Lessons Learnt and New Processes following Review into Megan Khung Case

3 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the review of the February 2020 fatal child abuse case had established if the child had verbally disclosed or attempted to communicate the abuse during her interactions with relevant agencies; and (b) what specific lessons were learned regarding training of social workers and preschool educators to detect and respond effectively to verbal or non-verbal cues from young children.

4 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development given the review panel’s findings of the February 2020 fatal child abuse case, whether the Ministry considers the proposed measures sufficient or will stronger reforms such as independent oversight, real-time case-tracking, and statutory reporting duties be implemented to close systemic gaps especially in cases of suspected child abuse and domestic violence.

5 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the threshold that the Child Protective Service (CPS) use to remove a child from the family; and (b) how does the framework deal with pushback and questions on why CPS is seen to intervene too early.

6 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what will be the Government’s response to the recommendations by the review panel looking into the February 2020 fatal child abuse case.

7 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the Ministry's threshold for determining that a child should be removed from their family; and (b) how does the Ministry balance the need for better protection of children with potential pushback from parents who may question the Ministry's intervention as being too easily triggered.

8 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider introducing a mandatory child safety reporting framework to impose a legal duty on designated relevant persons who become aware of a child at risk to report such cases to the authorities.

9 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development following the review panel’s recommendations on strengthening Singapore’s child protection ecosystem (a) how will the Ministry and partner agencies update Parliament and the public once these recommendations are implemented; and (b) what metrics will be used to assess whether such measures have led to sustained improvements and proven effective over time.

10 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for each year over the past 10 years, how many calls regarding vulnerable child have the Child Protective Service receive; and (b) whether the Ministry would embark on a systematic review of these calls to ensure that they were recorded and logged as required.

11 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development regarding the February 2020 fatal child abuse case (a) whether the Ministry can share details of the emotional support being provided to the Child Protective Service officer presently under disciplinary inquiry for lapses in the case; and (b) whether the Ministry is also providing support to other individuals involved in the case to cope with the emotional burden of the case.

12 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider publishing clearer guidelines or case examples on when involuntary child removal from parental care is warranted; and (b) whether a training and post-referral support framework is in place to support persons who make such referrals to the Ministry, even when no abuse is found.

13 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether protective or anonymised reporting mechanisms will be introduced to allow for reporting of suspected child abuse concerns safely; and (b) how the Ministry will monitor and mitigate unintended effects of increased reporting such as heavier workloads.

14 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) why the Ministry did not convene a review panel on the February 2020 fatal child abuse case in the intervening years before its statement on 8 April 2025 despite early indications that Child Protective Service was consulted; and (b) whether the Ministry will convene a review panel and publish its findings for any death in the child protection ecosystem in future.

15 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry will introduce mandatory internal audits to flag unlogged or unreturned child protection hotline calls in real time; and (b) how often such data gaps have been detected in the past five years.

16 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in respect of the report on the February 2020 fatal child abuse case (a) when was the deceased child’s father first informed of her situation; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider requiring the parents of an affected child to be informed by relevant agencies and involve both parents in any safety plan regardless of their marital status.

17 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider establishing a central coordinating office similar to the Municipal Services Office to serve as an overall coordinating agency for child abuse cases which involve multiple Government agencies; and (b) if not, what are the reasons against it.

18 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how the Ministry intends to enforce the Child Protection Ecosystem Review Panel's recommendation that child protection case management agencies should manage all child abuse cases and be adequately resourced to do their jobs effectively; (b) what will constitute adequate resourcing; and (c) how the Ministry will track systemic improvements such as through reduced caseloads per worker and faster inter-agency response times.

19 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of the recent review of the child protection ecosystem, whether the Ministry will outline a plan for implementing a centralised, risk flagging digital system for at-risk children to provide authorised professional with a holistic view of a child's situation and ensuring that no crucial detail is missed between agencies.

20 Ms Cassandra Lee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the February 2020 fatal child abuse case, whether the Ministry will develop and facilitate community programmes for neighbours, volunteers, and grandparents to encourage community-based vigilance in recognising early signs of distress in families.

21 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what criteria guide the Ministry officers in determining when a child should be removed from family care due to suspected abuse; and (b) whether the Ministry will review these criteria, risk matrix, and workflows to ensure timely intervention.

22 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what steps will the Ministry take to improve the child abuse reporting process in light of the recommendations by the Review Panel to strengthen the child protection ecosystem; and (b) whether such improvements will include safeguards to prevent psychological harm to families wrongly suspected of abuse.

23 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the current criteria for removing a child into protective care or placing them under mandatory supervision; (b) whether the threshold for intervention will be reviewed in light of the February 2020 fatal child incident; and (c) how does the Ministry balance the need for earlier intervention with potential parental pushback.

24 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Social and Family Development given the Review Panel's findings and recommendations of the February 2020 fatal child abuse incident, whether the Ministry plans to strengthen and align inter-agency coordination, communication and risk assessment criteria between the agencies in the child protection ecosystem, such as Child Protection Services (CPS), SPF, Social Services Agencies and Schools in their management of child abuse reports and cases.

25 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what safeguards are in place to ensure that reported lost and missing child cases are prioritised until physical verification of the child's safety; and (b) how will coordination with relevant social agencies and interested parties be improved to ensure that such cases are actively investigated.

The Minister for Education (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering in my capacity as Minister-in-charge of Social Services Integration. May I have your permission to answer Question Nos 3 to 25 in today's Order Paper together?

Mr Speaker: Yes, you may.

Mr Desmond Lee: Sir, my reply will also cover related questions filed by Members for subsequent Sittings. Members who had filed those questions may wish to withdraw their questions after this session. Thereafter, Minister of State for Home Affairs Goh Pei Ming will, with your permission, Sir, address Questions Nos 26 and 27 in today's Order Paper.

Mr Speaker: Alright. So, for all Members who have filed questions, we will take supplementary questions after Minister of State Goh Pei Ming has addressed Question Nos 26 and 27.

Mr Desmond Lee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, this House would be familiar with the tragic case of Megan Khung. She died in February 2020, after months of abuse by her mother and her mother’s boyfriend. All the agencies concerned – the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) Child Protective Service, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), the Singapore Police Force (SPF), Beyond Social Services and HEART@Fei Yue Child Protection Specialist Centre – accept the Panel’s findings in full.

There were opportunities to pick up on the abuse, which might have prevented Megan’s death. Our responses clearly fell short.

As Minister Masagos and I had said on 23 October, MSF is the lead for the national child protection ecosystem. On behalf of all the agencies and organisations concerned, we are deeply sorry for the outcome and for the lapses at the Child Protective Service and SPF, as well as the missed opportunities at ECDA. We should have done much better.

Mr Speaker, our social workers confront the pain of child abuse cases every day. Their emotional burden of separating parents and children, and managing cases resulting in tragic outcomes is a heavy one, which they have chosen to bear. To our social workers, thank you for your commitment to protecting vulnerable children. Let us carry this burden together, as a sector and as a society.

Before I answer Members’ questions, I would like to set out how the child protection system works, and I might add, it is quite similar for vulnerable adults as well.

For child protection, it rests on the foundational principle that parents are primarily responsible for their children. And in most families, parents do their best for their children. We do not and should not intervene unnecessarily. Families encountering the child protection system often find the experience stressful. They may be questioned by teachers, healthcare professionals, social workers and the Police, which can feel intrusive and accusatory, especially if eventually no abuse is found.

Social workers aim for a collaborative relationship with the families they work with. They support parents to care for their children, intervening only when the child is at risk. When there are reasonable grounds to believe that a child is in need of care and protection, the law empowers child protection officers to step in, to implement safety plans or even remove the child from the home and from the family.

Protecting children requires society’s collective effort. We depend on neighbours, friends and relatives to offer help to parents facing caregiver stress, and to report suspected abuse by calling the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline (NAVH). Alongside them, preschools, schools, hospitals, healthcare institutions and social service agencies also play critical roles in identifying abuse.

Over the years, MSF and our partners have worked to strengthen the child protection ecosystem. Megan’s death five years ago had already prompted further enhancements to protocols. The system has evolved since then. But there is still much more that can be done.

My response to Members’ questions will be in three parts: first, enhancing frontline capability; second, strengthening systems and oversight; and third, responding to the Review Panel’s recommendations.

Mr Speaker, let me start with frontline capability. We will enhance frontline capability and empower professionals who are our first line of defence. In particular, we will continue to manage practitioner workload and ensure social workers are adequately resourced. The risk of burnout is real, and it is difficult to attract and retain people in child protection work.

Over the past three years, the average caseload ratio for the sector has been fairly stable at around 18 to 21 cases per worker, but the variation across centres is significant, ranging from 12 to 30 cases per worker. For the Child Protective Service, now known as PSV or Protective Service, we have doubled our child protection officers from around 45 in 2019 to more than 90 in 2040, and we are continuing to expand. [Please refer to ​clarification made under "Measures for Prompt Police Case Resolution and Mandating Assignment of Police Officers with Child Protection Training in Child-related Cases", Official Report, 5 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 10, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

The additional resources have helped bring down the average caseload per officer, down from around 40 to 35 today. We have also redesigned the job to reduce the workload on our protection officers. Support staff were brought in, and services were outsourced to handle ancillary tasks and augment resourcing for critical work. This enables our protection officers to focus on social investigations as well as supervision. We will continue to step up training and competency development to give our practitioners the skill and the confidence to detect child abuse and make sound decisions that keep children safe.

Some Members raised concerns about early and accurate identification of child abuse and the liability issues that may arise when making a report. There are already laws mandating reporting of child abuse. For example, ECDA's regulations require preschools to report suspected child abuse and failure to do so is an offence. Section 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code also mandates the reporting of certain serious offences, such as grievous hurt and sexual offences, and this includes offences against children. If professionals and members of the public report child abuse in good faith, the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) protects them from civil or criminal liability.

That said, professionals may find themselves in a difficult position to report abuse, not only for legal reasons but for fear of having the families cut them off, resulting in them not having sight of the vulnerable person. They may also be concerned about undermining the trust that they have painstakingly built-up with the families that has enabled them to keep the child safe.

MSF will, therefore, look into how we can better foster a safe environment for professionals to report suspected child abuse cases. To better identify child abuse, we are also studying analytic tools to help us connect the dots and see trends across agencies. This allows us to target our efforts on higher-risk cases. But having said that, we have to carefully validate these tools to avoid excessive false positives, which could overwhelm the system, and to avoid reinforcing stereotypes.

Some Members asked us about intervention thresholds and highlighted the need for balanced decision making.

Determining when and how to intervene requires difficult judgement calls, balancing child safety with preservation of the family. Members' questions reflect a range of views. Some Members advocate for earlier intervention or child removal; while others caution against overreach, which may cause distress to otherwise reasonably well-functioning families.

The approach to child protection occurs on a continuum. When concerns arise, the community can offer informal support: the neighbour can check in; family members can ask if help is needed, lend a listening ear, and so on. But as concerns escalate, the child protection system progressively steps in. From social workers educating parents on child management strategies and caregiver stress responses, to state intervention in serious cases of child abuse.

Generally, the existing thresholds are appropriate. However, we will make clear that while we respect the role of parents in disciplining their children, excessive physical discipline will be considered and reported as abuse.

I would also like to address a concern about reporting thresholds. Members can be assured that the role of those making a report is simply to flag concerns. It is the job of our social workers to support parents who may be struggling with caregiving; and the job of the Police and Child Protection Specialist to ascertain if abuse has occurred.

The second set of issues raised by Members touch on how we will strengthen our systems and our oversight. One area is to regularly audit agencies managing child abuse cases, including the Protective Service, so as to ensure accountability and transparency and to foster continuous improvement. The Protective Service has been working with child protection case management agencies to surface cases where they assess that the risk level exceeds what the agencies were designed to handle.

We have also started to contact other social service agencies and organisations that are not child protection case management agencies to surface all suspected child abuse cases. This will be done progressively and expeditiously.

Today, the Protective Service conducts periodic practice reviews with external consultants to assess whether officers have made accurate case assessments and complied with protocols. We intend to further strengthen our quality assurance framework by increasing the frequency of practice reviews and expanding the audit scope. MSF will implement the enhanced measures by 2026.

Several Members suggested having more centralised coordination and data integration. Indeed, MSF will be setting up a new social service coordination centre supported by technology. It will help us better detect, sense make and connect the dots for cases from different touch points, such as the social services, education, preschool, community and other sectors.

We are also working to improve protocols and coordination with the Police for missing children, something mentioned by Mr Victor Lye. Today, child protection case management agencies have to lodge a police report within 24 hours and concurrently alert Protective Service. The Protective Service also reports cases to the Police within 24 hours. When a case of suspected child abuse is reported to the Police, the Police will assess the case based on the facts and circumstances.

For cases assessed as higher risk, for example, involving serious physical harm or sexual abuse, the Police will immediately intervene to ensure the child's safety. The Protective Service will keep a close watch on missing children reports made to the Police by case agencies and work closely with the Police. When the Police come across a case of suspected child abuse, besides conducting Police investigations, they will also inform MSF for safety planning and social intervention. The new social service coordination centre, which I mentioned earlier, will also provide tighter links to Police operations.

Finally, let me address questions from Members on the Government's response to the Panel's recommendations.

MSF fully accepts the Panel's recommendations. They focus on three broad areas: first, improving the clarity of roles within the child protection ecosystem; second, fostering a stronger learning culture; and third, providing more structured support for social service practitioners.

We will consult and work closely with the social sector to implement the recommendations progressively and complete the implementation by end 2026.

Sir, some of our responses to the Panel's recommendations have already been set out earlier in my reply. For example, the establishment of the social service coordination centre; the use of analytic tools and technology to track cases and connect the dots; and working with agencies which are not child protection case management agencies to surface cases to child protection management agencies, so that we can handle them.

I will briefly set out our responses to the other recommendations for completeness and since Members have asked.

In Recommendation 2, the Panel proposed establishing an appeals mechanism to address cases where agencies have differing views on risk levels and case management. This has to be done quite quickly. So, MSF will set up a Triage Assessment Panel by the first quarter of 2026 to do this and to determine which agency is best placed to manage the case, and then move.

In Recommendation 3, the Panel proposed that MSF should review ECDA's role in triaging potential intra-familial child protection cases. We agree. By early next year, preschools will report such cases directly to the NAVH.

In Recommendation 4, the Panel recommended that we correct the wrong perception that only family members can make a Police report of a missing child and to create a safe culture of reporting. Since 2020, MSF has put in place formal protocols for cases where a child is unsighted or missing. There is now a common understanding within the sector that anyone can make a Police report of a missing child. But we will continue raising public awareness and understanding of this issue, such as through the Break the Silence campaign.

In Recommendation 5, the Panel proposed that lessons learnt from critical incidents should be routinely shared with community agencies. In the past, MSF would carry out bilateral reviews of incidents with the relevant social service agencies. In future, all deaths of children known to social services will be independently reviewed with lessons shared across the sector. We will consult with the sector on how best to do this.

On the final recommendation about providing more structured support for social service practitioners, I would like to assure Members that MSF is taking steps to bolster the morale of our protection officers and the social services sector. As recommended by the Panel, employers can do more to create a safe and supportive work environment for protection practitioners. To enable this, MSF will set up a Protection Practitioners Care Fund to implement capability building and well-being initiatives for protection practitioners. Further details will be announced next year.

Sir, let me conclude. MSF will continue to engage and work closely with stakeholders to strengthen our internal systems and communication across agencies. We must carefully calibrate our efforts even as we do more. Protocols and structured tools are important, but they should guide and not replace critical thinking, judgement and relationship building. We must never reduce child protection work or vulnerable protection work to a mere check box system. Instead, we need to build trust and relationships over and on top existing systems and procedures – between parents, the community, social services and the Government.

As individuals and as a society, let us look out for those who may be struggling: parents and caregivers who need support in parenting and child caregiving, turn to our community and social service agencies for help and guidance.

Each time a tragedy like Megan's occurs, we feel anger, sorrow and regret. Whether we are members of society or social work professionals, we must work together and do our utmost to protect our children. Let us rededicate ourselves to protecting every child and vulnerable person, never forgetting those whom we have lost.