Measures for Prompt Police Case Resolution and Mandating Assignment of Police Officers with Child Protection Training in Child-related Cases

26 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether police risk-assessment tools will be recalibrated to prioritise cases involving children who are missing from contact for extended periods; (b) whether an automatic supervisory review will be triggered after defined time lapses for such cases; and (c) how technology, such as inter-agency databases or alerts, will support faster child location efforts by the police.

27 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs on the February 2020 fatal child abuse case (a) why did the Investigation Officer classify the missing child report as low-risk; (b) what steps will the Ministry take to review the risk classification guidelines and follow-up requirements for Investigation Officers’ use especially for cases of missing vulnerable persons; and (c) how will supervision of Investigation Officers be strengthened.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Goh Pei Ming) (for the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to answer Question Nos 26 and 27 filed by Mr Jackson Lam and Mr Gabriel Lam on today's Order Paper?

Mr Speaker: Please go ahead.

Mr Goh Pei Ming: My reply will also cover questions for written answer filed by Ms Valerie Lee and Ms Diana Pang for today's Sitting.

Megan Khung's case was a tragedy. Minister Desmond has earlier set out the Government’s views on it.

In 2020, after Megan's death was uncovered, the Police reviewed their handling of the case. There were two rounds of police reports filed. The first report was made in January 2020 by Megan’s grandmother. Further police reports were made in July 2020, by Megan's grandmother and father.

The Investigation Officer (IO) who dealt with the first Police report, and her supervisor, failed to follow Police's procedures to escalate the case to the regular case review sessions for monitoring and guidance. The IO had assessed this as a case of child discipline with low safety concerns based on the information that she was presented with at that time.

Following the report, the IO attempted to contact Megan's mother over the next two weeks, but could not reach her. She did not follow up beyond that because she was then deployed for COVID-19 related duties. Despite this, the case would normally have been followed up if the IO and her supervisor had escalated the case to the regular case review sessions in the first place.

The subsequent Police reports concerning Megan were referred to the regular case review sessions, and this eventually led to the discovery of Megan's death and the arrests of the perpetrators. Police commenced internal investigations once the case came to light in 2020, and disciplined both the IO and her supervisor. The IO resigned subsequently. The Review Panel has corroborated these findings.

For missing person reports, the Police have established procedures to guide the follow-up. Specifically, the Police accord priority to missing vulnerable persons as they may be at higher risk, regardless of the duration they have been missing and this includes young children. Cases of missing vulnerable persons are escalated to the regular case review sessions with supervisors for monitoring and guidance. It is standard procedure for the Police to work with other Government agencies to locate missing persons, including sharing the data of the missing persons. Where necessary, the Police may also issue appeals for information to seek the public's assistance.

The Police do not track the duration taken to close a case. There are many factors that can affect the length of an investigation. This includes the wide range of offences with varying complexities, as well as the need to work with different partners as part of the investigation process. There are internal controls in place to ensure that cases are followed up promptly. These include a daily case review process for supervisors to provide guidance on the cases, and multiple levels of supervision and regular checks throughout the investigation. But the Police have also continued to strengthen these processes and systems.

In particular, the Police have made several enhancements. In 2022, they introduced the Family Violence Training Package for all frontline and IOs to adopt a sensitive approach to family violence cases, including child abuse cases, and to recognise and escalate and work high-risk cases together with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).

In 2023, the Police formed Family Violence Teams (FVTs) at all Land Divisions to give focus to family violence cases, including child abuse cases. Specialised training is provided to FVT officers to equip them with the knowledge and skillsets to handle these cases, such as how to engage the victims sensitively, as well as how to work closely and more integrated with other agencies.

In particular, when Police come across a case of suspected child abuse, or when MSF receives an urgent report on high-risk cases through their National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline (NAVH), the Police will work with MSF Protective Service for safety planning and social intervention for the family and child. This may include the activation of MSF's Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team (DVERT), a round-the-clock service launched in 2023 to provide immediate help to high-risk domestic violence cases with immediate safety concerns. DVERT officers would respond on-site to conduct a professional assessment and make urgent arrangements for the victims to be relocated or placed in alternative care for their safety, if necessary. DVERT officers are also empowered under the Women's Charter to issue Emergency Orders (EOs) at the scene and to provide immediate safety for the victim.

To strengthen IOs' efficiency and supervisory capabilities, the Police have also harnessed technology for the review of cases. They have implemented technological solutions to trigger automatic notifications to IOs and their supervisors to complete time-sensitive tasks promptly. Our frontline Police Officers bear a heavy responsibility to protect lives. They take this responsibility seriously and perform their duties with commitment and professionalism.

The demands on our Police Officers continue to increase. They often have to make difficult judgement calls every day in the course of their duties. When under pressure, mistakes can happen. In this case, the lapse arose because two officers, who were under pressure, did not follow the established operating procedure. It was a serious breach, and it resulted in a tragic outcome. The Police will learn from this, and reinforce procedures and training for its officers.

Mr Speaker: Leader.

REVISION OF QUESTION TIME

(Suspension of Standing Orders)

11.36 am

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Question Nos 3 to 27 cover an important topic, but I notice there is less than 25 minutes left to the end of Question Time. As it is an important topic, I am going to move to extend Question Time so that the issue can be properly addressed and supplementary questions can be raised.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that Question Time at this day's Sitting be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable the Questions for Oral Answer to continue until the completion of Question No 27, including relevant supplementary questions thereon.

Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?

Hon Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: Leader, please proceed.

With the consent of Mr Speaker, and the general assent of Members present,

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, that notwithstanding Standing Order No 22(1), Question Time at this day's Sitting continue until the completion of Question No 27, including relevant supplementary questions thereon. – [Ms Indranee Rajah].

MEASURES FOR PROMPT POLICE CASE RESOLUTION AND MANDATING ASSIGNMENT OF POLICE OFFICERS WITH CHILD PROTECTION TRAINING IN CHILD-RELATED CASES

(Resumption for supplementary questions)

Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

11.38 am

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central): Thank you, Sir. Sir, I thank the Minister and Minister of State for their heartfelt and comprehensive replies. I welcome, in particular, the groundbreaking step that all child losses, in future, will be independently reviewed. Yet, we must also do so in a way that sensitively protects the officers directly involved in each child loss case, because they bear the emotional brunt of these cases.

And so I think the only way we can do so is if we have, first, in the child protection ecosystem, a culture of collective ownership, and this must go beyond taking collective responsibility when things go bad. It must mean a culture of ever more equal partnership when things are not bad, so that when things do go bad, we have the capacity to first, band together, grief together, cope together and support each other first.

So, beyond system enhancements, my question is how does the Ministry plan to build up and strengthen this culture of collective ownership in our child protective ecosystem?

Sir, my second supplementary question is on Megan's case and the independent review into Megan's case. The decision was taken after MSF's first statement on the case on 8 April 2025, so may I seek the Minister's clarifications on the timeline and how the decision to independently review Megan's case was made only after 8 April 2025?

The Minister for Education (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his important questions, but before I proceed, may I just make a correction to what I said earlier.

I mentioned in my response that for Child Protection Service, now known as Protective Service, we have doubled our Child Protection Officers from 45 in 2019, to more than 90 in 2040, and we are continuing to expand. I meant to say 2024, not 2040.

With that correction behind us, Sir, I will address the Member's two questions.

I thank him for his sensitivity to the work that is being done by our frontline officers, both in MSF as well as in the social sector. This is prevention work. The sector is working together and working with the community and the public to prevent harm from occurring. It is a challenging and difficult and onerous responsibility which the sector bears and must bear, for the protection of children and vulnerable persons, whether spouses, persons with disability, the elderly, and so on.

And when a tragic outcome happens – whether hurt, serious hurt or a death – everyone who has or might have had an opportunity or a touchpoint feels this, not just organisationally and sectorally, but individually. And it is a question of "what ifs?"

And as I said, it is prevention work, and our officers, both frontline as well as in the community, engage a lot of people all the time. So that, for us, in handling cases like these, it is a balance between, on the one hand, transparency and accountability, which is important to maintain public trust and confidence, and confidence by the parents that children will be taken care of by the community; and on the other hand, making sure that the morale, the determination and the will of our frontliners and our social workers is not broken. Because if they are demoralised, if they feel that this work is too much to bear, then it will be even harder for us to maintain this sentinel system to protect the most vulnerable amongst us.

So, the Member is quite right in that when things go wrong – and in this case, things went wrong – we bear it as a sector, we bear it as agencies responsible, having interacted with, or having had opportunity to interact with the cases. Certainly, when officers have breached protocols, as you have heard Minister of State Goh, and as I have mentioned earlier, internal reviews and action have to be taken. But the burden is on the whole sector, as well as on the organisations concerned. So, we strike a balance between both very paramount considerations.

And we must keep building that. When I gave my response earlier, you would see graphically in your mind that child protection work involves rings of concentric circles, and they all have to work collectively together, the wider circle being members of the public, neighbours, colleagues, strangers, lending a helping hand or reporting abuse, so that the inner rings, community organisations like schools, preschools, general practitioners, clinics, can take a closer look and also report.

For an even inner ring of child protection case management agencies, including the Protective Service, to be able to intervene, offer help, protect the child through safety plans, and in the most high risk cases, intervene statutorily, with the Police, with the Courts, if necessary.

For all that to work, we need to continue to build up this culture of collective ownership, of relationships between organisations in this safety net.

As I said in my reply at the end, we certainly have protocols, standard operating procedures, and common language and screening guides. All these are important so that things do not get missed, so that people can have the benefit of experienced people who have come out with these protocols for us to follow, so that our system can get better.

But that is no substitute for the importance of a strong inter-agency collaborative relationship between one another, all wanting to work together, all knowing each other and all imbibing that common vision and mission of taking care of the most vulnerable.

So, I agree with the Member that it is work that is underway and it is a continuous work in progress, as new officers join the system.

The Member asked why there was a review in 2025. I think Minister Masagos, as well as MSF had explained previously that in 2020, internal reviews had been carried out by the organisations concerned as well as bilaterals with MSF. But in 2025, both during and after the sentencing of the perpetrators involved in Megan's death, new information had surfaced, for example, photographs as well as new information from some of the agencies concerned. And MSF decided, notwithstanding the bilaterals done earlier, to convene an independent Panel, in order to strengthen the safeguards in our system and to look into the new facts that have surfaced.

Mr Speaker: I know many Members have many questions. I will run through the list of those who have filed questions. So, just be patient. Mr Cai Yinzhou.

Mr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Speaker, I thank the Ministers for their reply. I would like to seek a few clarifications. The first is on Megan's case. The initial reporting of the case in the media kind of pinned the blame on the social service agency Beyond Social Services that was involved, and a few community and social practitioners actually spoke up on social media about the optics of the reporting. I think, retrospectively, the question is then, how can we better report or communicate when such tragedies happen, in light of also encouraging collective ownership and culture?

My second question refers to conversations with preschool educators. On one hand, one anecdote was, as much as educators want to balance building rapport with parents and they do ask when they find injuries on the children and they need to ask in a polite and non-offensive way to just clarify how injuries that might have occurred when they bring their child to the centre. So, the question is: how does the Ministry help to support preschools in balancing this rapport with parents that preschool educators have to constantly balance?

Another question by preschool educators was when a child with non-verbal or with special needs might present with injuries that parents may attribute to falls, that it is only the parents' account that is taken into consideration. What advice would we give to preschools to assess in those cases, how much of parents' accounts to believe and whether or not to make a report with NAVH, nevertheless?

A last question from preschool educators is, after the abused child returns to a centre, they may also exhibit some of this abusive or violent or inappropriate behaviour to their peers as well. How can teachers be better prepared for these scenarios?

My last supplementary question references an initiative by MSF and Koufu that was launched in August this year, where 77 food court managers were trained by MSF to be the eyes and ears of the community and highlight NAVH hotline and the work that they do. So, my question is, how do we expand such initiatives, like Minister Desmond Lee mentioned, the rings of concentric circles where a society's collective responsibility to protect the vulnerable?

Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his observations and his questions.

The balance, as I said earlier, is between setting out the facts as to what happened and on the other hand, keeping the sector cohesive as a whole. The aim is to reflect on what happened and see how those gaps should be closed. And so, there was not and should not be an intention to point fingers.

At the same time, the public expect some accountability and laying out of the facts. That is what happened in the report of the independent Panel. And we have read the report and seen what happened. So, to the extent that there was a misunderstanding that there was finger pointing, we have apologised to the relevant agencies, including Beyond Social Services, for the misunderstanding that had occurred. It was not the intention, but if that was perceived, we have apologised as well.

For preschools, because they deal with very young children from infants to the age of six, sometimes, it is very hard to discern what is actually happening. And that is why we need two things. On the one hand, with experience, we produce protocols, guides to empower our frontliners, including preschool leaders and preschool teachers and carers, to be able to identify concerns and possible child abuse. So, as I said earlier, if they detect something of concern, they can report. It will be for the social workers to offer more targeted support and for the protection agencies to intervene and make safe for the child.

Having said that, I understand that there is a relationship between the preschool and the preschool teachers, and the parents and children. They come to school every day, or almost every day, and you want to maintain that relationship. So, with the Sectors Specific Screening Guide, which we endeavour to train and have been training many frontliners, including in the preschools, it gives them some guide to look at in order to assess whether this is a case of concern.

No doubt, concerned teachers and school leaders will ask questions, will show concern, and that is the right thing to do. But when enough of the dots are connected and you see that in the Sector Specific Screening Guide, then, the guidance to our agencies and preschools is: report; have this looked at more closely.

The third question that the Member has is initiatives like the one he mentioned. We welcome more hands on deck. We welcome community organisations, even corporates who want to play a part in strengthening public education, strengthening awareness and helping in this collective effort to look out for the vulnerable amongst us, whether it is children, persons with disability, seniors, and so on. And we would like to encourage them, step forward if they want to play a part, and we will work with them.

Mr Speaker: Notwithstanding that, we have extended the Question Time today, I request all Members and Ministers to keep your replies succinct. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker, Sir. I welcome Minister's announcement of the new social service coordination centre by MSF and the usage of analytic tools to help with the detection and reporting. I do believe that any risk factor, while it can be a predisposition, it could not be a predetermination of outcome.

I have two supplementary questions, Sir. But let me set out the context first. I asked about reforms which include independent oversight bodies, because when there are clear independence and separation between report monitoring and service delivery, that could be an uplifting of standards, quality and trust.

So, my first question arises from other jurisdictions. In New Zealand, there is an independent children's monitor that looks into compliance and of child protection laws, and it is an independent crown entity that reports to the public. In the United Kingdom (UK), there is also the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills, or Ofsted. It is a non-ministerial department of the government of UK, but it reports directly to Parliament.

So, my first supplementary question to the Minister is this: in next year's review, would the Ministry also study similar jurisdictions and approaches to further strengthen accountability and coordination in our child protection system? Of course, there are some differences. Ofsted does not just look into early childhood education but the whole gamut of the child's growing up years as well.

The second supplementary question: the Minister mentioned about audit agencies and broadening of the audit scope just now, and that MSF will announce the enhanced measures come next year, 2026. Will the Ministry set up clear timelines, audit and review mechanisms and public reporting expectations for these enhancements, so that agencies are held to consistent standards across, and families can have this confidence and trust, especially in suspected child abuse cases, so that they are not missed or delayed in reporting?

Mr Desmond Lee: Sir, on the first question for the follow-up on the Panel's recommendations, as I said earlier, we accept all the recommendations but in terms of follow-up, we will work closely with the sector, consult them and implement them by the end of next year. And whether it is a comparative study of overseas jurisdictions or engaging our sector to better strengthen our system, which we have been doing and will continue to do, all that will be taken on board, and I thank the Member for his suggestions.

Likewise, for audit, I have talked about practice audits, I have talked about various ways in which we ensure some consistency across the whole sector – because there are many organisations and many individuals involved in protection work. As I said earlier, there are screening guides, there are reporting guides, there are protocols in place. All these are important ways, on top of practice audits, to maintain and uphold standards. And I take the Member's suggestions on board.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive reply. Following the Review Panel's findings, practitioners, such as the social workers, were very quick to point out that that there needed to be greater support for professionals in the child protection space, rather than simply having more standard operating procedures, guidelines, protocols, as what Minister has said. I fully agree with this. So, I would like to ask what are the plans to upskill practitioners in child protection and how can we elevate the persistent workload concerns in the sector?

My second question is: how does the Ministry intend to address the Review Panel's findings that there appeared to be some fear of reporting to the authorities? We must surely do all we can to encourage cases to be reported and to inculcate a no-fault culture, even if suspicions of child abuse later turn out to be inaccurate.

My last question. The Review Panel flagged inter-agency coordination failures as one of its findings. There seems to be no clear system for sharing updates among Child Protective Service, ECDA, Beyond Social Services, the preschool and even the Police. And because of that, agencies appeared to have treated concerns as somebody else's responsibility and therefore, resulting in some form of inertia. Therefore, Panel recommended establishing a centralised case management platform for high-risk child cases. The Minister has mentioned that MSF is working on this. So, I would like to ask when would this platform be established and in the meantime, in the absence of such a platform, what is being done to ensure coordination among all these agencies?

Mr Desmond Lee: I had mentioned in my reply that the system can work only if our frontliners have the skills, the judgement, the experience and the morale to keep this sentinel safety net strong and therefore, that is a priority. Therefore, capability building and strengthening resourcing was point number one in my response. I would not repeat what I said earlier, bearing in mind Speaker's admonition about long replies.

Fear of reporting, I have also addressed that in my reply. In the Break the Silence campaign, we aim to encourage members of the public, if you hear something, see something that is not right, if you hear children screaming, if you hear shouting, beating, if you know your neighbour, ask if they need help, if they need some support, and if you are concerned, report. There is NAVH, and we will act.

For frontline agencies like preschools, schools, there is outreach, there is engagement for preschools every year, for leaders, Protective Service will go out and do a refresher. There are protocols in place, there are timelines for reporting. All these are in place, but ultimately it is about their sense of collective responsibility and mission, which I also mentioned earlier.

Sharing of updates, the Panel had a very good recommendation as to make sure that when things go wrong, you do not just do a bilateral with the organisation, you do not just do an internal review. Share it more widely with the sector so that we all can strengthen our processes and benefit. And we will endeavour to do so.

Mr Speaker: Mr Victor Lye.

Mr Victor Lye (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to thank the Minister and Minister of State for their replies. I just have two supplementary questions: one on a recommended response and the second on reporting.

On response, can we consider the review requiring a protocol where physical verification of a child who is a subject of a report, either missing or suspected child abuse, is actually closed within a certain timeline before the case is closed or escalated to the next level?

The second supplementary question relates to reporting. Can we consider a mandatory child safety reporting framework so as to go beyond guidelines? And to refine it with a tier one where it imposes a legal obligation on professionals and frontliners, say teachers, doctors, childcare operators, to report any such cases. It is a high bar but it helps us close the gap. On the second tier, we could cover community leaders, volunteers, neighbours even, and protect them with a good faith protection clause, so as to remove any fear of reporting or repercussions.

These two aspects on response and reporting could help us close the gap on this very important issue.

Mr Desmond Lee: The Member asked about the need for physical sighting of the child if there are concerns, the answer is yes, that is the current requirement. To see the child physically, not just to hear the child's voice or be assured by some third party, including a caregiver, or a Zoom kind of verification. It is physical, in-person sighting for children of concern, children at risk.

For legal reporting, I think I have answered that earlier in my response. There are legal thresholds that mandate reporting, both for certain institutions as well as for public. But having said that, the Member is talking about raising concerns even at lower thresholds. When a child comes to school or to childcare centre or goes to a community organisation with bruises, it is a very young child, the first thing you would ask the caregiver and parents is, what happened? Quite often, the response is "fell down", "child discipline". And for most people, well, okay, we take the parents' word for it. Then, over time, if there are certain dots that when you connect them, then you realise that actually this is a bit more concerning. Does the parent need help? Is there caregiver stress? Is there some trigger that might be more sinister than discipline or an accident? And it has got to do with judgement.

Yes, we have protocols in place and these – I will not say tick boxes because it does give a wrong impression – but they indeed are based on past cases and experience, and they guide frontliners in deciding what to ask, when to ask, when to raise concerns, and who to raise concerns to.

So, the Member mentioned high bar of reporting, but we are talking about raising concerns with the family, with social workers and with NAVH so that we can act. We want to make sure that all of these are in place and people understand that they can do so and seek help and report, so that we can take a look.

Mr Speaker: Ms Diana Pang.

Ms Diana Pang Li Yen (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Thank you to the Ministers. It pains me as a mom to hear what has happened and it continues to pain me every day. I hope this will be first and the last time I hear this, and this will never happen again.

I would like to know the following: what are the criteria for selecting those who receive this specialised training to better support these cases and what is considered as alternative care arrangement under this new framework, given that these families may have family issues, they cannot find alternative care. With so many agencies and parties involved, too many ingredients may spoil the soup. So, who is ultimately in charge of this, and what they can do when this happens again?

Mr Desmond Lee: I think the Member is right in that when there is an abuse case or suspected abuse case, often one of the contributing reasons could be caregiver burdens and stress, though there could be other triggers. I do not want to over-simplify things.

And therefore, when they need help, we need to make sure that there is help available, both informal within the family, as well as in the community through social service organisations, community organisations and so on.

But when a case is a high risk, a tier two, or for that matter, a tier one case where the child protection management agencies come in, there are a number of organisations involved and ultimately, there is a case lead for each of these cases, tier two, tier one, so that there is consistency, so that there is a centralised decision making, but in partnership with the other organisations and community groups.

Particularly when: (a) a safety plan has to be established and (b) removal must take place, one or the other.

When a safety plan is brought in, next of kin may be asked to be involved to keep an eye, sight the child, child stay over with the next of kin, rather than with the parent who may be dealing with issues, or may be a person of concern to the authorities. So, a safety plan.

There could be more intrusive measures that need to be taken to safekeep the child, including removing the child from parent or parents, and putting them either with next of kin, with foster families or in children's homes, while the issues are being addressed and being worked through. So, that is how it is carried out on the ground, and a lot of judgement and empathy is involved.

Having said that, the centrality of child safety is foundational.

Mr Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.

Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Minister. I have always been very inspired by how our Municipal Services Office has been improving our neighbourhoods, and I am heartened to know that a similar concept, a social services coordination centre will help to improve the lives of our people.

I have one supplementary question. Has the Government any programmes in place aimed at preventing child abuse in the first place, going upstream, with a particular focus on providing support and resources to parents who might face challenges coping with their child's behaviour? This can include targeted counselling services or producing resource guides issued to parents and tailored to the age of their children.

Mr Desmond Lee: As I said, the foundational principle is that parents are responsible for children and by far and away, parents do their best for the children. But when they face stressors or when they are grappling with issues, we need to provide help. So, upstream work, preventive work is key, not just early risk families, but also parents at large.

We have a whole range of programmes, both in institutions, like in schools and preschools, in programmes like KidSTART and others, Triple P, and many others that seek to empower or provide useful information to parents in their caregiving of their children. So, that is available and will continue to work with partners to strengthen this.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jackson Lam.

Mr Jackson Lam (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister for his replies. I understand that MSF has plans to train up the frontline officers. But before we get there, will MSF consider getting an independent auditor to review the hotline records, so that the case registration failures are not only flagged up internally, but also externally verified.

Mr Desmond Lee: All calls to the NAVH are automatically recorded, logged and transcribed. So, that is the first safeguard. And as I said earlier in my main response, it is not just within the child protection management agencies who are looking at the cases, they are progressively and expeditiously reaching out to community organisations and social service agencies that are not within the core child protection case management agency group to ask them to surface cases, and have another look.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Speaker. I wish to first declare that I am a family law practitioner. I thank the Minister for his substantive reply, but I note that my Parliamentary Question No 16, the questions have not been addressed yet, specifically in relation to when was the deceased's father first being informed of the situation, and 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.

The reason I ask this is, more often than not, in the situations of a potential child abuse case, the relevant stakeholders more often than not, tend to assume that the parent without the custody care and control should not be first informed, or any of the relevant information may not be revealed to him at the earliest instance, and there are situations or there are cases where in the event of parental alienation and child abuse cases, the parent that was affected by parental alienations will only know of the situations, being the last person in the situation.

Mr Desmond Lee: I can assure the Member that when a case involving a child enters the child protection case management agencies' ambit of work, they will put in their best efforts to engage both the child's biological parents for safety planning, where feasible – and I mentioned it earlier in response to Member Diana Pang's question, you may need one or the other parent to step in to part of the safety plan – especially if the parent is required to observe safeguards put in place, or is in a position to support the child's safety and well-being.

For cases that are taken up by the Protective Service in MSF, it will contact and engage both parents and/or all caregivers to ensure the child's safety and well-being, regardless of their marital status.

Mr Speaker: Ms Cassandra Lee, did you raise your hand earlier? No, I am giving priority to those who have filed questions. So, Mr Andre Low, I know you filed a question for tomorrow. You may ask your supplementary question.

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to the Minister and Minister of State. My first question is actually relating the substance of my Parliamentary Question, which is filed for tomorrow, which has not been addressed – which is, I understand, Minister has mentioned many prospective actions that will be taken in response to the Review Panel's recommendations. My question was more has there been any retrospective review of ongoing or past cases, whether it be in 2020 or recently, in response to the Review Panel's findings to make sure that we have not overlooked any other similar cases to avoid another tragedy?

I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, I understand that Child Protective Services and Adult Protective Services were merged into the Protective Service department earlier this year. I think was implicit in Minister's response, but I would like to confirm if the officers continue to specialise in their respective specialties. Secondly, on supply of social work professionals, is there a whole-of-Government approach to increase the supply of social work professionals, be it through incentives or making the profession more attractive to individuals to consider?

Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his questions.

I think the first question it was in my main reply as well as in my supplementary question reply to Member Jackson Lam in terms of looking back and reaching out to organisations to surface cases that may be of concern.

If he is asking about past child deaths, each time there is a child death, there is a review and actions taken to close the gaps, tighten the processes.

The second question he asked is about specialisation and the Protective Service. It is now a unified Protective Service, but there are officers who specialise in certain kinds of communities – whether it is children, seniors and so on. But it is a service as a whole and there is a benefit in common protocols even as we seek to specialise in certain areas.

And the third is about strengthening the social work profession as a whole. For protective work, as I said earlier, there is a real risk of burnout so lots of measures need to put in place, including care for the officers, time away from the frontlines, mental health support and constant training and refreshment so that we upskill and continue to be encouraged to continue this challenging work.

The Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) which recently launched its Social Work and Social Development Faculty has a specific concentration or specialisation in their undergraduate course on "Protection". So, we want to work with SUSS and our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to continue to train caring Singaporeans who want to come into this work of protecting vulnerable people.

But as a whole, for the whole social sector, there continues to be a need for more social work professionals, social workers, caseworkers, counsellors and so on. And the work of the National Council of Social Service and the Ministry continues on this front to ensure that we have a steady pipeline.

Mr Speaker: Mr Foo Cexiang, I know you also filed a Parliamentary Question on this for tomorrow.

Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. Sir, I welcome the formation of the new social services coordination centre, but for each specific case on the ground, it is really the child protection officer who will need to coordinate across the different agencies, and a good one will be able to think of and think for the activities of many different stakeholders.

So, I remember the Minister mentioned earlier that the number of cases per officer has been reduced from 40 to 35, if I recall correctly. My question is whether the Ministry has a target to reduce this even further, quite substantively to, for example, 25 or even 20. And the reason I ask is because: the actual case load is to manage the child, but because of the coordination work that is required, because of the mind space that officer will need to have, I believe that the number of cases is still too high at 35.

Mr Desmond Lee: Sir, I said in my main reply that we had expanded the number of child protection officers as well as Protective Service officers. The workload is high. It has come down. We have brought in auxiliary support services – not just increasing manpower, but brought in additional services to help transform and improve the way in which our Protective Service officers work. And I have said earlier that we will continue to expand.

Mr Speaker: We have gone past Question Time by almost 20 minutes. I believe I have cleared all those Members who have filed PQs on this. I will now just allow for two last supplementary questions.

Mr Christopher de Souza, you have been raising your hand from day one, so you have the floor.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a difficult and emotional topic. And I want to thank Minister Desmond Lee and Minister of State Goh Pei Ming for their heartfelt responses. I felt the emotion in them. And I just wanted to ask my supplementary question as one of balance.

In my own personal dealings with the Social Service Officers (SSOs) and MSF, they are excellently diligent and hardworking people. They worked with me at 2.00 am on cases; likewise, Home Affairs officers visiting homes where there is abuse.

So, I am genuinely concerned, and this is I am mounting my supplementary question that we do not forget the excellent hard work of the many diligent officers. And yes, there have been a number of difficult gaps that have aligned, and Megan is no longer with us, but I hope we will not throw the baby out with the bath water.

My question to the good Minister and the good Minister of State is how are we going to take care of our diligent, exceptional, dedicated officers who are the vast majority in each of these institutions and have their morale kept high while in parallel, we close the gaps that have led to this tragedy?

I do not wish to underestimate the impact of Megan on all of us, but how do we walk this tight rope of encouraging and uplifting the morale of these excellent officers in both Ministries, while at the same time plugging the loopholes?

Mr Desmond Lee: Mr Speaker, I will respond briefly for the social sector and the Minister of State will respond for the Police.

I thank him for his care and consideration for our frontline officers. It is difficult work. And the best way to support them is to affirm their work, know that while there were lapses and mistakes, we will continue to close the gap, learn from them and resolve collectively as a sector to do better. And that collective responsibility that Member Xie Yao Quan spoke about is important, even as we retain trust of members of the public through transparency and accountability.

Other forms of support involve making sure that their well-being is taken care of, giving them respite, support, taking care of their mental well-being, training them well and effectively, putting in place standard operating procedures and protocols, both within the organisation and externally; supervision, support and mentorship so that they continue to do their work well.

Mr Goh Pei Ming: I thank the Member for his compliments and acknowledging that the work that the Police force does is a very difficult one. The load is heavy. The responsibility is heavy and at the same time every police officer signs on knowing that it is a mission that he has to do for his fellow citizens and deliver that duty to the people who respect the uniform and respect the Police force for what they do.

So, I thank the Member very much for the compliments for the professionalism and the commitment of all our police officers out there.

I know every police officer will strive to do his best. Every case is important, and they have sworn to protect lives and to keep the nation, Singapore and Singaporeans, safe and secure. At the same time, I think what the organisation and what I guess Members of Parliament can also help to do, is to acknowledge the hard work that they do. All Members of Parliament also have close relationship with police officers in your own constituencies. And I think that relationship, the close communication, understanding what are the challenges, the progress of work and perhaps, supporting if there is a need for them at the ground is important.

From the Ministry, we will continue to support and make sure that feedback loops are closed. We will make sure that we hear and listen to the Police officers. From time to time we do surveys. And through the appraisal reports, for example, we do get feedback and how we can best support our officers.

Two areas of immediate follow-up.

One is in terms of the overall technology adoption. I mentioned earlier, we are always, especially as a professional force, eagerly looking into how we can better adopt technology to enhance our processes, our procedures, improve efficiency and in fact, even shorten what we can do to close every single case and to get back to every single resident. I think that is the first.

The second is, overall manpower allocation, we are also looking into how we can best allocate and optimise manpower assignments in terms of what are the areas of priority, areas of emphasis and to make the corresponding allocations or to grow the force where we need to.

Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen, I apologise. I know you also filed a PQ for a subsequent Sitting. You will be the final Member to ask a supplementary question on this.

Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Speaker. I also like to declare that I am the Executive Director of Campus Impact. It is a social service agency that works with children, some of whom are child protection cases.

I acknowledge and I thank the Minister for sharing about the heavy emotional burden borne by child protection officers and welcome the news of a new social services coordination centre supported by technology to detect, sense make and connect the dots for cases from different touchpoints.

I would like to also highlight that it requires a strong culture and process to ensure that data is recorded and input into the system. The issue in Megan's case was about the follow-up action, so the tech system has to do more than sense make, but also ensure that follow up action is clearly flagged to be done with the clear task owners and requiring supervisor clearance in line with the protocols that are being set up.

I have three questions. How will the Government measure the success and effectiveness of this new coordination centre in improving child protection outcomes? Are there specific indicators such as faster case detection, earlier intervention or reduce recurrence of child harm that will be tracked? And how will MSF ensure that frontline social workers and community partners benefit directly from the improved coordination rather than being burdened by additional administrative layers?

Mr Desmond Lee: The social service coordination centre and the use of technology – these should augment the work of the child protection network, but in and of itself will not be a silver bullet. We hope that with some technology, with coordination we can better focus on at-risk cases. Because the workload is high, we encourage people to report and officers will be under strain to deal with many more cases that are surfaced, some of which would be false positives. And that is the way it is designed so that we take a look and dive a bit deeper. But being able to connect some of these dots across multiple agencies and organisations will enable the system as a whole to be able to sense make better. Sometimes, in its discrete self, a piece of information may not cause a flag to go up, but when you are able to better connect the dots, you might feel that, well, this is one which crosses the threshold; better go in and take a look.

How to measure the success of these tools? I would say, let us look at the overall cohesiveness of the sector, the ability to coordinate the work more effectively, the ability to identify earlier high-risk cases and to intervene.

It is early days yet. As we consult with the sector, as we engage with them, as we work with them, we will better be able to unpack what capabilities we specifically seek to achieve.

Mr Goh Pei Ming: Speaker, earlier in my initial PQ reply, I mentioned that the Police had made several enhancements, one of which was the introduction of the Family Violence Training Package for all frontline and IOs. I may have misspoken, citing that the year this was introduced was 2020. I wish to correct myself. It should be 2022. Thank you.

12.29 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. End of extended Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

10 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each of the past five years, what is the average duration taken by investigation officers to close cases; and (b) what measures or guidelines are in place to ensure that cases are closed promptly.

11 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether SPF will mandate that all child-related cases such as missing persons, suspected abuse or high-risk family contexts be triaged by specialist investigation officers with child-protection training; and (b) whether the Ministry will embed or consider arranging for child-protection specialists to be embedded into police divisions to co-assess risk and co-lead responses.

Mr K Shanmugam: I will answer together, Parliamentary Questions No 26 and 27 filed by Mr Jackson Lam and Mr Gabriel Lam on today's Order Paper. My reply will also cover questions for written answer filed by Ms Valerie Lee and Ms Diana Pang for today's Sitting.

Megan Khung's case was a tragedy. Minister Desmond Lee has earlier set out the Government's views on it.

In 2020, after Megan's death was uncovered, the Police reviewed their handling of the case.

There were two rounds of Police reports filed. The first report was made in January 2020 by Megan's grandmother. Further Police reports were made in July 2020, by Megan's grandmother and father. The Investigation Officer (IO) who dealt with the first Police report, and her supervisor, failed to follow Police's procedures to escalate the case to the regular case review sessions for monitoring and guidance. The IO had assessed this as a case of child discipline with low safety concerns, based on the information that she was presented with at that time.

Following the report, the IO attempted to contact Megan's mother over the next two weeks but could not reach her. She did not follow up beyond that because she was then deployed for COVID-19 related duties. Despite this, the case would normally have been followed up if the IO and her supervisor had escalated the case to the regular case review sessions in the first place. The subsequent Police reports concerning Megan were referred to the regular case review sessions. This eventually led to the discovery of Megan's death and arrest of the perpetrators.

Police commenced internal investigations once the case came to light in 2020 and disciplined both the IO and her supervisor. The IO resigned subsequently. The review panel corroborated these findings.

For missing person reports, the Police have established procedures to guide the follow-up. Specifically, the Police accord priority to missing vulnerable persons as they may be at higher risk, regardless of the duration they have been missing. This includes young children. Cases of missing vulnerable persons are escalated to the regular case review sessions with supervisors for monitoring and guidance.

It is standard procedure for the Police to work with other Government agencies to locate missing persons, including sharing the data of the missing persons. Where necessary, the Police may also issue appeals for information to seek the public's assistance.

The Police do not track the duration taken to close a case. There are many factors that can affect the length of an investigation. This includes the wide range of offences with varying complexities, as well as the need to work with different partners as part of the investigation process. There are internal controls in place to ensure that cases are followed up promptly. These include a daily case review process for supervisors to provide guidance on the cases, and multiple levels of supervision and regular checks throughout the investigation. But the Police continue to strengthen these processes and systems.

In particular, the Police have made several enhancements.

In 2022, they introduced the Family Violence Training Package for all frontline and investigation officers to adopt a sensitive approach to family violence cases, including child abuse cases, and to recognise and escalate high-risk cases to the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).

In 2023, the Police formed Family Violence Teams (FVTs) at all Land Divisions to give focus to family violence cases, including child abuse cases. Specialised training is provided to FVT officers to equip them with the knowledge and skillsets to handle these cases, such as how to engage the victims sensitively, as well as on working with other agencies. In particular, when the Police come across a case of suspected child abuse, or when MSF receives an urgent report on high-risk cases through their National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Hotline, the Police will work with MSF Protective Service for safety planning and social intervention for the family and child. This may include the activation of MSF's Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team (DVERT), a round-the-clock service launched in 2023 to provide immediate help to high-risk domestic violence cases with immediate safety concerns. DVERT officers would respond on-site to conduct a professional assessment and make urgent arrangements for the victims to be relocated or placed in alternative care for their safety, if necessary. DVERT officers are also empowered under the Women's Charter to issue Emergency Orders at the scene, and to provide immediate safety for the victim.

To strengthen IOs' efficiency and supervisory capabilities, the Police has also harnessed technology for the review of cases. They have implemented technological solutions to trigger automatic notifications to IOs and their supervisors to complete time-sensitive tasks promptly.

Our frontline Police officers bear a heavy responsibility to protect lives. They take this responsibility seriously and perform their duties with commitment and professionalism.

The demands on our Police officers continue to increase. They often have to make difficult judgement calls every day in the course of their duties. When under pressure, mistakes can happen. In this case, the lapse arose because two officers, who were under pressure, did not follow the operating procedure. It was a serious breach, and it resulted in a tragic outcome. The Police will learn from this and reinforce procedures and training for its officers.