My Parliamentary Speech on the Adoption of Children Bill is a result of the lived experiences of my friends/ residents who had either adopted children or are themselves adopted or potentials.

Here’s the full video (7 min) and an extract of what I shared.

Big thanks to those who gave the inputs and to Ministry for listening :

1. Sir, I stand in support of the Adoption of Children Bill.

2. The last substantial amendment to the Act was in 1985, almost 40 years ago.

The recommended increase from 12 sections to 75 sections in the proposed Amendments, is a testament to the need to update this legislation.

In addition, Singapore’s birth and fertility rate has been declining. And adoption is one of the top options by couples who aspire parenthood.

Adoption is thus a matter of interest to society.

3. Adoption is clearly a serious matter. An adoption order granted by the Court is in effect a termination of the legal relationship between a child and his/her biological parents; transferring all rights and responsibilities in caring for the child to the adoptive parents.

4. I wish to touch on matters relating to 3 key stakeholder groups – the children to be adopted; the adoptive parents and the adoption agencies.

5. VOICE OF THE CHILD. I fully agree with MSF’s undergirding principle behind the suite of amendments in the Bill – that the top priority is to guard the welfare of the child.

6. Many of the stakeholders involved in the adoption process are adults – prospective adopters, biological parents, adoption agency operators. But the person that is most impacted remains to be the child who is up for adoption.

7. My question to the Ministry is how the Voice of the Child can be better sought and heard.

8. In the case of one of my young teenaged residents, Weng (not his real name), the stress and uncertainty he endured during the process was hard for him. Weng’s biological father in a foreign country had abused both him and his mother. His mother remarried a Singaporean who discovered the option of adoption only after a period of appeals to agencies and through the MP. Throughout the period of adoption, Weng expressed great fear and anxiety of being rejected and sent back to his home country. Weng really wanted to reside in Singapore with his mother and stepfather; and wants to serve national service when it is time. He wants to become a Singaporean. I am glad he is now.

9. Another young resident, QH, had to return to China to fend for himself at age 21; whilst his mother remained in Singapore with his biological half-brother and Singaporean stepfather. I supported part of of his education and often wish he could have become one of Singapore’s sons.

10. And what of my former student, Boon, a Singaporean child with special needs; who was fostered as a toddler through the Ministry’s arrangement.

Could he have been put up for adoption earlier?

How long would it take, under the Bill, to propose and facilitate the adoption of fostered children like Boon who were abandoned from young?

11. If the top priority for the Bill is for the welfare of the child, there must be found ways by which the process incorporates the voice of the child to be adopted.

12. VOICE OF THE ADOPTIVE PARENTS

In the process of preparing this speech, I spoke to a number of adoptive parents who had walked the journey.

There are 2 main areas of concerns – one, the long administrative process; and second, the unevenness of available information.

13. The process of adoption currently involves many steps – from pre-adoption briefing, to home assessment study, to identifying an agent to identify a child for adoption; to application for a Dependent’s Pass for a foreign child; to approval by the Family Court; to sending the Adoption Order to ICA for a Birth certificate; to applying for a Singapore citizenship and in the case of China, several post-adoption reporting.

14. Yen, a happy adoptive mother who adopted a baby from an ASEAN country, had to wait for a Dependent Pass to be approved before she can spend time with the child, even after passing a stringent Home Report assessment. That was Step 7 of 15 in MSF’s portal, when I searched.

Mothers like Yen ask if the new process would further lengthen the anxiety of bona fide prospective adopters.

How do the steps in the new process vary in terms of quantity, duration and complexity?

How can the process be more efficient whilst ensuring the welfare of the child remains a priority? Whilst essential steps to assess and prepare prospective adopters are made mandatory, are there other steps that can be consolidated or simplified and flow of information across agencies be better shared?

15. The second concern of adoptive parents is that of uneven level of awareness amongst them.

16. In the words of one parent, “for us, the official road sort of ‘ended’ after MSF officially gave us the certification to become adoptive parents.”

Another said, “After the Home Study Report was done, we did not know where to go to, to look for the babies.” They depended on the luck of the draw, to land the right lawyer, the right social worker, and the right adoption agency.

17. Several adoptive parents cited their search of agencies to be daunting; and quoted some agencies to be ‘dubious’ and ‘dodgy’. Whilst the new Section 10 provides for the Unique Entity Number (UEN), address of the place of business of every authorised adoption agency to be published, one wonders if this is sufficient.

Surely, much more could be done to facilitate the access of the needed information to help potential adopters make better informed decisions?

18. Lastly, on the VOICE OF THE ADOPTION AGENCIES. It is obvious from feedback that not all adoption agencies are equally experienced, ethical and effective. How will MSF evaluate and identify appropriate agencies? How can the better ones be recognised and engaged?”