Not-So-Equal Childhoods By Esther C L Goh and Rosaleen Ow

Childhood as a distinct life stage usually associated with being carefree, and innocent, receiving nurturance and loving attention from adults, is a relatively modern idea. According to some historians like Aries (1962), in medieval Europe children beyond toddler age were considered as little adults with no particular needs or rights and hence did not receive special protection or preferential treatment. In the Confuciusdominated east on the other hand, literature reveals an implicit stereotype of dutiful and obedient children. Fathers, in particular, had total control over children and were enjoined to maintain an awe-inspiring and psychological distance from them (Goh & Kuczynski, 2009; Ho, 1996b; Tu, 1985). Hence, the concept of childhood is a social construct which changes over time and context. The place of children and the concept of childhood were always shaped by the dominant social forces of the society under question. The world of children is, first and foremost, the world of their parents and families and the position of the family within the social structure of the society (Jamrozik & Sweeney, 1996). In 1990, the Convention on the rights of the Child (CRC) came into force. It is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the belief that individuals under 18 years old require special care and protection. The four core principles of the CRC are the right to survival; protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; development to the fullest; and, full participation in family, cultural and social life.

Singapore acceded to the UN CRC in 1995 and efforts had been made to weave the rights of the child into its various social and family policies that address poverty, single parenthood, education, social security, social protection, and capacity building.

Children in Singapore Singapore has been experiencing low fertility rates for decades. With the current birth rate of 1.28 births per female (Singapore Department of Statistics, 2009), children become very precious to their parents and extended families. To ensure children do well in school so as to get a head start in life, parents in Singapore spend a substantial portion of their household income on extra curricular lessons ranging from tuition classes, abacus, music, dancing, swimming, to kids yoga and kids golf. Observing busy parents ferrying their children from one enrichment centre to another in their cars on weekends give us a glimpse of the extent of investment parents make in their children. On the surface, children in Singapore are seemingly a fortunate bunch.

Social workers who interact with children from different spectra of society will quickly realize that childhood experiences in Singapore are not-so-equal. The average monthly household income of SGD$4,850 in 2009 (Singapore Department of Statistics, 2010) means few children in Singapore live in abject poverty, unlike their counterparts in the third world. Relative poverty, however, is a reality to many families and to the children growing up in these families. As an open economy, Singapore was hit hard by the global financial crisis between 2008 and 2009. Retrenchment and unemployment soared. Many of those affected by the recession were low-skilled workers who found it harder to get jobs. Structural inequality is an inevitable feature of capitalist economy, and

parental job losses directly impinge on the lives of children (The number of schoolchildren asking for help to pay for things like a daily meal during recess time has ballooned. The Straits Times, 22 Aug 2009; In the first nine months of this year, a record 11,642 students received financial assistance - the highest number since the fund1 was started in 2001 The Straits Times, 28 Nov 2009). Despite the projection of better economic performance as Asia recovers from the global crisis, the positive effects from an economic recovery take longer to trickle down to these low-skilled and low income families.

In spite of sustained economic growth since Singapores independence in 1965 albeit this has slowed from the earlier double digit growth since the nineties of the last century concern has been raised in recent years over a growing income disparity, as the bottom 20 percent have seen their income dwindle (Yap, 2003). Families which fell through the cracks of our economic progress are finding it hard to catch up with the mainstream. Social workers need to reflect collectively on how we can be more proactive in addressing the needs of children within this bottom 20 percent of our population. Children from the bottommost stratum and those from middle income families do not experience the same social world. Even in affluent Singapore, not all families enjoy a homogeneous comfortable existence. Struggles with the effects of disadvantage, including income, school results, living conditions and health, can be daily reality for many. However, the social work profession has not and should not neglect the needs of children from mainstream families. The not-so-equal childhood is not confined to the differing financial standings of their families. Children from middle income families face

rather different sets of challenges. School pressure and high expectations from parents place tremendous stress on children, which may take a toll on their mental and emotional well being. Developmental needs such as learning prosocial behaviour, building of self esteem, dealing with bullies, acquiring life skills, parent-child relationships are some areas where the social work profession has put in concerted effort to help mainstream children. Even if it appears that it is the child who needs help, effective change requires multi-level interventions namely: child; parents; parent-child interactions; family environment (e.g. parents marital condition); social network; and the social context in which the family is embedded.

Frame for understanding childrens needs Since childhood is not homogeneous as children living in the same society do not experience the same social world (Jamrozik & Sweeney 1996), their needs vary. However, the definition of childrens needs is not a simple matter, and there are lively debates on this in the social science literature. It is worth dwelling briefly on this debate as distribution of resources to childrens services is usually dependent on how needs are defined and measured (Axford, 2007). According to Axford (2008), there are two perspectives of needs, namely thick and thin. A thick notion of need is culturally determined and relates to four factors. First, needs are relative to individuals aspirations and ideals. Second, different phases of economic development manufacture varying needs. For instance, in the 1960s or 70s obtaining a secondary school education was considered a sufficient prerequisite to securing a reasonable job. Today, in order to compete in the global market, parents are aiming for much higher educational

achievements for their children. Third, the social and geographical context influence how needs are defined. The fourth factor is the modus operandi of society that is what has to be fulfilled before a child can operate as a full member in a particular society. A thin definition of needs on the other hand is abstract, objective and universal. It believes that experts should define individual needs. It criticizes the culturally relative perspective of needs and asserts that certain things are not only essential for human functioning but must be fulfilled regardless of cultural differences. Based on A Theory of Human Need (Doyal & Gough, 1991), Axford (2008) links the thick and thin definitions by stating that childrens needs are absolute insofar as they facilitate their ability to act in any society, and relative insofar as they enable childrens participation in a particular society. This takes account of cultural and geographical diversity while acknowledging that there are some objective and universal standards (p. 18). With the connection between thick and thin definitions of childrens needs as a backdrop, this chapter utilizes a related concept of remedial-developmental and preventive-developmental framework first proposed by Ow (2009) to understand childrens needs. Conventionally, remedial and preventive social work have dominated child welfare literature. These two terminologies were used at opposite ends of a dichotomy. Remedial is the same as therapeutic and implies disease (Colcord, 1932). Remedial work with families deals with maladjustments which impinge on the families from without or arise from within. Remedial work with children usually means providing custodial care to children whose families have completely failed (ibid.). Preventive work with children and families on the other hand involves the timely provision of services to vulnerable children and families to promote social functioning before problems develop.

It includes programmes such as well-baby clinics and parent education (Hepworth, Rooney, Rooney, Strom-Gottfried, & Larsen, 2010). Although preventive work with children and their families is less disease oriented, both concepts are problem centred one focused on cure and the other on prevention. By introducing the concept of development to both remedial and preventive aspects, Ow (2009) connects the two dichotomies with a common denominator of growth and strength instead of disease and problem. The concept of development can be likened to the highest level needs on Maslows hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1971) that contribute towards self-actualization. Maslow believed self-actualization is a growth process that contributes to the development of ones full potential. It is an ongoing process. One never reaches an end point in growth but has the capacity to continue growing throughout life (Dunlap, 2002). Once a minimal level of basic deficiency needs have been met, children are able to benefit from having growth needs addressed. Hence, addressing childrens needs at the remedial-developmental level, or universal basic needs including food, water, shelter, health care, safety and clean environment, would contribute towards the growth and development of children. Similarly, addressing needs at the preventive-developmental level, which aims to prevent the problem occurring or ensure that it does not get worse. The HOPE (Home Ownership Plus Education) scheme for low income families including single parent families is one example where service provision supports the capacity building and growth of vulnerable children from low capacity families. Its main objective is to prevent children in such families from being trapped in intergenerational poverty.

Frame for understanding service provision for children In view of the range of needs from remedial-developmental to preventivedevelopmental arising from the different childhoods experienced by children in their different social worlds discussed earlier, a relevant question is: who would be responsible for the provision of the necessary services in Singapore to meet this wide spectrum of needs? As the Singapore government is fiercely against welfarism2 the state provides minimal direct welfare services to children and families. On the surface, western observers unfamiliar with the system may get the impression that Singapores public welfare system is underdeveloped. This wrong impression may be owing to the lack of understanding of the states objective in developing resource infrastructure, including human resource, while providing a welfare safety net for the most disadvantaged (Goh, 2001, 2002). According to Wijeysingha (2005), contrary to popular belief, public welfare in Singapore is ubiquitous and highly developed. The social policy nevertheless has to be understood within the context of political economic development and nation building (Ow & Goh, 2009). The Peoples Action Party (PAP) government wants all Singaporeans to be able to look after themselves and believes the best form of welfare is to ensure that there is adequate training and employment available for its citizens to live a comfortable and dignified life (Government of Singapore, 1988). Hence, services to children and families take the form of capability building which includes universal free education up to pre-university; a subsidized health system including a means-tested grant for those who cannot pay; and subsidized public housing with programmes of reduced rent for the

less well off and one-off rent rebates from time to time (Wijeysingha, 2005). As a result, our infant mortality rate was ranked by UNICEFs State of the Worlds Children Report from 2005-2008 as the lowest in the world. In 2009 the infant mortality rate was estimated at 2.31 per 1000 live births and again ranked the lowest in the world by the CIA World Fact Book website3. This sustained high quality of life enjoyed by most children in Singapore should serve as the backdrop of the subsequent discussion on service provision. Although children from the bottom 20% family income bracket enjoy similar high quality healthcare, education and housing, they face remedial-developmental needs that warrant specific attention. For example there are children from low income families whose adult family members do not speak English (these children are at a disadvantage when entering the education system since English is the medium of instruction) and are unable to send them for pre-school education. Children from such families tend to be disadvantaged in reading, writing and mathematical skills when they enrol into a primary school compared to children from English speaking homes with a pre-school experience. There are also children who may not be from low income families but may face particular preventive developmental needs that cannot be met by the universal capacity building infrastructures available. Some examples are children with special needs such as those with intellectual, hearing and/or physical disabilities. In western countries that are considered welfare states such as the United Kingdom, the state is expected to meet the needs of individuals in order to facilitate their ability to pursue goals and engage in activities that they deem of value and thereby to gain a sense of fulfilment (Doyal & Gough, 1991). In Singapore the sense of

responsibility and ownership for promoting the well-being of children is strongly shared between the government and the community. It is our observation that there is no lack of motivation from the community or the government to serve the best interests of our children. Owing to the low fertility rate and consequential rise in the value of children, today a child in Singapore is not only perceived as a family asset but also a national asset. Child well-being is not just the responsibility of the family but also that of the state and the community (Ow, 2009). In keeping with the many helping hands approach to social welfare, both the state and the community are involved in remedial, preventive and development services for children (ibid.). Hence this chapter will adopt Ows (2009) conceptual framework of service provision that depicts a continuum ranging from strong state provision and ownership at one end and strong community provision and ownership on the other.

Matching needs with service provision A conceptual framework State Preventive & Developmental Remedial & Developmental

Quadrant 1 Quadrant 5 Quadrant 4

Quadrant 2

Quadrant 3

Community

Figure 1: A conceptual framework for matching needs with service provision (Adapted from Ow (2009) Children and youth welfare in Singapore)

Figure 1 puts together the two frames discussed earlier. The horizontal axis shows the ranges of childrens needs with remedial-developmental at one end of the spectrum and preventive-developmental on the other. The vertical axis shows the provision of services. At the top of this axis are services provided mainly by the state, and at the bottom those provided by community-based groups. Where the top and bottom services converge, this refers to services jointly provided by government and the community where both providers have significant inputs but from different perspectives. Quadrant 1- Remedial-developmental needs met by the state The state is concerned with families who are not able to keep pace with the economic progress of mainstream society. An Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Dysfunctional Families4 was set up under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports to better support vulnerable families and to enable parents to fulfil their parental responsibilities better. The IMC has four strategic thrusts, namely: better identification of at-risk or dysfunctional families through improving coordination between schools, medical institutions, correctional institutions and Family Service Centres (FSCs) in the community; identifying dysfunctional families and giving them support to ensure their children develop resilience in the long term; strengthening specialized community agencies that can address specific issues such as family violence and minor marriages;

10

raising the capability of the social service sector so that it can effectively deliver the programmes that will help dysfunctional families (MCYS, 2009).

It can be seen that through such committees as the IMC, the states plays the catalyst role in planning and providing premises, financial and other resources to enable civic and community groups in the provision of services to support children from needy families so that their development will not be overly compromised. Functioning from a systemic perspective, the states intervention in connecting various social organizations and mobilizing community resources to provide such services will not only help to ensure that immediate needs (remedial) are met quickly but also performs a longer term developmental function in child welfare. Quadrant 2 Preventive-developmental needs met by the state In this quadrant we see that the state does not only concern itself with the remedial-developmental needs of children as discussed in quadrant 1 but also invests heavily in long term capacity building, so as to enhance growth and strength of children and prevent problems from occurring. The Baby Bonus is one example. This was introduced in April 2001 to lighten the financial burden of raising children. To encourage child birth, the first and second child receive direct a cash gift of SGD$4000, the third and fourth child receive SGD$6000 from the government. Each child also has a cosavings matching in the Children Development Account (CDA). The savings parents contribute to the CDA will be matched dollar-for-dollar by the government up to the maximum cap of SGD$6000 for the first and second child, SGD$12,000 for the third and fourth child and SGD$18,000 for the fifth child. These savings can be used for the childs

11

educational and developmental needs, including payment of fees at child care centres, kindergartens, special schools, early intervention programmes and healthcare institutions (ibid.). In 2009, the government set aside SGD$583 million for the Baby Bonus Scheme, government paid maternity leave scheme and the newly-introduced government-paid childcare leave scheme5. Another example of quadrant 2 preventive-developmental schemes provided by the state is the Edusave Scheme established in 1993 to ensure that all Singapore children have the opportunity to maximize learning and to motivate them to excel. The Edusave scheme allows children to attend enrichment programmes outside the school curriculum such as photography and subsidized school trips outside the country. It provides a universal opportunity for all school children to benefit from a holistic learning experience, encourages curiosity and creativity and decreases the monotony of schooling purely inside the classroom. Under the scheme, the state automatically opens an Edusave account for every child from age 6-16 studying in a government, government-aided or government-supported special school. Yearly contributions from the state will be made to the account and money leftover when the child finishes school are automatically credited into their Central Provident Fund account when they begin work. There are also various Edusave scholarships and awards administered under the Edusave Scheme to motivate achievers (Ow, 2009). In FY 2008, SGD$189.3 million was disbursed from the Edusave Endowment Fund. These preventive-developmental schemes by the state show that promoting childrens growth is a prominent feature of nation-building and begins as soon as a child is born, not when the child gets into trouble (ibid.). Such developmental programmes are universally applicable to all children who are citizens. It is a conscious

12

effort to push as many children from border line poverty families into mainstream as far as possible. Quadrant 3 Preventive-developmental needs met by the community Many community organizations are actively providing services to strengthen the growth and development of children. Two programmes typify such services, namely, childcare centres and students care services. As at April 2008, there were 746 childcare centres providing 63,303 places (MCYS, 2009). These places cater to 30 percent of the cohort aged 18 months to less than 7 years. Availability of childcare places frees parents to participate in the labour force and ensures that children of working parents receive quality care. Childcare centres are a good example of close collaboration of service provision between the state and community. They are operated in the community by private companies or not-for-profit groups. These centres must be licensed by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports to ensure adherence to the stipulated standards in the Child Care Centres Act and Regulations. In addition to this monitoring role, the state also provides a universal childcare subsidy for working mothers who send their Singaporean children to centre-based childcare. From August 2008, the subsidy increased from SGD$150 to a maximum of SGD$300 per month per child and the subsidy for centre-based infant care increased from SGD$400 to a maximum of SGD$600 (ibid.). The subsidy rates will vary based on the type of programme in which the child is enrolled and the working status of the mother6. On the one hand, this subsidy scheme encourages women to return to the workforce after childbirth. On the other, it maximizes childrens potential through early exposure to developmental programmes. In other words, this preventive-developmental

13

service is provided by the community but partly subsidized by the state, and service standards are ensured by the state. Another similar preventive-developmental service for children is provided by students care centres an out-of-school-hours care programme for school-going children between the ages of 7-14. These programmes are operated by community groups, while the state provides a Students Care Financial Assistance Scheme (SCFA) for lower income families. Unlike the childcare subsidy which is universal for all working mothers, this scheme is calculated on a sliding scale according to household income7. Students care centres are preventive in the nature of service because they stop children from becoming latch-key kids or loitering in the streets during out-of-school hours. This is especially crucial for low income families where both parents have to work to make ends meet. Most students care centres provide more than just custodial care during out-ofschool hours. Programmes normally include supervision of children's homework, organized play, enrichment and recreational activities as well as a place to rest during out of school hours8. They are preventive in the sense that they stop children from getting into problems on the street, yet developmental at the same time as they can provide a conducive environment for children to do their homework and rest or socialize. Quadrant 4 Remedial-developmental needs met by community The nature of the needs in quadrant 4 is remedial since these children face risks that would negatively impact their development. Services in this quadrant are almost wholly initiated and supported by the community with minimal state funding although some of them work in conjunction with the states remedial services. One example is the School Pocket Money Fund (SPMF) initiated in 2001 by the Straits Times, a business

14

enterprise, to help children from low-income families who were attending school without having a proper breakfast, or pocket money to sustain their day in school. Currently community organizations including 38 Family Service Centres, 22 Special Schools and 13 Children's Homes have been commissioned to administer the scheme. Agencies' approval is based on a set of eligibility criteria and assessment of the family's financial situation. Based on the assessment of the case, social workers recommend the disbursement. From 1 Sep 2008, primary school pupils received $45 a month9, while secondary school students get $80. Although dispensing of SPMF to children from low income families is basically a remedial intervention, SPMF can be used for developmental purposes when social workers use the fund as an engagement tool. Through gentle probing into other possible needs or risks of these applicants for SPMF, 'We (social workers) try to find out if these parents have other problems besides just difficulties providing for their children's education. Is the marriage strained, is the relationship between the parents and their children strained? Do the parents suffer mental strain?' (Straits Times, 26 May 2009, reporting on how SPMF if administered professionally can open doors to a family's real needs). Multi-risk families can be identified through processing the applications and where appropriate, intervention can be carried out to prevent the conditions of these families from spiralling downwards. Once the basic needs are met, the multiple risk factors can be addressed and work with these families can move from remedial to developmental. Another example of a quadrant 4 service is the Healthy Start Programme (HSP) by a voluntary welfare agency supported by the state. Targeted at high-risk low income

15

families with young children, the HSP was piloted by Ang Mo Kio Family Service Centre in 2000. As a result of the positive results shown by the pilot project, the state expanded the programme to another six family service centres within the community. HSP assists very low-income families (SGD$1500 and below) with newborn babies or children below six years old. The community agencies work with the hospitals and other community organizations to identify newborns from at-risk families and provide them with parenting programmes aimed at increasing parent-child bonding, family support and counselling. HSP also provides financial assistance, such as payment for kindergarten and childcare fees to ensure that children from very low income families can also benefit from these facilities. The ultimate goal is to give these children and families the basic foundation for developing a low-risk trajectory for the future. Another example of preventive and developmental services is the HOPE scheme mentioned earlier in the chapter. The scheme includes a substantial housing grant to enhance the capacity for home ownership, educational bursaries for children up to the university level, and a training grant to parents for skills upgrading. There is also a oneoff grant to help offset utilities charges incurred by the families before joining the scheme. This scheme however, is eligible only to lower income families committed to keeping their family size small and have no more than two children. In addition, there are mentoring and family support from the social services and cash incentives for family planning to enable the low income families with young children counter the different socio-economic factors that may hinder their future growth and development. Although the scheme is focused on the family, the main objective of the scheme is preventive and developmental in helping young low-income families keep their families small so that

16

parents can concentrate resources on existing children and increase their opportunities to break out of the poverty cycle. Quadrant 5 Meeting point of the two axes Child abuse and protection work illustrates quadrant 5 well because the process requires active and clear collaboration between the state and the community. Also, protection of children includes all the elements of preventive, remedial and developmental intervention. Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) bears the statutory responsibility to protect children from abuse and neglect in accordance with the current Children and Young Persons Act. In the past child protection services used to deal with children when problems occurred; the focus in recent years has expanded to become more proactive and preventive in approach, instead of being limited to treatment and rehabilitation (Ho, 2005). MCYS works in partnership with government and non-government agencies in the prevention of ill-treatment of children and the care of child victims of abuse. Child abuse is defined as any act by a parent, guardian or care giver that endangers or impairs the childs physical and/or emotional well-being. The MCYS documented the National Standards for Protection of Children (MCYS, 2005) which sets out the framework for the management of child protection in Singapore and to ensure good practice. Collaborative tasks of the legal system, the child protection agencies, the schools, the private and voluntary sectors, the healthcare agencies and the public in child protection are emphasized. Although reporting of child abuse is not mandatory, the public is encouraged to report any knowledge that a child is being abused to the relevant authorities so that investigation by the police can proceed. The Child Protection and Welfare Officers at MCYS act as the case managers ensuring the follow-

17

up of all cases through regular case conferences with the child abuse and protection team, consisting of a range of multidisciplinary professionals from government and community agencies and the hospitals.

Vignette Mr Sim (50 years old) and his two children, Chin Chin (female, 14 years old) and Wei Ming (male, 8 years old) have been an active case with a Family Service Centre for the past two years. The social worker, Ms Wong, works with the whole family and has a strong rapport with each of the members. When the case first became known to the agency, Mr Sim had recently been released from the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) after incarceration for three years for drug consumption. He had a history of going in and out of the DRC. He had divorced his ex-wife, also a hard-core drug addict, before being arrested by the police. She was arrested shortly after. Mr Sim had secured custody of the two children but when both parents were incarcerated Chin Chin and Wei Ming had to be placed in the Chen Su Lan Childrens Home. This was a last resort as Mr Sims parents were deceased, his siblings were struggling with drug problems and could not take in his children, and his ex-wifes family was also plagued with drug and other problems.

After his release from DRC, Mr Sim quickly took the two children out of the residential home and moved back with them to a two-room rental flat. He only found occasional odd jobs, which meant the rent arrears were beginning to accumulate and the children did not have money for school. Although Mr Sim was clean from drugs at that time, he was

18

abusing sleeping pills, though not too seriously. Chin Chin and Wei Ming were motivated in their studies and hoped that the social worker could help them to stay in school.

The two-room rental flat is very basic with one old sofa set and a small television which has been given to them. There is no bed. Chin Chin sleeps on a mattress in the only bedroom; Wei Ming and his father sleep on the floor of the living room. There is a small multipurpose table where the children do their school work and the family eats dinner together. Commentary: Ms Wong engaged Mr Sim in a contract from the start of the helping relationship. The mutually agreed goals were: First, to provide a stable home environment for the two children. This was especially important during this post-parental-divorce phase. The two children were helped to reestablish bonds with their father after being in institutional care for three years. Second, Ms Wong saw the need to assist Mr Sim to hold down a stable job so that the family could have a stable income. The third goal was to ensure there was sufficient money for the children to stay in school, and also to create a more conducive learning environment for the children, especially for Wei Ming who was still very young.

Acting as the broker for this family, the social worker helped the two children apply for the School Pocket Money Fund (SPMF). After Chin Chins maturity level was assessed (she was then 12 years old), the monthly pocket money of both children (SGD$45 each) was entrusted to her so that the father could not use it to pay bills or for other purposes. After Ms Wong had been working with the children for 12 months, Chin Chin came top

19

in her Normal Technical (NT) class results. The social worker helped her to apply for the Edusave Merit Bursary which is meant for children with household income less than SGD$4000 per month and results within the top 25% of the stream or level. Chin Chin felt very encouraged when she received SGD$350 for her outstanding performance.

The social worker assisted Wei Ming in enrolling into a students care centre on the ground floor of their rental block. Because of the familys unstable income, the centre applied for Students Care Financial Aid on behalf of the family, and also waived the difference between the government subsidy and monthly fees for six months. Attending the centre meant Wei Ming was supervised after school hours. His lunch was taken care of and there were teachers in the centre to guide him in his school work. Wei Ming was happy there as he made friends and enjoyed the recreational activities.

As for Mr Sim, the social worker went to the Community Development Council10 with him to look for jobs. Much effort was channelled to helping him keep a job. Although Mr Sim initially denied that he abused sleeping pills, later when trust had grown he did acknowledge it. They worked on keeping the problem at bay so that he could hold down a regular job. During the two years of the working relationship, Mr Wong lost his job many times. Towards the end of the two years, he was able to hold on to jobs for three months or more.

Another practical issue that Ms Wong attended to was the safety of Chin Chin at home. She discussed with the child how she could protect herself when her father got drunk or

20

high on sleeping pills. Chin Chin told Ms Wong that she would lock the bedroom door when she slept at night. Ms Wong provided Chin Chin with all the useful community resources and contact numbers in case she needed help.

Conclusion This vignette, though disguised to protect confidentiality, is a real case handled by an experienced social worker in the field. With her genuine concern for the two children, she intervened in the family so as to help the children. Since it was one of the bottom 20% families in Singapore, Ms Wong acted as a link and broker in mobilizing services from quadrant 2 (Edusave Merits Bursary for Chin Chin), quadrant 3 (Students Care Centre for Wei Ming and SPMF for both children) and quadrant 1 (Community Development Council Work Fair Programme for Mr Sim). Ms Wong also educated Chin Chin how she could prevent sexual or physical abuse (quadrant 5 child abuse prevention). It can be seen that services from all five quadrants can be utilized for promoting the well being of the family and consequently helping children in these families. Despite growing up in a broken and drug-plagued family, Chin Chin is doing very well in school. She has told Ms Wong the social worker that her aspiration is to be a businesswoman when she grows up.

References

Aries, P. (1962). Centuries of childhood. London: Jonathan Cape. Axford, N. (2007). 'Deciding on the service mix: How concepts of child well-being inform children's service'. Working paper, Dartington: Dartington Social Research Unit.

21

Axford, N. (2008). Exploring concepts of child well-being: Implications for children's services. Bristol: Policy Press. Colcord, J. C. (1932). Remedial agencies dealing with American families. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 160(Mar), 124-134. Doyal, L., & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human need (Vol. 483337). Hampshire: : Macmillan. Dunlap, L. L. (2002). What all children need : theory and application. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Goh, C. T. (2001). 'New Singapore', Prime Minister's National Day Rally Speech, Singapore, 19 August. Goh, C. T. (2002). 'Remarking Singapore: Changing mindsets', Prime Minister's National Day Rally Speech, Singapore 18 August Goh, E. C. L., & Kuczynski, L. (2009). Agency and power of single children in multigenerational families in urban Xiamen, China. Culture and Psychology, 15(4), 506-534. Government of Singapore. (1988). Agenda for action: goals and challenges: A green paper. Singapore: Government of Singapore. Hepworth, D., Rooney, R., Rooney, G., D., Strom-Gottfried, K., & Larsen, J. A. (2010). Direct social work practice : theory and skills (8th ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Ho, D. F. Y. (1996b). Filial piety and its psychological consequences. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 155-165). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

22

Ho, L. Y. (2005). Protection of children in Singapore: An overview. Singapore: Research and Advocacy Standing Committee, Singapore Children's Society. Jamrozik, A., & Sweeney, T. (1996). Children and society: The family, the state, and social parenthood (Vol. 886442). South Melbourne: Macmillan Education. Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Harper and Row. *MCYS. (2005). Protecting children in Singapore. Singapore: Rehabilitation and Protection Division, Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports. MCYS. (2009). Singapore's second and third periodic report to the United Nations Committee on the rights of the child. Singapore: Ministry of Community Development Youth and Sports. Ow, R. (2009). Children and youth welfare in Singapore. Paper presented at the Hua ren she hui gong zuo guo ji xue shu yantao hui (Chinese social work - An international academic conference held on 1-2 May), Providence University (Taiwan). Ow, R., & Goh, E. C. L. (2009). Social work as nation building. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities held on 2-5 June, Beijing. Singapore Department of Statistics. (2009). Population trends 2009. Singapore: Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade & Industry, Republic of Singapore. Singapore Department of Statistics. (2010). Key household income trends, 2009. Tu, W. M. (1985). Confucian thought: Selfhood and creative transformation. Albany: State of New York University Press.

23

*Wijeysingha, V. (2005). The welfare regime in Singapore. In A. Walker & C.-k. Wong (Eds.), East asian welfare regimes in transition - From Confucianism to globalisation (pp. 187- 211). Bristol: The Policy Press. Yap, M. T. (2003). Poverty monitoring and alleviation in Singapore. In K. Tang & C. Wong (Eds.), Poverty monitoring and alleviation in East Asia (pp. 75-90). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
This refers to the School Pocket Money Fund (SPMF) which will be further discussed later in the chapter Refer to chapter 4 of this book for details of the philosophy of welfare policy in Singapore. 3 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html 4 Dysfunctional family is used here interchangeably with multi-stress family. 5 Singapore Budget 2009 - http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2009/expenditure_overview/social_dev.html 6 The amount of child care subsidy working mothers are entitled to depends on whether they work full or part-time. Full time working mothers, defined as those who are working at least 56 hours per month, are entitled to higher subsidy and those working part time, partial subsidy. The amount also varies according whether the child is enrolled for full day care or part time day care. The key determinate of subsidy is mothers working hours (refer to MCYS website). 7 Household income of SD$1,500 or less will be entitled to a subsidy of SD$180 per month; Households between SD$1,501-2,000 income will be entitled to subsidy of SD$120 per month; families with income between SGD$2001-2,500 will be subsided at SGD$60 per month. With an average household income of SD$4,850 as at 2009, this subsidy is meant for those who are at the bottom strata of our society (refer to MCYS website). 8 http://app.mcys.gov.sg/WEB/faml_nurture_studentcare.asp 9 http://www.sph.com.sg/csr_others.shtml 10 Community Development Councils (CDC) are government administered grassroots organizations. Visit http://www.cdc.org.sg/index.html to find out more
2 1

24