Adoption of Children Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Minister for Social and Family Development.

3.57 pm

The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

First and foremost, our starting point is that every child deserves to grow up in a loving family and a caring community. We want our children to thrive under the care of trusted adults.

This is part of our Social Compact in Singapore, where families form the bedrock of our society. They are our first line of support. The Government will preserve strong families because they are our foundation that nurtures and builds resilient individuals, together with the support of a caring community.

However, we note that, in some instances, a child's birth parents may be either unable or unwilling to care for him or her. This is when the Government must facilitate alternative and needed care arrangements.

Where reunification with their birth parents is unlikely, adoption into a strong and stable family is an important enabler – providing the children with a better chance of having a good start in life and achieving better outcomes.

Today, adoption in Singapore is governed by the Adoption of Children Act 1939 (ACA). In the past decade, the number of adoption applications has averaged about 400 annually, with a dip in 2020 and 2021 due to the pandemic and cross-border restrictions. Over 90% of applications were granted by the Courts.

Adoption agencies have also been playing an increasingly bigger role in the adoption sector. Domestically, there are about 10 to 15 commercial adoption agencies – I will call them CAAs. They provide various services for prospective adopters. For example, arranging pre-adoption assessments and matching them with children identified for adoption.

There are also four Social Service Agencies (SSAs) which provide similar services. MSF appoints these SSAs to conduct pre-adoption briefings and assessments. Currently, all adoption agencies are not directly regulated, although they must comply with Singapore laws, including laws against child trafficking. ACA was last substantively amended in 1985. Since then, the adoption landscape has evolved significantly and seen several key developments.

First, adoption applications have become increasingly complex. MSF is seeing more adoption applications involving children with high needs and prospective adopters with concerning issues. Second, some vulnerable children in state care, who would benefit from adoption, face obstacles in the adoption process, primarily due to objections from their birth parents. Third, the CAAs have become more prominent in the adoption sector. With a limited number of local children available for adoption, prospective adopters have sought their services to source for foreign children.

Over time, MSF has received feedback about such CAAs engaging in undesirable practices that are financially-motivated, with little to no regard for the interests of the child, prospective adopters and birth parents.

While MSF has administratively addressed such undesirable practices, legislative levers are needed for greater deterrence because this cannot be tolerated in our society. Therefore, this Bill will repeal and re-enact ACA, with enhanced provisions to govern the adoption sector, practices and processes in Singapore, and to better safeguard the child's welfare.

In formulating the Bill, MSF had consulted extensively. This included key stakeholders, like our adopted children, adoptive parents, adoption agencies, agencies supporting women with unplanned pregnancies, religious leaders, lawyers and the Courts.

While the groups were diverse, I was heartened to hear they all shared a common view and, that is, that the child's welfare should be at the heart of our considerations.

Overall, we had received feedback and suggestions from over 200 respondents, many of which were taken on board.

We also carefully studied international developments and best practices on adoption, learning what would be useful and relevant for our social and cultural context. This Bill is the culmination of their suggestions and aspirations.

Before I go into the key provisions, allow me to clarify upfront the three main groups of people mentioned in the Bill.

First, the Guardian-in-Adoption (GIA). This is a public officer responsible for safeguarding the welfare of children identified for adoption and granted powers through the Bill to carry out various statutory functions.

Second, adoption agencies. These refer to persons in the business of arranging for interested prospective adopters to adopt. Today, there are CAAs and some SSAs that provide such services.

Third, authorised adoption agencies. MSF intends to authorise some fostering agencies and SSAs that handle adoption-related work to have specified statutory functions and powers, such as to perform Adoption Suitability Assessments.

Allow me to elaborate on the key provisions of the Bill, which are grouped into three key thrusts: first, finding a good home for every child; second, balancing the interests of birth parents and the child; and third, putting in place a sound regulatory system for the adoption process.

First, finding a good home for every child. The first thrust is finding a good home for every child identified for adoption. As I said earlier, the key focus of adoption is the child's welfare, rather than about supporting parenthood. This means ensuring they are adopted by families who can provide good home environments for them.

In this regard, we will provide greater clarity on and tighten the eligibility criteria for adoption.

First, we will prioritise applicants with a stronger nexus to Singapore. This is given the small number of children identified for adoption and the challenges in accurately assessing prospective adopters based overseas.

Today, the Act requires the applicant to be resident in Singapore. Clause 4 specifies that the applicant for adoption under Singapore jurisdiction must be habitually resident in Singapore. In determining this, the Court will consider how long the applicants have been living in the country, where they work and the base of their social and economic ties. For joint applications, at least one applicant must be a Singapore Citizen (SC) or both applicants must be Permanent Residents (PRs), while a sole applicant should be an SC or a PR.

The Bill allows the Court to recognise exceptional cases where adoption would be in the child's welfare, for example, if a Singaporean couple living overseas wishes to adopt their orphaned niece living in Singapore.

Second, we will provide more guidance on who can adopt jointly, given the differing marriage laws across jurisdictions. The Bill specifies that applicants married under Singapore law can do so. For couples who married overseas, only those who would be regarded as lawfully married, if their marriage had taken place in Singapore, can adopt jointly. This means that only a man and a woman, married to each other, can apply together. This is because Singapore's marriage law only allows a man and a woman to marry each other.

Third, clause 5 establishes the default position that applicants convicted of serious crimes cannot adopt. This improves on the current arrangement, which relies on the Court-appointed GIA to object on a case-by-case basis. The list of serious crimes will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation and will include offences, such as sexual abuse, violence and drug consumption offences. Exceptions may be made in special circumstances, for example, if an applicant had committed the offence when he or she was a teenager and has since remained crime-free and assessed to have a low risk of re-offending, the GIA may provide a favourable assessment and the Court may decide to grant the adoption order.

But, let me emphasise that, ultimately, it remains for the Court to be satisfied that there is no risk of harm to the child, before granting an adoption order. This is not a trivial matter and would be considered carefully and dutifully, both by the GIA and the Court.

Lastly, in the course of addressing queries from prospective adopters, MSF explains to them the criteria used.

Clause 7 provides factors that the Court, GIA and authorised adoption agencies must consider when assessing suitability. This includes factors that we will prescribe in subsidiary legislation, for example, the strength of applicants' marriage, parenting capacity and existence of support networks.

Additionally, clause 7 also requires Court judgments on adoption to be considered in assessing suitability of prospective adopters. In particular, the High Court has, in the past, held that relevant public policies can be taken into account in adoption applications.

In this regard, I would like to reiterate the Government's statements in Parliament in January and October 2019 that, as a matter of public policy, we do not encourage planned and deliberate single parenthood as a lifestyle choice. To be clear, we do not support the use of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) or surrogacy to conceive and then adopt a child.

Second, our public policy encourages parenthood within marriage. In the case of a man and a woman married in accordance with Singapore's marriage law, they may be medically unable to conceive children and surrogacy is their only option. If so, it would be possible for them to adopt their child who is conceived through surrogacy, if the arrangement is carried out in a jurisdiction where surrogacy is not illegal or unlawful.

The Government has also stated that it is a matter of public policy that we do not support the formation of same-sex family units, which the High Court had affirmed in December 2018 in UKM v Attorney-General. We reiterated in January 2019 that we do not support the formation of same-sex families through processes, such as adoption. These public policies will be taken into consideration when determining suitability to adopt.

We will also introduce more safeguards into the adoption process.

Clause 11 lists three prerequisites before prospective adopters can apply to Court.

First, they must attend a Pre-adoption Briefing. This enables them to better understand the adoption process, eligibility criteria and unique needs of an adopted child.

Second, they must attend a Disclosure Briefing. This equips prospective adopters with the knowledge and skills to disclose the child's adoptive status at a suitable time, with the child's welfare in mind.

MSF strongly encourages such disclosure. During one of our engagement sessions, I, myself, heard the candid views of adopted children who shared with me about their adoption journey and the importance of disclosure to them. They were very brave.

Ten-year-old Zephaniah Lim was one of them, who emailed us after the session. I would like to share with the House an excerpt. He said, and I quote, that, "Forever Daddies and Mummies must tell their children about their Tummy Mummies and that they came out from their stomachs. Because the children need to know where they came from." Zephaniah's moving words represent the voice of many adopted children. And, as a House, we ought to support their voices.

Nevertheless, we recognise that some birth and adoptive parents may have concerns regarding disclosure. I fully understand this. We are, therefore, taking an incremental approach towards disclosure. As a first step, we will mandate disclosure briefings, but not the disclosure itself.

MSF will study practices overseas and consult key stakeholders on further steps that we could take towards greater disclosure, for example, the setting up of an adoption register.

Third, they must undergo an Adoption Suitability Assessment (ASA). Today, only applicants adopting a foreign unrelated child or a child in state care need to undergo a pre-adoption assessment. We have not required this in other cases. This is because the child is likely related to the applicants and already living with them before their adoption decision.

Nonetheless, we have received feedback that ASA would be useful to prepare and provide early support to all applicants. Thus, we will now require all applicants to obtain a favourable ASA before they can adopt.

Where prospective adopters are related to the child, such as step-parents, and do not present any concerns, they may undergo a simplified ASA process. All applicants must also reside in Singapore for at least a year. This ensures that they are settled here and their family and support systems are stable. Applicants may appeal to GIA against an authorised adoption agency's decision on ASA, to ensure that their views are heard.

Next, for the sake of the child's welfare, we encourage timely applications for adoption. Clause 33 allows the Court to strike out applications that are made a long time after a child has started living with the applicants. This is to deter prospective adopters from delaying their application filing. This provision will not apply in specified circumstances where the child is already likely to be living with the prospective adopters. For example, if the child is a biological, or related child.

I will now describe the new powers to obtain information for required assessments and to grant Court orders to ensure the child's welfare and safety.

We propose six key levers.

First, to ensure assessors have all salient information necessary to make an accurate assessment. Clauses 15, 19 and 29 empower GIA and authorised adoption agencies to vary or revoke an ASA in specified circumstances or direct prospective adopters and any relevant person of a child to undergo assessments or to provide pertinent information.

In principle, this preserves the integrity of ASA and avoids some situations that MSF encounters today, for instance, prospective adopters failing or refusing to provide information on their financial stability or mental health, and even providing false information.

The Bill also states consequences for non-compliance. For example, GIA can recommend that an adoption order should not be made, if pertinent information is not provided.

Second, under clause 59, it will be an offence to provide false or misleading information to GIA or an authorised adoption agency during the adoption process. This is also to ensure the accuracy of assessments and that an adoption order is not made or refused due to false information.

Third, as the adoption process takes time, clauses 22 and 30 put the onus on prospective adopters to notify GIA and authorised adoption agencies of any material changes in their circumstances, for example, applicants who decide to separate midway through the proceedings.

The applicants' duty to notify will commence when they apply for an ASA and will last until the Court decides on their application. Failure to comply can result in the Court drawing an adverse inference against the applicant.

Fourth, under clause 32, the Court will be able to empower applicants, who are in the midst of adoption proceedings, to make non-routine decisions for the child's care, where needed. These are decisions that a person can be expected to make ordinarily in caring for a child, such as allowing a wisdom tooth extraction or minor surgery after a fall. If organisations require a Court order for applicants to decide on a non-routine decision, applicants may then choose to rely on this provision.

Fifth, clause 35 empowers the Court to require that applicants, a child's relevant persons and/or the child attend support services, such as mediation or counselling. Such orders may be made even after adoption proceedings have concluded.

Sixth, in the event of an unsuccessful adoption application, clause 43 allows the Court to order any person who has the child to transfer the child to a suitable person recommended by GIA, where this is required to ensure the child's safety. Non-compliance will be an offence punishable with a fine and/or imprisonment.

I have spoken at length about the various provisions and measures we have introduced to ensure that we can find a good home for every child, because we have the child's welfare at heart. This sums up our first thrust.

Next, I will talk about our second key thrust. This is to strike a balance between the interest of the birth parents and the child.

First of all, let me state that MSF acknowledges and upholds the sanctity of parents' rights over their child. Adoption is not a decision to be taken lightly. Hence, clause 25 states that an adoption order cannot be made unless all key parties who may be affected by it are notified first. Such key parties include a child's birth parents and someone who has actual custody of the child. They are referred to as a "relevant person" in the Bill.

The consent of a child's relevant person should be obtained in the ordinary order of things. We will retain the existing requirement that an adoption order cannot be made, unless every relevant person of a child has consented to the child's adoption. We have made clear how to obtain informed consent, such as having two witnesses when signed consent is obtained.

However, in some cases, a child's birth parents may be missing or may unreasonably object to the adoption, even though the refusal harms the child's welfare. In such instances, the Bill will allow the Court to proceed with the adoption process, even without the birth parents' consent.

While the current ACA lists some grounds for dispensation of consent, stakeholders have shared that these are insufficient.

Over the last few years, there have been about 1,000 children in state care at any point in time. Of this group, adoption would have been the best permanency option for about one in 20 children in state care, or about 50 children. Even then, only 10 applications to adopt them were made each year, on average. Of this already small number, about 40%, or four applications annually, were contested by the child's relevant person, typically a birth parent.

Such contestation, which can be protracted and costly, deters prospective adopters from applying to adopt them. Most importantly, the child's welfare is adversely impacted because he or she can neither be safely reunified with his or her birth parents or kin, nor be placed in a new, permanent family.

To address this, clauses 36 to 41 provide guidance on a wider range of circumstances where dispensation of consent would be in the child's welfare. In calibrating these grounds, MSF had studied overseas jurisdictions and past cases we have managed and consulted widely.

This amendment will help children like Esther, not her real name. Esther's birth mother alleged that she was abused by Esther's birth father and that he had placed Esther in physical danger while under the influence of drugs. As Esther's birth parents were unable to provide a safe and stable home, she was placed in foster care shortly after she was born. Her birth father was also, subsequently, jailed for drug-related offences.

Despite extensive efforts by MSF's Child Protective Service to work with her birth parents to reunify Esther with them, concerns remained. About two years after being placed in foster care, MSF arranged for Esther to spend two days weekly with her birth mother. However, Esther experienced nightmares and refused to eat or go to school.

Esther's birth mother was also unable to care for her independently and could not cope well when stressed. This raised concerns over her ability to provide safe care. Upon his release from prison, Esther's birth father also could not commit to meeting her to nurture a healthy parent-child relationship. As a result, this left Esther with poor emotional attachments to her birth parents.

Despite this, Esther's birth father objected to her adoption, even though he lacked the commitment to care for her, as a father ought to have.

Our proposed amendments to clarify the grounds under which the Court can dispense with consent to adoption are intended to help children like Esther move out of the state care system earlier, be adopted and have the chance to grow up in a safe, loving and stable family.

I would like to emphasise that our intent is not to make it easier to take children away from their parents. We will not consider adoption for children in state care if they can be safely reunified with their birth family. It is only when we have exhausted efforts to reunify the child and determined that adoption is the best alternative that we will seek the consent of the birth parents for the child's adoption.

Should the birth parents refuse and MSF's Child Protective Service conclude that any further delay would harm the child's welfare, we will source for suitable applicants to adopt the child. Such applicants may then file an application in Court, requesting the Court to consider dispensing with the birth parents' consent.

Like today, birth parents can choose to contest an adoption application and, if there is such contestation, the Court will make the final decision.

Finally, the third thrust is to establish a sound regulatory system for the adoption process.

While there is currently, no specific regulatory framework that governs adoption, all parties in the adoption sector must comply with Singapore laws. These include laws against child trafficking. Many stakeholders in the adoption sector do try their best to act responsibly, with the child's welfare in mind.

Nevertheless, MSF has received feedback that some commercial adoption agencies engage in undesirable practices. These include advertising children for adoption in a way that other businesses advertise goods for sale, fraudulently obtaining a birth parent's consent to the child's adoption and not being transparent about their fees.

While MSF has worked with SSAs to educate prospective adopters on dubious practices and also issued stern warnings to entities which engage in undesirable practices, stronger action is needed. MSF, therefore, intends to introduce offences and regulatory measures, as follows.

First, we will restrict the sharing of identifiable information of children identified for adoption. Clause 48 prohibits the unauthorised publication or broadcast of identifiable information of children who were, or are, the subject of adoption proceedings, including after the protected person turns 21 years old.

Clause 51 prohibits the unauthorised publication or broadcast of identifiable information of children when advertising, promoting or providing adoption services, to prevent children from being commodified. In addition to financial penalties, the Court can order offenders to remove the publication or broadcast.

Second, we will impose new requirements relating to adoption-related payments. Today, applicants must apply to the Court for sanctioning of payments they have received in consideration of an adoption and payments that they have made to birth parents. Our intent is that payments exchanged in the adoption process should be made to benefit and promote a child's welfare and not to exploit or entice a relevant person into giving up his or her child, or for improper financial gain.

Clause 53 extends the sanctioning requirement to payments made by applicants to people beyond birth parents. If payments made or received by the applicants are not declared to the Court and sanctioned, they cannot be enforced.

Under clause 54, every adoption agency must publish a list of every payment to be made to, or through the agency for adoption-related matters. This will increase transparency and allow prospective adopters to make better-informed decisions. It will be an offence if an adoption agency fails to do so without reasonable excuse.

We will also regulate categories of payments under clause 55 to guard against improper financial gains. Making or receiving any adoption-related payment outside of the permitted categories will be an offence. Examples of permitted payments include legal fees and payments to defray the costs of caring for a child.

Third, we will penalise the use of fraud, duress, undue influence or other improper means to obtain consent to adoption. MSF has encountered applications where the birth parent alleged that he or she was tricked into signing the consent document. Some birth mothers interviewed by MSF have shared that they were forced by adoption agencies into signing the consent document without having sufficient time to consider the implications. Such practices are wrong and harmful. Under clause 56, such practices will amount to obtaining consent improperly and will be an offence.

Fourth, clause 57 will regulate the circumstances where children can be placed with prospective adopters. Generally, this will only be allowed if the prospective adopter has already obtained an ASA. If the child is a foreigner, the prospective adopter must also have in-principle approval for a Dependant's Pass for the child. Prospective adopters will be guilty of an offence if they fail to comply. Adoption agencies, any relevant person of the child and people who assist them will also be guilty of an offence if they place a child with such prospective adopters.

However, there are some children who live with prospective adopters before they commence the adoption process, such as children whose foster parents intend to adopt them or children living with their relatives who are seeking to adopt them.

The Bill, thus, specifies that the offence will not apply in such cases for practical reasons as removing the child temporarily from the prospective adopters during the adoption application process would not be in the child's welfare. Nonetheless, if ASA turns out to be unfavourable due to care or protection concerns, MSF will step in to arrange for alternative care arrangements.

Lastly, the Bill makes clear that protecting children and strengthening the adoption sector are a shared responsibility.

Under clause 60, it will be an offence for key parties involved in adoption proceedings or in the adoption sector to fail to report suspected offences under the Bill to GIA or an officer authorised by GIA.

Under clause 72, individuals who report, whether voluntarily or under a legal obligation, will be protected from legal liability for reporting. Their identity will also be protected during Court proceedings.

In addition, under clause 73, key parties performing statutory functions, such as GIA and staff in authorised adoption agencies, will be protected from personal liability if they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care.

As the majority of applications in Singapore involve inter-country adoptions, the proposed offences will have extraterritorial effect under clause 50. This means that if an offence is committed by a person outside Singapore, the person may be dealt with as if the offence was committed within Singapore.

The penalties for first-time offenders of an offence in the Bill range from a fine of up to $5,000 or $10,000, and/or imprisonment for a term up to 12 months or three years. The penalties are higher for repeat offenders and offences targeted at commercial adoption agencies.

To enforce these new offences, clauses 61 to 63 provide GIA and authorised officers with powers of enforcement while clauses 64 and 65 clarify that it would be an offence to obstruct enforcement or provide false or misleading information to officers performing enforcement functions, such as an officer authorised by GIA.

To conclude, it is timely to bring this Bill before the House as we have designated 2022 to be the Year of Celebrating SG Families.

At the start of my speech, I shared about how families are the bedrock of our society. This Bill reaffirms the enduring role that families play in our society and towards the nurturing of resilient individuals. It reminds us how providing every child with a strong, safe and stable family environment also gives them a good start in life, as well as enables them to flourish and to fulfil their potential.

While most children will be blessed to grow up happy and safe in the family they were born into, this Bill will enable adopted children to experience the comfort, care and love of a family, described in the words of 10-year-old Zephaniah, as their "forever" Mummies, "forever" Daddies and "forever" brothers and sisters. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

4.36 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, this Bill addresses two important matters relating to the policy on adoption: first, regulating the behaviour of individuals; and second, regulating the structure of institutions. We need both to work seamlessly together in what is, essentially, a very private and emotional affair – the birth of a family.

Sir, in the adoption of a child, the overriding consideration must be, as what the Minister has described, the centrality of the child. Our dream is for every adopted child to have a good home and a family to take care of and to love them.

I shall now make a few points about the Bill.

First, one proposed change is to prioritise applicants with stronger ties to Singapore. In this case, I would like to ask if the threshold of "strong ties" is sufficiently high.

My question lies in the case of joint applications, which are allowed as long as both applicants are Permanent Residents (PRs). If the test is that of ties to one's country, should not one applicant, minimally, be a Singapore Citizen? Yes, PRs do have some degree of permanence, but they do move on when circumstances change. For example, there are those who renounce it after the first term, or there could be others who have had their PRs, subsequently, not renewed or approved.

Second, the change of default to disqualifying applicants who have committed serious offences, rather than allowing all applications and then reviewing on a case-by-case basis.

I agree with this as a matter of efficiency and also as a signal of how high we set the bar for qualifications. At the same time, even as we have safeguards to disqualify applicants with certain prescribed offences, we do allow exceptions if the Court is satisfied that these individuals have reformed. I am supportive of this.

I have a related point, however, on how this relates to the wider point on the protection of children. Our duty of care towards the child must be of the same level when it comes to birth parents. As I had indicated earlier in my speech at this year's Committee of Supply debate on MSF's budget, we must be as prompt and forceful in separating a child from birth parents or families where they are deemed to be "harmful" to the child.

Can the Minister say how this is provided for, if not in this Bill, then in other legislation relating to oversight and responses to child abuse and how parents who have committed serious offences are dealt with insofar as their ability to continue their parenting duties?

As much as I support this Bill for what it makes explicit, I would also like to point out an important provision of this current Bill and what it leaves implicit.

This Bill allows for single parents to adopt. I have, over the years, spoken quite a few times on the status of single parents and how our definition of "family" should expand to include these parents.

As a result of this provision for sole applicants, one question may arise for single parents who subsequently marry. Specifically, what happens to a child if the sole parent goes on to legally marry someone of the same gender overseas?

This issue is one which opens itself up to strong debate, but I would say, as far as the issue of adoption is concerned, the "overriding consideration" that I spoke of at the start of the speech still holds – which is, the centrality of the child and for every adopted child to have a good home and a family to love them.

If that condition holds, I would say there is much that the Bill can stay silent on and allow the circumstances of each specific case to be examined on its own merits, whether the single parent marries here or overseas and what the family unit, eventually, comprises.

I end with two specific points on regulating institutions.

First, how do we ensure or strengthen the assessment process for prospective adoptive parents? Can we ask for more testimonials and references to attest to the parents' character, as well as for specific performance indicators? In this case, I opine that more is better.

Second, in ensuring that assessments are current and also recognising that the entire process can take some time – potentially up to three years – the current proposed change is to put the onus on the applicants to notify authorities of any material change in their circumstances.

I agree with the placing of the onus, but I would like to add that we might want to impose annual affirmations and declarations on the part of applicants. This reduces the chances of declarations being overlooked and removes an excuse of forgetfulness for applicants. Again, in this case, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in some ways, the adoption of a child may seem to be open to more checks and scrutiny than the birth of one, because we see our duty to the adopted child as a joint and a public one.

To some extent, this is a duty which extends to all persons who are vulnerable. It is our collective duty to care for those who are unable to care for themselves and to put up rules, both for private conduct and in our institutions that work towards the flourishing of children within families. Sir, I support this Bill as a means of doing so.

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

4.42 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate on this excellent Bill. Speaking from personal experience, what I have learnt is that the adopted child blesses and enriches the family. My wish is that everyone listening to this speech today would seriously consider adoption, regardless of whether you have biological children.

I must also take this time to commend MSF for the good work they have done so far, not only in tabling this Bill, but the hard work over the years in working with stakeholders, parents and children in striving towards creating more awareness and support for adoption and facilitating the process of adoption.

There are also wonderful voluntary welfare organisation (VWO) partners who do silent, selfless and courageous work in this space – such as Safe Place, Touch Community Services, aLife and so many more ground-up and committed organisations.

The Bill aims to find a good home for every child identified for adoption and I stand strongly in support of this.

In some cases, a baby's adoption status is treated as a secret. However, adoption can be celebrated as an act of love. In that light, I support having disclosure briefings because it is best to disclose to the child as early as possible while helping the child understand that he or she is loved. When our daughter was still young, my wife and I would tell her that she came from her "Tummy Mommy's" tummy, but she was born in our hearts.

I understand that many would be concerned whether such disclosure would affect the child adversely. But I have thought about this and I believe we should tell the child about his or her adoption and do this as early as possible. Inevitably, the child will realise that he or she is adopted and will wonder why it was kept a secret. He or she will think that perhaps, there was something to be ashamed of.

A better approach, in my humble view, is for adoptive parents to explain adoption in a manner that is positive and affirming and showing the child that he or she belongs to a family and is loved equally. My wife and I have four children and all of them are treated and loved equally – no difference. They each have different personalities, but, when they are put together, they make quite a team.

I would also like to emphasise that it is in the best interests of children that adoption should be reserved for stable family units, ideally with a married husband and wife.

This Bill also stands to break cycles of abuse and neglect and this is very important. With record numbers of child abuse cases in 2020 and 2021, we need to work harder to protect our young because they are vulnerable and cannot speak up or defend themselves. With this Bill, more children will be able to be removed from abuse and neglect but, consequently, we will need more prospective parents willing to parent these children.

Mr Speaker, I also support the desire to deter undesirable behaviour in the adoption sector. The need to protect the best interests of the child means that certain behaviour that might compromise a child's welfare should be outlawed.

Alongside this, in order to protect children and also birth mothers, I also support Singapore's continued policy of, generally, not allowing commercial surrogacy.

I know surrogacy is a sensitive topic. But the unavoidable fact is that commercial surrogacy invites a very high risk of exploiting the woman who rents her womb. Surrogacy also invites so many middlemen and agents' fees. Many of these women who rent out their wombs come from developing countries and do so out of desperation. Surrogacy, in my view, should not be allowed in Singapore, or overseas for that matter, on account of the high possibility that women will be exploited.

We should also not commodify babies. Instead of commercial surrogacy, adoption is a very real alternative. We want to promote the ideal – which is not-for-profit adoption of Singaporean babies to Singaporean couples facilitated by non-commercial VWOs and MSF. And, by "couples", I mean a husband and wife.

I would also like to speak up in support of pregnant ladies who make the difficult and life-giving decision to keep their pregnancy and give their babies up for adoption. This is true selflessness. In this selfless manner, an unplanned pregnancy can create a wonderful family unit for the adoptive parents.

Finally, Mr Speaker, while this is an amazing Bill, I believe we can take it to a higher level. This Bill arises out of a greater aim to create a greater space for adoption within our society. My sincere aspiration is that we, as a society, see adoption as equally attractive as having biological children and both can come hand-in-hand as routes to starting a family. This positive framing of adoption can invite more prospective adoptive parents to come forward and put their names down and also for more unplanned pregnancies to lead to adoption instead of abortions.

One humble suggestion is for MSF to invite prospective adoptive parents to put their names down on a list, and also to have a list of pregnant ladies who want to give life to their babies, but cannot take care of them and would like to put them up for adoption. Then MSF can match the two lists together and facilitate more adoptions.

Having a child, whether adopted or biological, is not always easy. Like all families, there are ups and downs. So, I call on MSF to provide follow-up support, engagement and bonding activities for parents of adoptive children who desire support.

In conclusion, Sir, adoption is a unique journey. It will not always be smooth, but love solves all things.

I hope that there will be many more adoptions in Singapore in the decades to come. To prospective adoptive parents, do take the leap of faith and walk the journey. There is a wonderful team in MSF and I admire them and am thankful to them for all their hard work.

Mr Speaker, I believe we are all made for a unique purpose and I challenge each of our Members here and listeners at home to carefully consider whether your unique purpose is to adopt a child. I stand here in Parliament strongly advocating for the incredibly worthy cause of adoption. And for this reason, I support this timely Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.50 pm until 5.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.10 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Adoption of Children Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Mark Chay.

5.10 pm

Mr Mark Chay (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Adoption of Children Bill, which seeks to improve the systems and processes surrounding adoption in Singapore with a child welfare first approach.

I am pleased by the added rigour, scrutiny and support that will be soon embedded in the screening, selection and post-adoption processes, to ultimately, safeguard the well-being and the rights of children across Singapore.

Please allow me to share a few thoughts on the Bill. One, on the requirement for adopters to undergo suitability assessments; two, on breaking cycles of abuse and neglect; and three, on the suitability and criteria to adopt.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am encouraged by the move to conduct mandatory Adoption Suitability Assessments (ASA) on all prospective adoptive parents. This is to ensure a robust due diligence process which ascertains the fitness, readiness and suitability of adoption applicants.

I would like to ask if ASA is a two-way matching process that is fair and transparent to the potential parents as well. Will there be a comprehensive evaluation of the child's medical, mental and emotional status? In addition, will full disclosure of these details be shared with potential adoptive parents? In particular, the mental health and condition of adopted children are a concern and potential adopters should be made aware of the unique needs of the child they are adopting.

I move to my next point on breaking cycles of abuse and neglect.

I fully agree that access to a safe, stable environment is paramount to the health, happiness and development of the child.

The Bill states that the Court may dispense with a child's birth parents' consent to the adoption if the birth parents are unfit or unwilling to care for the child.

The Bill also prevents persons convicted of serious crimes, such as sexual violence and drug-related offences, from adopting and I would like to make two points on this matter.

First, I am happy to see that the Bill recognises the reformation process and the Court may consider exceptional cases for overcomers to be eligible for adoption.

Second, like overcomers, birth parents may be deemed unfit or unwilling to care for children at a point of time. But what if they can overcome and be deemed able and willing to parent later? In these instances, would there be an opportunity for the birth parents to reconcile with their birth children?

Lastly, on the criteria for suitability to adopt, my hope is for us to be a progressive nation and begin to have conversations on non-traditional family units.

While I do not disagree with the Government's position against deliberate single parenthood through surrogacy, adoption or same-sex parents, I am pragmatic in acknowledging the possibility that other non-traditional family structures may be able to meet the needs of an adopted child just as efficiently.

Although I respect the policies in place today, it is my hope that, in time, we dispense with evaluations of suitability based on sexual orientation or relationship status when the key qualifications and thresholds for suitability have been satisfied.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude by restating my firm support for this progressive Bill that modernises and legitimises Singapore's adoption process to provide for and protect children in need of forever families.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

5.15 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I stand in support of the Adoption of Children Bill.

The last substantial amendment to the Act was in 1985, almost 40 years ago. The recommended increase from 12 sections to 75 sections in the proposed amendments, is a testament to the need to update this legislation. In addition, Singapore's birth and fertility rate has been declining. And adoption is one of the top options for couples who aspire to parenthood. Adoption is, thus a matter of interest to our society.

Adoption is clearly a serious matter. An adoption order granted by the Court is, in effect, a termination of the legal relationship between a child and his/her biological parents, and adoption means transferring all rights and responsibilities in caring for the child to the adoptive parents.

I wish to touch on matters relating to three key stakeholder groups: the children to be adopted, the adoptive parents and the adoption agencies.

First, the voice of the child. I fully agree with the Ministry's undergirding principle behind this suite of amendments in the Bill – that the top priority is to guard the welfare of the child. Many of the stakeholders involved in the adoption process are adults: prospective adopters, biological parents, adoption agency operators. But the person that is most impacted remains to be the child who is up for adoption. My question to the Minister is, therefore, how the voice of the child can be better sought and heard.

All the names I use hereon are not the real names of the persons involved, but all of them are people I know.

In the case of one of my young teenaged residents, I call him "Weng", the stress and uncertainty he endured during the adoption process was very hard for him. Weng's biological father, in a foreign country, had abused both him and his mother. His mother remarried a Singaporean who discovered the option of adoption only after quite a long period of appeals to agencies and through me, the Member of Parliament. Throughout the period of adoption, Weng, the young man, expressed great fear and anxiety of being rejected in this adoption application and being sent back to his home country. Weng really wanted to reside in Singapore with his mother and stepfather and wants to serve National Service when it is time. He wanted to become a Singaporean. I am so glad he is one now.

Another young resident, "QH", had to return to China to fend for himself at age 21, whilst his biological mother remained in Singapore with his biological half-brother and Singaporean stepfather. I supported part of his education, because fees were very high for him as a foreigner here and I often wished he could have become one of Singapore's sons.

One of my former students, "Boon", is a Singaporean child with special needs who was fostered as a toddler, because he was abandoned, until he was 21, through the Ministry's arrangement. Could Boon have been put up for adoption earlier? He was fostered for more than a decade. How long, therefore, would it take under the Bill, the new Act, if approved, to propose and facilitate the adoption of fostered children like Boon who were abandoned from young?

Sir, if the top priority of the Bill is for the welfare of the child, there must be ways found by which the process incorporates the voice of the child to be adopted.

Next, on the voice of the adoptive parents. In the process of preparing this speech, I spoke to a number of adoptive parents who have walked the journey. There are usually two main areas of concern: one, the long administrative process; and second, the unevenness of available information for them to make informed decisions.

The process of adoption, currently, involves many steps – from pre-adoption briefing, to home assessment study, identifying an agent, identifying a child for adoption, applying for a Dependant's Pass for a foreign child, getting the approval of the Family Court, sending the Adoption Order to ICA for a birth certificate, applying for Singapore Citizenship and, in the case of China, several post-adoption reporting requirements.

"Yen", a happy adoptive mother who adopted a baby from an ASEAN country, had to wait for a Dependant's Pass to be approved before she could spend time with the child, even after passing a very stringent Home Report assessment. That was step seven of, I think, 15 steps in MSF's portal, when I did a search. Mothers, like Yen, ask if the new process would further lengthen the anxiety of bona fide prospective adopters.

How do the steps in the new process vary, in terms of the number of steps, quantity, duration and complexity? How can the process be made more efficient whilst ensuring the welfare of the child remains a priority? Whilst essential steps to assess and prepare prospective adopters are made mandatory, which I fully support, are there other steps that can be consolidated or simplified and the flow of information across agencies be better shared?

The second concern of adoptive parents is that of the uneven level of awareness amongst them. In the words of one parent who spoke to me, "for us, the official road sort of 'ended' after MSF officially gave us the certification to become adoptive parents." Another one told me, "After the Home Study Report was done, we did not know where to go to look for the babies." They depended on the luck of the draw, to land the right lawyer to help them, the right social worker and the right adoption agency.

Several adoptive parents cited their search of agencies to be daunting and quoted some agencies to be "dubious" and "dodgy". Whilst the new clause 10 of the Bill provides for the Unique Entity Number (UEN), address of the place of business of every authorised adoption agency to be published, one wonders if that is sufficient. Surely, much more could be done to facilitate access to the needed information to help potential adoptive parents make better informed decisions and to cut short the process.

Lastly, on the voice of the adoption agencies. It is obvious from the feedback from adoptive parents I spoke to that not all adoption agencies are equally experienced, ethical and effective. How will MSF evaluate and identify appropriate agencies? How can the better ones, that Mr Deputy Speaker spoke about just now, be recognised and engaged?

For the sustainability of the good players in the market, whether for profit or not, financial viability is necessary. Therefore, can there be some way to help them? Can there be fee guidelines such as that issued by the MOH for clinics, so that there is an acceptable range of service fees? This will ensure that adoption agencies with good records get to remain in the business and build on their strength to support more families effectively.

Sir, the Adoption of Children Bill is overdue and is well worth our support. I seek the Ministry's considered responses to the concerns I have raised for the child, adoptive parents and adoptive agencies. Thank you so much for doing the good work.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

5.23 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. I note that the Bill contains certain provisions of the Adoption of Children Act 1939 while also codifying certain other current practices, and I would like to seek clarifications on just certain parts of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill requires that an adoption application must, henceforth, be made by an applicant who has a favourable adoption suitability assessment under clause 14, or in short, ASA. ASA is required to be issued by an authorised adoption agency pursuant to the requirements of the Bill. Clause 14 further provides that a valid ASA is one that is issued in the form specified by and contains all the necessary information required by GIA. Can the Minister clarify what additional information is required as prescribed under clause 14(3)A and B?

Currently, only limited categories of prospective adoptive parents are required to obtain a favourable Home Study Report (HSR) before they are allowed to adopt, for example, for overseas adoptive children. The HSR assessment is usually carried out by one of the four Social Service Agencies (SSAs) specifically authorised by MSF to provide certain adoption services. One such organisation, Touch Community Services, has provided a helpful explanation on the purpose of HSR on their website. They explained that HSR is to assess a person's suitability and readiness to adopt a child. The assessment is required before the adoptive parents start searching for a suitable child or before initiating legal adoption proceedings. The home study process involves interviews, screenings, home visits and applicants will be assessed on areas, such as their motivation to adopt, views on adoption, family, marital, medical and employment history, childcare arrangement, parenting styles and other relevant information, involving adoption and adoptive parenting.

I would like to ask the Minister whether for the categories of adoption applications currently requiring HSR, for example, adoption of foreign or local children not previously known personally to them, would HSR still be required, or whether ASA will replace HSR completely. And if ASA will not replace HSR, how would ASA add value to the current HSR regime beyond the ASA being a formal certification by the adoption agency that these applicants are suitable to be adoptive parents?

For any other group of applicants not currently subject to the HSR procedure, for example, a step-parent adopting a child of his or spouse from a previous marriage, may I know what is the expected rigour of the ASA assessment expected, for example, when compared to the current HSR process? How will GIA ensure that all ASAs comply with the requirements and standards expected under the Bill or any subsidiary legislation?

I am also curious why the Government did not consider it fit to allow the current four SSAs, which are issuing HSRs to issue ASAs, instead of getting the authorised adoption agencies to do so. Since the four SSAs are already issuing HSRs, it would seem reasonable and consistent for them to do the ASA assessment and issue the ASAs. I am also concerned about the additional cost to adoption which may arise from the requirement of ASA. The expenses for the adoption of overseas children are already quite significant and it is not easily affordable to some. Bearing in mind that each HSR already costs $2,000 and the HSR process is currently undertaken by commercial agencies, is the Minister able to indicate, for now, the estimated fees which the Government expects the adoption agencies to charge for ASA and would this be capped by the Government?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have earlier spoken on the new requirement of the adoption agency issuing an ASA for adoptive parents. Clause 10 of the Bill allows the Minister to designate or authorise adoption agencies. May I ask the Minister to share with the House what are the specific requirements for an adoption agency to be an authorised adoption agency?

I agree with the Bill setting guidelines for permissible adoption-related payments, requiring all our adoption agencies to publish information on their fees, as well as other provisions, criminalising undesirable behaviour. It is important to ensure that agencies uphold acceptable standards and moral practices. However, I am concerned about the possible compliance costs which may be incurred by such authorised adoption agencies and whether such costs will be passed on to the adoptive parents. I am concerned that the requirement should not lead to an increase in the cost of adoption fees and expenses. Certainly, for the many adoption cases involving children from overseas each year, the cost is considerable. I urge the Government to take steps to ensure that this Bill will not lead to an increase in the cost and expenses of adoption.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill also helps to facilitate adoption of children who have been placed in foster care or a children's home for many years as their birth parents continue to be unfit, or unwilling, to care for them. I can understand some of these difficult cases, the concerns about their birth parents being continually unfit to take care of their children, or even be abusive. I can also understand that some of these children may even have good and close relationships with their foster parents, making adoption a worthwhile consideration.

Nevertheless, people may change for the better over time and live to regret their past actions, while legal adoption, unlike fostering, adds a permanent and irreversible seal to an end to the legal relationship between birth parents and their children. Rehabilitation efforts, may, for some, involve a longer time than others. How do we decide between continuing a child under foster care or putting the child in foster care up for adoption? There will not be easy, one-size-fits-all solutions.

Even after the passing of this Bill, it will not and should not be an easy decision for the Court to make based on any set of general conditions, such as those in clause 37, for example, the time consideration which should be given to the parents in each type of situation listed in the clause, or for each particular case. I seek the Minister's assurance that there will still be sufficient safeguards to ensure that any adoption in these circumstances be allowed in perhaps only the most appropriate of cases.

Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that adopted children, who were foreigners at the time of birth are given citizenship at the time of the formalisation of adoption. However, ICA requires such children to take the oath of renunciation, allegiance and loyalty when they reach 21, pursuant to Article 124(1) of the Constitution.

Would the Government consider amending the law to dispense with the need for such adopted children not born in Singapore to take this oath, especially for children who were formally adopted by Singaporean parents under Singapore law within a short time after birth, for example, say, not more than one to two years after birth, and whose adoptive parents are also Singaporeans at the time of issuance of the children's Singapore citizenship certificate and birth certificate?

There are no other options for these children, unlike other categories, such as children who keep dual nationalities from birth, either by the parents' choice or at least one of the adoptive parents has a foreign nationality. Many of the adopted children would have severed their ties with their former countries, as well as their birth parents.

This Bill codifies the existing practice required by MSF for all would-be adoptive parents to first attend certain briefings, including a briefing on disclosure of adoptive status in clause 13.

Currently, MSF states on its website that prospective adopters are strongly encouraged to attend a disclosure workshop on talking with one's adopted child about adoption. The workshop will help one to understand why adopted children should know about their status and how adoptive parents can approach the subject.

These briefings have been a part of the adoption procedure for some time now. While still not mandating disclosure by parents to their adopted children of the status of their adoption, the inclusion in the Bill of the disclosure briefings is still, in my view, extremely significant, as it would help to enshrine the importance of disclosure.

There is quite a lot of literature on the benefits of disclosure, particularly early disclosure of the fact of adoption to the adopted child.

In the days of old, many parents would not tell their adopted children the fact of their adoption and some would find out later on in their life, through different sources or by accident. Many adopted children do not react well to discovering this later in their life.

Some time ago, a father shared with me his painful experience. He and his wife had adopted a child from a neighbouring country some years ago and did not disclose the fact of adoption to the child. As the child developed a different complexion from his adoptive parents as he got older, he was teased about it and had a tough time in school.

One day, he confronted his parents about it and his parents admitted to him that he was adopted. However, he struggled to accept this revelation in his mid-teens and why he was not told about it earlier. He developed difficult behavioural issues right through his early adulthood. Sadly, the episode also took a toll on his parents' marriage.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am, myself, an adoptive father. I was glad that in the early stages of adoption, I was briefed and made to understand the importance of disclosure. Though not mandatory, my wife and I agreed at the onset that we should disclose to our child that she is adopted.

We started by sharing with her stories of adoption even when she was a baby. In recent years, we started telling her that we are her adoptive parents. She knows that she has a "Tummy Mommy" and a "Forever Mommy".

My daughter is still young. She is in Primary 1 this year. It is still a work in progress in our disclosure journey. We expect that, in future years, we would have more and deeper conversations with her about her adoption, but we are glad that we have started this journey of disclosure some time ago.

Mr Deputy Speaker, though the Bill does not make it mandatory for parents to disclose the fact of adoption to their adopted children, once passed into law, the requirement in the legislation for a prospective adoptive parent to attend briefings on disclosure is a symbolic step in the right direction.

I understand that there may still be parents who may not be comfortable with disclosure and I sincerely hope that, by my sharing, I can also encourage some of those who may still have doubts.

I am in a support group of adoptive families that was initially set up by the SSA which helped us with our home study report the Lutheran Community Care Services. Pre-COVID-19, the group's parents and children had met from time to time. I hope the group will be meeting up again soon with the relaxation of safe management measure (SMM) conditions.

My daughter also meets up with other friends who are adopted.

Recently, a staff worker from the Lutheran Community Care Services sent to our support group a video on disclosure which I found to be very encouraging and thought-provoking.

I hope that adoptive parents and all stakeholders can continue to work together to encourage more parents about the benefits of disclosure and also to help adoptive parents and children along both their disclosure journey and, indeed, their adoption journey. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim.

5.35 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): For many would-be parents, the little pink "+" sign on the home pregnancy test kit is a moment of incredible joy. For other couples, this journey may be prolonged. As this House discussed last month, higher ages for marriage have been accompanied by greater challenges for childbearing, although, with the intervention of modern science, many are able to conceive and birth children of their own.

There are yet others for whom this route is closed, who find themselves unable to have biological children of their own. And, of course, there are those who see the provision of a home to a child, for whom this would otherwise not be available, as a noble calling in and of itself.

For such latter groups of households, desirous of having the pitter-patter of tiny feet as any other, there is one other route – becoming the parent of a child who has been born in otherwise undesirable circumstances, which led to the child being given up for adoption.

As any "forever" parent would tell you, there is absolutely no difference, insofar as becoming a father or mother is concerned, when one holds that baby, boy or girl, in one's hands for the very first time. Adoption is the way that these parents have been able to experience that joy of parenthood.

The Bill that is being debated here takes important steps to revise the process of adoption, refreshing some protections for biological parents while simultaneously introducing a number of amendments to ensure the suitability of adoption providers and adoptive parents for the sake of the welfare of the most important individual in the adoption process – the child.

Many of the proposed amendments and refinements are both necessary and very much welcomed.

However, I have concerns about how some of these measures may, inadvertently, introduce unintended consequences that run counter to the child's interest. They have to do with pre-adoption procedures, post-adoption recognition, both for parents and the child, counselling for adoptive parents and the regulation of adoption agents, all of which I plan to elaborate on in my speech.

One important objective of this Bill is to codify a number of sound and sensible procedures related to pre-adoption procedures, including requiring prospective parents to undergo suitability assessments – what, in practice, results in a home study report as well as attending pre-adoption and disclosure of adoption briefings.

Clause 13, which formally requires participation in a briefing on the disclosure of the child's adoption status, formalises the existing practice of strongly encouraging attendance. It is fully in line with both evidence that points to the psychological benefits as well as the ethical responsibility of doing so. It is a positive development.

Similarly, reconciling the need to perform a home study for not just foreign, but also Singaporean children, is consistent with the fact that home dynamics and the suitability of parents to adopt does not discriminate by national origin. All potential parents should be carefully assessed while simultaneously being transparently confronted with concerns that would trigger a rejection and, thereby, be allowed to proactively address any red flags that serve as a barrier to adoption.

While some prospective parents may find the assessment process intrusive and unfair, it is important to remember that pre-emptively ruling out couples who are unsuitable for parenthood is, ultimately, in the best interests of the child. The last thing we would wish for an adopted child is the need to face the trauma of yet another parental rejection.

The various steps involving at least two Court hearings prior to the issuance of the order of adoption, interviews in the office as well as at home after the arrival of the child and background investigation by MSF may be prolonged but, as clause 31(1) of the Bill indicates, should not exceed two years.

Pre-COVID-19, the process would, generally, be done and dusted in about nine months. I, myself, find this duration somewhat poignant – and practice reflected this reality with the initial Dependant's Pass issued for a nine-month period, with little need for extension in most cases.

In 2019, this timeline was altered to allow 21 months after the Dependant's Pass was first issued. This may well have been reflective of the fact that the pandemic introduced inevitable delays into the process. Unsurprisingly, foreign adoptions effectively ceased in the earlier phases of COVID-19.

But, even as we return to normal, there has not been any reversion to the practice of the original nine-month duration.

Mr Deputy Speaker, one could argue that the additional degree of freedom provided would surely be welcomed as it affords all parties additional time to complete the necessary steps. However, one must understand the mindset by which humans, such as you and I, operate.

With additional time, the sense of urgency to complete the task often diminishes. How many of us have drafted our Parliamentary speeches well in advance of the deadline? And it risks dragging out the uncertainty faced by adoptive parents; imagine not knowing for certain that, after a full one-and-a-half years of caring for a child, they would not, for sure, be taken away.

A 21-month timeframe for completion also throws a wrench into the prospective parents who may wish to adopt more than one child, since they are unlikely to initiate the adoption of a second until the first is complete.

I also believe that there are reasonable adjustments to the current procedures that can expedite the process.

At the moment, there are four accredited SSAs that have been tasked by MSF to perform HSR. The report itself is exhaustive and intrusive, and understandably so, since it is critical to ensure the suitability of a couple to raise an adopted child.

But what is somewhat puzzling is how a very similar set of questions is posed by MSF itself, despite the fact that they have access to HSR and that HSR is produced by agencies accredited by MSF itself. Hence, while interviews by MSF following HSR are justifiable – these occur after the arrival of the child, which does alter family dynamics – the replication of the report seems to me to be less so.

I would submit that the resources dedicated to repeating HSR are much better dedicated towards ensuring the integrity of the process, followed by the accrediting agencies.

Moreover, before the in-principle approval (IPA), which kickstarts the entire adoption process, is issued, MSF would, typically, interview the birth parents. This is, of course, important and necessary to respect the rights of the biological parents. But this step can be concluded and closed once IPA has been issued.

After all, why would it make sense to reopen psychological scars, encourage rumination and prevarication and risk imparting a sense of doubt and regret thereafter? What would it mean for the hitherto adoptive parents if, after a year and a half down the road, the birth mother somehow changes her mind?

Mr Deputy Speaker, all of this is to point out that inasmuch as we wish to protect the interests of the child, which, indisputably, is paramount in this process, we should not neglect the rights and responsibilities of the adoptive parents. After all, such parents face the same emotions of loss should the child be suddenly taken away from them and of fear of deep commitment to the child before the adoption is finalised, should the adoption process somehow fail.

What this would mean for the child is a home environment characterised by uncertainty and this is the last thing you would want to wish for a child who is already facing unprecedented volatility in their family life.

This is why clauses 46 and 47 spell out, in no uncertain terms, the status of the adoptive parents vis-à-vis the child after the adoption order is issued. But, certain rights pertaining to parents do not appear to be well-handled by the related and consequential amendments spelt out in part 9.

For instance, clause 77 amends the definition of a Dependant's Pass in the Child Development Co-Savings Act. However, as far as I am aware, parents are unable to purchase health insurance for the child or to add them to a family health insurance package before formal adoption is complete. Thus, while they remain on the Dependant's Pass, parents are unable to have the financial assurance that one will be able to take one's son or daughter to the doctor, especially in the early months when all manner of health issues may unexpectedly present themselves. It strikes me that some exemption should be afforded to those on a Dependant's Pass to be added to insurance in this case since the child's health does not respect the timelines dictated by the adoption process.

Similarly, the existing migrant domestic worker levy concession rate is not available for families whose children are on a Dependant's Pass. The $240 difference can quickly add up, especially for families that are already facing a surge of startup expenses that go towards new furniture, equipment, diapers and milk powder. Even if MOM cannot process a concessionary rate until after the child has definitively received their citizenship, a rebate for prior months after the change of status may, in fact, be warranted.

As a final example, consider the 12-week paid adoption leave granted by MOM. For starters, this leave is an entitlement only for adoptive mothers. It is unclear to me why the three-month bonding and care period should exclude the father. As this House debated last month, it makes much more sense to have a longer period of shared parental leave which either parent can draw on. This is all the more so, given how the adoptive mother will not have to undergo the typical postpartum physiological and psychological recovery process. Furthermore, the eligibility criteria require the child to become a citizen within six months of the adoption. Will this timeline be altered by the current practice where Dependant's Passes are issued for 21 months?

Clauses 35 and 45 now afford the Court the right to order mediation and counselling for parents, so long as it is beneficial to the well-being of the child. The former clause comes into play during the adoption process or the latter applies post-adoption. It is difficult to quibble about requiring such intervention before adoption. After all, there remains limited clarity about the adoptive parents' relationship status and background which could influence the success of the adoption.

But, to extend the power to do so after the conclusion of adoption proceedings indefinitely strikes me as an open invitation for the state to exercise its power to excessively intervene in family dynamics. While I understand that conflicts at any time after the child is adopted is possible, that open-ended nature of the clause may, potentially, discriminate between adoptive and non-adoptive families. Would it not be better to introduce a time-delimited requirement within the context of this particular Bill and to rely on existing laws governing child protection to stipulate mandatory counselling?

Parts 6 and 7, notably, clauses 54(4) and 60(3), spell out punishments in the form of monetary fines for adoption agents that fail to comply with the requirements stated in the Bill. But the Bill appears to fall short of taking the next step of holding frequent or flagrant violators to more permanent account. For example, MSF, currently, declines to mete out any durable punishments, falling back on the argument that parents working with ACRA-registered adoption agents are engaged in private arrangements.

The closest we see to such language in the Bill is that clause 10(5) allows the Minister to cancel the authorisation of an authorised adoption agency before the expiry of the authorisation. It remains unclear whether this means MSF will permanently bar an individual or agency from the industry. May I ask the Minister is there any system for recording or investigating adoption agents or an official registry of private providers maintained? These need not mean that each agent must be accredited per se, but there is, at least, a record of the most systematic violators. Children are not commodities to be traded and providers that adopt – pardon the pun – poor practices should not be allowed to continue to do so repeatedly.

The Government fully understands the benefits of regulatory discipline associated with official registries. MOM oversees migrant domestic worker (MDW) agencies closely and agencies that engage in repeated or especially egregious violations can expect to have their licences revoked. I see little reason why this should not apply with equal force to adoption agents.

Mr Deputy Speaker, adoption should be a "win-win-win" process. It relieves biological parents who have neither the wherewithal nor inclination to raise a child on their own; it offers adoptive parents an opportunity to fulfil their dreams of raising a child; it provides an opportunity for a child to have a better start in life. It is also a win for our country – as Singaporeans struggle with delayed marriages and low fertility rates, adoption offers a means for our families to start or expand families that would otherwise not result.

The rules introduced in this Bill go a long way towards rationalising the adoption process in Singapore. I have raised a number of concerns – many practical in nature – that I hope the Ministry will take into consideration. But the Bill, as a whole, encapsulates many improvements that will help create more happy families in Singapore. And for this reason, it has my clear and unequivocal support.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

5.51 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, adoption is a significant decision for those who intend to undertake the important responsibility and legal obligations as parents. It is a beacon of hope for couples who are unable to conceive, but desire to have children.

As it takes great love, sacrifice and long-term commitment to adopt a child, the process must be considered in the best interests of the child identified for adoption. I am heartened to know that MSF is repealing and re-enacting the Adoption of Children Act 2022 to better safeguard the welfare of adopted children. My speech will focus on four aspects of the Bill: one, giving priority to prospective adopters who have strong ties to Singapore; two, safeguards to prevent persons convicted of serious crimes from adopting; three, suitability assessment for all prospective adopters; and four, post-adoption support for adoptive families.

Firstly, I understand that the Bill proposes to prioritise Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) for adoptions in Singapore. For joint applicants, I note that both the individuals should be habitually resident in Singapore, and either or both of the individuals are citizens of Singapore, or both individuals are PRs.

I would like to seek clarifications on the impact of this change on Singapore Citizens who intend to adopt the foreign nationality children of their foreigner spouses. In my Meet-the-People Sessions, I came across several residents who are either adopting or have adopted the children of their foreign spouses. After the adoption process is completed, these adoptive step-parents have expressed concerns and difficulties in affording the educational fees of their step-children, who are often foreign students. Many appeal for permanent residence and citizenship status for their adopted stepchildren to try to reduce their school fees in Singapore, but this process takes time.

I hope to seek clarification from MSF on what may be the safeguards in place to ensure that Singaporeans under such circumstances are given full counsel on the full financial implications of bringing their stepchildren up in Singapore to ensure that the welfare of the adopted children are taken care of.

Secondly, I am supportive of the legislative provision that prevents persons convicted of serious crimes from adoption. A good adoptive relationship depends on the good character of the adoptive parents to instil good behaviours and set good examples for their adoptive children. Thus, I would like to understand how MSF intends to determine the nature of offences to be prescribed in the legislation. Will serious crimes be determined by the category of crimes, length of imprisonment and/or the amount of fine imposed?

In my view, even for those with non-serious offences, as it will be difficult to guarantee that there will be no risk of re-offending, it may be in the best interests of children being put up for adoption to also be protected. This is especially if the criteria for serious or non-serious crimes are not easy to prescribe. I would like to suggest that MSF consider placing potential adoptive parents who have previous convictions in Court, even for non-serious offences, on a lower priority for adoption.

My third point relates to the suitability assessment for all prospective adopters.

I would like to clarify with MSF on what will be the difference in the lead questions that will be asked as well as the criteria for assessment that will be used to make Adoption Suitability Assessment (ASA) more useful than the current Home Study Report (HSR) to ensure the child's welfare.

I also note that the current HSR fee is set at $2,000. However, there are no means-testing schemes to ensure that the fee would remain affordable for prospective adopters. I would like to ask how MSF will ensure that ASA will remain affordable for potential adopters, especially in special circumstances, such as unwed single mothers who wish to formally adopt their biological children, who have financial difficulties to pay for the fees for these assessments.

Finally, I am encouraged that the Bill will empower the Court to order the attendance of relevant support services, such as counselling and mediation. Several established research studies have consistently shown the long-term effects that adopted children faced, which often persist into adulthood. The research showed that adopted children are at higher risk of developing behavioural and emotional issues, such as anxiety, depression and delinquent behaviour.

Given the mental health and behavioural development risk associated with adopted children, I would like to suggest that MSF consider providing support services to adopted children up to the age of 21 when they can lead an independent life. I would agree with the majority of the respondents during the public consultation process that the support services not be made mandatory, but are provided on a needs basis, when it is required. Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to speak a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Adoption of Children Bill tabled by MSF. The adoption of a child is very meaningful. This is because it enables children who need a family, especially those under state care, to find a home suitable for them. It also gives couples who cannot have children of their own a glimmer of hope and helps them form a happy family. I would like to make three suggestions on the proposed Bill.

First, the Bill proposes that, for joint applicants, at least one parent must be a citizen, or both must be PRs. At my weekly Meet-the-People sessions, I came across residents who adopted a foreign stepson or stepdaughter because they have married a foreign spouse. However, as they could not afford to pay for the tuition fees of foreign students, they hope to apply for PR status for their stepchildren to lighten the burden of school fees. Therefore, I hope that MSF will consider certain measures to help these applicants.

Second, the Bill proposes that persons who have committed serious offences would not be allowed to adopt children. I hope that MSF will clarify what constitutes a serious offence. While limiting the eligibility of ex-convicts who have committed serious crimes to adopt children to protect the safety and welfare of children, we cannot prevent ex-convicts who have committed non-serious crimes from re-offending, thus affecting the development of the adopted children. Therefore, I hope that MSF will consider giving lower priority to ex-offenders who have committed non-serious crimes, to better protect the safety of the adopted children.

Third, the Bill proposes to give the Court the power to order adoptive families to attend counselling, if necessary. Many studies have shown that adopted children are at a higher risk of developing emotional problems than those who grow up in their biological families. Therefore, I hope that MSF will continue to provide social services for adopted children until they reach the age of 21, so that we can detect and treat potential mental illnesses early.

The adoption of a child is a very important decision that requires unwavering love and selfless dedication of the adoptive parents to fulfil the promise of a home to the adopted child. I believe that the safety and well-being of the adopted children are the key factors in determining whether they can find a happy home, conducive for their development. The new provisions added to the Bill are in line with this guiding principle of protecting the safety and welfare of children. I, therefore, support this Bill.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many wonderful stories of adopted children finding good homes, where they are unreservedly loved by their adoptive parents. For adoptive parents, it can also be a rewarding journey of parenthood, so that their adopted children can get a better life.

Adoption is a beautiful thing and, with the necessary legislative framework and social support in place, I believe that it will serve the interest and welfare of children identified for adoption and create a journey filled with hope ahead for the children and the parents. Notwithstanding my considerations raised, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

6.00 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, children in their early and formative years require nurturing care and support. A safe and happy childhood leads to lifelong and intergenerational benefits for health, productivity and mental wellness. This stems from my personal experience being a father of five kids.

The sad reality is that not all families are equipped or able to care for their children. This is notwithstanding how much they want to. Some children struggle through challenging family circumstances. These situations may be present at the time of birth or come into being during their childhood years. For these kids, adoption may be the best option for them to lead a normal and healthy childhood. This Bill is timely, given the sharp rise in child abuse cases within the past two years.

Personally, I believe the overriding principle for adoption is to provide them with psychological safety, as well as the caring and supportive environment that they need. I have a few clarifications on the Bill. First, Mr Deputy Speaker, will all the changes to child adoption laws apply to foreign adoptees, where the adopting family is based in Singapore? Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what are some exceptional circumstances that may permit adoption by a person who has been convicted of serious crimes?

I support the decision to prevent persons convicted of serious crimes from adopting. That said, I also believe in second chances. I trust the effectiveness of our prison rehabilitation programmes. Thus, I believe that the current position is the right balance between caution and giving second chances. How does the Ministry decide on the time-bar duration? Also, how does the Ministry determine whether the person has been adequately reformed, to be capable of providing care to a vulnerable child? Will this restriction, based on the conviction of serious crimes, also apply to the immediate family members of the adopting couple? These would be people who also live with or spend significant amounts of time in the company of the adopted child. If the applicant or said family members have committed serious crimes abroad, will they also be subjected to the same restrictions?

Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendment that seeks to provide more clarity on circumstances, where consent from the birth parents can be dispensed with, if it is in the child's welfare. However, there may sometimes be compatibility issues between the adopting family and the adopted child. What intervention and support measures will the Ministry provide to the family and their adopted child, if these issues occur? Quite often, this may happen when the parents adopt a special needs child or one with some behavioural baggage, but underestimate the effort and resources required to bring him or her up.

I know of a couple who adopted a child with special needs from the Philippines. Caring for the child is not easy and I applaud the couple's efforts in providing a safe and loving home for him. Other than briefing the potential parents with regard to the potential needs of the child, will the Ministry consider providing greater support to parents willing to care for such children? This is to, hopefully, prevent the need for the Court to make an order against the adopting parents for the child's welfare.

The Bill stipulates for prospective adoptive parents to attend a compulsory pre-adoption briefing, where they learn more about the adoption process and related issues, before they can apply to adopt. Is such a briefing adequate? Should there be a more extensive preparation course and follow up? Are there mandatory health check-ups and mental health assessments for the adoptees, before an adoption procedure is finalised?

Moreover, what if the adopted child is unable to get along with the rest of the siblings and other family members? Will the Ministry encourage adoptive parents and their families, where practical, to participate in respite fostering activities, if they seem unsure about adoption? In this way, the family can gauge whether they really have what it takes to welcome someone new into their families. This should not be a test, but it could be an avenue for families to determine their readiness.

I would suggest that part of the adoption process should include training or conversations with adopting parents and their families, to aid them with such decisions. The discussions should cover the sibling relationship issues. In this way, these conversations can be a whole family affair.

Fourth, Mr Deputy Speaker, does the Ministry intend to actively raise awareness and encourage adoption of children who have been under state care? According to a news report, there are fewer than 10 applications for children in state care, out of about 400 adoption applications filed in Singapore yearly. How does this figure compare with the number of children who are under state care? What is the percentage of those in state care who have been identified for adoption? What are the criteria for these children to be deemed suitable for adoption?

I support the amendments to ensure that adoption agencies publish their fees in a transparent manner and only charge the permitted payments. While advertising adoptees with identifying information is understandably prohibited, perhaps a generic awareness campaign on local child adoption could help to shed more light on the values and realities of child adoption.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, a well-matched adoption can be a potentially life-changing and life-saving experience for the adopted child. With the new laws, I believe that Singapore will be a safer place for vulnerable children. Singapore will also benefit from a new generation of children who would have otherwise fallen by the wayside.

Adoption is, ultimately, an act of kindness. In my maiden speech in this Parliament during the Debate on the President's Address one and a half years ago, I spoke about how we can be richer as a nation, if we help one another. We are just emerging from the COVID-19 crisis.

Over the last two years, the Government has done much to help fellow Singaporeans to save jobs and to provide emergency support for workers and their companies.

But there is other help that is needed. We need the community to come together and to care for those who may be less fortunate and may be in need of a loving home and loving relationships. In helping those in need, such as children who struggle through challenging family circumstances, we leverage our various strengths and abilities to create a stronger social compact.

There is great value for us to do more for one another. Natural families already have many obstacles to overcome, to achieve stability and provide a safe and comfortable environment for children to thrive and grow. I imagine that adoptive parents would face even more challenges. Let us help in every way we can, to make every match between adoptees and adopters a success.

Lastly, I would like to express my admiration and appreciation for the Singaporeans who have adopted children. Dedicating resources, energy and giving of your lives to a child outside of your natural family is, undoubtedly, one of the most selfless acts of humanity. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

6.09 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to better protect the welfare of children identified for adoption.

According to data from MSF, there is an average of 400 adoptions a year in Singapore. While this number is not large, each and every adoption could mean a better future for the child, especially if the birth parents are unable or unsuited to raise the child properly. I, therefore, support the extensive proposals to enhance our local adoption laws and practices. However, I have a few clarifications and suggestions.

Let me first start by speaking about children in foster care. Sir, there are many children currently in foster care, or who have been in a children's home for years, who would benefit from being adopted into a caring and stable family. However, couples who wish to adopt such children face roadblocks when the child's birth parents do not consent to the adoption. To address this issue, the Bill makes clearer the proposed thresholds and circumstances and specifies more grounds, under which the Courts will allow the adoption to proceed without the birth parents' consent.

However, the issue of the Courts dispensing with the consent of birth parents in the adoption process is not new, as there are prevailing case law examples. I would like to ask if any of the proposed provisions go against prevailing case law, and, if so, what are the reasons for this.

I would also like to ask what will be the protections given to the adopted child and the adoptive family, to prevent birth parents who did not provide their consent, from harassing the family? In cases where the birth parent was found to have intentionally caused grievous physical hurt or mental trauma to the child, it is vital that we do all we can to help the child get a clean break from the cycle of abuse. Adoptive parents, too, should be protected from harassment and be given a safe and conducive environment to care for their adopted child.

Next, I will touch on deterring undesirable behaviours in the adoption sector. Sir, I welcome the Bill's proposal to introduce offences to protect the welfare of the children identified for adoption and to ensure the integrity of adoption processes and practices in Singapore. Specifically, the Bill proposes to make adoption practices more transparent by making clear what are allowable adoption-related payments and to require all adoption agencies to clearly publish information on their fees. But is this sufficient to combat existing unscrupulous practices in the adoption sector?

A recent news report published by CNA, followed the story of an adoptive parent who tried to adopt a newborn in Singapore four years ago, but was forced to return the baby to the birth parent after refusing to pay questionable additional fees to the birth parent and the adoption agency. Is this a prevalent practice in Singapore, where adoptive children are being, and I quote, "sold as merchandise" to the highest bidder? How many such cases have MSF come across in the past five years?

Can MSF, therefore, consider regulating the fees charged by adoption agencies in Singapore? While I understand that adoption agencies currently charge different rates due to a variety of reasons, such as childbirth expenses, we should rein in adoption agencies that try to profiteer from adoptive parents. I would like to propose for MSF to gazette in subsidiary legislation the permissible fees charged by adoption agencies and review these fees regularly, in consultation with the industry, to ensure that the fees are both reasonable and updated. Simply put, we can, and must, end the abhorrent practice of giving babies to the highest bidder.

Lastly, I hope that more Singaporeans can consider becoming foster parents to vulnerable children and young persons who are in need of a loving home environment. According to MSF data, the number of children and young persons in foster care has remained stable at about 540, in the past three years. Can MSF provide an update on its efforts to encourage more families to step forward to become foster parents?

Various research papers and anecdotal stories posted online have documented the multitude of challenges involved in fostering. It can, indeed, be stressful to be foster parents. In addition to the traditional stressors of caregiving, foster parents must build rapport with the child, who often might come from a troubled background and, therefore, finds it difficult to trust his new caregivers. Some foster parents have shared that they sometimes received a late call-up to foster a child, and this would spark a last-minute shopping rush for clothes and essential items and to make urgent childcare arrangements. To alleviate these challenges, can the Ministry consider providing foster parents with additional childcare leave, beyond what are already provided for under the Child Development Co-Savings Act and the Employment Act?

Sir, the proposed amendments to the Adoption of Children Act are vital to ensure that more vulnerable children have access to adoption and are able to receive the best opportunity to grow up in a safe, stable and loving family. As we enhance the Act to improve the adoption processes and weed out undesirable behaviour within the industry, I also hope that more Singaporeans will consider fostering and adopting children who are in need of a loving family. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

6.15 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the new Adoption of Children Bill is timely and will enhance measures to protect the interests of adopted children and help them find good homes and families. I have four suggestions.

The first is regarding adoption leave. Presently, adoptive mothers of children below the age of 12 months are entitled to 12 weeks of paid adoption leave, which they can use to bond with, and care for their adopted newborns and infants. For adopted children aged between 12 months and seven years old, adoptive parents can only tap on six days of Government-paid childcare leave (GPCL). For those aged between seven and 12, Government-paid extended childcare leave is only two days.

I would like to suggest that the Ministry consider extending adoption leave to mothers of children aged up to six years. After all, toddlers and preschoolers need as much, if not more, time than infants to bond with their adoptive mothers.

The first few months of the adoption are a major and critical adjustment period for both mother and child. With 12 weeks of adoption leave, the mother will be better enabled to understand the traits and needs of her adopted child. The child will also benefit immensely from the dedicated attention of his or her adoptive mother in a new home and, in some cases, a new country.

Increasing the adoption leave for mothers of toddlers and preschoolers will also encourage more suitable local couples to consider adopting children in state care who are typically older. As the Bill proposes to clarify the threshold for the dispensation of consent for the welfare of children under state care, such a provision will be helpful in meeting the future rising needs of older children being adopted into stable families.

My second suggestion is to provide funding for adoptive parents' support groups. Funding would be helpful for authorised adoption agencies to facilitate more regular support group sessions. Through such sessions, social workers will be able to detect problems faced by adoptive families and assist them in a timely manner. Parents can also turn to these groups for emotional support and useful advice at different stages of their children's growth and development. Unique issues that they may face would include disclosure, family conflict between the adopted and biological children or other family members, or a budding romance between adopted children or between an adopted child and a biological child, amongst others. I see the importance of support groups and strongly encourage adoptive families to participate. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] My third suggestion is regarding the school fees paid by non-citizen stepchildren in the process of being adopted. Until they are adopted and become Singapore Citizens, they have to pay international student fees, which are much higher than those that are paid by Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs). For Primary schools, the fees are over $800 per month. For Secondary schools, they range between $1,000 and $2,500. These fees would impose a heavy burden on most families. Some of these children may even have to miss school until they are adopted and become citizens. For more complex cases, the adoption process may take up to two years. This break in their learning is a disservice to growing children.

I have received some feedback from a number of Singaporean men who are married to divorcees from China with children from their previous marriages. Many of these men would like to adopt their stepchildren. However, the Chinese embassy requires that the biological fathers have to endorse and sign the adoption papers. In some cases, there are delays in the ex-spouses' negotiation of terms and conditions. In other cases, the biological Chinese fathers may refuse to sign. With the interests of the children at heart, I would like to request the Government to consider charging these children school fees that are similar to those paid by PRs. There are long-term benefits to nurturing people. The Government may impose certain conditions, such as indications of these foreigner children setting their roots here in Singapore.

(In English): Lastly, regarding post-adoption reviews. It is not clear to me if post-adoption reviews will be required or how it will be implemented for adoptions here.

The Bill proposes to empower the Court to order attendance of relevant support services, such as counselling and mediation, if required at any point during the adoption proceedings or after an order has been made. However, this is different from a routinely scheduled post-adoption assessment.

For children adopted from China, the China Centre for Children's Welfare and Adoption (CCCWA) requires post-placement reports. These reports are to be prepared by accredited agencies here and submitted to CCCWA. For stepchildren and kinship adoptions, the adoptive parents are required to undergo at least one post-adoption assessment within three years from the adoption registration in China. For children adopted from the social welfare institution, parents need to complete six post placement reports at the sixth month, first year, second year, third year, fourth year and fifth year milestones.

I would like to ask the Ministry for clarification and details about post-adoption reviews for local adoptions and adoptions of children from other countries. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.

6.21 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Adoption of Children Act Bill today. At first glance, the Bill affects a small number of Singaporeans. On average, 400 children are adopted each year and half of them are born in Singapore.

However, for the new parents who choose to adopt, for the children who are adopted and for the biological parents of the children put up for adoption, the laws and processes of adoption have an immense impact to them. Therefore, I am heartened that MSF is proposing a set of comprehensive and timely amendments.

I would like to commend three particular provisions in this Bill. First, regulate the key parties of the adoption sector, to ensure that they are well-run and to deter them for commodifying the adoption process; second, implement safeguards against the applicants convicted of serious crimes – children who are put up for adoption deserves to belong to supportive and healthy families; third, prioritising applicants with a strong nexus to Singapore.

Notwithstanding my support for many parts of the Bill, I would like MSF to also clarify, particularly on the provision that allows for the judicial Courts to dispense with the consent of a relevant person, who is usually a biological parent, to a child being put up for adoption if certain thresholds are met.

The intentions behind this provision are sound. After all, if parents or guardians are deemed by the Courts to be extremely ill-suited to discharge their duties, then, surely, there must be a legal process where society can protect the child, by giving the child the opportunity to live outside bad, or even dangerous, influences of his or her biological parents or guardians.

However, I do hope that MSF can provide the public clarity on the Government's considerations, as well as the steps that Government agencies will take, before the commencement of the Court process.

Will our social workers inform the biological parents or guardians at the earliest possible time if the social workers deem them to be heading down a path where the state takes their children away from them? If so, how will the social workers inform these biological parents or guardians?

I am fully aware that there are circumstances, such as serious abuse and neglect, where the state has to refer cases to the Courts immediately and at the first occurrence of such abuses. But there are also circumstances that are less clear.

As fellow parliamentarians here, we all have our encounters with families that are embroiled in serious family disputes, violence, potential or actual abuses. There are also parents that we see who are struggling with children with uncontrollable behaviours.

What I worry about is that if the public is unclear about how this provision will be implemented, then some parents in families that require deep intervention from our social workers may withdraw from cooperating with MSF, out of a misplaced fear that their children will be taken away from them without their consent.

We must also consider the issue on the other side. There are also parents who are engaging in self-destructive behaviours or lifestyles. These parents may not be well-informed about the laws, such as ACA. By informing them of the consequences of their actions early on, it is possible that the fear of losing their children will inspire them to take a different path. As such, I hope MSF can provide some clarity on this matter, even though I acknowledge it is not an easy balance to strike.

Lastly, I would like to ask MSF how the Government decides whether children are put up for adoption versus fostering. Will the new ACA lead to any changes when the Government makes such decisions? And will some children currently being fostered also have a chance to be adopted, and will the fostered parents be informed or consulted?

In conclusion, the Bill contains many good provisions and I fully support it.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

6.26 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will update the regime for the adoption of children. It is a step towards helping children identified for adoption find good homes, breaking cycles of abuse and neglect, and deterring undesirable behaviours in the adoption sector.

I thank MSF for having held a public consultation and engaging stakeholders in the social and legal sectors in preparation of this Bill. I am glad that the amendments proposed in this Bill contain suggestions surfaced in those consultations.

I have three points of clarification to raise.

My first point is on the pre-adoption application requirements. Under section 11, an adoption application may only be made by an individual holding a valid and favourable Adoption Suitability Assessment (ASA). Can the Minister clarify the requirements that must be satisfied by applicants to obtain a favourable ASA? Can the Minister further clarify what are the requirements for the simpler ASA for adoption of a related child?

Under section 22(1), during the relevant period, applicants for an ASA must notify the authorised adoption agency of any material change as soon as practicable. The relevant period starts on the day of an ASA application and ends the day after an adoption application has been made. With the child's welfare as the primary guiding principle in mind, can MSF share how it ensures the continued suitability of applicants after the adoption application has concluded?

In addition, will MSF be releasing guidelines on the administrative requirements, legal processes and the relevant costs involved in the pre-adoption application to provide applicants with more guidance?

My second point is on the dispensation of consent of relevant persons. This Bill allows for the dispensation of consent of relevant persons on the grounds of having ill-treated or failing to provide any suitable care for the child. I do understand there are diverse views on this issue. Can the Minister share how MSF decided on the threshold for the dispensation of consent and also further details on when MSF will consider the dispensation of consent appropriate?

My third and final point is about deterring undesirable behaviours in the adoption sector. Commercial adoption agencies are not directly regulated today. To safeguard the integrity of the adoption process, there should be sufficient mechanisms in place to sanction and deter undesirable behaviours that compromise a child's welfare. In this regard, transparency in the amounts paid to adoption agencies will go some way in deterring undesirable behaviours through public scrutiny.

Can the Minister share what mechanisms will be in place to enforce the publication of amounts to be paid to or through adoption agencies? What are the penalties for adoption agencies that fail to publish such information?

I also understand there are, currently, less than 10 private adoption agencies offering different suites of services at varying costs. Will the Minister consider implementing a mandatory accreditation for all adoption agencies to standardise the practice and determine their suitability to operate? A registry of accredited agencies could be published to recognise those that are committed towards the protection of children under their care. This may give prospective adopters better peace of mind as they embark on the journey towards parenthood.

In conclusion, I seek the Minister's clarifications on the requirements of ASA, grounds for dispensation of consent of relevant persons, and deterrence of undesirable behaviour in the adoption sector. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

6.30 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to find a good home for every child identified for adoption, prospective parents are screened through the Home Study Report (HSR) before adoption. For this report, they have to submit information pertaining to their reasons for adopting, their family, education, employment and health, among others.

I would like to ask the Ministry how comprehensive the health information submitted is. Will the couples need to submit more detailed information with the new Bill? The reason is that, generally, although not for all cases, adoptive couples tend to be older couples. MSF had said that the couple should not be more than 50 years older than the child. But, if the child to be adopted is 10 years old, this would mean that the couple may be up to 60 years old. Hence, I think it is important that all potential adoptive parents undergo comprehensive medical examinations certifying that they are fit and healthy, both physically and mentally. I look forward to the Minister's clarification on this issue.

Next, I would like to express my concerns about the threshold for the dispensation of the unfit, biological parents' consent for their children to be adopted. This group of parents would include those who are in jail for extended periods of time, are very abusive or drug addicts and so on. I fully understand and support the Ministry's review on this issue and its aim to enable affected children to grow up in safe and stable families. Severance of ties between the biological parents and their children should only be allowed under strict conditions and must be very carefully considered. I seek the Ministry's assurance in this sensitive matter that the best interests of the child will be considered thoroughly from all angles.

Finally, about the disclosure to an adopted child of the truth about his or her birth. The disclosure of a child's adoption is a very sensitive and emotional issue. Depending on the relationships and personalities of adoptive parents and children, the consequences can vary widely. Sometimes, the disclosure can destroy an established relationship. When the adopted child has become an adult and wishes to find out who his or her natural parents are, that is his or her choice. For younger children, it should be left as a private matter between the adoptive parents and the adopted child. I hope that the Ministry will continue to adopt a cautious approach, as it has done so far.

I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

6.32 pm

Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, over the past four years, I have had the opportunity to serve with an non-government organisation (NGO) that aims to address the orphan crisis in the Philippines through advocating for adoption and preparing families to receive children through adoption and foster care.

Through the work they do, I have come to understand some of the legal and administrative challenges posed in adoption in their nation's context, especially in ensuring that children are safe and valued.

For this reason, I am encouraged and grateful to note how Singapore's tabled Adoption of Children Bill addresses many of the legal and administrative challenges faced in the adoption process; paving the way for children to be placed in Singapore homes in a manner that is safe, ethical and brings fulfilment to both children and their adoptive parents.

Ultimately, the laws surrounding adoption should exist to find the best family for the child and not the best child for families.

The Adoption of Children Bill strikes a good balance in placing safeguards for adopted children to be placed in a healthy family environment, while also reducing obstacles from them being placed in healthy families sooner. I am excited at the many lives this Bill will change, not only for our children and families, but the impact this will have on our community and nation.

As we speak of the Bill today, may I propose to the House, and fellow Singaporeans, to respectfully consider adoption as a real and viable option to starting and growing families, alongside assisted reproduction schemes.

UNICEF estimates 15 million orphans who have lost both parents in the world, also known as double orphans, the majority of who are in Asia. However, double orphans are not the only pool of children that need to find a home. We have children whose parents fail to perform parental duties for various reasons, also known as social orphans, many of whom are under state and institutional care.

In Singapore alone, there are over 1,000 children in state care staying in residential and foster homes, even if not all require adoption. There is no shortage of physical and social orphans locally and overseas who are needing, if not, longing for healthy families.

There is much that can still be done to raise awareness and to open the hearts and minds in Singapore to the idea of adoption. While over 80% of Singaporeans surveyed in 2013 shared that they are supportive of adoption, the number of adoption applications in Singapore has fluctuated around 380 from 2012 to 2021. And of these adoption applications, fewer than 10 per year are for children under state care.

In comparison, the demand for Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) procedures has surged, evidenced by a 40% increase in the take up of funding for ART procedures between 2015 and 2019. Such demand has also led to recent policy changes in assisted reproduction; such as raising the age limit for those undergoing ART procedures, as well as increased co-funding for such procedures. These measures have been most welcomed, and many residents and friends I know are grateful for these changes that support their growing family.

However parenthood comes to us, it is a miracle. I sincerely look forward to the day where demand for both ART procedures and adoption will be on par, and to see more families embracing adoption as part of starting and building families. Perhaps in the near future, similar assistance used in supporting ART can also be provided to adopting families who pass the Adoption Suitability Assessment (ASA).

Adoption shows us that we do not have to look like the other person to love them. It expands the social and emotional capacity of a people and society. Love runs much deeper than blood. When a child knows that he or she has been chosen by a family to be loved and is given a safe home and life resources to explore new possibilities, it transforms his or her life in a manner that impacts generations to come.

Adopted at the age of 12 after his father passed away, Mr Nelson Mandela was the first in his family to receive formal education, alongside the children of his adoptive father. Because of the education opportunities accorded by his adoptive family, he became politically active during his university years and beyond and never imagined that he would be responsible in leading a nation out of apartheid, radically changing the lives of South Africans.

Closer to home, someone, whom I have deep respect for, chose to adopt her two children: her first, a daughter from China; and her second, a son from a teenager here who decided to release her baby for adoption over abortion. Both children are well-loved and cared for and have grown to be confident and contributing Singaporeans. As a matter of fact, her son today is a grateful recipient of a scholarship in a vocation of his dream. What a difference adoption has made to the lives of these young people and a joy they have been to their family!

Abandonment does not have to be the destiny of orphaned children, but an opportunity for families with emotional and financial capacity to help the children discover their destiny, no matter what age they come into their homes.

While children's homes could still give them the best quality of life possible, there is so much more a family brings to a child.

Studies show that being raised in an institutional environment contributes substantially to the delayed and adverse development of young children. Studies also feature that poor development is not associated with selected gene pool nor adverse pre-institutional experience; but when placed in families, most of such children display substantial catch-up growth, beginning soon after adoption, across physical, mental and social domains.

By placing orphaned children in families, we support them to see beyond their circumstances, uplift them to greater things. It gives our children courage to pursue all that life has for them; and to know that they have a destiny to fulfil.

An adopted child once shared: "My birth mother brought me into this world, but it was my adoptive parents who gave me life."

As a Government, I believe we can do more to raise awareness, advocate for and support families in adoption. As a nation, I look forward to the day where we will have more families wanting to adopt, waiting to adopt children, than children waiting on families, especially for our Singaporean children under state care. With this, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.

6.39 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill and the many measures introduced to protect the interests of the children to be adopted. I have three areas of concern.

First, I would like to ask the Ministry if it would provide more details about checks on the children, post-adoption. Would social workers be assigned to check on these children for the first two to three years after they are adopted? The checks and screening before adoption are quite stringent, but what about after adoption? Such checks would also be opportunities for social workers to find out if the adoptive parents need support in specific areas and, thus, refer them to the appropriate support programmes or groups.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Second, would the Minister share how the adoptive parents would be prepared and supported in the area of disclosure? While disclosure is not mandatory, the Disclosure Briefing aims to encourage prospective adopters to disclose to the child the truth about his or her adoptive status and equip the couples with the necessary skills and knowledge to make the disclosure. What kind of guidelines and at which age for the child would the parents be advised?

Finally, there will be some adopted individuals who want to find out more about their biological parents and the circumstances of their adoption, whether they were informed about this by their families, or found out by accident. It is natural for anyone to want to discover more about his or her own roots. For some, knowing who their birth parents are and why they were given up for adoption helps to provide them some closure. How would the Ministry assist them? Is it possible to establish a register with some basic information, of course, with the agreement of the birth parents? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to ask MSF, in the first two to three years after adoption, whether it will send social workers to do home interviews to check on the condition of these children. This will enable the social workers to understand how the adoptive parents are coping and, when necessary, refer them to support programmes and groups.

Next, would the Minister share how the Ministry's briefing is going to teach adoptive parents how to disclose to the children that they are adopted?

Lastly, there will be some who are adopted, who want to understand more about their birth parents and the circumstances of their adoption. How will MSF help them? Will the authorities set up a register with some basic information?

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Minister Masagos Zulkifli.

6.43 pm

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken, and I note all of them have expressed support for this Bill. I am glad that we share the same view that, ultimately, the child's welfare must be our starting point and is at the heart of adoption. We have heard many views and suggestions on ways we can strengthen our current adoption framework and processes. Let me respond.

First of all, the Bill covers the entire adoption process and proceedings in Singapore, regardless of a child's nationality. This is in reply to Mr Yip Hon Weng's query on whether the Bill applies to foreign children identified for adoption.

Several Members spoke about the proposed changes to the eligibility criteria for prospective adopters. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked whether residency requirements should be further tightened to disallow joint applications where both applicants are Singapore Permanent Residents (PRs). PRs form an integral part of Singapore society. A good number have committed to making Singapore their home and taking up permanent residency is one step on their journey towards citizenship.

As I shared in my opening speech, the number of children in Singapore available for adoption is limited. Hence, we would prioritise adopters with a stronger nexus to Singapore, who must qualify for the physical residency criteria, too. However, we may not wish to take this principle too far, such as to disqualify applicants based on their degree of connection to Singapore alone.

Some Members asked about the scope of the provision to bar applicants who have committed serious crimes from adopting. I recognise their concerns. Let me address them.

To address Ms Ng Ling Ling's query on how we will determine the types of serious offences to be prescribed, our guiding principle will be the bearing that the offence has on applicants' character and fitness and their ability to safely care for a child. Such offences would include sexual abuse and violence offences and offences under the Children and Young Persons Act.

We will also reference established frameworks that list serious offences. Depending on the types of cases that surface over time, we may review this list.

For offences not in the prescribed list, the applicants' criminal record will still be taken into account as part of the Adoption Suitability Assessment (ASA) by authorised adoption agencies, the Guardian-in-Adoption's (GIA) recommendations and when the Court considers the specific application. The overriding consideration is, again, whether the child's welfare is protected.

I would also like to inform Mr Yip Hon Weng that there is no fixed time-bar before an ex-offender can become eligible to adopt. GIA will look at each case holistically and balance various considerations. This includes the applicant's relationship with the child, the availability of alternate caregivers for the child if an adoption order is not granted and how long the applicant has remained crime-free. The longer the person has remained crime-free, the more favourably it would present his or her application.

Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked whether the provision covers offences committed abroad and offences committed by applicants' immediate family members. The suitability assessments are holistic. While we will only prescribe offences under Singapore law, offences of a similar nature committed overseas will be considered in assessing their suitability. Today, holistic assessments of the suitability of the applicants' household includes consideration of the other household members' background.

I will now move on to Mr Seah Kian Peng's comment relating to public policies. He asked what happens if a single applicant applies to adopt and, subsequently, marries someone of the same gender overseas. The scenario is hypothetical. Even if it were to happen, we should not pronounce on how a Court will, ultimately, decide on the case. It suffices to say that the Court has ruled that public policies are relevant and will be considered in any specific application and that the Government has made clear our public policy on this.

As I have mentioned in my opening speech, the Government does not encourage planned and deliberate single parenthood as a lifestyle choice. Singapore's public policy continues to be one which encourages parenthood within marriage. We also do not support the formation of same-sex family units through institutions and processes like adoption. These public policies will continue to guide suitability assessments.

This Bill also clarifies the duty of the applicant to provide accurate information and to update the information provided if circumstances change.

I will now address Members' queries on suitability assessments. Some, like Mr Dennis Tan, have asked how ASA differs from the pre-adoption assessment known as the Home Study Report (HSR) today, in particular, whether more information will be required from prospective adopters. In this regard, Mr Seah Kian Peng suggested requiring prospective adopters to provide character referees and periodic declarations of their circumstances.

HSR done today is a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of the applicants and the living environment that they would provide the child if the adoption were to be granted. ASA will continue to cover all key aspects covered by HSR. It will continue to be rigorous and assessed by qualified and trained professionals. The four social service agencies that perform HSR today will be authorised to conduct ASAs.

The key difference is that ASA will be mandatory for all applicants, even if they are related to the child. In such cases, the child is likely to already be living with the prospective adopters at the point of assessment. Thus, in such cases, the information required will be tailored to the specific child. Assessors will consider the actual dynamics of the relationship between the prospective adopters and the child and their understanding of the child's needs.

On character referees, MSF already requires prospective adopters to provide them today. In fact, we also interview their household members, as well as those close family members and friends who may meet the child.

We agree with Mr Seah Kian Peng that periodic affirmations and declarations by prospective adopters on their circumstances would be useful.

Today, the Court-appointed GIA checks in regularly with applicants on their circumstances. This ensures that assessments are up to date. Consistent with placing the onus on prospective adopters to notify MSF and authorised adoption agencies of material changes in their circumstances, MSF will require them to provide such declarations along the adoption process.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the prerequisites to obtain a favourable ASA, guidelines on the new processes and the circumstances under which a simplified ASA may be issued.

We have legislated and will also prescribe factors that assessors must consider in determining suitability. Relevant factors include the ability to provide a safe and suitable home environment for the child and marital stability.

MSF will provide more information to assist prospective adopters and other key stakeholders when transiting to the new processes. This would include authorised adoption agencies that they can approach for assistance during their adoption journey.

The adoption process can be shortened if prospective adopters provide all necessary information to assessors in a timely manner. Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked about streamlining GIA's investigations by relying on ASA findings. Such findings by authorised adoption agencies will be taken into account by GIA in assessing the case. At the same time, some Members have also proposed for more types of checks or assessments to be carried out. Hence, the issue is about striking the right balance and not to rush through the adoption process.

In cases where the applicants have been caring for the child for a prolonged period and do not present any concerns based on preliminary investigations, authorised adoption agencies may issue a simplified ASA. For example, this could be in a case where an applicant is adopting his step-child with his wife and both of them are able to provide a safe and stable home for the child.

Mr Yip Hon Weng commented that the relationship between a child identified for adoption and the rest of the family should be considered as part of the assessment. This is to ascertain if the family is prepared and understands the implications of adoption.

We agree. Today, part of the suitability assessment includes interviewing household members, such as other children of prospective adopters, to learn their views. We will continue to do so.

Mr Louis Ng, Mr Dennis Tan and Ms Ng Ling Ling asked about the cost of ASAs. Ms Ng Ling Ling further asked about the cost of raising the child after adoption is formalised.

Adopting and raising a child are a life-long commitment and responsibility. Assessors will look at the prospective adopters' mental, emotional and financial preparedness to adopt.

ASAs are conducted by social service agencies (SSAs) which charge fees to cover their costs in conducting the assessments. Fees are charged on a cost-recovery basis. Waivers are not granted for ASA fees.

Adoption is, ultimately, about the welfare of the child. If the prospective adopters are not able to cope well with caring for the child in financial, emotional or other terms, that is something that should be of concern to us.

Ms Denise Phua asked how the child's voice would be sought. As the child's welfare must be a key priority behind every adoption, MSF has already been seeking the child's views and wishes, in relation to his or her proposed adoption today. We will continue to do so.

Next, I will address Members' queries on medical and mental health assessments for children and prospective adopters.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if medical and mental health assessments are mandatory for children identified for adoption before proceedings are finalised. Mr Mark Chay also asked if the child's medical, mental and emotional status is evaluated.

The answer is no. However, GIA, authorised adoption agencies or the Court may require the child to be assessed if they are of the view that such assessments may be useful to understand or document the child's needs.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested that potential adopters should undergo comprehensive medical examinations, as they tend to be older.

Today, MSF already requires all prospective adopters to undergo health examinations and submit medical reports. As the adoption process takes time, we also check if the reports are updated.

Under the Bill, GIA and the authorised adoption agencies will be empowered to direct prospective adopters to provide any pertinent information or undergo assessments, including psychological or psychiatric assessments, to better assess their physical and mental fitness.

I will now address Mr Christopher de Souza's suggestion on matching prospective adopters with women with unplanned pregnancies who wish to place their child for adoption.

Today, pregnant women and prospective adopters can approach adoption agencies to indicate that they wish to place their child for adoption and to be matched with a child to adopt, respectively. Where such women have approached MSF for assistance, we also link them up with the SSAs which can do the matching. Going forward, MSF is also considering developing a registry to match children in state care with prospective adopters.

I will now move to the issue of disclosing to a child that he or she is adopted.

Ms Joan Pereira asked how we will support adoptive parents with disclosure and what guidelines would be given.

Broad guidelines for disclosure would include broaching disclosure as a process, rather than as a one-off event, being sensitive to the child's emotions and needs in understanding his or her birth history and assuring the child that he or she is loved.

While there is no universally appropriate age for disclosure, the professionals recommend introducing and normalising the concept of adoption as early as possible.

Beyond the Disclosure Briefing, if at any time prospective adopters or adoptive parents require more assistance with disclosure, they can approach MSF or any authorised adoption agency. We will direct them to relevant support services or support groups, which I will elaborate on subsequently.

Ms Joan Pereira also asked how adopted children who wish to find out more about their birth family can do so and whether MSF will establish an adoption register.

As Mr Gan Thiam Poh said, disclosure is very sensitive for the different parties involved: the child, the adoptive parents and the birth parents. This also came out very clearly in the consultation process.

As I mentioned in my opening speech, we will further study steps we could take towards greater disclosure, such as the setting up of an adoption register.

All adoptive parents would, generally, be aware of the identities of their adopted child's birth parents, as a copy of the child's original birth certificate must be submitted to the Courts as part of the adoption application. Hence, adoptive parents can be the first port of call if their adopted children wish to contact their birth parents.

Some adopted individuals also approach MSF and we assist as far as possible. Where we are able to contact the birth parents, we will explore whether they would be open to being contacted by the adopted child.

We also work with the adopted child to prepare him or her for possible scenarios. Sometimes, the birth parents may have passed away or they may be unwilling to establish contact with the child for their own reasons.

Many Members, such as Mr Christopher de Souza, spoke up on supporting prospective adopters and adoptive families through their journey. Let me outline some key ways in which MSF provides such support.

First, the Pre-adoption Briefing provides prospective adopters with an overview of what they can expect during the adoption process. ASA then builds on this as assessors interact closely with prospective adopters to address their concerns or queries.

Similarly, once the adoption application is made, GIA will continue to work with prospective adopters. This includes referring them to relevant support services.

While ASA and GIA investigations are primarily suitability assessments, they also serve as useful opportunities for prospective adopters to gauge their readiness to undergo the adoption journey.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the matters covered in the Pre-Adoption Briefing would be adequate to prepare prospective adopters. He also asked about the support measures that are available in cases where there may be compatibility issues between the adoptive parents and the adopted child.

As I shared earlier, the Pre-Adoption Briefing is part of the process of preparation to adopt. It should not be seen in silo.

Beyond the mandatory briefings and assessments, prospective adopters and adoptive parents can also tap on formal and informal support groups to support them during their adoption journey – as mentioned by Mr Dennis Tan.

MSF can also connect them with Family Service Centres (FSCs) for support on issues common to families, such as parent-child conflict or marital stress.

Mr Don Wee suggested providing funding for support groups.

Today, some SSAs organise formal support group sessions covering various topics, including addressing prospective adopters' concerns on disclosure, on a cost-recovery basis. The SSAs also organise group outings for adoptive families to be introduced to and interact with one another.

Through such sessions, online forums and word-of-mouth, adoptive parents and their adopted children have also formed their own informal support networks.

Mr Louis Ng asked how we will continue to ensure applicants' suitability after an order is made. Mr Don Wee and Ms Joan Pereira asked whether post-adoption reviews will be mandated at specific milestones.

An adoption order is made after extensive and in-depth investigations are conducted to ensure that the child is placed with suitable adoptive parents. Hence, after an adoption order is made, MSF's general position is to treat the adoptive family as any other family. The Government, therefore, does not interfere in the family unless we have cause for concern.

MSF also received mixed feedback on such post-adoption reviews during our stakeholder consultations, with some commenting that such reviews are invasive for adoptive parents when similar requirements are not imposed on birth parents. We note that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim shared similar views on this issue.

Ms Ng Ling Ling suggested that MSF consider providing support services to adopted children up to 21 years old, on a needs basis. We agree with her. If we conduct the pre-adoption suitability assessments rigorously and guide adoptive parents well in their adoption journey, it should suffice to offer support services to those who may need them.

That said, under the Bill, even after proceedings have concluded, the Court can order parties to undergo support services, such as mediation or counselling. Such orders can be made till the adopted child turns 21, as needed.

Ms Ng Ling Ling also asked if we will introduce support services for adopted children whose adoptive parents decide to undergo divorce and the criteria that the Court may use in determining custody matters for such children.

The Women's Charter provides guidance to the Courts in determining custody matters. If adoptive parents, unfortunately, have to contemplate divorce, these same principles apply. The support services that are given to all divorcing couples with children are also available and extended to adopted children.

Several Members of Parliament, such as Mr Gan Thiam Poh, expressed that dispensation with a birth parent's consent to adoption should only be allowed under very strict conditions. Mr Louis Ng also asked for more information on how the grounds for such dispensation are determined.

Let me start by assuring Members that MSF acknowledges the sanctity of parental rights and that a child's birth parents should be primarily responsible for caring for him or her.

Our intent is for a birth parent's consent to adoption to be dispensed with only when he or she is unable to provide consent or is, unreasonably, withholding such consent and adoption would be in the child's welfare.

We have calibrated the grounds for dispensation by balancing these two considerations. We also looked at other jurisdictions' laws on dispensation, examined the adoption applications that MSF has seen over the years and consulted professionals involved in contested adoption cases to determine the threshold.

Hence, the grounds are based on actual cases where it has been tested and shown clearly that the child is unlikely to be reunified safely with his or her birth family and adoption would be in the child's welfare.

Ultimately, it is the Court that will decide whether to dispense with consent, taking into account the case-specific facts and GIA's recommendations.

To Mr Melvin Yong's query, our intent is to build upon prevailing case law to give more guidance on when dispensation of consent would be in the child's welfare.

Specific to children in state care, Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how MSF decides when to pursue adoption for such children instead of fostering or other care options. Mr Mark Chay asked if there would be opportunities for birth parents to reconcile with their children.

When a child is removed from his or her parents due to care or protection concerns, they are placed in foster care or in children's homes to provide the care and safety that their homes of origin are not able to provide. Once the child's immediate safety has been assured, MSF works with the child's birth family to resolve the problematic circumstances, so that the child can return home as soon as possible.

This entails collaborating with them on safety plans and trying to address safety concerns. We also share with them the plans that we will put in place for the child's welfare should they not be able to resolve these safety concerns. Officers from the Child Protective Service use an evidence-based Structured Decision-Making framework and consultations with an independent panel of professionals to guide their decision-making.

In some cases, birth families may be unable or unwilling to resolve safety concerns, despite extensive and prolonged assistance from professionals. In such cases, rather than leaving the child in long-term state care, adoption is a permanency option which would give the child more stability, certainty and a better outcome in life.

Hence, it is only at the point where reunification seems unlikely that we look at facilitating the adoption of that child and cease efforts at reunification.

Generally, for children below three years of age, working with birth parents for a period of 12 months provides MSF with a good indication of the likelihood that the child can be reunified. For children above three years of age, a longer duration of about 24 months is taken.

Should unhappy birth parents harass prospective adopters, our existing laws on protection against harassment will accord them protection.

I will now move on to Members' queries relating to adoption agencies.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Denise Phua spoke about the accreditation of adoption agencies. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested developing a registry of agencies. Our approach is to focus on the criminalisation of undesirable adoption practices. We will keep a close watch on the impact of the Bill on adoption agencies' practices and we are prepared to consider further measures in the future, if necessary.

Mr Melvin Yong queried about the number of cases where children identified for adoption were offered to prospective adopters willing to pay the most. MSF does not have the data. However, we have heard of such practices and the Bill seeks to introduce measures to deter children from being commodified.

Mr Louis Ng also asked about the mechanism to ensure adoption-related payments are published and declared. When applying to Court, all applicants must list every payment they have made or received for adoption-related matters. GIA will cross-reference these payments against the figures published by adoption agencies. Where they do not tally, GIA and authorised officers will investigate further to determine if an offence has been committed.

Ms Denise Phua asked about guidelines for adoption fees. This depends on the services that the agency provides to prospective adopters and could vary, depending on factors, such as whether the child identified to be adopted is local or foreign. In this Bill, we have focused on regulating payment categories rather than payment quanta directly. Payments for adoption-related matters outside the permitted payment categories would be an offence.

Last, but not least, some Members raised queries on adoption-related issues not directly covered in the Bill.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Miss Rachel Ong asked if MSF will actively raise awareness and encourage adoption of children in state care. Mr Yip Hon Weng further asked if we would encourage respite fostering as an option for prospective adopters to determine their readiness for adoption.

Mr Don Wee and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about adoption leave. Mr Don Wee also asked about school fees for foreign stepchildren seeking to be adopted by their Singaporean parents.

Mr Melvin Yong also requested for more information on MSF's efforts to encourage more to step forward to become foster parents and to provide them with additional childcare leave.

Mr Dennis Tan suggested that the requirement for adopted children to take mandatory oaths of renunciation, allegiance and loyalty be dispensed with.

We thank the Members for raising these issues. We will look into the suggestions.

Mr Speaker, having addressed the comments and suggestions raised by Members, I will now conclude.

This Bill seeks to achieve three main outcomes.

First, to find a good home for every child identified for adoption.

An adoption order terminates the legal ties between a child and his or her birth parents and creates new ties between the child and his or her adoptive parents. This is no simple matter. Given the gravity of an adoption order, it is crucial that the child is placed with adoptive parents who can provide a safe, stable and loving home for him or her.

Second, the Bill balances the interests of birth parents and the child.

This is done by clarifying the grounds under which the Court can dispense with birth parents' consent. It is not in a child's welfare for him or her to linger in the state care system. Adoption will give such children an opportunity to have a fresh start, experience stability and achieve better outcomes in life.

Lastly, the Bill seeks to deter undesirable practices in the adoption sector by putting in place a strong regulatory system. The life of each child is precious. We must guard against any attempts to commoditise or exploit our children for financial or other gains.

Ultimately, this Bill will contribute to building strong families in Singapore. Like I said in my opening speech, families form the bedrock of our society. They are our foundation that nurtures and builds resilient individuals, providing the best source of safety, love and care for our children, so that they can learn, grow and lead meaningful and fulfilling lives.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank MSF's stakeholders and the public for their contribution to this Bill. Their valuable comments and suggestions have helped to shape and refine the proposals.

I would also like to thank prospective adopters and adoptive parents for opening your hearts and homes to the children who need them, so that they can have a good start in life and fulfil their potential. Finally, I thank Members for your support for this Bill. [Applause.]

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 Masagos Zulkifli B M M].

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