CLOSING SPEECH
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the honourable members, Associate Professor Fatimah Lateef, Ms Ellen Lee, Mdm Halimah Yacob, Mr Christopher De Souza, Associate Professor Paulin Straughan, Dr Lily Neo and Ms Sylvia Lim for their support and comments on the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill. I would now like to address the points they have raised.
License fees and composition of the Review Board
2 On the licensing of Children and Young Persons Homes, Associate Professor Fatimah Lateef has asked about the licensing fee and the composition of the Review Board. The licensing fee will be a nominal sum of $12 a year. The same fee will apply for subsequent licence renewals. As for the Review Board, it will include a multi disciplinary team to provide the necessary insights to the cases being reviewed.
Definition of child or young person in need of care or protection
3 Mdm Halimah and other members had asked if the formulation of section 4(c) is too broad and if there would be differing standards of what constitutes adequate care for the child. The political point was raised by Ms Sylvia Lim, when she asked if this would result in poor families being broken up, and I think we need to put this lie to rest. We are trying to protect children, who of no fault of their own, have been exposed to risk, harm or neglect. The greatest danger is to assume that it is a natural reflex that all of us will look after our children, or by using poverty or some social disadvantage that this may somehow excuse the family from being held unaccountable for the care of the child. This is not about child protection officers imposing middle class values on poor families and using that as an excuse to take children away from their families. I would like to reiterate that this is not the intention. What we are after is simply to identify children at risk and to take appropriate actions.
4 Mdm Halimah has a valid point when she asked what the definition of ‘adequate’ is with regard to provisions for the child. The definition would be what is necessary for the child’s survival, physical development, emotional and psychological health. We are not saying that the person must be at middle class or upper middle class level in order to look after their children. In fact I would state that there is a vast majority of poor families that are well able to take of their children. Usually when there is child abuse, the dysfunctionality is due to issues of values and relationships and not because of poverty. Poverty should not be raised as the bogeyman in this debate.
5 There have also been questions on safeguards on Protector’s powers in the Act. The due process involved is that every case is discussed at a multi-disciplinary platform within the Ministry, in order to tap the different and relevant perspectives, and the views of the team. In order words, this is not the views of one person that is imposed. I will emphasise that removal of the child is the last resort. It is the morally right thing to do, to bring up a child within the context of an intact family. I would like to assure members that child protection officers, wherever possible, wherever it is safe and practical, will do their best to ensure that the child is looked after in the context of the family. The reason why child protection service is under the MCYS, is because where additional resources, financial, emotional and social are necessary to support and empower the family to look after child, MCYS will do so. I make that assurance in this House.
6 There are also questions on what constitutes emotional and psychological abuse. It can be difficult to define, but if the actions results in harm to the behavioural, social, cognitive, affective or physical functioning of the child, such as terrorising the child, rejecting, degrading, isolating, exploiting or corrupting the child, that would constitute emotional or psychological abuse.
Voluntary Care Agreements
7 There has been much talk on voluntary care agreements, and that is why I addressed this in my opening speech. I want to emphasise that this is not an attempt to take children away from their families without judicial review. It is intended to provide for early intervention and support to be given to the families, to work collaboratively with the families, identify what are their needs, and how we can support their needs in order to better look after and protect their children. If children need to be removed, that is the last resort. Let me cite you some actual numbers on what happens on the ground. In 2009, there were 169 cases investigated by the Child Protection Service. In 124 cases, allegations of child abuse were substantiated. Of these substantiated cases, however, only one third will proceed on to a care or protection order, because of the seriousness of the abuse. For the remaining cases, it was assessed that the allegations were substantiated, and there were welfare concerns that must be addressed and had to be escalated so that the children would have access to further child protection measures. The Child Protection Services works with these families with the support of other community agencies, to address concerns and to formulate a concrete plan of action in which support and assistance is given to improve the family’s situation, and proper supervision and monitoring of the child’s welfare is in place. A synergistic relationship is created with child protection officers, parents and the community organisations. I am glad to report that the majority of families are co-operative as they do want what is best for the child. Families are able to acknowledge that there is a problem, and commit to resolving the problem, to the best of their ability, and together with support and supervision of child protection officers and the community organisation. This is not a backdoor attempt to remove children from their families without judicial review.
Penalty for not entering/breaching bond for care or protection order
8 There were questions on the issue of not complying with the bond and the penalty, raised by Mdm Halimah and Associate Professor Fatimah Lateef, and whether the penalty is punitive and makes it more difficult for families.
9 When a child or young person is established by the Court to be in need of care or protection, it means that that there are already sufficient concerns about the child’s safety and well-being. The Act provides that the parent or guardian to enter into a bond to ensure the proper care and guardianship of the child. While we tend to put a dollar value on bonds, the real intention in imposing a bond is to incentivise, persuade and to focus the minds of the families that a change in behaviour is needed to improve the outcomes for the child. I do not think the Court derives any satisfaction from levying or collecting the penalty. Nevertheless, we need a system where there are both incentives and penalties if parents do not comply with the recommended changes that are necessary in order to protect their children.
Co-ordination among agencies for child protection
10 Mdm Halimah also brought up a valid point on co-ordination among agencies and unfortunately we all know the case referred to where the father was released from prison, years after the initial offence and then re-victimised the daughter. This tragic case illustrates the need for greater and stronger inter-agency management and flow of information. I assure you that agencies have learnt their lessons from this case. Agencies will work closely to make sure there is an integrated community safety net for the victims and they will also work in the long term for the safety of these potential victims. That the cases have been identified, prosecuted and jailed is not the end; family and relationships go on for a long time, and some families may need long term supervision.
11 An example of close inter-agency work is the Child Abuse Protection Team or (CAPT). This team, which include the Police, medical social workers from the hospitals, psychologist and other professionals, meets weekly for case discussions. Teachers, school counsellors, staff from the Children and Young Persons Homes are now included in the discussion. CAPT has proven to be effective and is an ongoing feature of the child protection system.
12 Besides the CAPT team, MCYS has also set up another team that meets on a regular basis to discuss the ongoing progress of individual cases. The Child Abuse Review Team or CART, is attended by child protection officers and managers, professionals with experience in the child protection sector and other individuals involved in the management of the specific case who have detailed knowledge of the individual case.
Conclusion
13 Let me conclude by coming back to the principles. It is still about families and parents discharging their responsibilities. We recognise that some families will need additional help, and we will do so through policies and operations of MCYS. Having said that, this is not a simple case where we penalise people when they do not fulfil their end of the bargain, because there is the other element of the child or young person, whose interest we are committing to in this House, to place as paramount. What that means, is that we will have to achieve a difficult balance, a balance between fairness, due process, the rights of the parents, versus the real danger and risk of neglect or harm to children. We have to get the balance right, although I confess to prefer, when in doubt, to err on the side of the safety of the children. What we have is a system with proper checks and balances, proper reviews and a system that is sufficiently resourced to make sure that people who need help get help and children who need protection, will be protected. Again, I emphasise this is not something we can do alone, nor something we can do with legislation. This is something we need to do as a community.
14 Sir, I beg to move.