Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". With your permission, Sir, may I request the Clerks to distribute an infographic on the Bill to signpost the debate.

Mr Speaker: Please do.

Mr Desmond Lee: Thank you. Sir, sometimes, in our work as Members of Parliament, we encounter families that have faltered, where the children have been abused or neglected, or have gone wayward or run into trouble with the law. These families need a lot of support and intervention, to make sure the children have the best shot in life in spite of their circumstances.

This is where the Children and Young Persons Act comes in. It provides for the welfare, care, protection and rehabilitation of children and young persons below 16 years of age, whom I will subsequently refer to collectively as "children". The Act was last amended in 2011 and a review is, therefore, timely.

In preparing for this Bill, we consulted many stakeholders, including social service agencies, volunteers and professionals, and I met some of them in May this year. They gave strong support for the proposed changes and also provided valuable feedback. The concerns and suggestions they have raised helped us to make many refinements to the Bill that you see now before you.

Let me begin by highlighting the two guiding principles behind the Act. These are set out in section 3A of the existing Act. First, parents have the primary responsibility for the care and welfare of their child; and second, in administering or applying the Act, the welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration.

Section 28 of the existing Act also sets out the considerations that the Youth Court must take into account when it hears cases.

Under clause 24 of the Bill before you, we propose to widen this. The Youth Court should not only aim to facilitate the protection and rehabilitation of the child, but also facilitate his reintegration with his family and with society; and second, the Youth Court should have regard to the needs of and risks faced by the child and prevent any further ill-treatment or offending. We do this to ensure better outcomes for children and break the cycles of abuse, neglect and offending.

Let me now run through the other main features of the Bill, which fall broadly into four categories. If you look at the infographic that we have just distributed, you will see four pockets of amendments. I will take you through the Bill in the course of its Second Reading and you can follow accordingly.

First, we will cover provisions that safeguard the interests of abused or neglected children. So, taking action and intervening for children who are abused or neglected. The second group of amendments relate to improving the rehabilitation and re-integration of youths with offending behaviour. The third relates to guiding families in their parenting, with support from the community; and most people would refer to this as the beyond parental control regime (BPC). Lastly, strengthening partnerships with the community to care for vulnerable children.

Let me start with the first set of amendments: protecting abused or neglected children. Currently, the Act allows us to intervene to protect children below 16 years of age. Clause 2 amends the definition of "young person" and "juvenile" to raise the age limit to cover children below the age of 18 so that we can intervene when the safety of older children is threatened. This is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Singapore is a signatory.

Under the Act today, we can intervene to provide care and protection to a child in a range of situations. One of these is if "there is such a serious and persistent conflict within the family that relationships are seriously disrupted and the child suffers emotional injury". However, the term "emotional injury" is not defined, giving rise to confusion about whether we can intervene. MSF has also encountered other situations where a child's emotional well-being has been severely affected and help should be rendered.

To address this, clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill define emotional harm, which includes manifestations, such as delayed development or post-traumatic stress disorder. Emotional harm which causes serious impairment to the child may not always be as readily or immediately observable as physical injuries, such as bruises or burns. The clause also provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which a child is deemed to be in need of care and protection because of emotional or psychological abuse by parents. These are based on established child protection guidelines, such as those from the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children.

By sharpening the meaning of emotional or psychological abuse, the amendments give better guidance to all stakeholders – MSF, social service agencies and the Court – on when we should intervene and when we need not.

Take the example of Valerie, not her real name. She is 10 years old. Valerie's mother would deliberately isolate her at home or confine her to her room to minimise her interactions with other people. She frequently told Valerie that she was dirty, smelly and unclean and refused to hold her "unclean" hands. She also frequently blamed Valerie for anything and everything that went wrong. When a relative who took care of Valerie fell ill, the mother would call Valerie a jinx. Valerie's parents argued frequently over her. Whenever her father tried to protect or side with her, the mother would threaten to commit suicide. Valerie was very much affected by the emotional abuse. She fears and, not unexpectedly, bears hatred towards her mother. Her anger, coupled with anxiety, has manifested as aggressive and rough play in school. This is a 10-year-old girl who needs help. We need to see past her behaviour and recognise the emotional harm that is within.

I highlight Valerie's case to show that emotional or psychological abuse and its impact may not be as readily observable as physical abuse and injury, but the harm to a child is no less significant. The new amendments make clear that cases like Valerie's fall within the scope of the CYPA.

Where children have to be removed from their families due to safety concerns, it can be unsettling for them to be placed in an unfamiliar environment. Their anxiety may be compounded if there are changes from their usual routine. Or the children may feel abnormal or inferior to their school mates, if placed in situations that remind them of their incomplete families and disadvantaged backgrounds.

The persons who are entrusted with the care of such children, such as foster parents or staff of children's homes, handle a range of matters related to the child's welfare and development. This can range from day-to-day care matters, such as personal grooming, dietary arrangements and health vaccinations, to more substantial matters, such as overseas travel, choice of school, surgery and so on. Particularly, where the matters are more sensitive or significant, the care-givers would wish to respect the views of the child's parents. But getting parental consent can sometimes be challenging because these are the very parents from whom the children have had to be removed for safety reasons in the very first place.

Some of them are uncontactable. Some will not cooperate, and make things difficult for the foster parent or the children's home. As a result, the development and emotional well-being of the children who have been removed for safety reasons can be further affected. The Bill enables MSF and designated care-givers to provide smooth and stable out-of-home care arrangements for such children.

Clause 41 allows MSF and designated care-givers to make day-to-day care decisions for children under a Care and Protection order without the need for parental consent. More substantive decisions for the children, such as overseas travel, can be made only if MSF establishes that the parents cannot be contacted despite reasonable efforts, or are otherwise incapable or unwilling to decide.

Of the children who are in out-of-home care, MSF has handled cases where, despite the best efforts of professionals and the community, it is not possible nor in the interest of the child to be reunified with his parents. Take, for example, five-year-old Joshua, again not his real name. Joshua was referred to MSF for possible neglect by his mother. He has a developmental disorder and requires extra care to meet his developmental milestones. His mother was diagnosed with a mental health condition. MSF placed Joshua with foster parents, who were harassed by Joshua's mother because of her delusional belief that they were ill-treating him. The mother was also unable to consistently adhere with her treatment plans and her mental health condition was assessed to be long-term. Given the condition of Joshua's mother and her poor response to medical treatment, it would not be in Joshua's best interests to be reunified with her. She would not be able to adequately care for Joshua, especially with his special needs and young age.

Other scenarios where reunification is not in the interests of the child are where the parent had severely ill-treated or allowed other persons to severely ill-treat the child or another child under his care and custody; the parent had been convicted of causing or trying to cause death to a child in his care and custody, or to the other parent of the child.

In these scenarios and for cases like Joshua's, the children are likely to spend many years and, perhaps, even the majority of their childhood, in out-of-home care despite best efforts at reunification. We should do what we can to provide them with a sense of stability. Therefore, clause 41 of the Bill enables the Court to place such children under a new Enhanced Care and Protection Order (ECPO) up till the age of 21.

The ECPO allows MSF and designated care-givers to make day-to-day, as well as more substantive decisions, such as overseas travel, just as what parents would do in normal family settings. But sensitive decisions that are neither day-to-day in nature nor ordinarily made in the care of a child, can only be made with parental consent or the Court's authorisation.

Let me give an example of how the ECPO would have made a difference for a boy called Ben, again not his real name, whom MSF had placed with foster parents. Ben is today 13 years old, has multiple conditions that require frequent medical appointments. Ben's mother has been unwilling to care for him since he was born. Ben's father was uncontactable. Once, Ben was admitted to the hospital for a persistently high fever. Doctors recommended surgery to prevent further medical complications but Ben's mother was unwilling to provide consent. MSF had to apply to the Court for orders to allow Ben to undergo the necessary surgery. The new ECPO will allow the foster parents, with MSF's authorisation and in consultation with medical practitioners, to make a more timely decision to allow Ben to be treated.

At this point, I wish to assure Members that the ECPO does not sever the legal ties between parent and child. Parents who disagree with any decision made by MSF or designated care-givers can bring the matter to Court for determination. And even after an ECPO is made, parents may apply to vary or revoke the order, if there has been a material change in circumstances from the time when the ECPO was made. This requires the parents to demonstrate significant and sustained changes in addressing the safety concerns that have hitherto hindered family reunification and the child must be assessed to be ready for contact with the family and eventual reunification.

Let me move on to talk about a special group of people – our foster parents. We currently have 510 foster families. They are among some of the biggest-hearted people in Singapore. Children grow up best in a supportive family environment, especially if they have been abused or neglected. So, MSF's preference is to place such children in foster families, rather than in residential facilities, such as children's homes, if it can be helped. These foster families have opened their hearts and their homes to provide their foster children with the opportunity to grow up with a positive experience of family life – an opportunity that many of us take for granted but which vulnerable children may not have. These foster parents have responded to MSF's call for more people to step forward to provide family-based care in lieu of institutional care.

We seek Parliament's support to grant childcare leave benefits to our foster parents to enable and help them with care-giving challenges that they face, just as natural parents do.

Sir, I have covered the first sector of amendments relating to interventions to protect and care for abused and neglected children. Let me move on to the second bucket of amendments. If Members could look at the infographic handed out to Members earlier.

These relate to the rehabilitation of children and young persons with offending behaviour whom I will subsequently refer to as youths or youth offenders. There are many reasons why youths commit offences. Sometimes, it is because of challenging family circumstances, negative influences or the absence of family support. They need hand-holding and good role models so that they can pick themselves up and make responsible decisions.

We seek to make a few major changes in this area. First, we want to cover older youths under the youth justice framework, instead of treating them as adult offenders. Second, we need to take steps to enhance the safety of all youths who are housed in MSF's Youth Homes as well as the staff working in our Homes. Third, we seek to treat youth offenders' criminal records as spent after they have completed their Youth Court orders.

Let me begin with plans to cover older youths under the youth justice system. Currently, the Youth Court hears cases against youth offenders who are below 16 years of age. Young people who are 16 years and above who commit offences are tried as adults in the State Courts or the Community Court, unless they are diverted away from the criminal justice system. But studies have shown that these young persons may still not have the full cognitive maturity of adults. An inter-agency committee chaired by AG's Chambers to review the youth justice system had also recommended allowing them to benefit from a wider range of sentencing options. We will, therefore, make two changes.

First, clause 2 expands the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to hear cases involving youth offenders below 18, up from the current 16. This will be the default mode for most youth offenders. But we need to retain an avenue for exceptions, such as for youth offenders who are 16 and above but below 18 years, who commit serious offences, such as gang or drug-related activities or unlicensed moneylending, or who are repeat offenders.

Clause 55 of the Bill inserts a new Second Schedule to the Act which spells out the full list of serious offences. When the offender has committed such a serious offence or if he is not a first-time offender, clause 27 gives the Public Prosecutor the discretion to charge the offender in either the Youth Court or a Court of appropriate jurisdiction, such as the State Courts. This is intended as a deterrent that we are not soft on crimes, especially those of a serious nature, and that there are times where firmer punishment of the offender is warranted, in spite of his youth. Clause 27 also allows the Youth Court to decide, on its own motion, that another Court of appropriate jurisdiction is to try the case and mete out the appropriate sentencing for these offenders.

Second, clause 71 makes related amendments to the Probation of Offenders Act, to enable the Youth Court to impose probation on a child below the age of 18, even if they do not express willingness to comply with the conditions of probation. Currently, the Youth Court must ask a child who is 14 years old and above if he is willing to comply with the terms of probation, before it imposes such an order. We will raise the minimum age from 14 to 18. This addresses the current gap where some youth offenders reject probation in favour of a shorter imprisonment term in adult prison which works against the Court's and MSF's efforts to help such youth rehabilitate and reintegrate into society.

Next, I will turn to the issue of safety and security within MSF's Youth Homes. The guiding philosophy underpinning the work of our two Juvenile Rehabilitation Centres (JRCs) is to rehabilitate, guide and support youth offenders. For that reason, many of the security features present in adult prisons are not found in our JRCs. Yet, at the same time, we need to strike the right balance of measures because, without adequate safety and assurance of security, it will not be possible to provide an environment that is conducive to rehabilitation in our JRCs.

Even with today's age limit, where youths may be admitted to the JRCs if they are below 16 years of age, there have been incidents where aggressive youths put our youth guidance officers, case workers and other youths at risk of harm. I would like to share with Members two incidents at the Singapore Boys' Home to illustrate why we are concerned about safety and security.

In one case, a 15-year-old youth verbally threatened the staff at the Home every day he was there. On the day of his Court hearing, he pretended to grab the baton of the escorting police officer. He then swung his arm towards an MSF officer to intimidate him. Despite being counselled, the youth was recalcitrant and continued to intimidate other youths at the Home.

In another case, we had a youth with a history of aggression, including past incidents of punching his schoolmates, getting into fights with strangers. While he was at the Singapore Boys' Home, the youth punched and injured his dormitory mates on various occasions. He also assaulted and injured a few auxiliary police officers and MSF officers.

These are incidents that we need to prevent and I describe these cases not to adjudicate or assign blame to these young people, but rather that these things can and, indeed, do happen, for whatever reason. This means recognising that some youths may not be suitable for rehabilitation within a JRC, but may instead require a higher level of supervision in a more structured environment, such as Reformative Training.

Clause 32, therefore, allows the Youth Court to decide if an offender aged 14 to below 18 years can be safely detained at a JRC and, if not, the Court may make an order for the offender to undergo Reformative Training in the first instance without going through a JRC. I would like to emphasise that this new provision will be for a small minority of youth offenders who are found to be so unruly that, in the Court's opinion, his presence at the JRC would be disruptive to the rehabilitation of the other residents there and he would be better managed in the Reformative Training Centre (RTC). This is also consistent with clause 24, where the Youth Court is to have regard to the needs and risks of children and prevent any further re-offending or ill-treatment of all children.

To further enhance safety and security in MSF's Youth Homes, clause 48 allows MSF officers working in the Homes to use restraints, such as handcuffs, leg braces and flexi-cuffs, to prevent incidents of escape, self-injury or injury to others. These include situations where youths continue to create a disturbance or taunt other residents because such hostile behaviour, if not put to an end, can escalate quickly and compromise safety. This is the prevailing practice in other jurisdictions, such as in Korea, the United Kingdom and some States in Australia, for the same purpose of preventing escape, violence, self-injury or other incidents.

I wish to assure Members that there will be strict guidelines pertaining to the use of such restraints and MSF officers must be trained before they are authorised to use the restraints. They will not be used as a punitive measure but to ensure safety and security of both the youth and those around him. Our officers are also trained to de-escalate conflicts among residents and prevent incidents of escape, self-injury or harm to others using other safe intervention methods, where possible.

For youth offenders who have been successfully rehabilitated, we must make sure they have the best shot in life. But, often, the label of being an ex-offender tends to stick. This makes reintegration more difficult. Many jobs today require applicants to declare whether they have a criminal record and some employers hold it against those who do. Doors may remain closed and the sense of rejection can be daunting. That is why the Yellow Ribbon project is incredibly important.

We, therefore, propose to amend the Registration of Criminals Act via clause 73 of the Bill so that a youth offender's criminal record will be considered spent once he successfully completes his Youth Court order. These Youth Court orders refer to a Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre order, probation order, community service order, detention order and an order to pay a fine, damages or costs. Therefore, after the law is amended, youths who have completed their Youth Court orders can, if asked whether they have ever been convicted or have a criminal record, legitimately declare "No".

We will go one step further. Sections 27A and 35 of the Act now protect the identity and privacy of a child when he is below 16. Through clause 50, we will widen this to ensure that the identity of a child who is or was in care and custody or the subject of an arrest, investigation, Court order or any proceedings under the CYPA, remains protected for the rest of his life. However, if the individual were to commit more offences when he is older after he turns 18, the protection of identity will not apply to these subsequent offences.

These amendments signal our commitment to better protect and support our youths in their journey to reintegrate with family and society. We have met many former young offenders who have successfully turned their lives around while under our care and supervision. Take for example Jasper Yap, a former resident of the Singapore Boys' Home, whom I consulted when I was gathering feedback on this amendment Bill. Jasper discovered he was capable of studying and doing well when he scored his first A during his stay at the Singapore Boys' Home. He is now an entrepreneur and currently serving National Service. Jasper is also a member of the Youth Advisory Group advising MSF, MHA and other Ministries on youth policy work. He shares his rehabilitation journey with the youths in the Singapore Boys' Home and teaches them ways to kick their bad habits. Like Jasper, we want to help our youths to have good role models and opportunities to succeed in life.

Let me now explain the third category of amendments in this Bill. These seek to reform the area of practice currently known as BPC or "Beyond Parental Control". Today, parents can apply to the Youth Court to seek help for children who are labelled as "Beyond Parental Control". The children may display difficult behaviour, such as running away or being in the wrong company. The Court may place the BPC children under the supervision of an appointed person, or in a residential setting, such as a children's home. The term "Beyond Parental Control" blames the child and holds him solely responsible for his behaviour. However, many social work professionals, legal practitioners and my own MSF colleagues have shared with me that it is just as, if not more important, to address poor parent-child relationships and poor or absent parenting. I agree with them.

We will, therefore, do away with the label "Beyond Parental Control" and replace it with a new order known as the "Family Guidance Order" or FGO, which makes clear that our focus is on the role of and dynamics within the family and not just squarely looking at the behaviour of the child. This is not just a mere change of name.

The new framework requires parents and child to complete a family programme before the parents can file for a Court application. The Court may allow the parents to first file an FGO application and then have the family complete the family programme later if, for example, the child refuses to attend the family programme. The Court can also order parents to attend mediation, counselling, psychotherapy or programmes before, during or after FGO applications are heard. This is in contrast to the existing framework where the Court can give such orders to the parents only after a BPC order has been made for the child.

I spoke earlier that we are expanding coverage of the Act to persons aged below 18 years if they face abuse or neglect or have committed offences. For FGOs, however, there will be no change to the current age threshold. This means that a parent can make a Court application for family guidance only if their child is below 16 years of age. This is because older youths are more likely to resent or resist participating in programmes and resent being brought to Court by their parents. We are, therefore, keeping the age limit at below 16 years so as not to worsen family relationships that may already be strained. We do this after taking significant advice from professionals.

Sir, I have covered the three buckets: intervening for abuse and neglect of children; second bucket – youth offenders; third bucket – the former BPC regime, now the FGO regime.

I will now talk about the last bucket of amendments which will strengthen partnerships with the community to care for vulnerable children.

Child protection work is currently done by MSF's Child Protective Service (or CPS) and they partner our social service agencies who also play an important role. For example, social service agencies, such as Montfort Care and Fei Yue Community Services, run Child Protection Specialist Centres (CPSCs), as well as Family Service Centres (FSCs). These are run by social service professionals.

But child protection work also involves many dedicated, trained volunteers. This is especially important if we want to keep families intact and ensure the safety of children within the community. Clauses 7 and 51 of the Bill strengthen the roles of these partners by providing them with appropriate statutory support and legal protection, as well as enabling relevant information sharing.

Clause 3 allows MSF to appoint members of the public to carry out specified duties under the Act. These individuals are known as "Volunteer Welfare Officers" in the Bill. For example, in child abuse cases, volunteer welfare officers can conduct visits to the child's home to monitor his well-being and safety. These volunteers will receive training and they may act only under MSF's instruction.

Clause 7 also allows MSF to share information relating to a child with community partners, such as the Child Protection Specialist Centres and children's homes. The purpose is to enable our partners to intervene quickly to protect vulnerable children from harm and work with families to pre-emptively resolve issues.

The conflicts within families can create acrimony that poses risk to people who work to support them. Thus, clause 51 extends to people performing a function or exercising powers under the Act protection from legal liability, as long as they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care. These persons would include volunteer welfare officers and foster parents.

The participation of volunteers in complementing MSF's statutory work of protection and rehabilitation is not new. For example, volunteers assist MSF's Probation Officers by befriending, guiding and supervising probationers, and volunteers from the Singapore Boys' Home and Girls' Home support rehabilitation and reintegration, such as by befriending youths and providing tuition. Volunteers help provide transport to children under the supervision of MSF's Child Protective Service, such as to and from their residence to medical appointments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to assure Members that the amendments we are proposing today do not supplant the role of families. The overwhelming majority of families do their best to care for, protect and raise their children well. However, when it comes to the small number of families who require help to fulfil basic responsibilities to their children, the proposals in this Bill are vitally important and may, in some cases, literally be a lifesaver.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

6.09 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), which was last amended in 2011, provides for the welfare, care, protection and rehabilitation of children under 16. It also supports children who have committed offences, those who have been abused or neglected by their parents or caregivers, and those whose parents are seeking the Court's guidance because of their children's behaviour. The importance of this Act cannot be understated. Children who go through a traumatic experience or have challenges when they are young are more likely to have issues when they are older.

A research done by Rasmus Birn, Barbara Roeburn and Seth Pollak in 2017 explained that individuals who have experienced chronic and high levels of stress during their childhoods are at increased risk for a wide range of behavioural problems, yet the neurobiological mechanisms underlying this association are poorly understood. They measured the life circumstances of a community sample of school-aged children and then followed these children for a decade and found that those who had experienced extreme stress as children were hampered in their ability to make good decisions as adults. Simply put, childhood trauma – due to circumstances like neglect or exposure to violence – created young adults fundamentally unable to correctly consider risk and make healthy life decisions. In fact, no threat of punishment was likely to be effective in changing this deficit.

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, in his keynote address at the Conference on At-Risk Youth in 2015, aptly said: in general, it can be said that the more a child is exposed to adverse circumstances at an early age, the more disadvantaged will that child be.

Indeed, it has been suggested that the strongest predictors of whether a child will eventually turn to crime are likely to be in such things as poor parental supervision, parental conflict, disrupted families and, most notably, having parents with a criminal or anti-social background. It is, therefore, a matter of some importance that we keep an eye on the state of our families.

Mr Speaker, in Malay please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many studies have shown that whenever children undergo traumatic experiences or challenges when they are younger, it will have a profound impact on their lives. One such study conducted in 2017 stated that childhood trauma, possibly due to the child being abandoned or exposed to violence, will create youths and adults who are unable to assess risks and make healthy and correct decisions in life. It is clear that traumatic experiences will affect the trajectory or direction in the life a child or a youth.

Therefore, this CYPA Bill is an important piece of legislation that protects children and young persons from danger and facilitates rehabilitation, if required, as soon as possible. As a community, we must also continue to support and guide parents, especially those who are facing challenges because they may have had traumatic or bad experiences themselves when they were young. Perhaps the support and assistance for parents who face issues with their children should be enhanced so that they can understand the process that they are undergoing and be equipped with the skills to educate their children. As much as possible, we would like the family to stay intact and live harmoniously, but the most important thing to do is to protect children from precarious or hazardous situations.

(In English) Mr Speaker, in English.

Childhood and youth are points in life when one is supposed to be the most carefree and protected. However, this experience may not be true for some children or young people. We need to help those undergoing challenging periods as much as we can. The underlying principle of any regulation in this respect must be that the welfare and best interests of the children and young person will be the paramount consideration.

I appreciate that the work done by all the officers and caregivers in this sector is not easy. I, therefore, acknowledge the need to review and make amendments to this Act over time. I support the amendments but have a few matters which I wish to seek clarification on.

Firstly, I would like to welcome the move to extend the protection under the Act to all children and youth below the age of 18, up from the age of 16 today. Those who are under 18 are still young, generally less mature cognitively and are still, therefore, vulnerable to abuse and neglect. They should also be given the necessary attention and appropriate rehabilitative support when they offend. The amendments to extend the Act to include children who are abused or neglected and young offenders aged 16 to below 18 is, therefore, a good move.

However, I would like to echo the concerns of some stakeholders about the implications of having to oversee and rehabilitate a wide age range of children and young people. In particular, when we deal with young offenders, a wider age range of young people may be placed within the same residential facility. The needs and risks of a small child and a physically larger youth would differ and present different challenges. I have already received some anecdotal feedback about the instances of bullying in some of the residential homes. Typically, it happens when one resident or a group of them feel that they have more control and power over another. Will this problem be aggravated when there is be a wider age group of residents, with older youth? Further, will it be more difficult to coordinate targeted programmes or support for rehabilitation when you have a wider age group in the residential homes?

In addition, what is the Ministry's assessment of the capability of the sector to carry out the necessary functions to manage a higher number of children and young people? The increase of the age limit, will not only increase the numbers but as alluded to above, the different group of young people will have a new profile with differing needs and risks. What is the plan to strengthen the ability of the Ministry and the social service agencies to operationalise the amendments?

Lastly, I would like to seek a clarification on the proposed amendment to include the new section 68A, which enables the person-in-charge of any home for children and young persons that is operated by or under the management or control of the Government to use, or authorise any person who is assisting the person-in-charge to use, mechanical restraint on a person detained in the home.

I am a little bothered by the possible scenarios and the impact such actions would have on the children or young persons restrained. Such circumstances could add to the trauma faced by the children, and such actions seem antithesis to the spirit of rehabilitation. I note and appreciate that this power is only sanctioned in very specific circumstances and in practice, may be necessary. I note that the Minister has earlier explained the need to ensure safety of the social workers as well as other residents who are in the group home. However, I would like to understand these specifications considerations that led to the decision to have this provision and how we could reconcile the spirit of rehabilitation. In particular, I would also like to know what standard operating procedures are in place to guide the use of this power and what processes and checks are in place to prevent the abuse of this provision. I feel that it is important for the Ministry to constantly assess the use of this provision and its impact on the children and young people.

Mr Speaker, the CYPA provides an important framework to ensure protection of our children and young persons from harm and the provision of support and rehabilitation when they go astray. There is a need to review and strengthen the Act so that we can best address the needs of the sector and the community. Notwithstanding the comments I made earlier, I stand in support of the Bill.

6.16 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, in the Ministry's press release of 5 August, it is stated that the purpose of the Bill is to "strengthen Government and community support for abused and neglected children, and improve the rehabilitation and re-integration of children with offending behaviour." This enhanced support is much needed. All children have great potential. Unfortunately, some are beset with difficult circumstances which plague their early lives. I am in support of this Bill.

Specifically, I would like to re-state my support for the amendment which will raise the maximum age for protection under the Children and Young Persons Act to 18 years, up from the current age of 16. I have been tracking this issue for some time. I am glad to note that when the Bill comes into force, youths aged between 16 and 18 who face criminal charges will, in general, be tried in the Youth Court, which sits in private and in an atmosphere of greater understanding compared to the open adult courts.

Such youths will also be entitled to have their identities protected from publication throughout the proceedings and their lifetimes, to reduce the harm of stigmatisation and labelling which would jeopardise their futures. These changes will bring our laws in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Singapore Government ratified more than 20 years ago in 1995.

That said, I have some specific observations and questions on the Bill. These are mainly about the fostering scheme, youth offenders, the new Family Guidance Orders, and the right to be heard.

First, fostering scheme. Where a child's parents are deemed incapable of caring for the child, the child may be placed in the care of a foster parent. This may be done with the consent of the parents under a voluntary care arrangement, or by an order of Court applied for by the Child Protective Service. Volunteering to be a foster parent is an onerous responsibility, involving providing a home and caring for children whose backgrounds are difficult and who may exhibit challenging behaviours. Sometimes, foster parents also face pressure from the child's natural parents. We must, indeed, thank the 500-over fostered parents who have signed up for this mission.

This Bill strengthens the framework for fostering in a few ways. First, voluntary care arrangements are given statutory recognition in the proposed section 11A, which clarifies how these voluntary arrangements will be managed. Secondly, the Bill introduces a new Part IIA on fostering. Under the proposed section 27B, a Committee on Fostering will be set up to periodically review cases of children fostered out, to ascertain if the foster parent is implementing a proper care plan for the child. At the same time, the Bill also gives more recognition to foster parents, for example, clause 63 will amend the Employment Act to enable the foster parent to take childcare leave.

I also note that under clause 69, an amendment is being made to the Passports Act to enable the Director-General, a protector or a foster parent to give consent for a child to be issued with a passport for international travel. In my opinion, this is a useful amendment. I am aware of a case where the child's parent refused to give permission for the child to go to Malaysia with his foster family, as the parent was highly critical of the care given by the foster parent. This was despite evidence that the child was happy and doing well in his foster home. Once this amendment is made and under the ECPO, which the Minister just described, the child will no longer have to be left behind while his foster family went on holidays.

Next, youth offenders. I now come to a few issues concerning young persons who get into trouble with the criminal law.

First, I am quite concerned about clause 25 of the Bill which will amend section 30 of the Act. Section 30 currently provides that youths who are arrested and not released should be brought before the Youth Court or, if not possible, before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay. This is an important safeguard to ensure that any further detention of young persons should be approved by a Court, and that the youth or his parents will have the opportunity to be heard before a Court before further detention is permitted. Clause 25 proposes to amend section 30(2) to add that the youth should be produced before the Magistrate "within 48 hours". I do not know why there is a need to add in the words "within 48 hours", as this time limit is already provided under Article 9 of the Constitution and applies to all arrested persons, adult and young alike.

What concerns me is not the redundancy of the addition, but that law enforcement officers may take the addition of the 48-hour limit in the CYPA to wrongly assume that there is no additional urgency when dealing with young suspects. A child or young person in a Police lock-up, away from familiar surroundings, is vulnerable and needs to be processed fast. To this end, I would like to ask whether our law enforcement officers have protocols that require them to process cases involving youth offenders at a faster pace, what shorter time limits are set out in these protocols and how these protocols are enforced. On a related note, I would like to know if there is any special training being given to the law enforcement officers in handling suspects who are children or young persons.

Secondly, the Bill enlarges the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to deal with cases of youths between 16 and 18. This is a welcome move, but at the same time, significant limits have been placed. Under clause 27, such youths can be tried in an adult Court if the offence involved is listed in the new Second Schedule, or if the accused has been found guilty of a similar offence previously.

At first glance, I do appreciate that the offences listed at the new Second Schedule appear to be more serious, such as drug trafficking, robbery and certain moneylending-related offences. It would appear, however, that a youth who has a prior conviction of any offence, however minor, may also be tried in an adult Court. How will this work in practice?

Clause 27 provides that in such situations, the Youth Court or the Public Prosecutor can initiate the transfer of the case from the Youth Court to the adult court. Earlier, I believe the Minister did touch on this point. Can the Minister re-confirm that the power in the Youth Court and the Public Prosecutor is discretionary, that is to say, such a case may still remain in the Youth Court? Further, if the case gets transferred to an adult Court, which sits in public, how will the protection from publicising the youth's identity be enforced?

Thirdly, I would like to ask about clause 32 which touches on Reformative Training (RT). RT is a tough regime that emphasises military-style discipline and involves participants who are older. With these amendments, RT will usually be ordered for offenders between 18 and 21 years of age. Under the existing Act, section 44 provides that RT can only be imposed upon a young person below the usual age of RT under two situations: the first is that he had been sent to a juvenile rehabilitation centre (JRC), that is, he has been sent to a JRC for an earlier offence and is now before the Court again, indicating that he might need a tougher court order. The second situation is that while the youth is serving detention in a JRC, the person in charge of the centre finds him so unruly that continued detention there is not feasible and RT may be needed. Under this Bill, clause 32 introduces a new category where a Youth Court could order RT for a youth who is being sentenced for the first time. The wording of the proposed section 44(1)(k)(iii) is that an offender aged between 14 and 18 years of age could be sent to RT if the Youth Court "is of the opinion that the the offender is of so unruly a character that the offender cannot be safely detained in a juvenile rehabilitation centre of a place of detention".

The Minister earlier clarified in his speech that this will enable the Youth Court to send a youth to reformative training at the first instance even if he has never stayed at a JRC. On what basis then will the Youth Court conclude that he would be a failure at the JRC if he has never been sent there? Is there a danger of over-reach here?

Finally, on the issue of juvenile justice, I would like to share an observation. One of the advantages of the Youth Court is its focus on formulating orders that are appropriate to each youth, depending on the Court's assessment of what is required in individual circumstances. This advantage can also become a bone of contention, as several youths involved in the same incident may end up being treated differently by the Youth Court. For instance, a group of Secondary school students who decide to steal motorcycles for a joy ride could end up getting different sentences. One could be ordered to undergo probation, where he continues his normal schooling and resides at home, subject to curfew hours; his accomplice, on the other hand, could be ordered to be detained in a JRC like the Singapore Boys Home, separated from his home environment, with normal schooling disrupted.

Such disparate treatment needs to be rigorously justified. I remember years ago when I was representing a youth before the former Juvenile Courts. His mother asked me point blank whether her son was ordered to be incarcerated because she was a divorcee, while his accomplice got a probation because he came from a two-parent household. While certainly the Youth Court has to assess risk factors, I would caution that the system must never become so rigid as to under-estimate the effort and resilience of persons facing challenges in life.

Next, Family Guidance Orders. Under the existing Act, parents who believe they are not able to manage their children can apply to court to place them in the care of an institution or other person, under what is currently known as the BPC or Beyond Parental Control regime. Children under BPC are effectively labelled as "bad" children and will undergo psychological damage. I thus welcome clause 43 of the Bill, which replaces the existing BPC orders with Family Guidance Orders, a more nurturing term that does not blame the child.

I note that under clause 43, a Court making a Family Guidance Order may attach further orders for parents or the child to comply with. Such orders include attending mediation, counselling, psychotherapy, assessments or other programmes or treatment. As such programmes involve interfacing with professionals, could the Minister clarify who will pay the costs of complying with these requirements? Will parents be penalised if they are unable to pay the fees required to comply or will financial support be provided?

Finally, the right to be heard. I wish to raise a concern regarding the right to be heard before the Youth Court. There are various provisions in this Bill and in the Act itself, that provide that before the Court makes an order, the child, young person or parent has the right to be heard; for example, there is a right to be heard before care arrangements for a child are changed. There is also a right to be heard when young offenders are about to be sentenced. In theory, these persons have a right to engage a lawyer, but only a minority can afford one. To represent oneself before a Court is unfamiliar to most people and I have observed that unrepresented persons tend to either not speak up or do the opposite by being argumentative and casting aspersions on Government officials, which will be most unhelpful to their causes. Another typical problem is that what is said is not logically arranged and is difficult for the Court to follow.

I recently encountered a family who expressed frustration at their perception that the court was not listening to them on the care arrangements for their son. Upon probing further, I realised that the Court was not to be blamed but it was simply a matter of the parents organising their thoughts on paper and being respectful to the Court.

How can we facilitate the right to be heard, especially by the lower income? Can there be more pro bono services available for family and youth matters? As a second alternative, can there be a simple process of, say, a form being given out to these persons ahead of their hearing, so that they have time to formulate their thoughts and write them out for the Court to follow more easily?

Finally, Sir, let me conclude. The changes in this Bill are overall steps in the right direction and bring our law in line with international norms. I support the Bill and look forward to the Ministry's responses to my queries.

6.30 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a parent it is certainly disquieting to look at the cases where children are abused, ill-treated or neglected by their parents. I am sure this sentiment is shared by other hon Members too. What is worrying is the number of cases being reported has been on the rise, especially for sexual abuse with 248 cases, up from 107 in 2016 and 181 in 2017. Physical abuse 584 cases up from 444 in 2016, 373 in 2017. And the number of neglect cases has somewhat stayed in the 300 range since 2016. It is also troubling to see there is a rise in cases of kids between 13 and 15 years who are beyond parental control.

We are living in very challenging times. Our young not only can access all sorts of disturbing materials online, but are also basing their relationships and self-worth on social media. They are very vulnerable. They receive a lot of information, but might not be sufficiently mature to understand consequences. Like the saying in Chinese, 似懂非懂.

The aim of this Bill is to strengthen the Government and community support to help these children and improve their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. What I would like to ask the Minister is what is there now, or anything in the pipeline, which helps the community to intervene, even before the kids reach this situation?

We need parents who have difficulty handling their kids to be able to turn to someone for advice, counselling or guidance before the situation gets out of hand.

I am very encouraged to read of how a number of cases of sexual abuse were captured by MOE after the students went through lessons on sex education and spoke to the counsellors. So, for MSF, can a parenting education clinic be run for parents who need to address the challenges they face in bringing up their child? Perhaps, some form of structured programme for parents who have children in Primary or Secondary school? This would make them better parents. Sometimes, they are so stressed out and they do not know how to handle their children and end up harming their children.

Sir, another point I want to raise is what is the approach of the MSF counsellors when they are called in to investigate a case of child abuse? Under what circumstances would they recommend to the Police to take action against a parent? I raise this question because I want to share with the House an anecdote that happened where one of the parents, the father was charged and jailed for beating the 10-year-old child. This case went to Court and the father was jailed. But in the one year, between the time of offence to the Court sentence, the father and child had a very close relationship, going out together, bonding together. So, my question is what do counsellors and the Police take into consideration when recommending the offender for Court action? I think there are circumstances which merit consideration as even today the child and the offending parent are very close. To me, the main thing is to look at how we can help to reconcile the child with the parent. The offender can be warned, sent for counselling and so on.

Next, I would like to ask in the case of those children who are the subject of any investigation, how would the Ministry work with MOE so that the teacher would be able to pay special attention to the child, in case he or she needs extra care, or the teacher may need to be more sensitive to the trauma that the child might have gone through?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in empowering the director, protectors and designated care-givers to make decisions for the child on sensitive and important decisions, I would like to ask if the Minister could share whether the child's other close relatives, such as uncle, auntie or grandparents or any other close person, wherever possible would be included or consulted for an opinion in the decision-making process? This is to ensure that at least a family representative has a role in the whole process. In Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have heard of one case. A father beat up his 10-year-old son but his relationship with the boy was still very close afterwards. In the end, the father was sentenced to jail and was forced to be separated from the child. I feel that parent-child relationship is a lifelong one. When dealing with such cases, we should value the parent-child relationship more and be flexible in terms of punishment.

I also feel that when a child is abused or has behaviour issues, the Government should work together with the school to pay attention to the child's mental state. If the parents are not suitable to look after the child, should the designated care-giver consult the child's close relatives such as grandparents when making important decisions?

Recently, there is an increasing number of cases of children being sexually abused or children beyond parental control. Hence, these amendments are very timely. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I believe he has applied for leave of absence. He is away.

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

6.37 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, children need protection where they are vulnerable because of physical domestic abuse. The state must swiftly intervene. Laws that allow swift intervention are key. Before going into my points proper on the Bill, I would like to put on record my thanks to the hardworking and committed MSF officers who give of themselves in their calling, their duty to serve and protect among the most vulnerable, in our society.

Sir, I return to my points on the Bill. Ten years ago, in 2009, MSF investigated 272 cases of child abuse involving family members. Fast forward five years, in 2014, MSF investigated 381 such cases. By 2018, MSF investigated 1,163 in one year alone. Among last year's investigations, about half were physical abuse cases while about 20% involved sexual abuse. Remember, these abuse cases involve a family member. Not just statistics, these numbers reflect the number of young lives affected by domestic abuse. Children put into perspective the importance of the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) which this Bill amends.

Sir, I would like to talk about four aspects. One, how the Bill extends the applicability of the Children and Young Persons Act; two, how youths are treated in the criminal justice system; three, how the Bill provides greater support for care-givers; and four, how the Bill provides greater discretion to MSF officers as to determining at points of intervention.

Firstly, this Bill extends the protection under the CYPA to more people. Clause 2(1)(b) and 2(2)(b) amends the definition of young persons, extending the applicability of the Act from those 16 years of age and below to those 18 years of age and below. This brings it in line with some other statutes such as the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act which draws the line between adult and child protection at 18 years of age. This is to be welcomed.

Besides amending the definition for young person to include those 18 and under, child trafficking offences in the Children and Young Persons Act are extended from just children to include young persons. Clause 10 amends the heading for sections 12 to 18 so that the trafficking offences apply to children and young persons. This again, is to be welcomed. The words of the offences have similarly been expanded. This is to be welcomed. For instance, section 12 prohibiting the transfer of possession, custody or control of a child for valuable consideration has been amended by clause 11, extending it to young persons.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, this Bill tweaks how youths are treated in the criminal justice system. Where the offence is under the CYPA, the new section 84B ensures that the victim's identity is held in strict confidence even after the victim turns 18 years of age. It may seem a slight amendment but actually has major positive consequences. The judge is also able to order take down of publications in media as well as on social media. Exceptions are at the court's discretion in the interest of justice as stated in the new section 84B(2).

Director-General and protector have stronger powers of investigation in the new section 8. For instance, although self-incriminating information cannot be withheld, they are inadmissible unless false information is provided. As it is difficult for victims to retell the horrendous stories of abuse, would the Minister therefore provide an update on what is being done to minimise the trauma involved in recounting the harrowing experience especially in Court settings?

Several changes to the CYPA also better support the youth offender's rehabilitation and now reintegration into society, trying as best as possible that the past does not hold them back from achieving their potential and that they can continue to have hope for their future.

One way is to allow sentences meted out by the Youth Court to be deemed as spent at the end of completing the supervision, detention, community sentence or fine, without needing to wait the normal three or so years. This is provided for in clause 73 and allows youth offenders to more easily reintegrate into society as they can declare that they have no criminal record. This enables the youth offender to turn over a new leaf. In fact, it creates a supporting scaffold structure around the youths, such as, to be able to turn over a new leaf. So, another key amendment here.

Another way is by the extension of the Children and Young Persons Act to those 18 and under and not just those 16 and below. This provides young offenders access to a criminal justice system which places emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration so that the mistakes of the past do not continue to haunt the young person when he or she is older. One way is by providing for the youth offender's identity to be kept confidential for life and not just while he is still a young person, unless he or she reoffends. This is provided for in Clause 50. This allows the young person's space to grow and change without being shackled to his past.

Another example and a good example, is clause 27(a) read with the Second Schedule within the Bill, which allows for Prosecution or the court to transmit cases involving the causing of grievous hurt, certain Misuse of Drugs Offences and other more serious offences to the court of appropriate jurisdiction. This is especially important for the Misuse of Drugs Act offences as we do not want our young persons to become targets for drug syndicates to hire them or manipulate them as mules just because they are specially treated by our criminal justice system or the Youth Courts.

Thirdly, this Bill provides greater support for those who care for children and young persons. In particular, I want to highlight the support that this Bill strives towards fostering. Clause 57 extends childcare leave to include foster children and allows the foster parent to disclose information necessary for this purpose. It is good that foster parents are supported in taking care of the children. They need the same kind of leave to be present for their children, for instance, if the child is sick or at a parent-teachers meeting. They also need it in order to better ease a foster child into the family and bring the child for therapy sessions if therapy is necessary.

By better supporting foster parents, hopefully more loving families will be willing to step up and provide a loving and caring environment for children and young persons, showing the foster child what family and parents' love looks like. And, thereafter, hopefully the child can be adopted either by the foster parents or parents who are hoping to adopt a child. Or if there can be reconciliation with the child's biological parents and the fostered child, then, if possible, the child can be reunited with the family, provided it is indeed safe.

Fourthly and ultimately, Sir, this Bill addresses child abuse within the family, particularly tackling the question at what point is it in the best interests of the child or young person that the state intervenes in the parent-child relationship? On one hand, the protection of the child and hence, the child's welfare and best interests are at risk. On the other hand, the benefit of being cared for by his or her parent or guardian is significant.

As mentioned in the beginning of my speech, the number of child abuse cases are concerning. Even as we seek to find a better balance, we must also ensure that the broader discretion given to Child Protection Service Officers achieves deterrence of child abuse, and that deterrence must come with powers to act swiftly. When a child is abused, a child's life is at stake – not just physical but also the long-lasting emotional trauma from being emotionally or psychologically abused. Swift intervention is, therefore, necessary. It is a basic ingredient that I am supportive of. The broader discretion through this Bill allows the Child Protection Service Officers to make the necessary judgement as to when that intervention is necessary.

With regard to the amended section 4(2) which sets out specific examples of emotional or psychological abuse, I do have a few clarifications for the Minister.

Paragraph (a) mentions well-being and a sense of self-worth. How will this provision operate?

Paragraph (b) mentions that threatening to physically hurt the child or young person is child abuse. Will the Minister clarify how this provision is to be understood in the context of section 64 of the Women's Charter where correction is an exception to "family violence"?

Paragraph (d) says that confining a child or young person to a small space for the purposes of discipline is considered abuse. Would the Minister elaborate on what is intended by the phrase "any small space"?

Paragraph (e) talks about influencing the development of self-destructive, criminal, deviant or other mal-adaptive behaviour. Would the good Minister explain what is meant by "influence", "deviant" and "anti-social" behaviour? Also, would the minister explain what "infantilising" means in illustration (b)?

Notwithstanding my clarifications above, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important that enough latitude and discretion be given to Child Protection Service Officers for swift intervention where necessary. Would the Minister explain also the process of investigating a possible child abuse case and elaborate on the thoughts that go towards deciding how a child abuse case is best managed? In particular, under what circumstances will a child be removed from his or her parents, and, if that happens, will the child still have opportunity to meet and even reconcile with his or her parents under appropriate circumstances?

This amendment broadens the discretion of the Child Protection Service Officers and allows them to intervene swiftly where necessary. Would the Minister elaborate on whether there is sufficient resources, particularly manpower, to exercise that broad discretion given to the Officers in light of the unfortunately increasing number of cases investigated as well as the expansion in definition of child abuse through this Bill? As a significant number of child abuse cases involve children under the tender age of seven, would the Minister also elaborate on how have childcare teachers been trained to be able to detect child abuse?

In conclusion, Sir, this Bill consolidates an extensive review of the Children and Young Persons Act, putting into law amendments that can better support caregivers, youth victims, youth offenders and child abuse victims.

Sir, as I had stated at the start of my speech, children need protection where they are vulnerable because of physical domestic abuse. The state must swiftly intervene. Laws that allow swift intervention are key. For those reasons, I support this Bill.

6.50 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill for increasing support for children and young persons including up to 18 years which brings us in ratification with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In particular, I am especially heartened that the Bill now includes emotional harm as a form of ill-treatment, thereby allowing affected children and young persons to be protected by the Bill and allows older youth offenders to have more rehabilitative options.

And yet, in the very same Bill that recognises emotional harm as a form of ill-treatment, a new section 68A proposes the use of mechanical restraints on children and young persons. "Mechanical restraints" in this case refer to handcuffs, leg braces, flexi-cuffs or any similar means of restraint. This is disturbing, especially given the psychological risks and effects on the use of physical restraints. A 2008 research by Cornell University found restraints to be "a considerable risk to vulnerable youth, are intrusive, have a negative effect on the treatment environment, and have a profound effect on those youth who have experienced trauma in their lives."

It is also not clear to me if there are any guidelines on its use, or if restraints should only be used after less intrusive methods have been applied and deemed ineffective, especially when there are already therapeutic and trauma-informed alternatives as well as environmental interventions available, such as a padded room to prevent self harm or a Calming Room to manage aggressive/violent behaviour.

In fact, I believe this is already a MSF requirement for all children's homes in keeping with the Standards of Care for Children and Young Persons Homes. Also, I understand that one out of three care staff have also been sent for the Management of Actual or Potential Aggression (MAPA®) training programme to ensure that personnel involved in handling crisis situations, can maintain the care, welfare, safety and security of all involved. So, I am not sure if I understand the intent and need for section 68A. Can the Minister please clarify?

Mr Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity with the Bill to discuss what more we can do to invest in families so as to support and protect our children, given that "family" is one of the three principles of our social safety net.

Parents and guardians are expected to exercise responsibility for their children but I would argue if families are adequately enabled and empowered. Because we all know that there are many ways in which a family situation may manifest itself depending on the parenting attitudes as well as who are the present and absent family members, their dynamics, needs and aspirations.

Take Farhana, 47 and a single mother living at Yio Chu Kang who used to struggle with raising her five children. She barely had time for herself with taking care of the children and trying to earn some money from home, so she often felt exhausted trying to hold it all together. At times, she also resorted to physical methods with her children. When her eldest child was not attending school regularly, the state intervened and later found out about the abuse. She was then required to attend counselling and therapy sessions. Ironically, the well-meaning sessions which were meant to help her and her children saw her in even more emotional distress, which clearly also affected the psychological well-being of her children. Perhaps the support for Farhana should have come earlier?

I would like to urge the Ministry to strongly consider providing pre-emptive support programmes for at-risk families before we get to the vicious trap that Farhana faced. Family Service Centres when working with families could suggest counselling or parenting courses if the staff are also trained to assess parenting capacity.

In addition to parents, when a child or young person is in a care placement outside the family, whether short or long term, retention of relationships with the extended family or significant people, like grandparents and siblings, is critical for their sense of identity to be preserved, unless it is contrary to the best interest of the child. Research on family reunification shows maintaining parent/family-child contact in the first six months of alternative care placement improves the chances of family reunification.

The UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children states that it is important to keep siblings together in any alternative care placements. When siblings are separated, it causes anxiety among them – with separated siblings often having to manage life-long issues of attachment, identity and loss in their lives. I know that Darul Ihsan Orphanages is one of the residential home facilities that provide care for both girls and boys with deliberate joint activities to facilitate sibling interaction. There are nearly 10 sibling group placements within the home of 50 children.

I would like to propose that concerted effort be made to ensure contact time between siblings placed in different care placements, such as if one is in foster care and the other in residential care. In addition, we should extend family work intervention to the other sibling who is in the household to prevent further family separation and risk being referred to the care system in the future too.

Mr Speaker, I commend the extension of childcare and infant leave to foster parents with section 27 of the Bill to make fostering more accessible and recognised. The demand for foster parents is more pressing now, as more children have entered the foster care system in recent years. A children's home, no matter how well-run, cannot replicate the "therapeutic elements" found in a family, said Dr Yong Ming Lee of NIE. How can we encourage more fostering?

First, we could reframe foster care to also include kinship care and incentivise keeping children within their families by extending the amendments to section 27C to enable grandparents and next-of-kin, such as uncles and aunts, to childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Debate resumed.

6.57 pm

Ms Anthea Ong: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We should reframe foster care to also include kinship care. Hong Kong had piloted a two-year project on Child Care Training for Grandparents with the aim to strengthen inter-generational family ties as well as scaling up childcaring skills. Perhaps we can learn from such initiatives as we align family policies with Active Ageing in strengthening family bonds.

Second, I urge the Ministry to consider a tiered foster care system with tiered allowances based on the complexities. The amount a foster carer would receive then takes into account both the "placement type", for example, care for children with special needs and disabilities alongside their "competence" to provide care for the children. This has been implemented in many independent, for-profit agencies, charities and area councils in the UK.

Next, I would like to propose tax relief for foster carers as means of recognition and retention as well as an incentive for more potential families to apply to the fostering scheme, as how the Australian government has incorporated tax exemptions into their fostering provisions.

And, finally, Mr Speaker, let us go upstream to look at preventive measures. Preventing delinquency and on-going offending behaviours is as important as downstream interventions, if not more, so that our children and youths can avoid the harmful effects of detention and incarceration, and the potential involvement with the adult criminal justice system.

One of the risk factors for delinquency is mental health disorders, which is increasing amongst children and young persons in Singapore. A record number of teenage boys committed suicide in 2018 according to SOS, and calls to SOS by children between five and nine have jumped by an alarming 500% within three years. A global study showed that young persons diagnosed with major depressive disorder were found to be more vulnerable to involvement in violence. It also found that depression in children and young persons may be harder to recognise and could manifest itself as irritability and aggressiveness. There is accumulating evidence that depression can be predictors of youth delinquency.

Currently, the programmes and interactions for children and young persons by SSAs, schools and grassroots are designed based on offending behaviours and not on the risk factors such as mental health conditions. Can we create an inclusive environment by training community workers to identify and respond to these mental health risk factors as well?

Mr Speaker, another risk factor is the community that a child grows up in. How can we do more to provide our children and the young persons with a nurturing and stimulating environment, especially so in at-risk neighbourhoods?

Community workers at Beyond Social Services facilitate competent communities in rental housing neighbourhoods across Singapore. They believe in engaging children and young persons in the longer term, and nurture family and community support around them. An example of a participatory design project is at the Kebun Baru neighbourhood where community needs assessment conducted earlier in the year highlighted the needs of the children and young persons such as the lack of playground, halal food facilities and the feeling of a safe, inclusive environment. Currently, community-based conversations are being held with grassroots support to visualise what different segments of the community would envision for their neighbourhood.

Another example of re-purposing the immediate environment is Project Hearts in Nee Soon East which also highlights active citizenry among its residents. The group saw a need to kick off with academic and play support programmes for the children in Yishun Blocks 269A and 269B. Bernard, born with a congenital development condition that affects the spine, leads the academic outreach of Project Hearts in collaboration with the Singapore Red Cross. During the sessions, the void deck is converted into a study area with portable chairs and tables and the session caters to the needs of children in the area. The children feel they are part of a community whilst their academic and play needs are being met in a holistic way.

It takes a community to raise a child, indeed. How can we enable more of such efforts that empower the community and therefore, our children and youths? Children and youths are key drivers for inclusive growth and sustainable development of a society.

Mr Speaker, I would like to end by sharing these powerful words from Nelson Mandela – he said, "history will judge us by the difference we make in the everyday lives of our children.'' And also how we protect them, I believe. Because it is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men and women.

We – the Government, the community and the family – must share this paramount responsibility of protecting each and every one of our children and young persons and do everything possible to create enabling and nurturing environments for them to learn, to live, to love and be loved so that they can thrive and contribute meaningfully to society.

Before I completely end, I would like to also take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to thank the everyday and invisible heroes in child protection work from the Ministry and the community for their dedication and compassion. I support the Bill.

Resumption of Debate on Question [3 September 2019], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Social and Family Development].

Question again proposed.

Prof Lim Sun Sun (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I declare my interest as a member of the Media Literacy Council. I stand in staunch support of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill. I especially welcome the provisions to further protect the identity of the child.

As it stands, the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) restricts the publication and broadcast of any information relating to Court proceedings involving children and young people aged 16 and below that reveals their names, images, addresses, schools or other particulars. With the change, this protection will be extended to children aged 17 and 18.

In so doing, we can, therefore, insulate our young people a little longer from media coverage of their offences and our efforts to rehabilitate and reintegrate them will be far more effective.

How so? Research from the US shows that media coverage of juvenile offences that fails to protect the identities of young offenders can have various detrimental consequences.

First, the public shaming of young offenders can heighten tensions within their families and fracture the very unit of society that can play a pivotal role in these youths’ rehabilitation.

Second, media coverage can lead these youths to be ostracised by their peers and teachers, thus crippling community-based rehabilitation measures.

Third, negative media coverage can also lend offenders a semblance of celebrity status. In an era where it seems to be cool to go viral whatever the reason, media coverage of juvenile offences may encourage the tendency to re-offend and, possibly, influence other youths to commit similar crimes to attain notoriety and peer affirmation.

Indeed, my own research on the social media practices of juvenile offenders in Singapore reveals an interest among some youths to project a cool and tough image online by boasting of their misdemeanours on social media. One boy in my study had even shared a newspaper report of his crime on his social media accounts until his social worker cautioned him that it was very foolish to do so.

Finally, public records of these offences severely compromise these youths’ future chances for education and employment. Indeed, given the replicability and durability of online images and reports, it is extremely difficult to “rewrite” one’s personal history.

Extending identity protection to the age of 18 is, therefore, a timely and enlightened move, given that our public identities assume an oversized importance in our digitally-connected society as we concluded in our debate on the Protection from Online Harassment Act in May. With two additional years of confidentiality for young offenders, we can derive considerable social and developmental returns in our Internet-saturated society.

Indeed, given our society’s growing technologisation, I would like to take this opportunity to raise the issue of the digital rights of children. At first blush, you may find it laughable to speak about digital rights for young people in Singapore since, wherever we turn, it seems like every toddler, teen and young adult seems to be attached to a digital device of their own. Access is clearly not the issue here. In fact, a Google survey found that Singaporean children get their first Internet-connected device at the age of eight, below the global average of 10, making them among the youngest in the world to go online.

What is of urgent import is that children be accorded rights to the necessary protections in a rapidly and ferociously digitalising world. By that, I refer to how young people are increasingly the target of commercial exploitation in the online world. Principally, our society needs to ensure that children enjoy rights to privacy and not have their data harvested and mined for profit. The same Google survey found that teachers here are more worried than parents about cyber bullying, while parents are most concerned about their children’s privacy and security online.

Children’s privacy and security online are, indeed, a matter that requires closer attention. Take the example of the Internet of Toys. In January 2018, American electronic toy company VTech was fined $650,000 by the US Federal Trade Commission for failing to protect the privacy of children using its gadgets. Children use the company's Kids Connect app in conjunction with these electronic toys. Through this app, VTech collected a vast trove of information, including children’s names, contact information, photographs and audio files, without seeking consent from parents or even informing them. A security breach revealed that the company had failed to secure their young users’ data, allowing hackers untrammelled access.

As children are using digital devices at ever younger ages, we need to hold companies to task for their data collection processes, especially those pertaining to children, by introducing requirements for greater care and transparency in their practices. Companies must also be urged to present their terms and conditions in a far more child-friendly and accessible manner so that young people know what they are signing up for when they use online services.

Even for companies that do have adequate data protection measures, we must consider how such data is used to develop algorithms to create or serve up more content targeted at children. Gaming, online shopping, content sharing and social media platforms profit significantly from the digital native market. However, the companies behind them often fail to take into account the responsibilities they have towards these young users and simply find more ways to engage them, for longer periods and with ever more alluring content that resonates with their interests. Young people then find themselves irresistibility drawn to these platforms, often using their digital devices excessively. The burden is then shifted to schools and parents who must persuade or even coerce young people to better manage their use of digital media.

In such a climate, we must exhort technology companies to do more to create a safe and edifying digital environment for young people. In February this year, Instagram head Adam Mosseri met with the British Health Secretary Matt Hancock to discuss new measures the company would introduce to handle content promoting self-harm and suicide. This meeting arose in part from the suicide of 14-year-old British teenager Molly Russell. Her family believed she took her own life because her Instagram account was replete with material about depression, self-harm and suicide. Instagram has since pledged to better identify content relating to self-harm and hide it behind "sensitivity screens". Closer to home, a survey by international research agency YouGov found that a third of young adults here have self-harmed, with one in 10 doing so frequently. So, young Singaporeans' exposure to such content and their effects should also be more closely investigated.

When our children go online, they are, indeed, vulnerable to risks – risks of commercial exploitation, exposure to inappropriate content, cyberbullying and online sexual abuse, and we must do our best to shield them from these dangers. Thankfully, Singapore has not experienced such high profile incidents relating to the breach of children’s digital privacy or adverse exposure to online harms.

As avid users of technology however, young people in Singapore are susceptible to such risks, even as we embrace the distinct benefits they can gain from the digital world. Another key tranche to young people’s digital rights must, therefore, be ensuring access to digital literacy education to empower them with the skills to minimise digital risks and maximise gains. In this regard, Singapore has done well through efforts by the MOE, MCI, IMDA, NLB and the Media Literacy Council. I urge technology companies to do even more to support these public education efforts and consider the duty of care they owe to their young users.

Mr Speaker, our children are born into a heavily digitalised environment. Many have a digital footprint even before they have sprung from their mothers’ wombs, with their ultrasound images being shared on social media. That is but the beginning of their digital journey.

In light of this prevailing reality, we must take concerted steps towards ensuring that children's digital rights are respected, supported and championed. In 2014, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child held a Day of General Discussion on digital media and children’s rights. It concluded that: "States should adopt a national coordinating framework with a clear mandate and sufficient authority to coordinate all activities related to children’s rights and digital media and ICTs at cross-sectoral, national, regional and local levels and facilitate international cooperation."

Given our whole-of-Government approach to tackling our national priorities, I believe that protecting and advancing children’s digital rights with a national coordinating framework are a task Singapore should actively undertake. Indeed, given our extensive experience with digitalisation, Singapore can also be a key advocate of this movement on the world stage. Such efforts will be in the best interests of the healthy and positive development of children in Singapore and beyond.

12.54 pm

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I stand in support of this Bill, which seeks to provide more extensive protection and better and fairer provisions for young persons up to the age of 18 years, in their best interests.

First, I would like to speak on clause 4 which amends section 4 of the Act. I support replacing "emotional injury" with "emotional harm". "Injury" tends to suggest that the abuse is rather tangible or explicit and is visible, while "harm" is more all-encompassing and suggests that while it may not necessarily be visible, the damage the abuse has caused is much more far-reaching and may manifest itself in ways other than that which is visible.

There are cases where parents or guardians, in their fervour to bring out the best in their children, end up subjecting the child to emotional abuse or acts of degradation that erode the child’s feeling of self-worth, self-esteem or overall well-being.

Some parents see their scoldings and nagging or even acts of punishment as necessary acts of discipline for their children. Where and how do we draw the line? And when do the authorities step in? Do we intervene when a member of public complains? Or do we wait until a significant adult in the child’s life, such as a school teacher or an adult relative, takes notice and informs the authorities? Or do we need to wait until the child who is a victim of emotional or mental abuse speaks up or seeks help?

I seek clarification from the Ministry as to where and how do we draw the line with regard to a child or young person being in need of care or protection, as well as when do the authorities step in?

I am a parent, too, and I do understand the expectations some parents have on their children, in wanting them to realise their full potential and do well in school and later on in life. But we should not condone authoritarian or even authoritative parenting that revolves around scoldings or punishments or persistent nagging or acts of degradation, which are, essentially, abuse towards the child. As a parent, love should always be the basis of our care and discipline towards our children. We can certainly discipline our children and be firm with them in order to instil good values, but this should be done on the basis of love and care, and not on the basis of hate or wanting to inflict fear or pain.

Some children do suffer as a result of their parents' style of parenting. Some suffer in silence while some start to develop a facade of indifference, while some of these emotionally or physically abused children would, in turn, inflict pain on others who are in a position more vulnerable than they are, such as a younger sibling or a classmate or schoolmate.

Hence, I support the amendments to section 4 to expand and set out the circumstances in which a child or young person may be regarded as being subject to emotional or psychological abuse and would need care or protection beyond that which can be given by their biological parents or legal guardians. With these amendments, I hope more protection and the necessary care can be extended to the children or young persons who have otherwise been subject to abuse or harm by those who should have been protecting them.

Next, I would like to speak on the fostering of young persons. I am supportive of the formation of the Committee on Fostering. I believe this will help provide a more objective and fairer platform for the review of foster care to be provided to young persons who have to be removed from the care of their biological parents, or even foster parents.

Within the last one year, I have had two families living within my constituency who came to seek help regarding their foster care arrangements. One of them, a couple with grandchildren, had been foster parents to a young girl since she was only a few weeks old. The gentleman of this couple who are foster parents – let us call him Mr C – had alleged that MSF had acted in a biased and unfair manner towards him and his wife, and had, what he claimed, listened to and sided unfairly with the girl's biological father. As a result, the girl was taken away from their foster care to be reunited with her biological father.

As expected, Mr C was furious. He claimed that MSF had taken decisions on the matter "with no regard to the child's well-being". I had asked MSF to review the appeal made by Mr C to return the girl to his and his wife’s foster care. MSF had reviewed the case extensively and I learnt that it was Mr C's wife who had decided to discontinue care as a foster parent to the child in the first place.

Another couple, Mr S and his wife, have been foster parents with MSF for about nine years. They have cared for three children since then, with two of them still living in their care. A third child, the youngest of the three, was under their care for about six years, until he was removed from their care recently.

Mr S and his wife were distraught and claimed that MSF had taken the boy from their care with little notice and without considering their inputs and views on the matter. They also claimed that the boy did not want to return to his biological mother who had recently been released from prison. Again, as expected, Mr S and his wife blamed MSF and claimed MSF had acted unfairly and did not consider the best interests of the child.

In both instances, I can fully understand the feelings of the foster parents. They had given their time, care and love towards the child they had fostered and cared for over several years. And, inevitably, a strong emotional bond would have been formed between the foster parents and the child over those years. To let go of the child once their foster care is no longer needed is not an easy thing to do. At the same time, I must state my support for the work that MSF does. As a Ministry, it has to look at each and every foster care case with objectivity and fairness, and in the best interest of the child in question.

It is unfortunate that when a foster care case does not turn out the way that the foster parents or even biological parents expect, it is somehow expedient to blame the MSF and the MSF officers working on the case for it. This is very unfortunate and unfair, indeed.

Hence, I feel that the insertion of clause 23 in the Bill to include a new Part IIA on Fostering will be useful in delineating the rules and provisions for fostering, particularly in setting up a Committee on Fostering made up of individuals appointed by the Minister who may be able to provide inputs and opinions from a seemingly more neutral and balance perspective.

If possible, I would propose that the Minister include relevant professionals who would be able to provide significant inputs on the well-being of the child. These relevant professionals could be medical psychiatrists, clinical or child psychologists, school counsellors and educational professionals, among others.

I would also propose that this Committee consider for each foster case that is being contested or disputed, to interview the foster parents, the child or young person in question and biological parents to better understand their motivation for wanting a particular outcome pertaining to the foster case – even while they consider the report and recommendations made by MSF. Eventually, these different inputs of important information can be put up as recommendations to the court dealing with the particular foster case if need be.

Likewise, I would propose that where an order is made by a Youth Court, this Committee on Fostering is able to make recommendations to the Director-General of Social Welfare in deciding on any category 1, 2 or 3 matters relating to the child or young person, including the identification of a fit person to which the care of the child or young person is assigned.

Here, I would like to state my support for childcare leave, extended childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave to be extended to foster parents who have opened up their hearts and homes to these vulnerable children and young persons in need of love and care. Our foster parents also need the parental-related leave to care for their foster children.

One aspect of this Bill that I would like to seek clarifications on is clause 48 with the introduction of section 68A. I am somewhat concerned with the provision to allow the person-in-charge of any home for children and young persons, or any other authorised persons in that home, to use a mechanical restraint on a person detained in the home, called a detainee, in order to prevent the detainee from escaping from custody, or to prevent the detainee from inflicting any bodily injury on themselves or on others. What forms of "mechanical restraints" are allowed to be used? To what extent are these mechanical restraints used? And what if the mechanical restraints used inflict even more injury on the detainee than that it was first meant to prevent in the first place?

Hence, while I understand the need for restraints for violent or hostile behaviour, how does the Ministry decide, on a balance of probabilities and outcomes, when and what forms of mechanical restraints are to be used? At this juncture, Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The challenges and issues faced by our community should not be taken lightly or are easily resolved. Various factors can give rise to certain challenges or issues that affect a family, and its solutions can also include various factors and types of assistance. There is still room to further strengthen these solutions.

Even so, we should acknowledge that various initiatives have been implemented by the Government to overcome the community’s challenges or issues, such as the establishment of M³ (M to the power of 3) which involves the combination of efforts, manpower and also funds from MUIS, MENDAKI and MESRA, which comprise grassroots organisations and efforts by volunteers. M³ was established to specifically help families within our Malay/Muslim community and this also involves a collaboration with MSF. This is a good initiative that has an encouraging and positive effect in strengthening our families, enhancing our skills and job opportunities, improving access to quality and affordable education, as well as rolling out initiatives that focus on our children’s well-being. We must continue to support the Government’s objectives and initiatives like the M³.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, the care of children and young persons who are removed from the care of their biological parents or from their foster parents, will always be a sensitive and emotive matter. And where emotions run high, rationality and judgement may be clouded. I do not envy the work of MSF in dealing with such sensitivities and I hope the amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act will strengthen the provisions to be made, and for fairness and objectivity to prevail, in ensuring the best interest of each child or young person in question. Notwithstanding the clarifications I have sought earlier, I support this Bill.

1.04 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I would like to applaud MSF for the thorough and thoughtful consultation process in drafting the Bill. MSF consulted over 300 stakeholders in the children and youth services sector and considered over 40 written responses during the public consultation.

Sir, I support the move towards a more rehabilitative regime by raising the maximum age of a "young person" from below 16 years to below 18 years. This is a step in the right direction.

I also applaud the extension of childcare leave to foster parents and urge parents to step forward to serve as foster parents. While our VWOs do their best in providing children who come through their doors with the best care possible, there is no substitute for a stable family environment.

Foster parents give children the stability, individual care and personal affection that they need and I hope more people will step forward to become foster parents.

Sir, I would like to cover two areas in my speech. I will focus on our children homes, which have been designated as a "place of safety" and our boys' home and girls' home. Unfortunately, I have some residents who have placed in a "place of safety", some of whom are only in Primary school.

My resident Allie, not her real name, has spent the last three years in a "place of safety". I have visited her there and I have to be honest that it was heartbreaking seeing her there. When I visited, a little boy was scaling the walls and the barb wires, trying to escape from the "place of safety". The VWO was doing their absolute best in very difficult circumstances.

I used take Allie out and she was a bubbly little girl, always running around and always with a big heart. I used to take her out with my daughter and I remember seeing her giving my daughter her black toy car. They say those with the least give the most and this is so true. Allie lived in a rental flat and did not have much but she gave a lot, not just material gifts. But she is someone who is so caring. I remember my daughter coughing once and almost instinctively, Allie would pat my daughter's back to make her feel better.

A few months after Allie was sent to a "place of safety", the Allie I knew vanished and was replaced with a quiet reserved girl who barely spoke a word. This was despite all the hard work the social workers and case manager had put in to help her. She changed completely and I could see why. She was taken away from her house, her siblings, her family and even her school. Everything she knew of and was used to, was removed from her.

I know we do this to protect her, to help her but we need to start questioning whether this works. Again, let me put on record that I commend the VWOs for doing a very admirable job of caring for the children with limited resources. At the same time, I believe we can and we have to do more for children like Allie and her siblings who just need a nurturing environment to grow and blossom.

In the spirit of protecting and rehabilitating our vulnerable children, I have the following questions and recommendations on helping VWOs who run "places of safety".

Sir, I believe one of the problems of the "places of safety" is the group setting with too few staff members. We place all the children together, all of whom are angry, sad, lost, frustrated, disappointed and I do not think it helps when they are placed together with insufficient support.

I understand that staff and resource constraints are a perpetual problem that VWOs have to grapple with. I had the same problem too when running my VWO. But in the best interest of our children, we should ensure that our VWOs are adequately staffed and have the resources they need to do their work. Can the Minister share what the current staff to children ratio is at the "place of safety"? What was it in the past? Has it improved over the years? Can the Minister share if MSF has studied the optimum staff to children ratio? Are there plans to further reduce the current ratio to ensure that each child has sufficient individualised care and attention? Does MSF have plans to provide more funding to VWOs running a "place of safety"?

Next, Allie and her two siblings were housed in "places of safety". They were sent there on the same day but were separated as the "place of safety" Allie was sent to, did not have a place for her two brothers.

While I understand the logistical constraints, it brings about acute stress for a child to be separated from siblings, especially when they have already lost their parents. Children in crisis are at their most vulnerable. They feel fear, confusion, abandonment, worry and sadness. It is essential that they receive quick support and care, in stable conditions they can feel comfortable in. Keeping Allie and her siblings together is the least we could do to create stability under such turbulent circumstances. This will help the VWOs running our "places of safety" as well.

In determining custody, and care and control of the children in divorce cases, the Court has stated that siblings should not be separated as far as possible. The Court considers this to be a factor in considering the welfare of the children. Will the Minister consider adopting the same policy position that siblings should not be separated where possible when making decisions about where children go when sent to a "place of safety"?

Next, Allie was also removed from her school as they wanted to send her to a school nearer to the "place of safety". Again, I understand the logistical constraints but I hope that we can allow a child to remain in his or her school after they have been sent to a "place of safety". I cannot imagine how difficult it must have been for Allie to go to a new Primary school, try to make new friends, maybe even answer questions by her classmates on why she is there and I hope not but maybe even be laughed at.

I hope that MSF will consider this recommendation positively.

Next, inter-generational patterns of incarceration is a recognised phenomenon. Breaking this vicious cycle has been included as a goal in many efforts to support inmates and ex-offenders in Singapore. For example, addressing the inter-generational offending cycle is a key objective of Family Resource Centres, which support inmates' families.

This pattern of incarceration can start at an early age. Whilst children homes are intended to be safe places for the protection of vulnerable children, the roots of inter-generational incarceration may also begin here. We will not know until we have studied this problem. Can the Ministry share if it collects data on how many children who enter a "place of safety" later enter the boys' or girls' homes, and later on even prisons?

Sir, I started my speech with Allie's story and I wish to end this part of the speech with her story too. In putting Allie in a "place of safety", we took her away from her home, her siblings and everything that she was used to. We put her in a dormitory and expect her to be rehabilitated and helped in the process. Do we know whether doing this will lead to better outcomes for the children? I have seen how Allie has changed from her time at the "place of safety" and it breaks my heart. And I know this has not worked for her brother. While in a "place of safety", he was caught housebreaking and was sent to a boys' home.

I urge the Ministry to track and study the effectiveness of our "place of safety". We need data to measure the effectiveness of our programmes and ensure that our policies work and work well. We need to provide more help to the VWOs who run our "places of safety".

Lastly, the new section 68A allows persons-in-charge of homes for children and young persons to use mechanical restraints such as handcuffs. I understand this is intended to prevent children in the homes from escaping custody or inflicting bodily injury on themselves. This seems incompatible with our shift to a more rehabilitative approach. I understand that there might be circumstances where there is a genuine need to physically restrain the children. Our children's homes are already staffed by auxiliary officers. They are in a better position to step in, if necessary. There should be a clear distinction between the roles of the staff and auxiliary officers. Staff of the children's homes should be nurturing figures who are there to protect, not restraint the children. Imagine the psychology effect on children to see the staff using handcuffs on them and their friends. Can we maintain this separation by increasing the number of auxiliary officers if necessary so that the MSF staff do not have to take on this role?

Sir, it is often said that our children are our hope for the future. Children who are put in "places of safety" because of circumstances beyond their control have the same potential as any other child, and are no less deserving of care and attention. Let us make sure that we can give them the safe environment to break free of their unfortunate circumstances and to grow into their full potential. Let us make sure we help the children and also improve support and resources provided to the VWOs running our "places of safety".

Notwithstanding the above queries and recommendations, I stand in support of this Bill.

1.14 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. First off, on behalf of foster parents, I would like to thank MSF for allowing foster parents to benefit from childcare leave. This is something that many in the VWO space, including myself, have asked for. Second, over the years, we are aware of good progress that MSF and our VWOs have made to resource our home that serves our vulnerable children and youth.

As such, I would like MSF to comment on the current state of affairs. Can MSF share on the progress made? On average, how many of our children are currently based in the home-based care, such as Government and VWO-based orphanage, as well as and boys' and girls' homes? Have we seen a decrease over the years?

Most of us will agree that family-based care is a better model compared to home-based care for child and youth, as long as the foster or adopted parents have the means and the care and concern for them. Therefore, can MSF share whether we have been able to put more of these children and youth into family-based care situations such as through adopted and foster parents?

Thirdly, can MSF share on how more we can encourage more people to move forward as foster parents? I understand that there is a certain number of Singaporeans who would like to adopt children. Is there room for us to encourage them to consider fostering instead?

Next, is there a way for us to streamline the adoption process so as to reduce the cost of adoption? For the needy, there is of course the free legal aid. But adoption cost goes into thousands of dollars and this is a big cost to the sandwich class who are trying to adopt. And on the ground, I see some cases of grandparents from the sandwich class who want to adopt their grandchildren because the parents are not able or available to provide care. And the legal cost takes precious resources away from the grandparents.

Lastly, under CYPA, we have expanded on the definition of "emotional harm" to include "danger to oneself or to other persons", and "severely withdrawn, anxious or depressed". I welcome this move. In this context, there is one particular group of children and youth I would like to take about – those with extreme online addiction that has handicapped their ability to cope with life.

On the ground, I have seen a few of these cases who suffered such situations. Recently, I had a distressed parent coming in regarding this person's son who has suffered severe online addiction issues. The Secondary school youth has stopped going to school, has gone beyond parental control and has started exhibiting violent behaviour. The youth's school and parents were not able to persuade this youth to go back to school. Yet because this youth has not committed a crime, has not yet done something that is deemed as traditionally high risk, the mandatory intervention mechanism could not kick in. In this case, for this resident what I did was we brought in a volunteer who was a game developer and we tried to go in and persuade this person that if he likes to game, maybe he can a game developer one day and from then on we try to encourage him to go back to school. We are making some progress but I would like to see whether there is a systematic way where we can deal with this emerging issue.

Therefore, I hope that MSF and the compulsory education unit within MOE can work together to explore whether, in extreme and only extreme circumstances, can we put the children and our youth into mandatory therapy to deal with this online addiction? In all likelihood, the online addiction may be rooted or compounded by other behaviours, emotional or even mental issues. But a mandatory therapy will give us a chance to diagnose the situation and do the necessary course correction. One may argue that this may not constitute as severe self-harm in the traditional sense. But in this day and age, if a child or young person is not able even complete his basic education due to online addiction, in my view, I believe his or her future will be seriously compromised.

In conclusion, based on the feedback that I hear from various VWOs, this Bill is progressive and balanced. I would also like to thank MSF and the officers from the various VWOs for their tireless work to care for our vulnerable children and youth. With that, I support the Bill.

1.18 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I rise in support of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill or the CYPA Bill. This is an important Bill because it sets the framework to better provide for the welfare, care, protection and rehabilitation of children and young persons, or CYPs, at risk in our midst.

I draw my suggestions from my co-labourers and volunteers, and my experience serving the CYPs in my constituency, district and in the special needs sector

I have three areas to the Ministry to consider further strengthening in order to reap better outcomes. First, to strengthen the coordination and integration of care for these children; second, to strengthen the voice of the children and young persons; and third, to strengthen the foster parents scheme.

First, strengthening the coordination and integration of care. Despite the immense many efforts by volunteers and agency staff, I found the outcomes for these children at risk and young persons at risk are often still less than ideal. It is definitely not for lack of heart and hands because I know how much each volunteer and staff care and put in. These partners on the ground have told me the following needs that, if better addressed, would surely improve the life outcomes for the young people they care for.

These needs are: one, the need for a safe environment where children feel secure; where they can learn and even rest without a constant heightened feeling of fear, anxiety and disruption. Such an environment can be found in both mainstream and special schools; but much depends on the kindness of the adults in charge. In the mainstream First Toa Payoh Primary School, there is a programme called Home @ School to provide such a safe environment for after-school. In the special school Pathlight where I volunteer, the OHANA after-school programme offers such a safe setting.

The second need is for the need for a constant and familiar adult supervision which can come in the form of teachers, youth workers, social workers or foster parents. One of the key challenges to track and address, for instance, is the turnover of such adult supervisors in the lives of these children and young persons causing further disruptions in their lives.

The third is the need for The need for better and constant access to needed community and healthcare including mental health care services.

And, fourthly, and and most important of all, the need for an integrated 'turnkey' solution properly coordinated by an appointed lead case manager – a solution integrator of sorts that all relevant parties helping the children and these young persons, the relevant parties, can turn to.

In many instances, the different help agencies and staff hardly have time to meet physically nor update regularly and communicate with each other until something happens in the life of these young persons. Each of them working within their own scope of duty and doing their very best – the youth worker taking care of the youth services for the young; the drug counsellor taking care of a parent; the social service officers delivering financial assistance. Without an appointed solution integrator to deliver more effective case management, I fear that the lives of the children and young persons will experience spiral downwards.

One young boy I know has already turned to smoking and dating at Primary 6 after losing both parents. Another young girl I know whose mother is in remand for drug offences became worse off when there was no effective hand-shake between her counsellors as she transited from Primary to Secondary school. One student with special needs I know very well is facing transition challenges and he is preparing to leave school after special school. As his foster mother ages and is having cancer, there is not enough confidence amongst all the parties working with him that there is a good transition and handshake. Hence, I feel there is a strong need to invest more resources to MSF to strengthen the coordination and integration of care.

The second need is this: to strengthen the voice of the children and young persons. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have mixed feelings as I go through the Bill. On one hand, it is a comprehensive one covering many needed gaps. On the other hand, I cannot help but feel that in our efforts to protect the child, we are seeing things a lot through the lenses of the adult and not enough through the eyes of the children and young persons we are trying to help.

How do we incorporate the voice of these young people whose lives we attempt to shape for the better? In matters that impact them such as the change of school; admission into children’s homes or foster homes; in identifying their adult supervisors, are there measures installed to take into account the feelings and preferences of these young persons? How can the long and onerous process of gathering evidence, determination and implementation of Court orders for children caught in parental disputes, the process be improved so that their feelings are considered? In the new section 68(A), for instance, that authorises the use of "mechanical restraint" such as handcuffs or leg braces on a child or young person, how do we ensure that the least damage is done on them? Are affected children and young persons involved in the numerous decisions made for them incorporated in this Bill?

I therefore seek clarification from the Ministry on how the voice of these young persons can be sought and strengthened in this Bill.

Third, on strengthening the foster parents scheme. I am pleased that foster parents are officially added in this Bill as key partners to support children and young persons in need of protection and rehabilitation. Foster parents, if properly selected and trained, provide a more natural and desirable setting than a group home for these young people. I have studied the Ministry’s Fostering Scheme and found it to be useful and structured. I have a few suggestions for Ministry to consider to strengthen this important scheme.

One, to cast the net wider to attract more suitable and interested foster parent candidates; two, to involve them more in the case management process so as to better integrate the care across schools, foster home and other areas; and three, to put in more resources to train, to skill and support the foster parents so that they can more effectively care for their charges – more so if the children have special needs that require specialised knowledge.

In conclusion, Sir, the CYPA is an important Bill and is overdue. In its implementation, there is a need to especially strengthen the coordination and integration of care to ensure the children and young persons receive the better outcomes they deserve. The mission of ensuring a better life for them, however, cannot be left only to the Government and the social service agencies. Those of us in the rest of society, whether as neighbours or relatives or volunteers, must join in the efforts to support this effort. Sir, I strongly support the Bill.

1.26 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the move to extend the legal protection to our young under the Bill before the House. This is especially with regard to raising the age limit for protection from abuse or neglect from the age of below 16 years to below 18 years. Those who are within this age group can be very impressionistic and be quite easily swayed by adults. Sometimes, they are unable to comprehend the wider implications of their decisions which may result in their underestimating the risks of their actions or behaviours. And, this group of our young can be exploited by criminals and we have also seen how girls and boys alike have fallen victim to sexual predators.

With the extension of the age to below 18 years, could the Minister share with the House how many more welfare officers or probation officers would be required to cope with the rise in the number of cases to handle such cases? What is the current ratio of officers to youth at risk? Is there an ideal ratio from the professional standpoint?

Also, under the Enhanced Care and Protection Order (ECPO), a Court order may authorise a person other than the child's natural parents or guardians to care and make decisions for the child. As the Order will provide the care-givers with powers to make decisions for the child which would otherwise require parental consent, who are the care-givers that the Ministry has on its list, and would this be expanded further? Would the passage of this Bill require a new team to be set up within the Ministry to handle such cases? Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Another point that I wish to raise is whether the Ministry would ensure that the person under the caregiver would not be coerced, for instance, to convert to a particular religion. This is important especially in multi-racial Singapore, because there may be caregivers who are over-enthusiastic in trying to promote their own religion, and perhaps this is done with good intentions, but they should respect the fact that the child should be allowed to make his/her own decision after reaching 18 years of age.

Having spoken to people in the relevant field of work like welfare, I also note that differing values and certain biases are among some factors that could lead to unfair implementation of the ECPO or the possibility that it will not be used.

My other concern is that we could compromise the structure and integrity of families by being over-zealous in interfering with the discipline and care of children.

What does taking an 18-year-old away from his/her parents say about or have a negative impact on their worth as parents?

What does it tell the youth about his relationship with his parents? Can he still respect his parents after that? Are we sowing the seeds of rebellion against his parents in the future?

Or is there something about the parent-child relationship that should be protected regardless how bad the parents are at parenting? At the very least, we should have some mechanism or provision to show that we value the rights of the parents. We do not want to cultivate a parenting culture that is afraid to discipline their children when the need arises. I hope that we can focus more on counselling both children and parents, and that taking away parents’ rights should only be the last resort, or if their actions endanger the child's life or has lasting severe impact on the child. I would believe that in such cases, the parent would be facing criminal charges.

I would like to know how the ECPO would be applied, the grounds for applying ECPO, the reasons the judge will consider in granting ECPO, and most importantly how would the parents challenge such an application in Court? Are they properly represented in Court? Are they aware that their rights as a parent are being taken away in their case? How might they mount a defence against the implied charge that they are incompetent and incapable parents? So, all these things I said are meant to protect parents for certain cases in the future under this Bill.

(In English): Deputy Speaker, in English, please. I would also like to propose that the Probation Service provide a summary of the demographics of anonymised potential over-aged probationers that the ECPO would have applied in the last 12 to 24 months. Areas of interest would include household income, family structure, primary care-giver, ethnicity and so on, so that we have greater insights on possible factors that cause the issues between parent and child, and we can then tackle the issues more appropriately.

Can the Minister share what is in place in the system to ensure that there is no clash of cultural values?

While thus far we are addressing the issue of protection, I hope attention would also be given to counselling these young persons to help them cope emotionally with their circumstances when the Ministry intervenes. Often, the circumstances under which the young are facing, especially in the case of parents who are estranged and divorced, can be a trauma.

Next, I would like to touch on the care-givers for the young, especially when they are under the charge of grandparents who may not only be aged but may not have a good grasp of the English language to be able to give appropriate guidance to those under their charge. So, when it comes to making decisions especially on educational matters, the aged grandparents may not be able to make that value-added decision. Additionally, the grandparents may also not have the financial resources to support the young to pay for the courses that they think best suit the child. How would the Ministry assist such care-givers in the given circumstances, from giving guidance to financial support?

I am pleased to note that childcare leave would now be extended to foster parents, as after all this group of people are playing the similar role as the parents. However, may I ask if the Ministry would consider extending to this group the income tax and other benefits that are currently available to the parents? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

1.33 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, children and young persons (CYPs) are among the most vulnerable in our society. Although 17- or 18-year olds are likely to possess the intellectual capabilities of making informed decisions, this does not mean that they possess the same level of emotional and psychological maturity as an adult to make those decisions. And I am sure that there are many parents of such young people who would agree with me. As such, the question is whether or not 17- and 18-year-olds should be treated as an adult when decisions need to be made regarding their safety and welfare are highly pertinent ones.

Indeed, research has shown that while youths and adults may possess almost the same level of intellectual capabilities, youths are, however, less able than adults to make mature decisions that may have important outcomes in their lives.

In this regard, the amendments to the Act that extend coverage to those under 18 is a positive step and will ensure that a greater number of youth are supported and protected.

One aspect of increasing the age of protection would be the need to extend a duty of care to a greater number of older youths who are sent to Government homes for various reasons. Physically, these older youths may be of the same physical build of adults but they will likely lack the emotional and mental maturity of adults.

I would thus like to ask what are some of the measures that the Government could put in place to ensure that the mental and emotional well-being of these older youths are taken care of?

Also, would Government-run homes have the necessary incident management SOPs to manage older youths, as they would likely require a different set of management procedures when they get into incidents as compared to younger children who might get into similar incidents during their stay at the homes.

Emotional and psychological abuse have long-term impact on individuals and the extent of the harm caused by psychological and emotional trauma is arguably more significant and last longer than physical abuse. One could recover from the pain of physical abuse yet carries the scar of psychological and emotional trauma for their entire lives.

It is heartening to know that the bill now provides more comprehensive coverage to protect victims of emotional and psychological abuse. Changing the term from "injury" to "harm" may seem lexically trivial but it underlies an important shift in how interventions and care could be given.

As compared to an "injury" which requires perhaps professional assessments and objective evidence to substantiate that victims have suffered from hurt or trauma, "harm" seems to suggest a lower establishment threshold before interventions can be implemented.

This begets the question of who will determine whether or not children are at risk of harm and to what extent "harm" must be proven before interventions can be implemented? With the potential expansion in the level of intervention that needs to be implemented, does the Government possess sufficient resources to ensure that all victims of emotional and psychological harm are thus provided with sufficient level of support to avert the long-term impact of such harm?

I would like to touch on resources and staffing now.

With the increased need to provide step-up care to a larger number of children and youths, and the demand for greater resources to support more victims of abuse and harm, it seems likely that the Government will need to increase staff resources to ensure that there are sufficient number of professionals who can provide interventions to children.

I would thus like to urge the Government to concurrently enhance the capabilities of staff who are already working in Government-run homes for children and strengthen the capabilities of those homes to provide holistic care. As such, could the Government consider reviewing the knowledge, skills, abilities and other competencies of professionals who are working with children, enhance the career prospects of the profession and perhaps even reconsider the remuneration and benefits of these professionals to attract a larger number – especially potential mid-career switchers – to enter this field.

Mr Deputy Speaker, working with children and at-risk youth is meaningful and important work because it impacts the next generation of Singaporeans. We need to ensure that we are able to entice and retain and more people with the right passion to enter this field. The Government could also perhaps consider tapping on those looking for re-employment – perhaps full-time parents or even grandparents who are looking to return to the workforce. If these happen to be parents or grandparents of children and youths of a similar age, they could likely have the aptitude and skill-sets to successfully work with these children and at-risk youths.

And finally, the topic of foster parents, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that foster parents provide children and at-risk youths a second lease of life and another shot at life that their biological families and parents may not necessarily be able to provide. I am glad that the Bill now also considers them as "parents" and recognises that they provide an important duty of care to the children they foster by according them childcare leave. This gesture is a significant one, and I am sure that it will be well-received as the childcare leave will accord them with greater flexibility at work for them to provide the necessary care for the children they are fostering.

Emotional bonds between foster parents and the fostered child will inevitably grow over time. I would imagine that it would be emotionally painful for a set of foster parents to be separated from their foster child once the child reaches a certain age or when the foster child leaves their foster parents to go back to his or her biological homes. I would thus like to know if there is the option for foster parents to adopt their fostered child, provided both parties are open to the arrangement? And are such arrangements typically common? Also, would the biological parents' consent be needed, even if they have shown themselves to be unfit parents through their actions and behaviour which sometimes have been deemed as criminal?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude my speech with quotes from John Baptist de la Salle, who is often acknowledged as the patron saint of teachers. In writing to his fellow Brothers and Educators, de la Salle said: "To deal with young people very harshly is to forego all hope of bringing about any good" and, "have much care and affection for the young people entrusted to you."

I believe that it is imperative that we should always display this deep affective care in dealing with our children and young persons, especially those who are at risk. And we should be helping them not only deal with whatever immediate dangers and challenges they are facing in their lives, but also with the ultimate aim of helping them in the wider context of being able to reintegrate into society. I thus end my speech in firm support of this Bill.

1.40 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, all Singaporean sons and daughters should have equal opportunities to succeed, regardless of their origins and birth. It should be an inalienable right of every Singaporean baby. Yet for some children, they are not exactly equals because of family circumstances. For example, children under the care of foster parents or unwed mothers.

Singapore needs to keep reviewing its policies to support people and families in different circumstances. Over the years, we have made headway in supporting them. Now, all mothers are given the 16-week maternity leave, as well as a Child Development Account. These enhancements show that the government is prepared to make changes to support our young families, regardless of the constitution of their families.

The move to support foster parents is another positive evolution. Foster parents are important in the network of support for vulnerable children. They are no different from the children's natural parents in having to balance their careers and families. The extension of childcare leave benefits to foster parents to help them care for their foster children who may have been abused, neglected or abandoned recognizes the contribution of foster parents and allows for time and flexibility to care for foster children.

I will like to seek clarification on another group of care-givers involved in child-caring, which are the kin-carers. It is not uncommon for the next of kin to take care of children neglected or abandoned by parents, or if there is a sudden bereavement. Will these kin-carers also be covered in the Bill?

The Labour Movement has been a strong advocate to improve support given to families. We are happy that the Government has responded to the call over the years and have now progressed to the foster parents.

As we note this important progression in this Bill, let us also not forget to continue to work towards helping our unwed mothers. In 2013, the Labour Movement advocated for the Government to accord the same level of benefits that married mothers get to unwed mothers. In 2017, the Government announced that unwed mothers would be entitled to the same maternity leave, childcare and infant leave as married parents, and enjoy CDCA benefits. Yet, more can be done for them.

First, we should revisit allowing unwed mothers to purchase HDB flats before 35 years old. Housing is a practical issue that families must deal with. Currently, unwed mothers can only buy their own HDB flats if they are 35 years old and above, under the Singles Scheme. This means that unwed mothers will have to rent a place if they are not living with their family or relatives, increasing the cost burden on such families on top of the cost of raising children. Can we re-consider this fundamental need for lodging as they are often younger, and allow concession in consideration of their plight and circumstances, to purchase a flat even before the mother turns 35?

Second, there should be tax relief for unwed mothers and foster parents – such as Working Mother's Child Relief and Grandparent Caregiver Relief. Today, unwed mothers are not eligible for such relief. Since they also work productively, providing to society, there seem to be reasons for them to be included for such reliefs as well.

We must protect our children – they need to be given opportunities to learn to express themselves, to make responsible decisions, and to participate in processes that affect their well-being and their future, according to their age and maturity. The extension of the protection from 16 to 18 years old and greater support to care-givers are positive steps to creating a kinder and more supportive environment. Notwithstanding the clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Desmond Lee.

1.45 pm

The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for acknowledging difficult but meaningful work of MSF's Child Protective Services and our social service agencies partners. Let me now respond to the Members' questions and suggestions, and please forgive me if I cannot respond to every single one of them.

First, I note that several Members of Parliament were concerned that the power to protect abused or neglected children could overly interfere with how parents legitimately discipline and raise their children. Mr Christopher de Souza touched on the definition of "emotional harm". While the concepts of emotional harm, emotional abuse or psychological abuse may seem broad or subjective, what we have sought to do in the Bill is to give as much clarity as we can on what constitutes such harm or abuse, by providing some specific circumstances and then, examples.

For example, Mr de Souza asked what infantilisation is, in one of the examples. This occurs when a parent or guardian deliberately treats a child as being much younger than a child's actual age and in a way that is not developmentally appropriate for the child. For example, say, a child in upper Primary school being made to wear diapers every day.

He also asked about the example of being confined in a small space. By that, we refer to a space that is not conducive for the child's development and is beyond socially-accepted boundaries for punishment. For example, locking a child in a cage, the toilet, the store room as a form of punishment.

I wish to assure Members that we do not intend to diminish parental authority. We do not intend to unduly intervene with parents' rights to discipline their children. And we do not intend to overly intrude into the private lives of families. The vast majority of parents are responsible and do their best to care for and raise their children. Within the private lives of families, within the bounds of parental authority, there is a wide berth or space for parents to nurture, raise and discipline their children. The common adage goes: "Spare the rod, spoil the child."

But unfortunately, a small number struggle to parent responsibly, for whatever reason. And when parenting or so called discipline crosses the line and becomes excessively harsh or abusive, whether physically or emotionally, we may have to intervene to protect the children. I gave a couple of examples yesterday.

Mr Louis Ng, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Anthea Ong and Mr Christopher de Souza spoke about the impact of removing children from families, and asked whether MSF could provide a sense of continuity and familiarity to children who have been placed in out-of-home care.

Let me explain to Members how MSF handles reports of child abuse or neglect. When we receive reports that raise concerns about the safety of children, we first undertake a comprehensive social investigation. Often, our social services move in, rather immediately, the Child Protective Service. We look at factors such as the context, the intentions, the severity, the persistence of the abuse or neglect, the likelihood of future harm to the child and the strengths and as well as the needs of the families. In doing so, we are aided by evidence-based assessment tools.

Our Child Protection Officers are sensitive to the emotions that may overwhelm the child and are trained to apply trauma-informed practices when interviewing children. We also consult professionals such as psychologists and psychiatrists when needed. The Police may concurrently investigate if a criminal offence is reported or suspected to have taken place.

Our efforts focus on keeping the family intact with safety plans in place. But when the home environment is unsafe for the child, MSF may have to remove the child from his parents as a last resort. We then work quickly to ensure that the child can be placed in a safe place, whether under the care of his grandparents or other relatives such as aunts and uncles, foster parents or a children's home. When the child is in out-of-home care, these care-givers who may be extended family members will be able to make decisions for the child in a timely manner.

MSF will also work closely with professionals in the child's network of support, such as school counsellors and teachers, to review the child's progress from time to time. When needed, we may consult independent panels such as the Committee on Fostering which comprises a range of professionals from the relevant fields such as education, child psychology and psychiatry. We will facilitate constant contact between the child and family members where possible to maintain that important relationship.

Family reunification, after all, remains the long-term goal for many children in state care.

The Court may also order the parents to attend counselling or other programmes to ensure the well-being and safety of the child and also make orders to assist the child in recovery.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked if there is financial support for parents to comply with the orders made by the Courts. We will ensure that no family will be denied services because they are unable to afford them. For example, MSF does not charge for the services we provide to the families. Our appointed social service agencies also have arrangements to keep their services well accessible to families, regardless of their socio-economic status.

Now, I will share the policy considerations behind how we place children in out-of-home care. Mr Henry Kwek and Ms Denise Phua, for example, spoke about fostering. Family-based care is preferred as a supportive family environment will help children who have been abused or neglected. However, 47% of children in out-of-home care are looked after by foster families today. Our goal is to try to place two-thirds of such children in family-based care. So, we are at 47%. Still some way to go.

The reality is that we do not have enough foster parents for every child in need of protection. As a foster parent, you have to open not only your hearts, but also open your homes. And the care is 24/7. This challenge is especially so for older children. There are also children with more complex needs whose interests are better served in a residential care setting.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Anthea Ong spoke about sibling groups in out-of-home care – sometimes, a pair; sometimes, many more. MSF strives to place siblings together as far as possible. Doing so preserves their relationships and allows them to support each other through difficult times.

And yet, sometimes, we have to split them up. We have to consider the circumstances of each case, manage within the realities of our out-of-home care landscape. The age, gender as well as the care and intervention needs of each child, availability of foster families especially those who can care for more than one foster child and the resident profiles in children's homes, are taken into account when deciding a child's placement. Even though siblings may not stay together in some instances, MSF and our partners will facilitate contact between the siblings as well as with their natural parents.

Mr Louis Ng also spoke about school arrangements. MSF is guided by what is in the child's best interest. Where the expected duration of the out-of-home care placement is short or the child will soon be taking a national exam, or the current school provides good support for his needs, we prefer to let the child continue in his current school. If a change of school is in the interest of the child, MSF will work with the schools, the foster families or children's homes to help with the transitions.

In the case of Allie referred to in Mr Louis Ng's speech, the change of school was done for her benefit. The distance between the home and the original school meant very long and tiring daily commutes for her, and that showed when she returned to the home. My colleagues have recently checked on Allie and I am told that she is progressing well in her placement, despite initial adjustment difficulties. And I think we understand that she was caught between a rock and a hard place. Her family situation was none the better and that is why she had to be removed in the very first place. I thank Mr Ng for his concern. We will monitor the girl's situation and work towards reunifying her with her family.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to questions relating to the Enhanced Care and Protection Order (ECPO). Mr Saktiandi Supaat was concerned that it may undermine the rights of parents – quite similar to the first set of questions that I addressed.

When a child has been placed in out-of-home care, we seek to return the child back to his family as soon as possible. Caveat: if it is safe to do so. Hence, before applying for an ECPO, MSF and our community partners would already have sought to reunify the family. This includes providing counselling and psychotherapy, identifying responsible adults in the family to anchor possible safety plans and preparing the relevant touch-points in the community such as schools and pre-schools to play a part in those plans.

In making an ECPO, the Court must be satisfied that the child has stayed in out-of-home care for at least 12 months in the case of a child who is below three, or at least 24 months for a child aged three and above; the parents are not fit to provide care for the child; and it is not appropriate to return the child to the care and custody of any of his parents. And I gave some examples yesterday.

Let me explain to Mr Sakianti Suppat that the ECPO does not allow MSF nor the care-givers to make decisions relating to religion on behalf of the child. Our practice is to try to place children with foster families of the same race and religion as far as possible, or if that is not possible due to fostering constraints, we will consult and seek parental consent. Our children’s homes operate on a secular basis, while providing for the religious needs of the child, including other requirements such as dietary needs.

Mr Darryl David and Mr Henry Kwek asked about fostering and adoption. While this Bill in itself does not touch on adoption, foster parents may apply to adopt the children under the Adoption of Children Act. Adoption of a fostered child may be considered if it is in the welfare of the child. This is if the natural parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child, or will significantly compromise the safety and well-being of the child. This is a high threshold. We will take your feedback on facilitating the adoption of children in state care into consideration when we review our laws and processes on that Act.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Anthea Ong asked whether income tax benefits can be given to foster families. Foster parents face care-giving challenges, similar to natural parents. The childcare benefits that we are proposing to extend, if this Parliament endorses it, will give them more time to spend with their foster children. Financially, foster parents receive fostering allowances to defray expenses for the children. The quantum is higher if the children have special needs. They also get childcare and medical subsidies to assist them.

Ms Anthea Ong and Mr Desmond Choo also spoke about supporting other care-givers in caring for abused or neglected children. For some children whose parents are unable to provide a safe living environment, MSF may appoint relatives to provide care, similar to how natural parents care for the child. And the amended legislation will, similarly, extend childcare leave to such appointed care-givers to support them in their care-giving roles.

Some Members spoke about amendments relating to the rehabilitation of youth offenders. Let me outline our approach to youth justice and rehabilitation to set the context for the amendments that I had described yesterday afternoon.

Youth justice in Singapore is premised on gradated intervention. Our approach is to try to divert youth offenders, including those between the ages of 16 and 18 years, away from the Court wherever possible. Youth offenders who are not diverted are assessed whether they are suitable for probation. Probation focuses on community-based rehabilitation and the Court may order accompanying conditions depending on the needs of the youths. This means that youths who are required to reside in places of detention and juvenile rehabilitation centres (JRCs) generally have higher risk behaviours, more complex needs or a weak family environment that does not support rehabilitation. And that tends to manifest in their behaviour and in their interactions with other people.

Earlier, I had explained that we need to strike a good balance between helping youth offenders rehabilitate and reintegrate into society on the one hand, and ensuring the safety of residents and staff in places of detention and juvenile rehabilitation centres, and of the public in general.

So, this brings me to my next point, on how we seek to achieve such a balance.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the treatment of youth suspects and youth offenders, by law enforcement officers, MSF and the Courts. Ms Lim correctly pointed out that there are existing laws and protocols that law enforcement officers must adhere to when handling youth suspects, such as not detaining arrested persons for more than 48 hours. Our amendment to section 30 of the Act inserts this deadline explicitly into the CYPA itself, in line with section 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) so that there is no ambiguity in how law enforcement officers handle arrested youth suspects.

The law enforcement officers, such as the Police, are trained to handle youth suspects. Where feasible, the Police try to expedite the investigation of cases involving youth suspects. Police protocols also involve the activation of Appropriate Adults to support the emotional needs of young suspects and to ensure close coordination between law enforcement and other agencies, such as schools and MSF, for appropriate follow-up.

The Appropriate Adults and the Police are trained to look out for signs of distress by youths during the interview and can assess if the youth is in a suitable condition or state to be interviewed or not. The Police officer can also decide to discontinue the interview and reschedule the interview when the young suspect is in a more stable emotional state. After investigations, a decision on whether to release and divert the youth, or proceed with a charge, is made.

We also recognise that some youths, especially older youths, may commit serious offences and can be repeat offenders. This is where the Public Prosecutor as well as the Youth Court have the discretion to charge the offender in either the Youth Court or a Court of appropriate jurisdiction, such as the State Courts. Ms Lim asked yesterday whether it is a case of discretion or whether it is mandatory when a youth offender has committed or is suspected of having committed serious offences in the Schedule or is a repeat offender, whether or not there is a discretion, the answer is yes.

In terms of protecting the identity of young offenders, the State Courts continue to be able to issue gag orders to ensure the identity of the youth is not revealed by the media.

The Youth Court, in making any order, must consider the needs of each youth and their risks of re-offending in future. The Youth Court typically calls for a pre-sentencing report to determine if the youth is suitable for probation or otherwise and weighs several factors, such as whether the youth has prior offences, the youth's behaviour in school, his relationship with peers, family circumstances, the availability and strength of familial and community support, are also important. Where there is adequate supervision, appropriate discipline and consistent parenting are also considered. After taking into consideration the risks and the needs of the youth, the Court can order a youth offender to undergo rehabilitation under a probation order or in a Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre.

In considering whether a youth requires reformative training, the Court would call for a suitability report to determine whether the youth's physical and mental condition is suitable for a Reformative Training Centre (RTC). The Youth Court would also consider whether the youth has demonstrated aggressive or violent behaviour, such as when the youth was remanded at the MSF Youth Homes. The youth may be assessed to have such a high risk of aggressive behaviour that it may not be safe for the youth to be detained in the JRC, especially if it may affect the safety or disrupt the rehabilitation of other youths in the JRC.

The assessment of individual risk levels and the needs of the youth determines the regime and environment that best support his rehabilitation. Hence, in incidents involving more than one youth, it may be possible that the Youth Court may grant different orders as is needed for their rehabilitation. At the same time, parity in sentencing is vital to preserve and protect public confidence in the way justice is administered.

Sir, I cited yesterday the case of a 15-year-old resident with unruly and aggressive behaviour. While he was at the Singapore Boys’ Home, he repeatedly threatened youth guidance officers and intimidated other residents. He is burly, well-built at about 1.83 m tall – a head taller than I am – and, in one instance, he held his dormitory mate by the neck and lifted him off the ground, choking him. Fortunately, staff witnessed it and intervened immediately. And this is one out of many scenarios where our officers find it essential to be able to deploy the use of restraints and other measures quickly to safeguard other residents.

Let me share another example. Members may be aware that a serious incident took place at the Singapore Boys' Home last year. Seven residents physically assaulted an Auxiliary Police Officer and two MSF officers, inflicting serious injuries. The Auxiliary Police Officer suffered serious eye injury, while the two MSF officers suffered head injuries. Though all three officers are back at their workplace, we must reduce the risks of such incidents repeating. The Homes are places of rehabilitation, yes. I have described the complexity and the behaviours of the youths who are residing in the JRC. Because it is a rehabilitative environment, we have many youth guidance officers, psychologists, counsellors and therapists who need a safe environment to provide that rehabilitative support. Other youths there also need to be assured of their safety.

Mr Darryl David asked, therefore, whether we have the capability to handle older and bigger-built youths and much taller youths in MSF's Youth Homes. Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Ms Anthea Ong asked about the necessity of mechanical restraints. I think almost all Members raised this issue and I can understand your concern. Like I mentioned yesterday, they will not be used as a punitive measure. But Members will appreciate that there are, indeed, real-life situations where the use of such restraints is necessary to prevent escalation, escape or harm.

Let me assure Members that the MSF Youth Homes adopt a range of approaches to de-escalate and manage the youths of aggressive or violent behaviour when encountered. Youth home staff will attempt to verbally de-escalate tensions, calm down any aggressive residents and persuade them to cease aggresive behaviours. When suitable, the Youth Homes also use therapy or padded rooms to help calm agitated residents down. If a youth remains aggressive or the situation escalates despite our efforts to calm him down, MSF Youth Home staff will first verbally issue a warning. And if the youth persists, MSF staff will apply de-escalation techniques based on their training on management of actual or potential aggression, or MAPA, as mentioned by Ms Anthea Ong yesterday.

Only when absolutely necessary will our officers use restraints to manage the resident so as to minimise risks of injury to other residents or staff. As far as possible, it would be the Auxiliary Police Officers who will do so. But Mr Louis Ng will understand that, in some instances, given the situation, our officers may also have to respond to take appropriate action for the safety of residents and staff. MSF will put in place stringent procedures and processes in the use of restraints. This includes recording each use of the restraint and removing the restraint once the need has passed.

Rehabilitation of the youth is important. So, after the restraints are removed, an MSF officer will help the resident to process his feelings and, where necessary, a multi-disciplinary team comprising the case worker, psychologist and psychiatrist will also support the youth through this process.

Our aim is to provide a safe and secure environment for all residents and staff in MSF Youth Homes, to facilitate rehabilitation.

Some Members asked about the management of youths of different ages. When we raised the age limit to below 18 at point of admission, some youths may remain in our care or custody till they are about 21 years old. There are various considerations in how we group the residents in the MSF Youth Homes. Their risks and needs are considered. Given the differing levels of maturity, the young ones are generally housed separately from the older youths at the MSF Youth Homes.

As the older youths are at a different stage of development from the existing younger youths, our officers need to have adequate training and experience to address the different risks and needs of older youths. This includes being able to supervise and guide the youths in day-to-day activities, such as attending educational classes or playing sports in a group setting. This helps the youths to gain soft skills, which are important in interacting with youths of different ages. Ultimately, our intent is to facilitate their rehabilitation and reintegration with family and society at large.

Many Members like Mr Desmond Choo spoke about providing support for families. In particular, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Anthea Ong and Ms Denise Phua spoke about providing early support for at-risk families, before their situations worsen. And I fully agree. Vulnerable individuals and families sometimes face complex challenges and require the support of multiple agencies and community organisations to help them regain stability. MSF has been working with our partners to transform our social services, integrate service delivery and strengthen last-mile support. The objective is to provide more comprehensive, convenient and coordinated support for these families.

We have also made significant investment in the early childhood sector to give every child a good start in life and to support families with young children. The KidSTART programme provides support for child development, coordinates and strengthens services for families where needed and monitors the developmental progress of children from birth. Since KidSTART was piloted in July 2016, 1,000 children from low-income families have benefited. We will be expanding KidSTART further – as the Prime Minister had announced at the National Day Rally – to reach another 5,000 children from low-income households over the next three years.

MSF has also worked with schools to conduct parenting programmes. We have reached out to 292 schools to make internationally-recognised evidence-based parenting programmes available. These will support parents to become more confident in their parenting, reduce parental stress and better manage negative behaviour in their children.

Mr Henry Kwek and Prof Lim Sun Sun spoke about digital wellness and online addiction. There are programmes in the community for families facing such challenges, such as the National Addictions Management Service (NAMS) which provides treatment for persons with gaming or Internet addictions. Community agencies, such as Fei Yue Community Service and TOUCH Community Services, conduct programmes to support children, including teaching them coping strategies to manage their gaming activity.

Statutory intervention and legal enforcement should not be the only or "go-to" approach. As far as possible, our families should be supported by the community. Where a parent ultimately decides to apply to the Youth Court for a Family Guidance Order (FGO), the Court can mandate that the child and/or the parents can undergo counselling or any other programme or treatment to protect his well-being.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether families and children have the right to be heard before the Youth Court. She also wanted to know what options are available for children and families who are unable to engage lawyers. I would like to first emphasise our starting point that legal recourse ought to be a last resort. This is why we have programmes that divert youth offenders away from the Court system and why we are requiring families to attend the mandatory family programme before applying for a Family Guidance Order. But for cases that are before the Court, it is important to keep the law accessible and easy to understand. There are provisions in the Act and in the Bill to ensure that child's or his parents' voices are heard during proceedings.

Section 42 of the CYPA also provides that where a child is brought before the Youth Court, it is the Court’s duty to explain the substance of the offence to the child in language suitable for his age and understanding. Moreover, for child protection cases, MSF case workers are guided by the best interests of the child. Similarly, for FGO cases, a counsellor will work with the family through their difficulties. These professionals help to safeguard the interests of the child and the family.

Exceptionally, if the presence of lawyers is necessary, there are avenues of assistance available for those who are not able to afford lawyers. They may seek assistance from the Law Society's Pro Bono Services or legal clinics run by various community, religious and social service agencies. Criminal legal aid is also available through the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) for children and young persons who are accused of a crime or an offence.

The Community Justice Centre (CJC) also assists litigants in person. For example, CJC runs a scheme when an assigned Court Friend provides practical and emotional support and the Court Friend may provide information on Court procedures and explain the Judge's instructions to the child or parent.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, community partners will play a bigger role in caring for our children under our regime. We consulted many stakeholders, including our social service agencies, members of the Youth Advisory Group and so on. They have told us that they need to build capacity and capabilities to manage both a higher number of children, as well as older youths with differing needs and risks.

MSF will ensure that all our community partners and agencies are given sufficient time to work through their plans and processes, so that we are collectively ready to implement these changes.

Members such as Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Darryl David also spoke about our ability to manage the larger number of children who will be covered under the Act. I assure Members that we have been planning and working on building capacity and capability to enable us to be ready to implement these changes. The preparations are on-going, but will take time and additional resources. Our community partners have emphasised the need to prepare and to be ready.

This is why we are staggering the implementation of the Bill.

We intend to bring into force the amendments to expand care and protection for children first, next year. While we seek to amend the CYPA at this Sitting to raise the age limit of older youths to be tried by the Youth Court, time will be needed to bring these specific amendments into force as various things need to be put into place first. I have explained that it takes time to strengthen the safety and security within MSF's Youth Homes. We need to make changes to infrastructure to enable age-appropriate rehabilitation and expand the existing academic and vocational curriculum that is provided. We also need to strike the right balance, to provide an environment that is safe for residents and staff and conducive for rehabilitation in the Youth Homes.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Mr Louis Ng spoke about the data and research that informs us about our programmes and our policies. In the past five years, we have seen more child abuse and neglect cases being reported and investigated. This is in part because of our efforts to increase greater awareness, such as the Break the Silence campaign, and people have been able to identify cases more easily, to speak out against violence; and better detection of child abuse cases using screening tools and processes. For example, we developed the Child Abuse Reporting Guide (CARG) that is used by our partners such as childcare centres, schools and medical professionals, to guide them on what to look out for, in detecting child abuse.

The overall recidivism rates of our youth offenders have remained stable. We have a number of published research papers, covering topics such as family profiles of maltreated children and the predictors of re-entry into the child protection system in Singapore; impact of childhood maltreatment on recidivism in youth offenders; family characteristics linked to youth offenders in Singapore; evaluation of programmes such as Functional Family Therapy for youth probationers and Violence Prevention Programme for youth offenders. These are publicly available.

The findings inform the work that we do, for example through the National Committee on Prevention, Rehabilitation and Recidivism (NCPR), that I co-chair with Minister Josephine Teo from MHA. We will continue to track data and outcomes in relation to abuse, neglect and offending.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me round up by outlining what this Bill means for our children, families and stakeholders.

First, for abused or neglected children, the Bill safeguards their interests by expanding the coverage of the Act to older children. It also enhances our intervention in emotional or psychological abuse cases and provides stable out-of-home care arrangements.

Second, for youths who have committed offences, the Bill would help them ease back into their families and society, and better support them to avoid further offending.

Third, for families that require guidance in parenting, the Bill would help strengthen family relationships and better guide parenting of children.

Finally, for stakeholders in community, the Bill also strengthens how we partner them to work with vulnerable children.

Sir, the Bill seeks to provide better outcomes for children and break the cycle of abuse, neglect and offending. At the same time, our work with vulnerable children cannot be accomplished by legislation alone. Only when we work collectively as a community can we help our vulnerable children overcome their difficult circumstances to have the best shot in life.

I would like to thank Members for their strong support for this Bill and I would also like to take this opportunity to put on record our thanks and appreciation to our Child Protection Officers, our youth guidance officers, our Home staff and Auxiliary Police Officers, our probation officers, our therapists, psychologists, counsellors, social workers and healthcare workers, our child protection specialist centres, family violence specialist centres, divorce support specialist agencies, family service centres, social work professionals, our youth work integrated service providers, our foster families, our Board of Visitors, our advisors of the Youth Court, our youth advisory groups, our community partners and our volunteers – for the hard work and dedication behind the scenes, often under tremendous pressure, to protect our children, our future and to guide vulnerable families.

I also appreciate the policy officers and the legal officers for working hard on this Bill. This Bill, if Parliament supports, is a result of their hard work and their recommendations borne out of many years of experience. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [Applause]

2.20 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. One clarification for Minister. I wonder if he could comment on whether the Ministry observes that cases where the authorities have had to intervene with alternative care arrangements, is this a phenomenon that is predominantly found in those with lower income? And related to that, is there any indication that it is actually a resource issue that has led to these problems, and in that sense, support of the family may have to be on a wider basis and perhaps even earlier before these problems arise?

Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for her concern. There are a whole range of issues that may result in MSF and our social service agencies having to intervene to ensure the safety of our children. These cases cut across the whole spectrum of society regardless of socio-economic status. This includes well-to-do families who may have issues that prevent them from ensuring the safety of their children – these could include mental health issues, these could include spousal conflict, these could include neglect or lack of parenting focus or skills. So, a whole range of issues.

As far as they involve families from lower income backgrounds that may need a lot more assistance, we have programmes and schemes to make sure that we pull together the social service agencies, the departments and the community to better support them. The ultimate aim, regardless of the socio-economic status of the family concerned, is to ensure that the children are safe and that they can be ultimately reunified with their families.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Could I just check with Minister, what is the current staff-to-children ratio is at our children's home? And whether we know what an optimum level is? And if we have a target that we are trying to reach right now?

Secondly, the Minister did say that there is some public data, but I just wanted to confirm that we have data on how many children enter our children's home and then we follow them along the journey and how many actually end up in the boys' home and how many further along the line end up being incarcerated. Not from boys' home where there is a criminal element but from the children's home where sometimes again like Alice's case, where she had to be removed from her family for very good reasons and enter the children's home. How many of those children end up in our boys' home and then end up further along the line incarcerated?

Lastly, I just want to confirm that we are increasing funding support for the VWOs who run our "place of safety".

Mr Desmond Lee: In terms of the staff ratio, I do not have the figure. If the Member files a Parliamentary Question, I will see whether the data is available – MSF partners our social service agencies who step forward to run these homes. As the Member would be aware, our focus is less on institutional care, with a greater focus on family-based care, which is foster care.

Nevertheless, there still is a need for institutional care in the form of voluntarily children's homes. And as I said, it is a partnership between MSF as well as the social service agencies. That said, MSF provides funding and support to the staff of the social service agencies that run these homes. We continue to work with them on what is the optimal arrangements to ensure that the needs of every child there is adequately provided for.

In terms of data, we do know the number of children that are in the various homes, because this is the out-of-home care landscape. In some of these homes, youth offenders may also be required to reside. As for their trajectory and recidivism, we do also look at these figures, but whether we have all the data that the Member asked for, this is something that I need to look at.

As for continued support, I think the Member can be assured that we will continue to support our children's homes, to ensure that they provide the best possible support for these children.

Ms Anthea Ong: Can I just check with the Minister: he mentioned earlier that the older children and the younger children are actually separated, from the point of safety. Just wondering also, do we separate children that are in the homes because they have been abused and neglected from the children who are in the homes because of offending behaviours? Or are they actually right now mixed in the homes together?

Mr Desmond Lee: The Member is right, that as far as possible, we try to separate children based on age, so the younger children are in certain blocks and the older children in other blocks. As for whether there is segregation of children who are there for care and protection or there because of youth offending, that line is not drawn hard and fast, because, often, the underlying challenges that result in them having to reside in these homes are similar. The therapy, support and rehabilitation may be customisable for each child, but overall their services and programmes are run for all the youths in the home. There are also needs to ensure optimisation of resources, so that the children get the support that they need.

Ms Anthea Ong: So, the concern is whether we are actually monitoring the situation. I understand that it is not hard and fast in terms of the segregation between the children who are there for care and protection and for offending behaviours. Are we looking to make sure that there is no adverse effects especially of children with offending behaviours, on children who need care and protection.

Mr Desmond Lee: I think the Member alludes to what you call "contamination", especially in adult prisons' situation. Criminology documents that very well. Certainly, in the context of the MSF's Youth Homes, our aim is to provide the rehabilitative environment. Certainly, young people or youth offenders who have committed offences may have a different risk profile. Ultimately, the youth guidance officers take a very clear and careful interest in the progress of all the children who have to be in these homes and ensure that negative influences are curtailed as far as possible.

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 Desmond Lee].

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