Desmond Lee
Singapore
“The Leadership, Enrichment, Achievement, Participation and Service (LEAPS) 2.0 is a framework for recognising student participation and achievement in secondary school co-curricular programmes.”
“The Ministry of Education (MOE) is mindful of the impact that rising temperatures may have on our students, teachers and officials taking part in the National School Games. Matches are scheduled only after students have had the time to train and become progressively more heat acclimatised.”
“As shared in Parliament in March 2026, the proportion of students with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream schools has remained stable, at around 7% of the overall student population. This stability is observed across both primary and secondary schools.”
“The Ministry recruits and assesses applicants based on merit and suitability for the teaching profession, regardless of gender. We look for individuals with a passion for teaching, a belief in the potential of every child, and who possess the values and character to make a positive difference in students' lives.”
“Over the past five years, an average of 750 teachers resigned from the Education Service annually, representing a resignation rate of around 2%.”
“MOE has also progressively strengthened open access within the Primary 1 Registration Framework through Phase 2C, which is open to students regardless of whether they have prior connections to the school. MOE had increased the number of reserved Phase 2C places from zero to 20 in 2014; and from 20 to 40 in 2022.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,698 lines we hold for Desmond Lee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 54 of 74.
“They can also apply for a one-time grant to cover the initial costs of enrolling their child in the centre. To be eligible, the child should be enrolled in an affordable childcare centre. Applications for financial assistance will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Taking the Government's efforts together, around 4,100 families currently pay $10 and less per month for full-day childcare, of which around 70% or around 2,900 families pay $5 and less. This remaining amount can be fully covered by the $3,000 Child Development Account First Step grant provided by the Government. In August 2019, the Government announced further measures to provide higher subsidies for more families from January 2020, to expand the share of Government-supported preschools to 80% by around 2025, and to lower fee caps for full-day childcare in the medium term. These measures underscore the Government's commitment to ensure preschool affordability for all Singaporeans, with the greatest level of support given to low-income families so that every child can have a good start in life.”
“Preschool expenses are a function of fees, less subsidies and financial assistance, if applicable. The Government is committed to ensure the affordability of preschools, especially for low-income families, through the following measures. First, the Government supports Anchor Operators and Partner Operators so that they can keep their fees within fee caps and fulfil quality targets. Together with the Ministry of Education Kindergartens, these Government-supported operators make up slightly over half of preschool places today. This helps to keep overall industry median fees in check. Second, the Government provides subsidies to families with Singaporean Citizen children in all childcare centres. A universal Basic Subsidy is provided to all families regardless of income. Mothers can qualify for higher Basic Subsidy if they are working at least 56 hours per month, or around two days per week. This includes part-time and freelance work. To further support low- and middle-income working families, we also provide a means-tested Additional Subsidy. Where there are good reasons, non-working mothers may qualify for higher working mother subsidies under Special Approval. For example, if the non-working mother is undergoing training, pregnant, medically unfit to work, or providing full-time care for a younger child aged 24 months and below, or a sick or special needs family member. Non-working mothers looking for employment may also be considered. Applications under Special Approval will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Third, financial assistance is also provided to low-income families if they need help paying the monthly childcare fees even after the childcare subsidies.”
“Section 126 of the Women's Charter allows the Court to make a care and control order subject to any conditions as it thinks fit to impose, including the place where the child is to reside. Any condition included by a judge or by the parents, if they have reached an agreement, must be in the best interests of the child as well as necessary for their circumstances. We have considered the suggestion for all care and control court orders to state which parent is allowed to list the child as an "essential occupier" for the purposes of applying for a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat. However, we do not intend to make this a mandatory requirement. Both parents have a shared and equal right to list their children in their flat. We want to encourage parents to work out suitable arrangements between themselves, bearing in mind what would be in their children's best interests. It is not ideal for them, in a situation where they have shared care and control, to seek or rely on Court orders to list down all matters pertaining to their children, including housing. That said, some parents may face genuine difficulties in reaching an agreement. In such cases, HDB will review the matter and will be prepared to exercise flexibility to protect the interests of the children.”
“If the family is uncontactable or unresponsive despite numerous visit attempts, ECDA and the outreach agencies reach out to local community partners and work with them to try to engage the family when they are more receptive. As for education, MOE adopts several measures to reach out to parents whose children do not participate in the Primary 1 registration exercise. These include sending reminder letters and offering assistance to place the children in national primary schools. Where there is no response to the reminder letters, MOE sends liaison officers to make home visits. If a child is not staying with the parents, MOE continues to work with various agencies to try to contact the caregivers of the child. What members of the family said and did in their interactions with each of the different agencies and organisations over the years is relevant to ongoing investigations and criminal proceedings. I should, therefore, not go into any specific details. But what I will say is this: based on what the family members had said at that time and the interactions that the family had with the different agencies, the officers and social workers did not suspect that the child had gone missing or had come to any harm. The family had said that the child was being looked after by relatives. A two-year-old child will generally have no interaction, on a regular basis, with agencies. More details will be given in Court.”
“Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Christopher de Souza asked if the death of the child could have been picked up earlier. Mr Dennis Tan also asked whether the child’s birth was registered and whether agencies could have detected the child's absence from educational and other records. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) has confirmed that the child's birth was registered. Over the years, the family was known to, helped by or had contact with several various Government and community agencies, such as MSF's Social Service Office (SSO), CPS, Home Team agencies, the Ministry of Education (MOE), the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) and Family Service Centres (FSCs). These were for various matters, such as for financial assistance, family well-being and childcare issues, education and preschool matters, and so on. The family had previously approached the SSO to apply for financial assistance. The SSO had also linked the family up with an FSC for general support to improve the family and children’s well-being. The family also had previous interactions with CPS. During the social investigation, CPS will ascertain whether the children residing in the household are adequately provided for and work with the family to put in place a plan to address the concerns. ECDA engaged the family as part of the preschool outreach programme. Under the programme, outreach agencies appointed by ECDA reach out to lower-income families with children not enrolled in preschool. The agency engages the caregiver or parents on the importance of preschool education, helps facilitate enrolment of the child in a preschool if requested and refers them to other help agencies if necessary.”
“I will give some background on our processes to protect victims of family violence. The National Family Violence Networking System (NFVNS) was set up by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) to tighten partnerships amongst stakeholders, such as the Singapore Police Force, hospitals and Family Service Centres, to support individuals affected by family violence. We have strengthened the capabilities of professionals, such as teachers, healthcare professionals and social workers, to detect child abuse early and intervene appropriately. Sector-wide screening tools, such as the Sector-Specific Screening Guide (SSSG) and Child Abuse Reporting Guide (CARG), were developed to help professionals make timely decisions to escalate child abuse concerns to MSF's Child Protective Service (CPS). Professionals are trained regularly on the use of these screening tools. The Penal Code was also amended in May this year to enhance protection for vulnerable victims. Maximum penalties for all offences in the Penal Code committed against vulnerable victims, including children below 14 years old, may be enhanced by up to twice the maximum penalties previously prescribed for the offence. Such offences committed against children below 14 years old were also made arrestable, regardless of whether the underlying offence was arrestable, to allow the Police to intervene quickly. Let me now turn to the specific questions that Members have raised about the death of the two-year-old child. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the other siblings in the affected family. The other children are all under alternative care arrangements. MSF will continue to provide the necessary support to ensure the children’s safety and welfare.”
“For those who are looking for employment, we make concessions for them and allow them to benefit from the full subsidy. And for those who are non-working mothers, what they can do is, they can go for the basic subsidy for full-day childcare, or if not and they are at home with no other caregiving responsibilities other than their young children, then, there is the option to go for kindergarten with Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme subsidies. So, for half a day, they get pedagogical support; the other half a day, time with the parents, time with the family, family-bonding time.”
“I thank the Member for his questions. Every year, some preschool operators will make some adjustments to their fees. There are many operators – private, not-for profit, as well as MOE Kindergartens. So, every year, there will be some adjustments, whether or not we make adjustments to our subsidies. So, I hope that clears the misunderstanding. In fact, the vast majority of households earning $12,000 and below ought to see a reduction in childcare fees. There are, of course, some centres, private operators, that charge, say thousands of dollars in fees that make adjustments in the hundreds of dollars. That is quite a different situation altogether. But for the vast majority, they should see a fall in childcare fees from January next year. And as I said, from January 2021, for Partner Operators, we will bring down the fee caps even further, and thereafter, the Anchor Operators will see a fall as well. So, that is on the Member's first question. The second point is on families with many children. Apart from looking at total household income, for families with many dependants and more children in preschool, we will look at it from a per capita basis, so that they can get even more support. On non-working mothers, the support provided to them takes into account the fact that because they are working, they will need full-day childcare. By "working mother", we are talking about working two days a week, and that can include the informal sector as well. So, there is a degree of flexibility. In fact, working mother status is conferred if a mother works for two days a week, or roughly 56 hours a month. We do grant special approval if mothers have caregiving needs for children younger than 24 months or if they are looking after other dependants.”
“For example, if the mother is not working because she is providing full-time care for a younger child aged 24 months and below, or is looking for employment, she may qualify for higher subsidies under Special Approval. Low-income families who face difficulties paying their monthly childcare fees even after subsidies may also apply for financial assistance. Over the next few years, parents will increasingly have more affordable and quality preschool options to choose from, as we increase the number of Anchor Operator and Partner Operator preschools, and a few more Ministry of Education (MOE) Kindergartens. By around 2025, the share of Anchor Operator, Partner Operator and MOE preschool places will rise to 80%, up from just over 50% today. In the medium term, as Government-supported preschools grow and come under the stipulated fee caps, we will lower their fee caps so that parents will pay around the equivalent of primary school fees plus after-school student care fees for full-day preschool, before means-tested subsidies kick in. These enhancements will more than double annual Government spending on preschool, from $1 billion today. We are committed and will continue to make quality preschool more affordable and accessible to give every child a good start in life.”
“With enhanced childcare subsidies from January 2020, the majority of working families will pay less for childcare, even with the fee adjustment in one-fifth of the childcare centres. Compared to the median fee increase of about $35, families will see the Additional Subsidy for full-day childcare increase by up to $240 per month from January 2020, depending on their income levels. Allow me to illustrate what working families will pay for full-day childcare at an Anchor Operator preschool with the enhanced subsidies. Suppose the fees are below fee cap, say $740, and an increase by 5% to the fee cap of $770 next January, after the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Family A earns $3,000 a month. They pay $40 per month at this preschool today; from January next year, they will pay $3 per month. Family B earns $5,000 per month. They pay $340 per month today; from January next year, they will pay $130. Family C earns $8,000 per month. They pay $440 per month today; from January next year, they will pay $280 per month. As you can see, preschool expenses should fall for most families receiving Additional Subsidy, even with the fee increase in one-fifth of the childcare centres. Let me take this opportunity to clarify that the enhancements in Additional Subsidy apply to all eligible families, regardless of the centres their children are enrolled in, as long as these childcare centres are licensed by ECDA. They do not apply only to Anchor Operator or Partner Operator childcare centres. For families with non-working mothers or those who are earning more than $12,000 a month and hence do not qualify for the enhanced Additional Subsidy, we provide additional help for those who need it.”
“Mr Speaker, in 2020, 330 or one in five childcare centres will be increasing their full-day childcare fees for Singapore Citizen children. The other 1,200 childcare centres will not be making any adjustments to their fees. The number of centres increasing fees in 2020 is broadly comparable to previous years. In 2018, 540 centres raised fees. In 2019, 220 did so. From time to time, preschools adjust their fees to keep up with operational costs. But most manage their fee increases, in order to remain competitive. In fact, with the large number of operators, every year some operator or other will make some adjustments. Of the centres raising fees in 2020, the median increase is within 5% of fees, comparable to previous years. In absolute terms, the median increase is around $35. All preschools are required to inform parents and the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) of any increase in fees by 1 September of the preceding year, so that parents can make an informed choice about their child’s preschool. Of the centres raising fees next year, a large majority had informed ECDA even before subsidy enhancements were announced at the National Day Rally. Among some of the centres raising fees are those run by Anchor Operators and Partner Operators. These are centres operating below the stipulated fee caps, which have been maintained at their current levels since 2014 for Anchor Operators and 2016 for Partner Operators. The industry median fees have thus remained unchanged at $856 since 2016. In fact, in 2021, we will lower fee caps for Partner Operator centres when their new five-year term begins, further reducing industry median fees.”
“I am sorry. Mr Speaker, I am taking Question Nos 10 and 11 together, with your permission, please.”
“Mr Speaker, in 2020, 330, or one in five childcare centres —”
“I think the Member alludes to what you call "contamination", especially in adult prison 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. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Desmond Lee]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“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.”
“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 voluntary 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, 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.”
“I thank the Member for her concern. There is 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, spousal conflict, 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.”
“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”
“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 the Ministry of Home Affairs. 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.”
“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 inform 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.”
“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 ongoing, 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.”
“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 an FGO. 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 the child's or his parents' voices are heard during proceedings. Section 42 of 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 a 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Youth home staff will attempt to verbally de-escalate tensions, calm down any aggressive residents and persuade them to cease aggressive 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 (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 multidisciplinary 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.”
“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.”
“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 JRC. 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 are suitable for a Reformative Training Centre. 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 metres 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, the staff witnessed it and intervened immediately.”
“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 Sylvia 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 reoffending 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.”
“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 Sylvia 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 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.”
“We will take the Members' 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 caregiving 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 caregivers 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 caregivers to support them in their caregiving 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, 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.”
“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 touchpoints in the community, such as schools and preschools, 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 caregivers 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 foster 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.”
“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 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 Louis 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.”
“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.”
“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 caregivers 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.”
“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, intentions, severity, persistence of the abuse or neglect, 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.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for acknowledging the difficult but meaningful work of MSF's Child Protective Services and our social service agency 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 Christopher 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. The Member 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 storeroom 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.”
“MOM and the tripartite partners will also continue to actively promote the Tripartite Standard on FWAs.”
“Civil servants are eligible for up to two days of parent-care leave per year, and they have the flexibility to take this leave in full or half-day blocks. In 2017 and 2018, the percentage of eligible officers who took up parent-care leave was 43% and 44% respectively. More companies have offered paid parent-care leave over time. From a Ministry of Manpower (MOM) survey, 20% of companies in the private sector offered such leave benefits in 2018, up from 15% in 2012. To further support employees with unexpected care needs, the tripartite partners have also encouraged more employers to adopt the Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, regardless of whether they already provide parent-care leave. Today, 700 companies employing about 250,000 workers have adopted this Standard. Caregivers have given feedback to the Government that they prefer flexible work arrangements (FWAs) over parental leave as a more sustainable way to balance work and caregiving responsibilities. Arrangements, such as telecommuting or flexible working hours provide caregivers with greater flexibility if they need to take some time away from work for ad hoc parental care duties. Employees have greater access to FWAs today. More than nine in 10 employees today work in companies that provide some form of work flexibility. Among those who needed FWAs, more than eight in 10 employees had access to the FWA that they needed. To encourage more companies to meet their employees' FWA needs, MOM increased the Work-Life Grant budget from $30 million to $100 million in July 2019. This scheme allows each company to receive up to $105,000 over two years, to help the company maintain their employees' FWAs on a regular basis, whether it is flexi-time, flexi-load or flexi-place.”
“Working parents with citizen children below seven years of age are provided with six days of paid childcare leave. Employers absorb the cost for the first to third days, and the Government reimburses employers for the fourth to sixth days under the Government-Paid Childcare Leave (GPCL) scheme. The estimated utilisation rates of GPCL among eligible working mothers and fathers, disaggregated by age group, for each of the last three years are shown in Tables 1 and 2 below. This data reflects eligible working parents who took at least four days of childcare leave but does not include those whose employers do not submit claims for the fourth to sixth day of GPCL. These numbers do not reflect those who took one to three days of childcare leave only.”
“About 7%, or around 3,300, of the families living in Public Rental flats are transnational families, defined as households headed by Singaporeans married to foreigners. The Government takes a family-centric approach and works closely with community partners to deliver comprehensive, convenient and coordinated support to families in need. Social Service Offices (SSOs) and the Family Service Centres (FSCs) are two key touchpoints for low-income and vulnerable households. SSO officers and FSC social workers seek to work closely with families, including transnational families, to address their needs and challenges. These could include health, housing, schooling and employment concerns, or other family-related issues. To support families facing complex circumstances, a lead agency is identified to have oversight of the family's needs. The lead agency works closely with the family and also rallies other agencies and partners to coordinate and align their interventions. This way, we can render holistic help to support the family towards stabilising and improving their circumstances. We recognise that transnational families may face unique challenges, such as language difficulties. To address this, foreign spouses who attend our marriage preparation programmes can also sign up for free basic language classes, to help reduce language barriers in daily life. Alternatively, they can also attend language courses run by the People's Association. Schools have not reported difficulties interacting with foreign parents, but where language is a barrier, they can enlist the help of the other parent, family members or school personnel who are conversant in the foreign parent's preferred language.”
“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. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“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.”
“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 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 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 (CPS) and they partner our social service agencies who also play an important role.”
“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, the Ministry of Home Affairs 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 Beyond Parental Control (BPC). Today, parents can apply to the Youth Court to seek help for children who are labelled as BPC. 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 BPC 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 BPC and replace it with a new order known as the Family Guidance Order (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.”
“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 JRC 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.”
“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 flexicuffs, 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 (UK) 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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“Currently, the Youth Court hears cases against youth offenders who are below 16 years of age. Young people who are 16 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 the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) 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.”
“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 caregiving 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 handholding 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.”