Sir, I would like to thank Members for their contributions and strong support for the Bill which is very timely. We need these amendments to improve the protection of our children and young persons. Let me, first, address the general concern about definitions and assessments, and whether or not we are trying to judge or take over the parents' role of how they ought to look after their children. Sir, we at the Ministry are very concerned about these too. We have thought long and hard about how we define things, how do we ascertain that whatever we are doing is correct, what do we know about what people think of their children and how they ought to be dealing with their children. So we are very aware of the difficulties of definitions, coverage, assessment and abuse. But, unfortunately, it is inherent in the issues that we are talking about. We are talking about relationships, we are talking about the psychological condition of a person. These are things which are difficult to really put your finger on and truly measure them. So where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line between abuse and discipline? Where do you draw the line between what is accidental and what is wilful? Where do you draw the line between what is private good and what is public good? And where do you draw the line whether it is in the interest of the child or in the interest of the family that we are talking about? These are questions which we agonise over and, indeed, it took us long and hard to really find the answers. But, nevertheless, Sir, the line must be drawn. We cannot not draw the line simply because our failure to do so will mean that there would be children out there who are damaged by the actions of either parents or relatives who abuse them either psychologically or physically. So the line must be drawn. But what we can do, Sir, is to minimise the subjectivity and sharpen the ability for us to assess correctly what ought to be done and what should be done for the child. Therefore, we tilt towards the interest of the child. So how do we go about trying to minimise the subjectivity, if at all, in the issues? One is to make sure that we approach the problem holistically. In other words, we look at each issue in context, from all angles and perspectives - individual differences, cultural differences, norms. We take all these into consideration and we make sure that we cover all angles, as it were, by making sure that we include all professions, all expertise, all experts (psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, social workers, teachers, community leaders). We have an inter-disciplinary and inter-agency approach towards assessment so that we get as wide a variety of minds to bear on the problems and as many experts to bear on the problems that we have in mind and at issue. And we also have protocols, guidelines and procedures which my officers follow stringently because we know that if we make a wrong decision, our decision would mean that a child may bear the scars of what he or she suffers during childhood right up to adulthood. So we are very well aware of the problems that Members have raised in terms of subjectivity, sharpening our assessment, and in terms of whether we are doing it in the interest of the child, the family or the community. So that is, in general, Sir, what I would like to respond in terms of the fears and concerns about subjectivity of the issues that are involved in child abuse. Let me now go to specific questions and comments from Members. For example, Prof. Chin asked what we mean by family conferencing. The word "family", I think, here is a bit of a misnomer because it really does not mean only the family is involved, but it includes significant others too. It involves relatives, it involves those who are victims of a child's offending behaviour. This family conferencing is part of the judicial process. In other words, it is an option during the case discussion, before the magistrate passes sentence, and it brings together those people who are affected by the juvenile's offending behaviour and this will include the offender, his or her parent or guardian, the victim, victim's family, and we have a family conferencing facilitator, an expert at facilitating and mediating such meetings. Through this mediation process, a family conference attempts to reach a consensus on what is the most appropriate way an offender can make reparations for his or her offending actions. The goal of the conference is for the juvenile to realise the impact of his or her offending behaviour or to express contrition to the victim and his or her family. The facilitators of this conference are selected based on their broad abilities to understand the processes of the juvenile court and the juvenile rehabilitation process as well as their skills in facilitating such meetings. Next, the question of jurisdiction of those below 16 years old. Mdm Claire Chiang asked about the jurisdiction for hearings of cases involving those who are below 16 and whether the system is fair in hearing the child and in meting out sentence. Sir, the system that we have now is an efficient and restorative one and it ensures that the young person who is about to turn 16 or who is below 16 is given the priority to be heard in the juvenile system. In other words, we try as much as possible and, indeed, given the efficiency of our courts, such children will be heard in the juvenile system. The Act provides for such cases to continue to be heard in the juvenile court even after the child turns over 16. All efforts will be made to expedite his or her hearing so that the principle which governs the juvenile court is extended to young persons. Mdm Claire Chiang also asked how do we know that the child is to be released and who is going to determine the child is to be released. Sir, this depends very much on the progress that the youths make during their rehabilitation and also the circumstances of their families. Our policy is not to keep youths in institutional setting. That is the last thing we want to do. In my speech just now, I reiterated that institutionalisation is the last resort. But while the policy is not to keep these youths in institutional setting longer than necessary, we need to strike a balance between what is public safety and whether or not the young person is ready to return to the community and to his or her family. There is a multi-disciplinary team, comprising psychologists, social workers and vocational instructors, to look into the different needs of each resident. Therefore, there is a committee, there is a group of people. In fact, as a principle, we have groups of experts rather than one individual person trying to determine whether or not the juvenile ought to be released or what kind of punishment, penalty or option which has to be imposed on a child. Prof. Chin asked whether we have enough professionals to accommodate the changes that we have made. Indeed, the changes are very comprehensive, and this is in fact one of the biggest changes that we have made to the CYPA. We too are very concerned whether we have enough people. We are still trying to produce enough psychologists, social workers and psychiatrists. Right now, we use both the expertise that we have in Government and also in the private sector. In other words, we also marshal the expertise - doctors, social workers - in the private sector to assess and also help us understand the cases that we have. But, certainly, we would continue to train people. We have, for example, engaged trainers from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which is based in UK, to provide professional training to our child protection officers. We also have joint training conducted with the agencies, such as the police and medical social workers, to ensure that the inter-agency system is sufficient and work in the interest of children. We are also working with the various agencies to secure the additional manpower and resources to run additional programmes. And we are also tapping the manpower and resources in the voluntary welfare organisations, in terms of psychiatrists and psychologists, to provide these specialised services for the programmes. Prof. Chin asked whether we ought not to merge the CYPA and also the Women's Charter. Sir, the purpose of the CYPA and the Women's Charter is different in the sense that the CYPA is to protect vulnerable and dependent children, the young persons who are at risk of abuse or have been abused and they cover young persons between the ages of 14 and 16. Whereas the Women's Charter provides for the protection of women and girls below 21 years who are in moral danger. So they are two different pieces of legislation which cover two different sections of the population. But I do concede that, at some point in time, perhaps we could consider merging these two pieces of legislation and also other legislation on family issues and family matters. We have not abandoned that idea. This is an idea which we could pursue later when the time is ripe. On the question of safeguards against malicious complaints, indeed, Sir, we are very well aware of this too, given the fact that it is easy for people to complain about their neighbour's children being abused, not knowing the reality or the full story. There may be instances where, just because you have a rather lower threshold of discipline, you also want to complain. We are aware of this. My officers will certainly sieve through the complaints and applications to ensure that only those which are fair and bona fide will be pursued and those which arise out of malicious complaints or very spurious complaints would be dropped even before we proceed further. On the question of mandatory reporting, this is something which has actually been debated a long time ago. In countries where mandatory reporting is applied, especially among professionals, we found that the level of non-compliance even by the professionals themselves is as high as 60%. We have consulted the professionals here in Singapore and, by and large, they feel that such laws are not necessary here. In particular, there is concern that mandatory reporting may in fact deter parents, who are abusers themselves, from seeking help, in particular, medical help for themselves, their children or their victims. And they may also be tempted to keep their children at home rather than send them to pre-school programme or to the doctor, thereby in fact insulating their children from the very people who could help them. Thus, on balance, we feel that the education of professionals who have regular contacts with children, such as doctors and teachers, is a much better approach so that they know how to detect and report child abuse. We have been conducting public education programmes for professionals and service providers. Mdm Claire Chiang mentioned it. Earlier this year, I launched an abridged version of a manual on "Marriage and Child Abuse" and, certainly, it has been helpful in educating the people on how to identify child abuse and also how to go about reporting child abuse. The issue of discipline and abuse is high in our minds too. Maybe, we must also be sure that, in some cultures, what is abuse is really discipline. In other cultures, what is discipline is really abuse. We are very well aware of that. Whenever we do come across cases whereby there may be a very thin line between what is abuse and what is discipline, we will bring in, as I said, all the expertise and various views to ascertain whether whatever is reported is really abuse or discipline. In the case of parents who are unable to take care of their children, either because the child is disabled or has got some mental problems, we will not straightaway say that the parent is abusing the child just by chaining the child to the wall. We will look back much further, and not just look at the picture which is presented to us. In other words, we will go further and deeper. Parents who are unable to pay, because of low income or no income, we have other avenues to help them. So we are very open in that sense. We are very flexible. We understand that, ultimately, the child must go back to the family or, hopefully, the child can go back to the family. Because we too would not want to put all abused children and all victims into institutions. We would rather that they be rehabilitated. We would rather that they become stable and, hopefully, they could go back to their family because that is essentially where the children ought to belong. Mdm Claire Chiang also touched about the fate of intellectually disabled (ID) offenders. This is important. There are provisions to first ascertain the intellectual level of these children, either by speaking to family members, interviewing them about their background, mental capacity and medical conditions and even interviewing the complainant about the offender's behaviour. This screening and identification process will help us manage the case appropriately so as to reduce unnecessary trauma experienced by the ID offenders and their families. During the sentencing stage, the courts exercise their discretionary powers and take note of the special characteristics of the offenders, such as their mental or medical condition, in the courts' decisions. If an offender is intellectually disabled indeed, the courts can request for a social report on the offender with a view to granting probation, for example. Indeed, when a probation is granted or recommended for an ID offender, the probation officer will work closely with the probationer to attend specialised programmes run by community agencies, such as the Association for the Educationally Subnormal or Bizlink Centre, and upon placement on the probation, the ID offender will be assigned a psychologically trained officer for supervision where possible. In MCDS-run homes where there is an ID offender, we have our own psychological services unit to assess the intellectual functioning of the offender and recommend the appropriate rehabilitation programmes. Mr Gerard Ee asked whether we ought not to impose heavier penalties on the media who disclose the identities of victims who are under 16. Sir, I cannot agree more with the Member that the penalties which we are imposing do not impose any financial hardship on the media. For sure, it will definitely not compensate the child, the young person and their families for any distress that they may have caused resulting from the disclosure. But although the fine seems very nominal, it has to be commensurate with the other proposed fines provided for in the Act. So that is something we have to follow. However, we would like to assure the NMP that my Ministry has worked and will continue to work with the media to ensure that they are mindful of the social implications and ramifications of reporting or disclosing what they ought not to disclose, through continuous education and dialogue. But, actually, the media here are generally very responsible in their coverage on matters relating to children and young persons. Of course, there are rare incidents whereby they have the identities of the juveniles revealed to the public and when we investigated further, we found that these could have been genuine mistakes, and not through wilful disclosure of the facts. Dr Vasoo asked about contamination. He feared that putting the new juvenile offenders together with the hardcore residents of rehabilitation homes would somehow contaminate the former. We are aware of this, Sir, and we are very concerned about contamination too. What really happens is that before residents are put into the homes, we classify them, ie, they go through a classification system. We have a system called CLASS, which is a classification and assessment system. This tool helps the Ministry to identify the needs of each juvenile offender in a very professional and objective manner. All newly committed juveniles will be assessed by a multi-disciplinary team for their character, behaviour and also their rehabilitation needs. And from the outcome of these assessments, we will consider an individual care plan for each juvenile. That is one strategy. The other strategy is to separate the two groups and, based on the results from CLASS, the homes make a decision on the physical placement of the boys and girls into different residential blocks within the homes. Dr Vasoo also asked whether institutionalisation is always the last resort. As I said, we believe in that philosophy. And, since 1999, we have been getting the community very much involved in the rehabilitation of the young person and child. Since 1999, for example, we have been very active in forging ties with the community to initiate numerous community-based services and programmes that are closely linked with wholesome youth developments. Our results have shown that community-based rehabilitation indeed, when used appropriately, provides the most cost-effective and least disruptive means to rehabilitate the juvenile offender. This is also, in a way, a response to Mr Charles Chong who is very concerned that we do not really go into the realm of the family, to intervene in what ought to be a family matter. Again, as I said, ultimately, our objective is for the family to take charge of the child and we make it such. The rehabilitative process that we go through is not only to rehabilitate the child but also to ensure that the parents would be able to take care of the child and, therefore, bring the child back into the family later on. That is our ultimate objective. Mr Charles Chong also raised the question about the interpretation of the term "undesirable activities". The term really is meant to protect any child who may be used by adults for activities, especially illegal ones, which are detrimental to the well-being of the child, eg, illegal lotteries, illegal hawking, gambling or activities of such magnitude or like. The context referred is to illegal activities.