Committee on the Rights of the Child reviews report of Singapore

Committee on the Rights of the Child
20 January 2011

The Committee on the Rights of the Child today examined the combined second and third periodic report of Singapore (CRC/C/SGP/Q/2-3) on how that country is implementing the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Introducing the report, Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports of Singapore, said that Singapore had made significant changes in several key pieces of legislation, including the Children and Young Persons Act. Children in Singapore enjoyed a high quality of health care, with low infant and under-five mortality rates. The Government was committed to providing quality education for the children and more than 20 per cent of the Government’s budget was allocated to schools each year. Singapore had adopted a many helping hands approach to reach out and educate the public on child protection and abuse, with numerous partners engaged through various platforms and networks. In recent years, more resources and attention had been accorded to children with special needs, while social assistance schemes were available to provide assistance to families with financial difficulties through services such as help lines and financial or job assistance.

In preliminary concluding remarks Agnes Akosua Aidoo, Committee Vice-Chairperson and the Committee expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Singapore, said that the Committee noted the achievements of Singapore in many sectors and areas and hoped Singapore would continue in achieving progress and raising the bar, since Singapore did have the human, economic and financial capacity to do so. The Committee took note of Government’s concerns related to the size of its territory and population density, as well as lack of natural resources, which did affect national attitudes and policies. The Committee would encourage Singapore to reconsider its position on reservations, definition of a child, and to look into issues of children with disabilities and foreign children.

Other Experts raised a series of questions during the discussion, including the right to nationality and citizenship of children born to Singaporean mothers; the existence of corporal punishment in homes, schools and prisons in Singapore; adolescent health, with particular attention to sexually transmitted diseases, drug use and suicide among youth and adolescents; and official development assistance provided by Singapore to programmes for children. Experts also requested clarifications on the reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and recent legislative reforms which included, among others, raising of the minimum age for work; early marriage among Muslims in Singapore; a complaint mechanism for cases of child abuse; the right of children to be heard; and child protection mechanisms.

The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Singapore towards the end of its three-week session, which will conclude on Friday, 4 February 2011.

The delegation of Singapore included representatives from the Ministry of Community Development and Sports, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Health, and the Attorney-General’s Office. The delegation was accompanied by representatives from a non-governmental organization from Singapore’s Children Society.

As one of 193 States parties to the Convention, Singapore is obliged to present periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts to comply with the provisions of the treaty. The delegation was on hand today to present the report and to answer questions raised by Committee Experts.

The Committee will reconvene in public at 3 p.m. on Friday, 21 January to hold an informal meeting with States parties. On Monday, 24 January, it will take up the fourth periodic report of Denmark (CRC/C/DNK/4).

Report of Singapore

The combined second and third periodic report of Singapore (CRC/C/SGP/Q/2-3) notes key developments since 2002, which include various initiatives by the Government to advance children’s rights in Singapore. Government policies relating to children are based on the key principles of child-centricity, integration, early intervention, specialised help for vulnerable groups and a shared sense of responsibility amongst Government, community and individuals in realising the needs of children. Key developments in the legislative sphere included a constitutional amendment allowing overseas-born children to acquire Singapore citizenship by descent from their Singaporean mothers, and the enhancement of the protection of young persons against exploitation for commercial sex in Singapore through the review and amendments of the Penal Code in 2007. The definition of a child under the Employment Act was amended in 2004. A “child” is defined as a person who has not completed his 15th year of age (raised from the previous 14th year of age). The minimum age of employment of children was also raised in 2004 from below the age of 12 years to 13 years. The Children and Young Persons Act is currently being reviewed with a view to furthering protective and rehabilitative measures for children and young persons. Singapore has, in recent years, introduced various initiatives in legal proceedings to better safeguard the interests of children and young persons in the justice system, which include the establishment of the Community Court, a Children Care Court and the Family Court.

The Government continues to adopt a partnership approach in policy and programme development and set up in 2007 an Inter-Ministry Committee to review the help for dysfunctional families with children. Its aim is to enhance assistance to dysfunctional families and to develop long-term resiliency in these families and their children. In the area of health, UNICEF has ranked Singapore’s infant mortality rate from 2005 to 2008 as the lowest in the world. The 6-year compulsory education introduced in 2003 aims to give all children a common core of knowledge that will provide a strong foundation for further education, and a common educational experience which will help to build national identity and cohesion. The Singapore Government also continues to seek ways to promote diverse educational pathways for all children through alternative schools and the provision of a wider range of curricula for children of various abilities and talents. Arts programmes for children including the annual Singapore Youth Festival, Noise Singapore (a media-based Arts Festival), Heritage Education programmes and reading programmes provide exposure to various artistic mediums and inculcate in children an appreciation for diverse platforms for expression.

Presentation of Report

VIVIAN BALAKRISHNAN, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports of Singapore, in his opening statement said Singapore was a relatively young country, with no natural resources, therefore children and people were its most valued resource and asset. After introducing the members of the delegation, Mr. Balakrishnan turned to the report presented to the Committee on the Rights of the Child and said that Singapore believed that children could best fulfil their potential in the presence of strong family relationships, a harmonious and cohesive community and a safe, healthy and nurturing environment that maximized opportunities for all in a fair and just society. Since the last session with the Committee, Singapore had made significant changes in several key pieces of legislation, including the Children and Young Persons Act, the Women’s Charter, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Penal Code. Children in Singapore enjoyed a high quality of health care, with low infant mortality and high immunization rate. In the area of under-five mortality rate, Singapore was ranked among the lowest alongside countries such as Finland, Iceland, and Sweden. Children also enjoyed high levels of nutrition and as result there were fewer school-going children who were overweight.

In the area of education, Singapore was committed to providing quality education for children. More than 20 per cent of the Government’s budget was allocated to schools each year. Diverse educational pathways were provided to recognise different talents and needs. Singapore had adopted a many helping hands approach to reach out and educate the public on child protection and abuse. Partners were engaged through various platforms such as the National Family Violence Networking System and the Inter-Ministry Work Group on Child Abuse. Victims were counselled and provided with support services from Voluntary Welfare Organizations, medical treatment and remedial care. The Children and Young Persons Act had been recently amended to enhance the legislative provisions on the care and protection of children. In recent years, more resources and attention had been accorded to children with special needs, including the establishment of the Enabling Masterplan, the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and children, government subsidies and others.

Children thrived in close-knit, supportive and loving families and as such, Singapore worked towards creating a pro-family environment to make Singapore the best place to bring up children and to guide them into adulthood. Early intervention was crucial for families who might need more support, especially where the welfare of the child was concerned. Social assistance schemes were available to provide assistance to families with financial difficulties through services such as help lines and financial or job assistance. Singapore believed strongly in promoting diversity and exposing the young to the myriad cultural life present in Singapore. As a multi-racial and multi-religious city-state Singapore encouraged cross-cultural exchange both in schools and in the community and had hosted in 2010 an inaugural Youth Olympic Games, a new initiative of the International Olympic Committee sought to engage youth through sports, culture and education.

Questions by Experts

SANPHASIT KOOMPRAPHANT, the Committee expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Singapore, said Singapore was one of the countries where children enjoyed a high standard of living. Important progress had been made in Singapore in the areas of infant mortality, primary and secondary education and so on. The initiative to amend the Children and Youth Persons Act in 2010 was the first step to guarantee that children would be better safeguarded and it also promoted their welfare. It particularly encouraged the parents or guardians of children to comply with Articles 5, 18 and 27. It was clear that Singapore had a framework and mechanism to work directly with the children rather than working together with parents or the family. The establishment of the Inter-Ministry Committee on Dysfunctional Families, the Central Youth Guidance Office and Child Care Masterplan might imply that Singapore needed to build up a different framework and mechanism to implement the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill of 2010 as mentioned in the replies. The report on child abuse illustrated that Singapore should review the identification technique and develop child witness support and victim protection programme to help and facilitate the child victim on the testimony or deposition. The Rapporteur asked how the data on child abuse was collected. Singapore had reservations on many articles which might imply that Singapore had some threats on stateless children, foreign children, children’s right to be heard, mass media and children in conflict with the law.

AGNES AKOSUA AIDOO, Committee Vice-Chairperson and the Committee expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Singapore, welcomed the high level delegation from Singapore and said she was aware of their achievements in socio-economic development and the promotion of vibrant policies and child protection and social welfare measures. Given Singapore’s obvious capacity, it would be only fair for the Committee to raise the bar and expect more from Singapore which had the commitment, technical, human and financial resources to do so. She asked the delegation to comment on how children were viewed both by the State and public institutions. Reading reports gave the impression that there was a certain paternalistic attitude towards the children which was not in the spirit of the Convention. The Convention recognised the need to protect children, but also to open the space for their participation in the public life as citizens, from early on. How did Singapore define youth, who were the youth; in many instances they were classified as persons between 15 and 24 or even 15 and 35. Youth organizations were often controlled by older youth, above 18 years of age, who had political currency as they had a right to vote. In the Children and Young Persons Act, there did not appear to be specific provisions for the right of children to express themselves and the Expert asked for further information about the right of children and youth to express themselves in accordance with relative articles of the Convention. On the issue of corporal punishment, Ms. Aidoo said that since the adoption of the Convention and in particular since the study of the Secretary-General on violence against children, it was agreed that countries should be beyond this form of treatment and that other forms of disciplining children should be found.

Other Experts then asked a number of questions, pertaining to, among other things, the right to nationality and stateless children, corporal punishment, ratification of texts and the Government’s reservations to the Convention, legislative reforms, a complaint mechanism for children and the right of children to be heard and the right of children to information.

Several Experts commented on Singapore’s reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and asked about the position of the Singaporean Government on reservations and if there were any initiatives to open debate and remove those reservations. Regarding the application of Article 123 of the Constitution of Singapore which made it possible for a child born of Singaporean mother to obtain citizenship, did the principle of retroactivity apply? What was the impact of the review of the Children and Young Persons on the lives of the children and were opinions of children sought in the review process, an Expert wished to know. On the issue of the Muslim community in Singapore, the delegation was asked to comment on how the Government dealt with the Muslim community, given their cultural and religious diversity and difference from the majority of the population. Further information was requested on the structure of the Inter-Ministerial Committee, its status, aim and competence. In particular, Experts wished to know more about the cooperation mechanism in this Committee and its relationship with the public. The same was asked of the National Family Councils, established in 2008.

On the issue of receiving complaints from children and the functioning of the existing mechanism, Experts sought clarifications, while others requested reassurances from the delegation that all children staying and living in Singapore had equal access to protection and complaint instances and mechanisms. Committee members further wished to know more about the protection of the right to privacy of children and adolescents, particularly in sensitive settings such as health, education. Regarding the right of children to information, how did the children exercise this right and how were they protected in the process, an Expert asked. Corporal punishment, which in Singapore was considered an acceptable measure of disciplining children, should be connected to inhumane and degrading treatment and was against the spirit and measures of the Convention. Were there any considerations to bring down this measure and replace it with non-violent measures? An Expert noted that the mass media have a very important role in influencing the children and asked how the Government was dealing with the media and particularly with the view of preventing exploitation.

The delegation was also asked about the nationality of a child born to a mother who was not Singaporean and was an asylum seeker. On the issue of non-discrimination, an Expert asked for comments from the delegation, particularly on the non-equal provision of services to citizens and non-citizens. The role of non-governmental organizations was really remarkable but what was their real role in the lives of children and how much could they really interfere in their lives? On the issue of legislation and the efforts to bring Singaporean laws in line with the Convention, an Expert wished to know more about the reservations. All reservations should be lifted, particularly those related to Article 7 of the Convention and the situation of children born to Singaporean mothers. Were there plans to ratify other major texts, such as the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, or the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography? According to the information the Committee had, it was not possible for judges in Singapore to apply the Convention directly in courts and the delegation was asked to comment on this.

Response by the Delegation

Responding to the questions related to the legal issues, the delegation said that Singapore had a dual legal system, which meant that the principles of the Convention were incorporated in the national legislation. Some of the provisions had been incorporated in key legislation even before the Convention was ratified. Such was the case with principles of non-discrimination, the best interest of the child, the right to be heard and others. On the right of child to be heard, the national legislation recognised this right in various instances and cases, such as divorce, custody, abortion and others. Views of children were sought in cases of child abuse and children in distress were referred to various networks for support and counselling.

Following-up on this explanation, Experts said that the child was heard by Youth Counsellors, so where exactly did the child views fit in the procedures, who assessed them and defined the view of children? What happened if the child was not heard? The delegation said that Youth Counsellors were court-appointed and their role was to find out from the children in a child-friendly environment what their views were. Judges made the final decision and they were very well trained in dealing with children and in making decisions in the best interest of the child. Judges had undergone various training in child-focused judicial procedures, including advanced training in conflict mediations.

On public order, immigration rights and the right to nationality, the delegation said that Singapore was a very small country and the right to nationality was not automatically guaranteed at birth. If a child was born to a Singaporean mother before the 2004 Constitutional amendment, she could apply for a citizenship, while the 2004 Amendment gave automatic citizenship. If the child was born of foreign parents, the nationality of country of parents was given. Responding to further questions by an Expert on the nationality of children born to Singaporean mothers before and after 2004, the delegation said that the Constitutional amendment of 2004 removed one of the last gender discriminatory obstacles. It was decided that it would enter into force in 2004, so the children born before 2004 could obtain citizenship upon registration. An Expert said that since the citizenship to children born after 2004 was granted on merit, how many applications were accepted and how many were turned down. The delegation said it did not have this information.

Regarding the many helping hands approach, the delegation said that there were many non-governmental organizations in Singapore, called Voluntary Welfare Organizations, run by volunteers who were professionals. The National Council of Social Services, established in 1992, was not a part of the government. It offered independent services to children, from concrete programmes and initiatives, to advocacy efforts. An Expert said she noted that the National Council of Social Services did not have linkages with the Inter-Ministerial Committee coordinating the implementation of the Convention and the Committee did not have a confirmation of the implication of NGOs in this process. The delegation said that the Inter-Ministerial Committee was a governmental committee that worked closely with the National Council of Social Services, which however needed to be kept at arms length, in order to help it maintain its independence and even disagree with the Inter-Ministerial Committee. The majority of social services were delivered through the Voluntary Welfare Organizations, which would submit plans to the Government which would then fund 90 per cent of costs, while the Voluntary Welfare Organization would have to fundraise for another 10 per cent. The Government funded up to 50 per cent of operating costs for centres and institutions delivering social services. This relationship between the Government and the Voluntary Welfare Organization was a key feature of the social care system in Singapore. Answering the question on how easy it was to register a NGO in Singapore, the delegation said there were several thousand NGO and Voluntary Welfare Organization members and the Government encouraged the people with a sense of mission and the willingness to establish those organizations.

Responding to queries related to child protection, the delegation said that the key provisions of the Children and Youth Act amendment were going to enhance the standards of care in children’s homes and would ensure that children’s needs were met. The Government was also looking to enhancement in children’s homes that would take place over the next five years. The Government encouraged and supported parents and social welfare organizations to improve the child’s situation before the removal of the child happened which, in its nature was a very serious measure. Before it happened, the Government must establish that the child was in harm’s way and had no support network. In court-mediated cases, a judge had the discretion to decide for how long the child would stay in the State’s care and this approach guaranteed the child’s best interest.

Cases were reviewed regularly and when a child was placed in a children’s home, a case must be reviewed every four months by people independent from running the care home. This ensured that children did not stay longer than necessary in an institution. Regarding dysfunctional families, the delegation said those were families at very high risk and with very high needs. Therefore, using the term “dysfunctional” was not discriminatory and stigmatising, but was ensuring that the family was receiving the help, support and attention needed to break out of the cycle of multiple needs and high risk. An Expert said that if the real issue was needs – social or economical – and if as a consequence a family became dysfunctional, maybe the term was not the happiest choice. On the issue of the right of children to be heard, the delegation outlined the process and what happened when there was a need to seek children’s view, which included the social worker speaking to the child separately to better understand their perspective.

Addressing the concerns expressed by some Committee members about equal access to services by stateless children or non-citizen children, the delegation said that all children had access to primary education, which was fully funded. The same was true for access to health care. On the issue of corporal punishment, the delegation noted the views of the Committee and the differences in philosophy. Corporal punishment was used in schools, juvenile detention, prisons and was one way of disciplining children. It was a last resort and used only in extreme cases and was regulated by strict guidelines. The Government was trying to equip children and those working in institutions with knowledge on how to discipline children differently, for example through counselling.

Further Questions by Experts

AGNES AKOSUA AIDOO, Committee Vice-Chairperson and the Committee expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Singapore, noted the progress made on the family environment and said that children beyond parental control still remained a point of concern. Were there any studies undertaken in Singapore about this phenomenon, the root causes, prevalence and measures to take? Some data indicated there were more girls than boys in this category of children, what was the meaning of this? Regarding basic health care, Ms. Aidoo noted all progress achieved by Singapore, particularly in infant mortality and under-five mortality; the concern however remained about the health of adolescents, both physical and mental health. Statistics showed an increase in sexually transmitted diseases among teens, and an increase in suicide by children.

SANPHASIT KOOMPRAPHANT, the Committee expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Singapore, asked for a follow up on the specific question on initiatives on enhancing parental capacity to make them more capable to provide to the needs of their children. Abuse and neglect of children was another issue of concern and the Rapporteur asked about initiatives by state agencies to identify and report child abuse and neglect.

An Expert appreciated Singapore’s contribution to the United Nations, such as participation in the peacekeeping missions. However, it appeared that Singapore, regardless of being one of the major economies in the world, was contributing little in official development assistance. Did the State of Singapore have any guidelines for cooperation and for corporate respect of human rights and children rights in particular? Another Expert asked about the implementation of the Paris Principles.

Regardless of the progress and achievement in basic health care, Singapore was still having some issues of concern. One of them was breastfeeding, and exclusive breastfeeding rates seemed rather low. An Expert was concerned about counselling and suicide prevention services for adolescents in Singapore; on one hand there were many modern programmes that promoted self-esteem for example, but on the other hand some behaviours which in fact were emotional problems, were criminalized. Suicide, sexual relations between two 15 year olds, and early pregnancies were some of the criminalized behaviours. What measures were taken on the systemic level to improve the mental health of teenagers and adolescents?

Children with disabilities in Singapore were in special institutions funded by the Government but run by the Voluntary Welfare Organizations. The personnel in those schools were not paid by the Government and the concern was about the control of quality of education and exercise of the right to expression in such institutions which catered to a special category of children. Regarding child abduction and the fact that Singapore still had not ratified the Hague Convention, an Expert asked what laws were in place for such situations. Did Singapore still have harmful traditional practices? Singapore was known to have strict policies and zero tolerance for drugs and drug trafficking, but what were the measures and policies dealing with the prevention of addiction in adolescents?

Response by the Delegation

Responding to outstanding questions from the morning meeting, the delegation said that Singapore did not have separate mechanisms to monitor child issues, but that there were dedicated organizations with which a child or anyone else could lodge a complaint. There was a child protection hotline that could be used by anyone, including the general public, alongside a locked mailbox. Very young children could also contact their teachers, neighbours or parents. Regarding the minimum age for marriage of Muslim couples, the issue was governed by the Muslim Act which increased the minimum age for marriage from 16 to 18. The amendment in the Labour Law raised the minimum age for work from 13 to 14 and for light work from 12 to 13 and this was in line with the Convention. On the questions related to the Hague Convention on child abduction, the delegation said that Singapore had passed laws in September last year which should create a legal framework to deal with child abduction cases. An Expert had raised a concern about completion rates for compulsory education in Singapore and what children were included in these statistics, only citizens or also residents. The delegation said that foreign workers holding temporary jobs usually did not bring children with them, and that the number of 92 per cent completion of compulsory education included both citizen and resident schoolchildren.

Regarding measures to enhance parental capacity, over the last 10 years Singapore had put a lot of effort in providing support to parents. Social agencies provided parental support and guidance, and the Government also worked with foreign experts to run “Triple P” programmes. A parenting movement was also brought directly to school, where a number of programmes were conducted. Strategies to detect children at risk were debated at the highest level and as a result a number of initiatives were launched, such as training of teachers to detect children at risk, or establishment of the office for youth at risk. The critical ingredient of success was training of professionals in detecting cases and therefore Singapore put significant resources in training police officers or organising inter-agency initiatives. An important training programme, called Developing Child-safe Organization, copied from Australian experience, was started too.

An Expert was concerned about the practice of a parent calling the State and requesting that the child was removed, while it was not clear who the child could call in case of abuse and problems at home. The delegation said that there was an intricate system in place that ensured maximum protection for the child, which included different independent assessments before the issue would even come before the court. The principles underlying this system were the right of the child to be heard, listening to parents and acting in the child’s best interest. It was not a “trigger-happy” system in which it was extremely easy to lock the children up, the delegation said. Turning to the questions related to drugs, the delegation said that Singapore had a Drug Prevention Unit whose main task was to protect children against drug abuse. It was undertaking awareness-raising efforts in schools and “drug-bust” performances in neighbourhoods to demonstrate the dangers of drug use to children. The Internal Security Act was an important tool in the fight against terrorism, the delegation said; it did not have specific provisions for children, but its main purpose was to protect children.

Breastfeeding rates in Singapore were indeed lower than the Government would like, but were still on the rise since the last reported figure. The Government had been very active in promoting exclusive breastfeeding among the mothers, dedicated points were established in hospitals, and a campaign in the media was conducted. In addition, a breastfeeding environment was promoted, which included baby rooms in commercial outlets, and breastfeeding rooms at places of work. Singapore was one of the first countries in the world that had a Committee and strict guidelines for the sale of milk and baby feeding products.

In the last five years adolescent health had taken a separate place next to paediatric care and Singapore increasingly understood that this population group was different and had particular needs. In 2006 the Government appointed an Advisory Committee to identify major health issues affecting adolescents and as a result the Government had started a separate Department of Adolescent Medicine and it was clear that trying to reach adolescents required different approaches in health promotion and education. Antenatal screening was a standard of care in Singapore, which was one of the principal strategies in preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Criminalization of behaviour, particularly those that in fact were the result of emotional difficulties, did not mean prosecution in all cases. Suicide was not an offence, technically, attempted suicide was; the reason it was criminalized was to enable the police to stop the person from harming him or herself, and to refer the person to instances where help could be obtained. Following up on this explanation, and in particular on the issue of consensual sex between youngsters whereby criminalization, according to the delegation was in place in order to protect girls, an Expert asked how were the boys protected and said that many of the approaches were gender biased. The aim of mental health programmes was to strengthen the youth in stress and anger management, and in building self-esteem and positive mental attitudes. At the same time, the capacity of parents and teachers was strengthened, through campaigns and awareness raising about mental health of children, as through building their skills to help their children.

Asked for clarification on official development assistance by Singapore, the delegation said that the contribution to the United Nations Children’s Fund was a voluntary one which was regularly reviewed, but that this was not the only way in which Singapore worked with the international community on the issue of children. The delegation drew the attention to recent droughts in Djibouti and in Mongolia, to which Singapore had made contributions to humanitarian responses. An Expert asked for further information on contributions by Singapore for social and economic development, pursuant to the Article 4 of the Convention which encouraged countries with high economic performance to support the implementation of the Convention through international cooperation. The delegation of Singapore preferred not to answer this question at the moment, before it consulted with the Government on the issue. Singapore had extended a lot of assistance in human capacity building, particularly in the area of health and paediatric care, as was the case in Cambodia.

Responding to concerns expressed by a number of Committee members about reservations on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the delegation said that the Government had entered its reservations to six Articles of the Convention; for 4 of those Articles, namely Article 7, Article 9, Article 10, and Article 22, reservations were entered mainly because Singapore was a small country and full acceptance of those Articles would mean that Singapore would have to accept new inhabitants. Those reservations had to be still kept in order for Singapore to maintain its territorial integrity. Reservations in Article 28 were entered because Singapore could not allow itself to be put in a situation to be obliged to offer free compulsory education to all children that would be brought to the country. The main reason for which reservations had been entered was because Singapore took its international obligations very seriously and did not want to commit to anything it would not be able to be fully compliant with.

An Expert underlined the issue of foreign workers in Singapore and asked what treatments were accorded to their children pursuant to the Convention. The delegation said that temporary foreign workers in Singapore did not have the right to bring children into the country, so the issue never actually had risen. Singapore said that Singapore was in full agreement with the Committee on the overall goals and objectives of the Convention; differences lay only in interpretation of some of the Articles and a perspective between smaller and larger countries.

Further Questions by Experts

An Expert said that the talk about the reservations was to be continued and more needed to be done to understand a difference between reservations and declarations in international law. Referring to Article 21 on adoption, it was of concern that Singapore was still not a party to the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and a Committee member asked if there were debates in the country on a possibility of ratification of this instrument. How did the Government work with children with disabilities living in remote areas or coming from culturally diverse backgrounds? Another question concerned play, which was very important for children to combat stress. The delegation was also asked about juvenile justice and a Committee member said that the minimum age for committing criminal offence was rather low and that it was not always guaranteed that a child understood why he or she was being prosecuted and what was going on. The penalties for children committing crimes and offences were rather harsh.

Regarding the modification of the Employment Law in Singapore, and the link with the International Labour Organization, Singapore had been reminded that the minimum age for employment only applied to children who had a written contract, which actually left children without such a contract without protection. The advantage of the written contract was that it clearly spelt out the rights. Minimum age did not seem clear for cases of domestic work. The Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women emphasized the problem for young women particularly in domestic work. People working as domestic workers did not have for example a day off. What was the situation of children employed as domestic workers in Singapore? Why not raise the minimum age for work to 18 and so provide equal and universal protection?

Experts also wished to know about common root causes for trafficking in children and commercial sexual exploitation and what action, if any, was taken to protect the children, particularly street children. What measures did Singapore take to combat child labour and were there any opportunities for those children to develop in accordance to children and human rights? The question of age was a crucial one in juvenile justice, but the problem was what was exactly done if a lower age bracket, in this case seven, was applied. In 2009, there were 71 cases that were covered by protection measures and an Expert wanted to know why Singapore needed a penal system if a protection system was already in place? There was a confusion about the real age for criminal responsibility, was it 16 or was it 18? The existence of physical violence and corporal punishment, such as caning, was archaic and did not allow for combating violence against children; Singapore had set up many alternative measures, including parental guidance, so why was corporal punishment still needed at all?

A lot had been achieved in the area of education, but the educational system was overly competitive. What were the consequences of such a system in terms of stress experienced by the children, youth suicide, behavioural problems and what were the steps taken by the Government to allow children to fulfil their potential in a more relaxed manner? A recent report by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance suggested that measures be taken to assist Malay students with performance issues in catching up with Chinese students. Did the Government take any measures in this regard and if so, which ones? Were children with mental disabilities tried in the adult court? What was a minimum age for recruitment in the military?

Response by the Delegation

Speaking of stress in schools, the delegation said that every school had teacher counsellors and either full or part time professional counsellors to provide support to children in need. Schools took great pains to enhance students’ abilities to deal with stress, life, decision-making and other life skills for situations they might encounter at school and in the home. Secondary education took place between 12 and 16 years of age, when students were going through adolescence and the role of counsellors was essential. The play time for younger kids was important and there would be more time in the curriculum for those activities. The whole idea was to ensure that children were given a chance to learn as they play, particularly at lower primary levels. The Government was also maintaining plenty of green spaces that children could enjoy.

Singapore had a bilingual policy which meant that each child must learn English, a common working language of the Government, and learn their mother tongue to ensure exposure to their own culture. Steps taken to help poorly performing students included programmes and learning support for mathematics and English in primary schools. When it came to children with disabilities, the Ministry of Education recently came up with a quality assurance framework for school for disabled children run by the Voluntary Welfare Organizations. Staff would be trained to conform to teacher quality standards and funding for those schools would be increased in order to enable them to recruit more teachers, particularly for those working with children with heavy disabilities. The Compulsory Education Act compelled all citizen children to be in mainstream public schools, which was a means to ensure that there was a common academic foundation and to foster national identity among citizens in this multicultural and multilinguistic society. However, children with disabilities were exempted from the Compulsory Education Act, since under the Act itself it would be an offence not to place a child in public primary school and the Government did not want to “punish” parents of disabled children.

On the juvenile justice system, the delegation said that the system was premised on the protection of the child and there was no rigid line between punitive and preventive approaches. The system was focused on both rehabilitative and restorative aspects. Any person below the age of 16 if arrested would be brought into the juvenile justice system. Every court dealing with a child or young person used the Child and Youth Act and if it appeared it was necessary to do so for the interest of the child, the court might request that a parent or a guardian withdraw from the process. There was a wide range of punishments available under the juvenile system, from discharge, to release in relatives’ care or custody, to probation order, to community service, detention, approved school, fine or being sent to reformative centres in the case of re-offenders. No child below the age of 10 would be sent to approved schools, or detention. Answering the question by experts about a child between ages of 7 and 10 who committed an offence, the delegation said that in Singapore children grew up in safe environments and very few committed offences or crimes. Singapore was a low-crime society with the penal system focused on rehabilitation in which the best interest of the child was a principle. No child between the ages of 7 and 12 who did not understand the nature and consequence of his or her action was held responsible. A reason behind minimum age of criminal responsibility was to protect children from being used as pawns and proxies in criminal activities.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

AGNES AKOSUA AIDOO, Committee Vice-Chairperson and the Committee expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Singapore, in preliminary concluding observations, said that the Committee appreciated the frank, open and constructive dialogue with the delegation. The achievements of Singapore in many sectors and areas were noted, as well as the values placed on family integrity or social cohesion. It was important however to guard against those principles becoming an obstacle in promoting the rights of children. The Committee hoped Singapore would continue in achieving progress and raising the bar, since Singapore did have the human, economic and financial capacity to do so. The Committee took note of the Government’s concerns related to the size of the territory and population density, as well as lack of natural resources, which did affect national attitudes and policies. Like with all other States parties, the Committee would encourage Singapore to reconsider its position on reservations, particularly on those obligations where Singapore almost achieved its international obligations. There was an issue with the definition of a child and there was no certainty what the uniformed definition was; what seemed to exist was a series of sector-defined definitions of the child, as in the Employment Act, the Criminal Code, and others and the Committee urged the Government to clarify and define uniformly a child. There were also issues with children with disabilities that needed to be looked into, and the Committee would ask firmly that the situation of foreign children was looked into and that their rights were protected in accordance with the Convention.

VIVIAN BALAKRISHNAN, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports of Singapore, thanked the Co-Rapporteur for the comments that would be taken into account by the delegation, and thanked the Committee members for engaging with the delegation. Singapore was a traditional Asian society where balance was of a high value and a society focused on outcomes. Singapore had signed the Convention but was not able to lift all the reservations due to its special circumstances of being a small, densely populated and young nation. It was hoped that the Committee would understand that Singapore might not do everything in the way of the Committee, but Singapore had a firm commitment to its children, their health, education and their rights. As for foreign children, the Government clearly could not provide the same treatment and same subsidies as it did to its citizen children, as the Government had an obligation to provide a head start to its citizens.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record