Thailand Law Journal 2013 Spring Issue 1 Volume 16

V. Developing A Framework of Optimal Intervention

A. Behaviours that Amount to Child Abuse and Neglect: Studies in Social Science Research in Singapore The Singapore Children’s Society’s first monograph on “Public Perceptions of Child Abuse and Neglect in Singapore”⁶⁴ surveyed 401 members of the public on the definition, profile of child abuse and neglect and the reporting of abuse. It reported that the respondents’ ideas of child abuse and neglect included four categories, namely physical abuse, physical neglect, sexual abuse and emotional abuse/neglect. The monograph suggested that a distinction be made between “abuse” and “maltreatment”:
“abuse” is a more serious and derogatory term that may imply intention and wilfulness on the part of the perpetrator, whereas “maltreatment” may include behaviour considered by the respondents as unacceptable and may be unintentionally inflicted but does not amount to abuse.

The monograph listed the following as behaviours with potential to be considered child abuse or neglect⁶⁵:

Sexual abuse/lack of protection from sexual advances:
1. Having sex with child
2. Parent not protecting child from sexual advances by other family members
3. Adult appearing naked in front of child

Physical abuse:
4. Burning child with cigarettes, hot water, or other hot things
5. Tying child up
6. Shaking child hard
7. Slapping child on the face
8. Caning child

Physical neglect:
9. Ignoring signs of illness in child (e.g., high fever)
10. Leaving child alone in the house

Emotional abuse/neglect:
11. Locking child outside the house
12. Locking child in a room
13. Threatening to abandon child
14. Never hugging child
15. Calling child “useless”
16. Always criticizing child
17. Making child study for a long time
18. Telling child other children are better

The first monograph found that respondents, who were members of the public, considered sexual abuse to be the most serious form of abuse and were less concerned with emotional abuse. Therewas also a widespread acceptance of emotionally harsh or insensitive child-rearing style. Caning was widely accepted as a method of physical discipline and regarded by the fewest respondents to be “never acceptable” or “abuse or neglect”. However, sexual abuse and some forms of severe physical abuse or neglect were generally accepted to be forms of abuse; but emotional abuse was not as well accepted as constituting abuse.

The second research monograph on “Professional and Public Perceptions of Physical ChildAbuse and Neglect in Singapore: An Overview”⁶⁶ concluded that therewas a need for greater agreement among professionals, as the results point to a measure
of difference in the opinions across the professionals explored and to the diversity of attitudes to the various actions and circumstances. Professionals surveyed included the police, social workers, doctors, nurses, lawyers and teachers.

The studies reveal that in general, there is greater consensus that the following are unacceptable behaviour and also perceived as child abuse or neglect: sexual abuse and lack of protection from sexual advances; physical abuse in the form of burning
a child with cigarettes, hot water, or other hot things, and tying a child up; and physical neglect in the form of ignoring signs of serious illness (e.g. fever) in a child. Behaviours listed as potentially amounting to emotional abuse or neglect received less
consensus, as did less extreme forms of physical acts such as caning. It is noted that respondents did not necessarily consider all “unacceptable” behaviour to be abuse. For example, 84.4 per cent of respondents indicated that appearing naked in front of
a child was unacceptable but only 66.8 per cent of the same respondents indicated that this was abuse. The focus here is on behaviour regarded by the respondents to be abuse, not whether they are unacceptable.

If we take actions that at least 75 per cent of respondents in the first study regarded as abuse or neglect to be actions receiving consensus as amounting to abuse or neglect, markers of child abuse could be grouped in the following way. Sexual abuse in the
form of having sexual contact with the child and failing to protect the child from sexual contact with family members will ordinarily be regarded as sexual child abuse, but appearing naked in front of a child falls within the ‘grey area’.⁶⁷ Burning a child with cigarettes, hot water, or other hot things and tying a child up will ordinarily amount to physical child abuse, but shaking a child hard, slapping a child on the face and caning fall in the ‘grey area’.⁶⁸ Ignoring illness in a child is physical neglect but leaving a child alone in the house falls within the ‘grey area’.⁶⁹ All actions listed under “emotional abuse/neglect” fall within the ‘grey area’.⁷⁰ The perceptions of professionals are very close to those of the public except for one act, which is ignoring signs of illness in a child; in this category, 87.7 per cent of the public regarded this as abuse or neglect while 74.7 per cent of the professionals regarded it as abuse or neglect.⁷¹

The research also studied how acceptable selected behaviours were under varying “mitigating” circumstances. For example, it found that caning was considered acceptable if: the child was older, the child was disobedient, the child was not physically or mentally handicapped, the child was not treated differently from his siblings, only the limbs and buttocks were caned, there were no permanent marks or injuries, it happened infrequently, the adult had good intentions, or the adult was not under
stress.⁷²

It is submitted that behaviours which received clear consensus as amounting to abuse should be markers of cases of potential abuse. The other behaviours fall within the ‘thick grey line’. Child protection agencies should refrain from intervening in cases falling within the ‘thick grey line’ unless circumstances are exceptional, while courts should require serious harm or exceptional circumstances before orders are made in respect of cases within this ‘grey area’.

If there must be sufficient room for parents to adopt parenting approaches that they consider best for their children, variations to parenting, which can be affected by culture, personal experiences and personalities of both parents and child involved, can be accommodated within the limits suggested.⁷³ It is easy to predict that cultural variations lead to different value judgments on what amounts to acceptable or unacceptable behaviour. Even within the same culture, parents differ in disciplinary methods. In fact, a parent may use different methods of discipline for different children in the same family, because children have different personalities. A child who is disobedient recurrently will receive more intense variations of disciplinary methods than what his more compliant siblings will receive. Two parents in the same family may also differ in disciplinary methods.⁷⁴ Behaviour which falls within the ‘grey area’ may not be the best parenting practices but neither does such behaviour necessarily justify state intervention. Public education on good and effective parenting is suggested to be the more appropriate measure. Singapore’s Second and Third Periodic Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child reports that public education programmes exist to promote appropriate discipline and discourage the use of corporal punishment as a means of child discipline.⁷⁵ In schools, counselling is advocated and corporal punishment is meted out only as a last resort for serious offences. The use of guidelines and public education are submitted to be more appropriate than the use of legal sanctions in the CYPA to address child disciplinary methods which fall within the ‘grey area’. One cannot stress enough the importance of public education in this respect.

However, the state must draw a line beyond which even cultural variations cannot be acceptable. Where there is clear consensus from the studies that an action is abuse, some form of intervention is suggested to be necessary. These acts are also
more likely to cause significant or serious harm, which has been argued ought to be a requirement in the interpretation of ill-treatment. Chan et al. argued that:

any discussion on children’s rights within a culture, let alone across cultures, raises controversial and emotional responses. Yet it is necessary to set some kind of standard in identifying child abuse and neglect within and across cultures such that two apparently contradictory goals are met. Such a standard must necessarily be flexible, so that social and cultural differences may be respected while the child’s right to be safe is protected. Yet, that same standard must be clear enough to enable caregivers and professionals to identify markers of child abuse and neglect in order that intervention can occur.⁷⁶

64. Tong, Elliott & Tan, supra note 13.

65. Ibid., Table 2.2 at 22.

66. Elliott et al., supra note 13.

67. Monograph 1 records that 97% and 90.7 % of respondents considered sex with child and not protecting child from sexual advances to be child abuse/neglect, and 66.8% regarded appearing naked in front of a child to be abuse.

68. 99% and 84.7% of respondents considered burning and tying up a child to be abuse, respectively. 48.2%, 41.7% and 27.9% considered shaking hard, slapping on the face and caning a child to be abuse, respectively.

69. 87.7% of respondents considered ignoring a serious illness to be abuse or neglect, while 31% considered leaving a child alone in the house to be abuse or neglect.

70. Locking a child outside was regarded by the highest percentage of respondents (68.6%) to be abuse/neglect; saying others are better was regarded by the fewest respondents (17.8%) to be abuse/neglect.

71. See Elliott et al., supra note 13 at 20-21, 23.

72. Tong, Elliott & Tan, supra note 13 at 56-57.

73. See Stella R. Quah, “Ethnicity and Parenting Styles Among Singapore Families” (2004) 35:3 Marriage & Family Review 63.

74. Shum-Cheung, Hawkins & Lim, supra note 13 at 24 reported that mothers used physical punishment more frequently than fathers did.

75. Ministry of Community Development,Youth and Sports, Second and Third Periodic Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (January 2009) at 60, para. 8.31.

76. Chan et al., “Does Professional and Public Opinion in Child Abuse Differ? An Issue of Cross-Cultural Policy Implementation” (2002) 11 Child Abuse Review 359 at 363.