valerie a jinx. Valerie's parents argued frequently over her. Whenever her father tried to protect or side with her, the mother would threaten to commit suicide. Valerie was very much affected by the emotional abuse. She fears and, not unexpectedly, bears hatred towards her mother. Her anger, coupled with anxiety, has manifested as aggressive and rough play in school. This is a 10-year-old girl who needs help. We need to see past her behaviour and recognise the emotional harm that is within.
I highlight Valerie's case to show that emotional or psychological abuse and its impact may not be as readily observable as physical abuse and injury, but the harm to a child is no less significant. The new amendments make clear that cases like Valerie's fall within the scope of the CYPA.
Where children have to be removed from their families due to safety concerns, it can be unsettling for them to be placed in an unfamiliar environment. Their anxiety may be compounded if there are changes from their usual routine. Or the children may feel abnormal or inferior to their school mates, if placed in situations that remind them of their incomplete families and disadvantaged backgrounds.
The persons who are entrusted with the care of such children, such as foster parents or staff of children's homes, handle a range of matters related to the child's welfare and development. This can range from day-to-day care matters, such as personal grooming, dietary arrangements and health vaccinations, to more substantial matters, such as overseas travel, choice of school, surgery and so on. Particularly, where the matters are more sensitive or significant, the care-givers would wish to respect the views of the child's parents. But getting parental consent can sometimes be challenging because these are the very parents from whom the children have had to be removed for safety reasons in the very first place.
Some of them are uncontactable. Some will not cooperate, and make things difficult for the foster parent or the children's home. As a result, the development and emotional well-being of the children who have been removed for safety reasons can be further affected. The Bill enables MSF and designated care-givers to provide smooth and stable out-of-home care arrangements for such children.
Clause 41 allows MSF and designated care-givers to make day-to-day care decisions for children under a Care and Protection order without the need for parental consent. More substantive decisions for the children, such as overseas travel, can be made only if MSF establishes that the parents cannot be contacted despite reasonable efforts, or are otherwise incapable or unwilling to decide.
Of the children who are in out-of-home care, MSF has handled cases where, despite the best efforts of professionals and the community, it is not possible nor in the interest of the child to be reunified with his parents. Take, for example, five-year-old Joshua, again not his real name. Joshua was referred to MSF for possible neglect by his mother. He has a developmental disorder and requires extra care to meet his developmental milestones. His mother was diagnosed with a mental health condition. MSF placed Joshua with foster parents, who were harassed by Joshua's mother because of her delusional belief that they were ill-treating him. The mother was also unable to consistently adhere with her treatment plans and her mental health condition was assessed to be long-term. Given the condition of Joshua's mother and her poor response to medical treatment, it would not be in Joshua's best interests to be reunified with her. She would not be able to adequately care for Joshua, especially with his special needs and young age.
Other scenarios where reunification is not in the interests of the child are where the parent had severely ill-treated or allowed other persons to severely ill-treat the child or another child under his care and custody; the parent had been convicted of causing or trying to cause death to a child in his care and custody, or to the other parent of the child.
In these scenarios and for cases like Joshua's, the children are likely to spend many years and, perhaps, even the majority of their childhood, in out-of-home care despite best efforts at reunification. We should do what we can to provide them with a sense of stability. Therefore, clause 41 of the Bill enables the Court to place such children under a new Enhanced Care and Protection Order (ECPO) up till the age of 21.
The ECPO allows MSF and designated care-givers to make day-to-day, as well as more substantive decisions, such as overseas travel, just as what parents would do in normal family settings. But sensitive decisions that are neither day-to-day in nature nor ordinarily made in the care of a child, can only be made with parental consent or the Court's authorisation.
Let me give an example of how the ECPO would have made a difference for a boy called Ben, again not his real name, whom MSF had placed with foster parents. Ben is today 13 years old, has multiple conditions that require frequent medical appointments. Ben's mother has been unwilling to care for him since he was born. Ben's father was uncontactable. Once, Ben was admitted to the hospital for a persistently high fever. Doctors recommended surgery to prevent further medical complications but Ben's mother was unwilling to provide consent. MSF had to apply to the Court for orders to allow Ben to undergo the necessary surgery. The new ECPO will allow the foster parents, with MSF's authorisation and in consultation with medical practitioners, to make a more timely decision to allow Ben to be treated.
At this point, I wish to assure Members that the ECPO does not sever the legal ties between parent and child. Parents who disagree with any decision made by MSF or designated care-givers can bring the matter to Court for determination. And even after an ECPO is made, parents may apply to vary or revoke the order, if there has been a material change in circumstances from the time when the ECPO was made. This requires the parents to demonstrate significant and sustained changes in addressing the safety concerns that have hitherto hindered family reunification and the child must be assessed to be ready for contact with the family and eventual reunification.
Let me move on to talk about a special group of people – our foster parents. We currently have 510 foster families. They are among some of the biggest-hearted people in Singapore. Children grow up best in a supportive family environment, especially if they have been abused or neglected. So, MSF's preference is to place such children in foster families, rather than in residential facilities, such as children's homes, if it can be helped. These foster families have opened their hearts and their homes to provide their foster children with the opportunity to grow up with a positive experience of family life – an opportunity that many of us take for granted but which vulnerable children may not have. These foster parents have responded to MSF's call for more people to step forward to provide family-based care in lieu of institutional care.
We seek Parliament's support to grant childcare leave benefits to our foster parents to enable and help them with care-giving challenges that they face, just as natural parents do.
Sir, I have covered the first sector of amendments relating to interventions to protect and care for abused and neglected children. Let me move on to the second bucket of amendments. If Members could look at the infographic handed out to Members earlier.
These relate to the rehabilitation of children and young persons with offending behaviour whom I will subsequently refer to as youths or youth offenders. There are many reasons why youths commit offences. Sometimes, it is because of challenging family circumstances, negative influences or the absence of family support. They need hand-holding and good role models so that they can pick themselves up and make responsible decisions.
We seek to make a few major changes in this area. First, we want to cover older youths under the youth justice framework, instead of treating them as adult offenders. Second, we need to take steps to enhance the safety of all youths who are housed in MSF's Youth Homes as well as the staff working in our Homes. Third, we seek to treat youth offenders' criminal records as spent after they have completed their Youth Court orders.
Let me begin with plans to cover older youths under the youth justice system. Currently, the Youth Court hears cases against youth offenders who are below 16 years of age. Young people who are 16 years and above who commit offences are tried as adults in the State Courts or the Community Court, unless they are diverted away from the criminal justice system. But studies have shown that these young persons may still not have the full cognitive maturity of adults. An inter-agency committee chaired by AG's Chambers to review the youth justice system had also recommended allowing them to benefit from a wider range of sentencing options. We will, therefore, make two changes.
First, clause 2 expands the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to hear cases involving youth offenders below 18, up from the current 16. This will be the default mode for most youth offenders. But we need to retain an avenue for exceptions, such as for youth offenders who are 16 and above but below 18 years, who commit serious offences, such as gang or drug-related activities or unlicensed moneylending, or who are repeat offenders.
Clause 55 of the Bill inserts a new Second Schedule to the Act which spells out the full list of serious offences. When the offender has committed such a serious offence or if he is not a first-time offender, clause 27 gives the Public Prosecutor the discretion to charge the offender in either the Youth Court or a Court of appropriate jurisdiction, such as the State Courts. This is intended as a deterrent that we are not soft on crimes, especially those of a serious nature, and that there are times where firmer punishment of the offender is warranted, in spite of his youth. Clause 27 also allows the Youth Court to decide, on its own motion, that another Court of appropriate jurisdiction is to try the case and mete out the appropriate sentencing for these offenders.
Second, clause 71 makes related amendments to the Probation of Offenders Act, to enable the Youth Court to impose probation on a child below the age of 18, even if they do not express willingness to comply with the conditions of probation. Currently, the Youth Court must ask a child who is 14 years old and above if he is willing to comply with the terms of probation, before it imposes such an order. We will raise the minimum age from 14 to 18. This addresses the current gap where some youth offenders reject probation in favour of a shorter imprisonment term in adult prison which works against the Court's and MSF's efforts to help such youth rehabilitate and reintegrate into society.
Next, I will turn to the issue of safety and security within MSF's Youth Homes. The guiding philosophy underpinning the work of our two Juvenile Rehabilitation Centres (JRCs) is to rehabilitate, guide and support youth offenders. For that reason, many of the security features present in adult prisons are not found in our JRCs. Yet, at the same time, we need to strike the right balance of measures because, without adequate safety and assurance of security, it will not be possible to provide an environment that is conducive to rehabilitation in our JRCs.
Even with today's age limit, where youths may be admitted to the JRCs if they are below 16 years of age, there have been incidents where aggressive youths put our youth guidance officers, case workers and other youths at risk of harm. I would like to share with Members two incidents at the Singapore Boys' Home to illustrate why we are concerned about safety and security.
In one case, a 15-year-old youth verbally threatened the staff at the Home every day he was there. On the day of his Court hearing, he pretended to grab the baton of the escorting police officer. He then swung his arm towards an MSF officer to intimidate him. Despite being counselled, the youth was recalcitrant and continued to intimidate other youths at the Home.
In another case, we had a youth with a history of aggression, including past incidents of punching his schoolmates, getting into fights with strangers. While he was at the Singapore Boys' Home, the youth punched and injured his dormitory mates on various occasions. He also assaulted and injured a few auxiliary police officers and MSF officers.
These are incidents that we need to prevent and I describe these cases not to adjudicate or assign blame to these young people, but rather that these things can and, indeed, do happen, for whatever reason. This means recognising that some youths may not be suitable for rehabilitation within a JRC, but may instead require a higher level of supervision in a more structured environment, such as Reformative Training.
Clause 32, therefore, allows the Youth Court to decide if an offender aged 14 to below 18 years can be safely detained at a JRC and, if not, the Court may make an order for the offender to undergo Reformative Training in the first instance without going through a JRC. I would like to emphasise that this new provision will be for a small minority of youth offenders who are found to be so unruly that, in the Court's opinion, his presence at the JRC would be disruptive to the rehabilitation of the other residents there and he would be better managed in the Reformative Training Centre (RTC). This is also consistent with clause 24, where the Youth Court is to have regard to the needs and risks of children and prevent any further re-offending or ill-treatment of all children.
To further enhance safety and security in MSF's Youth Homes, clause 48 allows MSF officers working in the Homes to use restraints, such as handcuffs, leg braces and flexi-cuffs, to prevent incidents of escape, self-injury or injury to others. These include situations where youths continue to create a disturbance or taunt other residents because such hostile behaviour, if not put to an end, can escalate quickly and compromise safety. This is the prevailing practice in other jurisdictions, such as in Korea, the United Kingdom and some States in Australia, for the same purpose of preventing escape, violence, self-injury or other incidents.
I wish to assure Members that there will be strict guidelines pertaining to the use of such restraints and MSF officers must be trained before they are authorised to use the restraints. They will not be used as a punitive measure but to ensure safety and security of both the youth and those around him. Our officers are also trained to de-escalate conflicts among residents and prevent incidents of escape, self-injury or harm to others using other safe intervention methods, where possible.
For youth offenders who have been successfully rehabilitated, we must make sure they have the best shot in life. But, often, the label of being an ex-offender tends to stick. This makes reintegration more difficult. Many jobs today require applicants to declare whether they have a criminal record and some employers hold it against those who do. Doors may remain closed and the sense of rejection can be daunting. That is why the Yellow Ribbon project is incredibly important.
We, therefore, propose to amend the Registration of Criminals Act via clause 73 of the Bill so that a youth offender's criminal record will be considered spent once he successfully completes his Youth Court order. These Youth Court orders refer to a Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre order, probation order, community service order, detention order and an order to pay a fine, damages or costs. Therefore, after the law is amended, youths who have completed their Youth Court orders can, if asked whether they have ever been convicted or have a criminal record, legitimately declare "No".
We will go one step further. Sections 27A and 35 of the Act now protect the identity and privacy of a child when he is below 16. Through clause 50, we will widen this to ensure that the identity of a child who is or was in care and custody or the subject of an arrest, investigation, Court order or any proceedings under the CYPA, remains protected for the rest of his life. However, if the individual were to commit more offences when he is older after he turns 18, the protection of identity will not apply to these subsequent offences.
These amendments signal our commitment to better protect and support our youths in their journey to reintegrate with family and society. We have met many former young offenders who have successfully turned their lives around while under our care and supervision. Take for example Jasper Yap, a former resident of the Singapore Boys' Home, whom I consulted when I was gathering feedback on this amendment Bill. Jasper discovered he was capable of studying and doing well when he scored his first A during his stay at the Singapore Boys' Home. He is now an entrepreneur and currently serving National Service. Jasper is also a member of the Youth Advisory Group advising MSF, MHA and other Ministries on youth policy work. He shares his rehabilitation journey with the youths in the Singapore Boys' Home and teaches them ways to kick their bad habits. Like Jasper, we want to help our youths to have good role models and opportunities to succeed in life.
Let me now explain the third category of amendments in this Bill. These seek to reform the area of practice currently known as BPC or "Beyond Parental Control". Today, parents can apply to the Youth Court to seek help for children who are labelled as "Beyond Parental Control". The children may display difficult behaviour, such as running away or being in the wrong company. The Court may place the BPC children under the supervision of an appointed person, or in a residential setting, such as a children's home. The term "Beyond Parental Control" blames the child and holds him solely responsible for his behaviour. However, many social work professionals, legal practitioners and my own MSF colleagues have shared with me that it is just as, if not more important, to address poor parent-child relationships and poor or absent parenting. I agree with them.
We will, therefore, do away with the label "Beyond Parental Control" and replace it with a new order known as the "Family Guidance Order" or FGO, which makes clear that our focus is on the role of and dynamics within the family and not just squarely looking at the behaviour of the child. This is not just a mere change of name.
The new framework requires parents and child to complete a family programme before the parents can file for a Court application. The Court may allow the parents to first file an FGO application and then have the family complete the family programme later if, for example, the child refuses to attend the family programme. The Court can also order parents to attend mediation, counselling, psychotherapy or programmes before, during or after FGO applications are heard. This is in contrast to the existing framework where the Court can give such orders to the parents only after a BPC order has been made for the child.
I spoke earlier that we are expanding coverage of the Act to persons aged below 18 years if they face abuse or neglect or have committed offences. For FGOs, however, there will be no change to the current age threshold. This means that a parent can make a Court application for family guidance only if their child is below 16 years of age. This is because older youths are more likely to resent or resist participating in programmes and resent being brought to Court by their parents. We are, therefore, keeping the age limit at below 16 years so as not to worsen family relationships that may already be strained. We do this after taking significant advice from professionals.
Sir, I have covered the three buckets: intervening for abuse and neglect of children; second bucket – youth offenders; third bucket – the former BPC regime, now the FGO regime.
I will now talk about the last bucket of amendments which will strengthen partnerships with the community to care for vulnerable children.
Child protection work is currently done by MSF's Child Protective Service (or CPS) and they partner our social service agencies who also play an important role. For example, social service agencies, such as Montfort Care and Fei Yue Community Services, run Child Protection Specialist Centres (CPSCs), as well as Family Service Centres (FSCs). These are run by social service professionals.
But child protection work also involves many dedicated, trained volunteers. This is especially important if we want to keep families intact and ensure the safety of children within the community. Clauses 7 and 51 of the Bill strengthen the roles of these partners by providing them with appropriate statutory support and legal protection, as well as enabling relevant information sharing.
Clause 3 allows MSF to appoint members of the public to carry out specified duties under the Act. These individuals are known as "Volunteer Welfare Officers" in the Bill. For example, in child abuse cases, volunteer welfare officers can conduct visits to the child's home to monitor his well-being and safety. These volunteers will receive training and they may act only under MSF's instruction.
Clause 7 also allows MSF to share information relating to a child with community partners, such as the Child Protection Specialist Centres and children's homes. The purpose is to enable our partners to intervene quickly to protect vulnerable children from harm and work with families to pre-emptively resolve issues.
The conflicts within families can create acrimony that poses risk to people who work to support them. Thus, clause 51 extends to people performing a function or exercising powers under the Act protection from legal liability, as long as they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care. These persons would include volunteer welfare officers and foster parents.
The participation of volunteers in complementing MSF's statutory work of protection and rehabilitation is not new. For example, volunteers assist MSF's Probation Officers by befriending, guiding and supervising probationers, and volunteers from the Singapore Boys' Home and Girls' Home support rehabilitation and reintegration, such as by befriending youths and providing tuition. Volunteers help provide transport to children under the supervision of MSF's Child Protective Service, such as to and from their residence to medical appointments.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to assure Members that the amendments we are proposing today do not supplant the role of families. The overwhelming majority of families do their best to care for, protect and raise their children well. However, when it comes to the small number of families who require help to fulfil basic responsibilities to their children, the proposals in this Bill are vitally important and may, in some cases, literally be a lifesaver.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
*Question proposed.*
Mr Speaker, the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), which was last amended in 2011, provides for the welfare, care, protection and rehabilitation of children under 16. It also supports children who have committed offences, those who have been abused or neglected by their parents or caregivers, and those whose parents are seeking the Court's guidance because of their children's behaviour. The importance of this Act cannot be understated. Children who go through a traumatic experience or have challenges when they are young are more likely to have issues when they are older.
A research done by Rasmus Birn, Barbara Roeburn and Seth Pollak in 2017 explained that individuals who have experienced chronic and high levels of stress during their childhoods are at increased risk for a wide range of behavioural problems, yet the neurobiological mechanisms underlying this association are poorly understood. They measured the life circumstances of a community sample of school-aged children and then followed these children for a decade and found that those who had experienced extreme stress as children were hampered in their ability to make good decisions as adults. Simply put, childhood trauma – due to circumstances like neglect or exposure to violence – created young adults fundamentally unable to correctly consider risk and make healthy life decisions. In fact, no threat of punishment was likely to be effective in changing this deficit.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, in his keynote address at the Conference on At-Risk Youth in 2015, aptly said: in general, it can be said that the more a child is exposed to adverse circumstances at an early age, the more disadvantaged will that child be.
Indeed, it has been suggested that the strongest predictors of whether a child will eventually turn to crime are likely to be in such things as poor parental supervision, parental conflict, disrupted families and, most notably, having parents with a criminal or anti-social background. It is, therefore, a matter of some importance that we keep an eye on the state of our families.
Mr Speaker, in Malay please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many studies have shown that whenever children undergo traumatic experiences or challenges when they are younger, it will have a profound impact on their lives. One such study conducted in 2017 stated that childhood trauma, possibly due to the child being abandoned or exposed to violence, will create youths and adults who are unable to assess risks and make healthy and correct decisions in life. It is clear that traumatic experiences will affect the trajectory or direction in the life a child or a youth.
Therefore, this CYPA Bill is an important piece of legislation that protects children and young persons from danger and facilitates rehabilitation, if required, as soon as possible. As a community, we must also continue to support and guide parents, especially those who are facing challenges because they may have had traumatic or bad experiences themselves when they were young. Perhaps the support and assistance for parents who face issues with their children should be enhanced so that they can understand the process that they are undergoing and be equipped with the skills to educate their children. As much as possible, we would like the family to stay intact and live harmoniously, but the most important thing to do is to protect children from precarious or hazardous situations.
(In English) Mr Speaker, in English.
Childhood and youth are points in life when one is supposed to be the most carefree and protected. However, this experience may not be true for some children or young people. We need to help those undergoing challenging periods as much as we can. The underlying principle of any regulation in this respect must be that the welfare and best interests of the children and young person will be the paramount consideration.
I appreciate that the work done by all the officers and caregivers in this sector is not easy. I, therefore, acknowledge the need to review and make amendments to this Act over time. I support the amendments but have a few matters which I wish to seek clarification on.
Firstly, I would like to welcome the move to extend the protection under the Act to all children and youth below the age of 18, up from the age of 16 today. Those who are under 18 are still young, generally less mature cognitively and are still, therefore, vulnerable to abuse and neglect. They should also be given the necessary attention and appropriate rehabilitative support when they offend. The amendments to extend the Act to include children who are abused or neglected and young offenders aged 16 to below 18 is, therefore, a good move.
However, I would like to echo the concerns of some stakeholders about the implications of having to oversee and rehabilitate a wide age range of children and young people. In particular, when we deal with young offenders, a wider age range of young people may be placed within the same residential facility. The needs and risks of a small child and a physically larger youth would differ and present different challenges. I have already received some anecdotal feedback about the instances of bullying in some of the residential homes. Typically, it happens when one resident or a group of them feel that they have more control and power over another. Will this problem be aggravated when there is be a wider age group of residents, with older youth? Further, will it be more difficult to coordinate targeted programmes or support for rehabilitation when you have a wider age group in the residential homes?
In addition, what is the Ministry's assessment of the capability of the sector to carry out the necessary functions to manage a higher number of children and young people? The increase of the age limit, will not only increase the numbers but as alluded to above, the different group of young people will have a new profile with differing needs and risks. What is the plan to strengthen the ability of the Ministry and the social service agencies to operationalise the amendments?
Lastly, I would like to seek a clarification on the proposed amendment to include the new section 68A, which enables the person-in-charge of any home for children and young persons that is operated by or under the management or control of the Government to use, or authorise any person who is assisting the person-in-charge to use, mechanical restraint on a person detained in the home.
I am a little bothered by the possible scenarios and the impact such actions would have on the children or young persons restrained. Such circumstances could add to the trauma faced by the children, and such actions seem antithesis to the spirit of rehabilitation. I note and appreciate that this power is only sanctioned in very specific circumstances and in practice, may be necessary. I note that the Minister has earlier explained the need to ensure safety of the social workers as well as other residents who are in the group home. However, I would like to understand these specifications considerations that led to the decision to have this provision and how we could reconcile the spirit of rehabilitation. In particular, I would also like to know what standard operating procedures are in place to guide the use of this power and what processes and checks are in place to prevent the abuse of this provision. I feel that it is important for the Ministry to constantly assess the use of this provision and its impact on the children and young people.
Mr Speaker, the CYPA provides an important framework to ensure protection of our children and young persons from harm and the provision of support and rehabilitation when they go astray. There is a need to review and strengthen the Act so that we can best address the needs of the sector and the community. Notwithstanding the comments I made earlier, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker, in the Ministry's press release of 5 August, it is stated that the purpose of the Bill is to "strengthen Government and community support for abused and neglected children, and improve the rehabilitation and re-integration of children with offending behaviour." This enhanced support is much needed. All children have great potential. Unfortunately, some are beset with difficult circumstances which plague their early lives. I am in support of this Bill.
Specifically, I would like to re-state my support for the amendment which will raise the maximum age for protection under the Children and Young Persons Act to 18 years, up from the current age of 16. I have been tracking this issue for some time. I am glad to note that when the Bill comes into force, youths aged between 16 and 18 who face criminal charges will, in general, be tried in the Youth Court, which sits in private and in an atmosphere of greater understanding compared to the open adult courts.
Such youths will also be entitled to have their identities protected from publication throughout the proceedings and their lifetimes, to reduce the harm of stigmatisation and labelling which would jeopardise their futures. These changes will bring our laws in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Singapore Government ratified more than 20 years ago in 1995.
That said, I have some specific observations and questions on the Bill. These are mainly about the fostering scheme, youth offenders, the new Family Guidance Orders, and the right to be heard.
First, fostering scheme. Where a child's parents are deemed incapable of caring for the child, the child may be placed in the care of a foster parent. This may be done with the consent of the parents under a voluntary care arrangement, or by an order of Court applied for by the Child Protective Service. Volunteering to be a foster parent is an onerous responsibility, involving providing a home and caring for children whose backgrounds are difficult and who may exhibit challenging behaviours. Sometimes, foster parents also face pressure from the child's natural parents. We must, indeed, thank the 500-over fostered parents who have signed up for this mission.
This Bill strengthens the framework for fostering in a few ways. First, voluntary care arrangements are given statutory recognition in the proposed section 11A, which clarifies how these voluntary arrangements will be managed. Secondly, the Bill introduces a new Part IIA on fostering. Under the proposed section 27B, a Committee on Fostering will be set up to periodically review cases of children fostered out, to ascertain if the foster parent is implementing a proper care plan for the child. At the same time, the Bill also gives more recognition to foster parents, for example, clause 63 will amend the Employment Act to enable the foster parent to take childcare leave.
I also note that under clause 69, an amendment is being made to the Passports Act to enable the Director-General, a protector or a foster parent to give consent for a child to be issued with a passport for international travel. In my opinion, this is a useful amendment. I am aware of a case where the child's parent refused to give permission for the child to go to Malaysia with his foster family, as the parent was highly critical of the care given by the foster parent. This was despite evidence that the child was happy and doing well in his foster home. Once this amendment is made and under the ECPO, which the Minister just described, the child will no longer have to be left behind while his foster family went on holidays.
Next, youth offenders. I now come to a few issues concerning young persons who get into trouble with the criminal law.
First, I am quite concerned about clause 25 of the Bill which will amend section 30 of the Act. Section 30 currently provides that youths who are arrested and not released should be brought before the Youth Court or, if not possible, before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay. This is an important safeguard to ensure that any further detention of young persons should be approved by a Court, and that the youth or his parents will have the opportunity to be heard before a Court before further detention is permitted. Clause 25 proposes to amend section 30(2) to add that the youth should be produced before the Magistrate "within 48 hours". I do not know why there is a need to add in the words "within 48 hours", as this time limit is already provided under Article 9 of the Constitution and applies to all arrested persons, adult and young alike.
What concerns me is not the redundancy of the addition, but that law enforcement officers may take the addition of the 48-hour limit in the CYPA to wrongly assume that there is no additional urgency when dealing with young suspects. A child or young person in a Police lock-up, away from familiar surroundings, is vulnerable and needs to be processed fast. To this end, I would like to ask whether our law enforcement officers have protocols that require them to process cases involving youth offenders at a faster pace, what shorter time limits are set out in these protocols and how these protocols are enforced. On a related note, I would like to know if there is any special training being given to the law enforcement officers in handling suspects who are children or young persons.
Secondly, the Bill enlarges the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to deal with cases of youths between 16 and 18. This is a welcome move, but at the same time, significant limits have been placed. Under clause 27, such youths can be tried in an adult Court if the offence involved is listed in the new Second Schedule, or if the accused has been found guilty of a similar offence previously.
At first glance, I do appreciate that the offences listed at the new Second Schedule appear to be more serious, such as drug trafficking, robbery and certain moneylending-related offences. It would appear, however, that a youth who has a prior conviction of any offence, however minor, may also be tried in an adult Court. How will this work in practice?
Clause 27 provides that in such situations, the Youth Court or the Public Prosecutor can initiate the transfer of the case from the Youth Court to the adult court. Earlier, I believe the Minister did touch on this point. Can the Minister re-confirm that the power in the Youth Court and the Public Prosecutor is discretionary, that is to say, such a case may still remain in the Youth Court? Further, if the case gets transferred to an adult Court, which sits in public, how will the protection from publicising the youth's identity be enforced?
Thirdly, I would like to ask about clause 32 which touches on Reformative Training (RT). RT is a tough regime that emphasises military-style discipline and involves participants who are older. With these amendments, RT will usually be ordered for offenders between 18 and 21 years of age. Under the existing Act, section 44 provides that RT can only be imposed upon a young person below the usual age of RT under two situations: the first is that he had been sent to a juvenile rehabilitation centre (JRC), that is, he has been sent to a JRC for an earlier offence and is now before the Court again, indicating that he might need a tougher court order. The second situation is that while the youth is serving detention in a JRC, the person in charge of the centre finds him so unruly that continued detention there is not feasible and RT may be needed. Under this Bill, clause 32 introduces a new category where a Youth Court could order RT for a youth who is being sentenced for the first time. The wording of the proposed section 44(1)(k)(iii) is that an offender aged between 14 and 18 years of age could be sent to RT if the Youth Court "is of the opinion that the the offender is of so unruly a character that the offender cannot be safely detained in a juvenile rehabilitation centre of a place of detention".
The Minister earlier clarified in his speech that this will enable the Youth Court to send a youth to reformative training at the first instance even if he has never stayed at a JRC. On what basis then will the Youth Court conclude that he would be a failure at the JRC if he has never been sent there? Is there a danger of over-reach here?
Finally, on the issue of juvenile justice, I would like to share an observation. One of the advantages of the Youth Court is its focus on formulating orders that are appropriate to each youth, depending on the Court's assessment of what is required in individual circumstances. This advantage can also become a bone of contention, as several youths involved in the same incident may end up being treated differently by the Youth Court. For instance, a group of Secondary school students who decide to steal motorcycles for a joy ride could end up getting different sentences. One could be ordered to undergo probation, where he continues his normal schooling and resides at home, subject to curfew hours; his accomplice, on the other hand, could be ordered to be detained in a JRC like the Singapore Boys Home, separated from his home environment, with normal schooling disrupted.
Such disparate treatment needs to be rigorously justified. I remember years ago when I was representing a youth before the former Juvenile Courts. His mother asked me point blank whether her son was ordered to be incarcerated because she was a divorcee, while his accomplice got a probation because he came from a two-parent household. While certainly the Youth Court has to assess risk factors, I would caution that the system must never become so rigid as to under-estimate the effort and resilience of persons facing challenges in life.
Next, Family Guidance Orders. Under the existing Act, parents who believe they are not able to manage their children can apply to court to place them in the care of an institution or other person, under what is currently known as the BPC or Beyond Parental Control regime. Children under BPC are effectively labelled as "bad" children and will undergo psychological damage. I thus welcome clause 43 of the Bill, which replaces the existing BPC orders with Family Guidance Orders, a more nurturing term that does not blame the child.
I note that under clause 43, a Court making a Family Guidance Order may attach further orders for parents or the child to comply with. Such orders include attending mediation, counselling, psychotherapy, assessments or other programmes or treatment. As such programmes involve interfacing with professionals, could the Minister clarify who will pay the costs of complying with these requirements? Will parents be penalised if they are unable to pay the fees required to comply or will financial support be provided?
Finally, the right to be heard. I wish to raise a concern regarding the right to be heard before the Youth Court. There are various provisions in this Bill and in the Act itself, that provide that before the Court makes an order, the child, young person or parent has the right to be heard; for example, there is a right to be heard before care arrangements for a child are changed. There is also a right to be heard when young offenders are about to be sentenced. In theory, these persons have a right to engage a lawyer, but only a minority can afford one. To represent oneself before a Court is unfamiliar to most people and I have observed that unrepresented persons tend to either not speak up or do the opposite by being argumentative and casting aspersions on Government officials, which will be most unhelpful to their causes. Another typical problem is that what is said is not logically arranged and is difficult for the Court to follow.
I recently encountered a family who expressed frustration at their perception that the court was not listening to them on the care arrangements for their son. Upon probing further, I realised that the Court was not to be blamed but it was simply a matter of the parents organising their thoughts on paper and being respectful to the Court.
How can we facilitate the right to be heard, especially by the lower income? Can there be more pro bono services available for family and youth matters? As a second alternative, can there be a simple process of, say, a form being given out to these persons ahead of their hearing, so that they have time to formulate their thoughts and write them out for the Court to follow more easily?
Finally, Sir, let me conclude. The changes in this Bill are overall steps in the right direction and bring our law in line with international norms. I support the Bill and look forward to the Ministry's responses to my queries.
Mr Speaker, Sir, as a parent it is certainly disquieting to look at the cases where children are abused, ill-treated or neglected by their parents. I am sure this sentiment is shared by other hon Members too. What is worrying is the number of cases being reported has been on the rise, especially for sexual abuse with 248 cases, up from 107 in 2016 and 181 in 2017. Physical abuse 584 cases up from 444 in 2016, 373 in 2017. And the number of neglect cases has somewhat stayed in the 300 range since 2016. It is also troubling to see there is a rise in cases of kids between 13 and 15 years who are beyond parental control.
We are living in very challenging times. Our young not only can access all sorts of disturbing materials online, but are also basing their relationships and self-worth on social media. They are very vulnerable. They receive a lot of information, but might not be sufficiently mature to understand consequences. Like the saying in Chinese, 似懂非懂.
The aim of this Bill is to strengthen the Government and community support to help these children and improve their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. What I would like to ask the Minister is what is there now, or anything in the pipeline, which helps the community to intervene, even before the kids reach this situation?
We need parents who have difficulty handling their kids to be able to turn to someone for advice, counselling or guidance before the situation gets out of hand.
I am very encouraged to read of how a number of cases of sexual abuse were captured by MOE after the students went through lessons on sex education and spoke to the counsellors. So, for MSF, can a parenting education clinic be run for parents who need to address the challenges they face in bringing up their child? Perhaps, some form of structured programme for parents who have children in Primary or Secondary school? This would make them better parents. Sometimes, they are so stressed out and they do not know how to handle their children and end up harming their children.
Sir, another point I want to raise is what is the approach of the MSF counsellors when they are called in to investigate a case of child abuse? Under what circumstances would they recommend to the Police to take action against a parent? I raise this question because I want to share with the House an anecdote that happened where one of the parents, the father was charged and jailed for beating the 10-year-old child. This case went to Court and the father was jailed. But in the one year, between the time of offence to the Court sentence, the father and child had a very close relationship, going out together, bonding together. So, my question is what do counsellors and the Police take into consideration when recommending the offender for Court action? I think there are circumstances which merit consideration as even today the child and the offending parent are very close. To me, the main thing is to look at how we can help to reconcile the child with the parent. The offender can be warned, sent for counselling and so on.
Next, I would like to ask in the case of those children who are the subject of any investigation, how would the Ministry work with MOE so that the teacher would be able to pay special attention to the child, in case he or she needs extra care, or the teacher may need to be more sensitive to the trauma that the child might have gone through?
Mr Speaker, Sir, in empowering the director, protectors and designated care-givers to make decisions for the child on sensitive and important decisions, I would like to ask if the Minister could share whether the child's other close relatives, such as uncle, auntie or grandparents or any other close person, wherever possible would be included or consulted for an opinion in the decision-making process? This is to ensure that at least a family representative has a role in the whole process. In Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have heard of one case. A father beat up his 10-year-old son but his relationship with the boy was still very close afterwards. In the end, the father was sentenced to jail and was forced to be separated from the child. I feel that parent-child relationship is a lifelong one. When dealing with such cases, we should value the parent-child relationship more and be flexible in terms of punishment.
I also feel that when a child is abused or has behaviour issues, the Government should work together with the school to pay attention to the child's mental state. If the parents are not suitable to look after the child, should the designated care-giver consult the child's close relatives such as grandparents when making important decisions?
Recently, there is an increasing number of cases of children being sexually abused or children beyond parental control. Hence, these amendments are very timely. I support the Bill.
Mr Faisal Manap.
Sir, I believe he has applied for leave of absence. He is away.
Mr Christopher de Souza.
Sir, children need protection where they are vulnerable because of physical domestic abuse. The state must swiftly intervene. Laws that allow swift intervention are key. Before going into my points proper on the Bill, I would like to put on record my thanks to the hardworking and committed MSF officers who give of themselves in their calling, their duty to serve and protect among the most vulnerable, in our society.
Sir, I return to my points on the Bill. Ten years ago, in 2009, MSF investigated 272 cases of child abuse involving family members. Fast forward five years, in 2014, MSF investigated 381 such cases. By 2018, MSF investigated 1,163 in one year alone. Among last year's investigations, about half were physical abuse cases while about 20% involved sexual abuse. Remember, these abuse cases involve a family member. Not just statistics, these numbers reflect the number of young lives affected by domestic abuse. Children put into perspective the importance of the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) which this Bill amends.
Sir, I would like to talk about four aspects. One, how the Bill extends the applicability of the Children and Young Persons Act; two, how youths are treated in the criminal justice system; three, how the Bill provides greater support for care-givers; and four, how the Bill provides greater discretion to MSF officers as to determining at points of intervention.
Firstly, this Bill extends the protection under the CYPA to more people. Clause 2(1)(b) and 2(2)(b) amends the definition of young persons, extending the applicability of the Act from those 16 years of age and below to those 18 years of age and below. This brings it in line with some other statutes such as the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act which draws the line between adult and child protection at 18 years of age. This is to be welcomed.
Besides amending the definition for young person to include those 18 and under, child trafficking offences in the Children and Young Persons Act are extended from just children to include young persons. Clause 10 amends the heading for sections 12 to 18 so that the trafficking offences apply to children and young persons. This again, is to be welcomed. The words of the offences have similarly been expanded. This is to be welcomed. For instance, section 12 prohibiting the transfer of possession, custody or control of a child for valuable consideration has been amended by clause 11, extending it to young persons.
Secondly, Mr Speaker, this Bill tweaks how youths are treated in the criminal justice system. Where the offence is under the CYPA, the new section 84B ensures that the victim's identity is held in strict confidence even after the victim turns 18 years of age. It may seem a slight amendment but actually has major positive consequences. The judge is also able to order take down of publications in media as well as on social media. Exceptions are at the court's discretion in the interest of justice as stated in the new section 84B(2).
Director-General and protector have stronger powers of investigation in the new section 8. For instance, although self-incriminating information cannot be withheld, they are inadmissible unless false information is provided. As it is difficult for victims to retell the horrendous stories of abuse, would the Minister therefore provide an update on what is being done to minimise the trauma involved in recounting the harrowing experience especially in Court settings?
Several changes to the CYPA also better support the youth offender's rehabilitation and now reintegration into society, trying as best as possible that the past does not hold them back from achieving their potential and that they can continue to have hope for their future.
One way is to allow sentences meted out by the Youth Court to be deemed as spent at the end of completing the supervision, detention, community sentence or fine, without needing to wait the normal three or so years. This is provided for in clause 73 and allows youth offenders to more easily reintegrate into society as they can declare that they have no criminal record. This enables the youth offender to turn over a new leaf. In fact, it creates a supporting scaffold structure around the youths, such as, to be able to turn over a new leaf. So, another key amendment here.
Another way is by the extension of the Children and Young Persons Act to those 18 and under and not just those 16 and below. This provides young offenders access to a criminal justice system which places emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration so that the mistakes of the past do not continue to haunt the young person when he or she is older. One way is by providing for the youth offender's identity to be kept confidential for life and not just while he is still a young person, unless he or she reoffends. This is provided for in Clause 50. This allows the young person's space to grow and change without being shackled to his past.
Another example and a good example, is clause 27(a) read with the Second Schedule within the Bill, which allows for Prosecution or the court to transmit cases involving the causing of grievous hurt, certain Misuse of Drugs Offences and other more serious offences to the court of appropriate jurisdiction. This is especially important for the Misuse of Drugs Act offences as we do not want our young persons to become targets for drug syndicates to hire them or manipulate them as mules just because they are specially treated by our criminal justice system or the Youth Courts.
Thirdly, this Bill provides greater support for those who care for children and young persons. In particular, I want to highlight the support that this Bill strives towards fostering. Clause 57 extends childcare leave to include foster children and allows the foster parent to disclose information necessary for this purpose. It is good that foster parents are supported in taking care of the children. They need the same kind of leave to be present for their children, for instance, if the child is sick or at a parent-teachers meeting. They also need it in order to better ease a foster child into the family and bring the child for therapy sessions if therapy is necessary.
By better supporting foster parents, hopefully more loving families will be willing to step up and provide a loving and caring environment for children and young persons, showing the foster child what family and parents' love looks like. And, thereafter, hopefully the child can be adopted either by the foster parents or parents who are hoping to adopt a child. Or if there can be reconciliation with the child's biological parents and the fostered child, then, if possible, the child can be reunited with the family, provided it is indeed safe.
Fourthly and ultimately, Sir, this Bill addresses child abuse within the family, particularly tackling the question at what point is it in the best interests of the child or young person that the state intervenes in the parent-child relationship? On one hand, the protection of the child and hence, the child's welfare and best interests are at risk. On the other hand, the benefit of being cared for by his or her parent or guardian is significant.
As mentioned in the beginning of my speech, the number of child abuse cases are concerning. Even as we seek to find a better balance, we must also ensure that the broader discretion given to Child Protection Service Officers achieves deterrence of child abuse, and that deterrence must come with powers to act swiftly. When a child is abused, a child's life is at stake – not just physical but also the long-lasting emotional trauma from being emotionally or psychologically abused. Swift intervention is, therefore, necessary. It is a basic ingredient that I am supportive of. The broader discretion through this Bill allows the Child Protection Service Officers to make the necessary judgement as to when that intervention is necessary.
With regard to the amended section 4(2) which sets out specific examples of emotional or psychological abuse, I do have a few clarifications for the Minister.
Paragraph (a) mentions well-being and a sense of self-worth. How will this provision operate?
Paragraph (b) mentions that threatening to physically hurt the child or young person is child abuse. Will the Minister clarify how this provision is to be understood in the context of section 64 of the Women's Charter where correction is an exception to "family violence"?
Paragraph (d) says that confining a child or young person to a small space for the purposes of discipline is considered abuse. Would the Minister elaborate on what is intended by the phrase "any small space"?
Paragraph (e) talks about influencing the development of self-destructive, criminal, deviant or other mal-adaptive behaviour. Would the good Minister explain what is meant by "influence", "deviant" and "anti-social" behaviour? Also, would the minister explain what "infantilising" means in illustration (b)?
Notwithstanding my clarifications above, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important that enough latitude and discretion be given to Child Protection Service Officers for swift intervention where necessary. Would the Minister explain also the process of investigating a possible child abuse case and elaborate on the thoughts that go towards deciding how a child abuse case is best managed? In particular, under what circumstances will a child be removed from his or her parents, and, if that happens, will the child still have opportunity to meet and even reconcile with his or her parents under appropriate circumstances?
This amendment broadens the discretion of the Child Protection Service Officers and allows them to intervene swiftly where necessary. Would the Minister elaborate on whether there is sufficient resources, particularly manpower, to exercise that broad discretion given to the Officers in light of the unfortunately increasing number of cases investigated as well as the expansion in definition of child abuse through this Bill? As a significant number of child abuse cases involve children under the tender age of seven, would the Minister also elaborate on how have childcare teachers been trained to be able to detect child abuse?
In conclusion, Sir, this Bill consolidates an extensive review of the Children and Young Persons Act, putting into law amendments that can better support caregivers, youth victims, youth offenders and child abuse victims.
Sir, as I had stated at the start of my speech, children need protection where they are vulnerable because of physical domestic abuse. The state must swiftly intervene. Laws that allow swift intervention are key. For those reasons, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill for increasing support for children and young persons including up to 18 years which brings us in ratification with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In particular, I am especially heartened that the Bill now includes emotional harm as a form of ill-treatment, thereby allowing affected children and young persons to be protected by the Bill and allows older youth offenders to have more rehabilitative options.
And yet, in the very same Bill that recognises emotional harm as a form of ill-treatment, a new section 68A proposes the use of mechanical restraints on children and young persons. "Mechanical restraints" in this case refer to handcuffs, leg braces, flexi-cuffs or any similar means of restraint. This is disturbing, especially given the psychological risks and effects on the use of physical restraints. A 2008 research by Cornell University found restraints to be "a considerable risk to vulnerable youth, are intrusive, have a negative effect on the treatment environment, and have a profound effect on those youth who have experienced trauma in their lives."
It is also not clear to me if there are any guidelines on its use, or if restraints should only be used after less intrusive methods have been applied and deemed ineffective, especially when there are already therapeutic and trauma-informed alternatives as well as environmental interventions available, such as a padded room to prevent self harm or a Calming Room to manage aggressive/violent behaviour.
In fact, I believe this is already a MSF requirement for all children's homes in keeping with the Standards of Care for Children and Young Persons Homes. Also, I understand that one out of three care staff have also been sent for the Management of Actual or Potential Aggression (MAPA®) training programme to ensure that personnel involved in handling crisis situations, can maintain the care, welfare, safety and security of all involved. So, I am not sure if I understand the intent and need for section 68A. Can the Minister please clarify?
Mr Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity with the Bill to discuss what more we can do to invest in families so as to support and protect our children, given that "family" is one of the three principles of our social safety net.
Parents and guardians are expected to exercise responsibility for their children but I would argue if families are adequately enabled and empowered. Because we all know that there are many ways in which a family situation may manifest itself depending on the parenting attitudes as well as who are the present and absent family members, their dynamics, needs and aspirations.
Take Farhana, 47 and a single mother living at Yio Chu Kang who used to struggle with raising her five children. She barely had time for herself with taking care of the children and trying to earn some money from home, so she often felt exhausted trying to hold it all together. At times, she also resorted to physical methods with her children. When her eldest child was not attending school regularly, the state intervened and later found out about the abuse. She was then required to attend counselling and therapy sessions. Ironically, the well-meaning sessions which were meant to help her and her children saw her in even more emotional distress, which clearly also affected the psychological well-being of her children. Perhaps the support for Farhana should have come earlier?
I would like to urge the Ministry to strongly consider providing pre-emptive support programmes for at-risk families before we get to the vicious trap that Farhana faced. Family Service Centres when working with families could suggest counselling or parenting courses if the staff are also trained to assess parenting capacity.
In addition to parents, when a child or young person is in a care placement outside the family, whether short or long term, retention of relationships with the extended family or significant people, like grandparents and siblings, is critical for their sense of identity to be preserved, unless it is contrary to the best interest of the child. Research on family reunification shows maintaining parent/family-child contact in the first six months of alternative care placement improves the chances of family reunification.
The UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children states that it is important to keep siblings together in any alternative care placements. When siblings are separated, it causes anxiety among them – with separated siblings often having to manage life-long issues of attachment, identity and loss in their lives. I know that Darul Ihsan Orphanages is one of the residential home facilities that provide care for both girls and boys with deliberate joint activities to facilitate sibling interaction. There are nearly 10 sibling group placements within the home of 50 children.
I would like to propose that concerted effort be made to ensure contact time between siblings placed in different care placements, such as if one is in foster care and the other in residential care. In addition, we should extend family work intervention to the other sibling who is in the household to prevent further family separation and risk being referred to the care system in the future too.
Mr Speaker, I commend the extension of childcare and infant leave to foster parents with section 27 of the Bill to make fostering more accessible and recognised. The demand for foster parents is more pressing now, as more children have entered the foster care system in recent years. A children's home, no matter how well-run, cannot replicate the "therapeutic elements" found in a family, said Dr Yong Ming Lee of NIE. How can we encourage more fostering?
First, we could reframe foster care to also include kinship care and incentivise keeping children within their families by extending the amendments to section 27C to enable grandparents and next-of-kin, such as uncles and aunts, to childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave.
Order.
PAPERCUTS