Summary of law reform necessary to achieve full prohibition

Article 89 of the Penal Code states that “nothing, which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under 12 years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to that person”. English common law applies under article 3 of the Application of English Law Act, and this would include the defence of “reasonable chastisement”. Article 64 of the Women’s Charter provides for the use of force “by way of correction towards a child below 21 years of age”. Article 68 of the Children and Young Persons Act provides for the “use of such force as is reasonable and necessary” in the maintenance of discipline in approved schools, approved homes, remand homes and places of detention. The widespread acceptance of corporal punishment in childrearing necessitates clarity in law that no corporal punishment is acceptable or lawful. These provisions should be repealed/amended and explicit prohibition enacted of all corporal punishment of children in all settings and by all adults with authority over them.

The legal provisions for corporal punishment in schools in the Schools Regulation Act should be repealed, and explicit prohibition enacted of corporal punishment in all education settings, public and private. All provisions for judicial corporal punishment of children and young people, including in the Penal Code, the Prisons Act and Prison Rules, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Children and Young Persons Act, should be repealed. Provisions for disciplinary corporal punishment in the Prisons Act and Rules and the defence of “reasonable” force in article 68 in the Children and Young Persons Act should be repealed and explicit prohibition enacted in relation to all institutions accommodating children in conflict with the law. Explicit prohibition should be enacted of all corporal punishment in all alternative care settings, including public and private day care, residential care, foster care, etc, and the provisions for caning of boys in the Singapore Armed Forces Act and the Singapore Armed Forces (Disciplinary Barracks) Regulations should be repealed.

Current legality of corporal punishment

Home

Corporal punishment is lawful in the home. Article 89 of the Penal Code states that “nothing, which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under 12 years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to that person”, provided that it does not cause or is likely or intended to cause death or grievous hurt. Under article 3 of the Application of English Law Act (1993), English common law applies, which would include the legal defence of “reasonable chastisement”. Article 64 of the Women’s Charter (1961) prohibits family violence, but this “does not include any force lawfully used ... by way of correction towards a child below 21 years of age”.

Schools

Corporal punishment is lawful in schools. Regulation No. 88 under the Schools Regulation Act (1957), pursuant to article 61 of he Education Act (1957), states that corporal punishment shall be administered to boys only, on the palms of the hand or the clothed buttocks, and by the principal or authorised person.

Penal system

Corporal punishment is lawful as a sentence for crime. Under article 33 of the Children and Young Persons Act, children aged 7-15 are tried by the Juvenile Court, with the exception of offences triable only by the High Court, such as murder, rape, drug trafficking and armed robbery. Under article 37 the High Court, but not the Juvenile Court, may sentence the child to be caned. Persons aged 16-17 are tried as adults. They may be sentenced to caning: up to 12 strokes by a District Court, up to six strokes by a Magistrate’s Court, and by a High Court to any sentence prescribed in law (Criminal Procedure Code, articles 11 and 12). Caning is prescribed as a punishment in the Penal Code and many other laws, including the Misuse of Drugs Act (1973), the Piracy Act (1993), the Armed Offences Act (1973), the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (1973), the Vandalism Act (1966), the Immigration Act (1989), the Dangerous Fireworks Act (1988), the Kidnapping Act (1961), the Women’s Charter (1871), the Arms Offences Act (1952), the Explosive Substances Act (1970), the Public Order (Preservation) Act (1958), the Railways Act (1905) and the Road Traffic Act (1993).

The Criminal Procedure Code specifies how the punishment should be carried out. Children aged 7-15 should be caned up to 10 strokes with a light rattan, older young people up to 24 strokes with a rattan up to 1.27cm in diameter (articles 228 and 229). A medical officer must be present and must certify that the offender is fit to receive the caning (article 232). Females may not be caned (article 231).

Corporal punishment is lawful as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions, including the Singapore Boys Home for boys as young as 13. Article 68 of the Children and Young Persons Act covers children in approved schools, approved homes, remand homes and places of detention, and allows for the use of “such force as is reasonable and necessary ... to restrain any such person who is attempting or preparing to commit or is committing any offence or any breach of discipline”. Regulations under the Act provide for corporal punishment to be used. The Prisons Act allows a juvenile, defined as “any person under the age of 16 years, whether convicted or not, under detention in any prison” (article 2), to be given up to 10 strokes. The Prison Rules allow caning for breaches of discipline ranging from attempted escape to repetition of a minor offence. Caning is also permitted in Drug Rehabilitation Centres.

The Singapore Armed Forces Act (1972, amended 1975) and the Singapore Armed Forces (Disciplinary Barracks) Regulations (1990) allow for caning up to 24 strokes for a variety of offences, including for boys below the age of 18. Boys under 16 may be caned up to 10 strokes. Military service is compulsory for all males.

Alternative care

Corporal punishment is explicitly prohibited in child care centres by Regulation 17 of the Child Care Centres Regulations, pursuant to the Child Care Centres Act (1988, revised 1989). There is no prohibition of corporal punishment in other forms of childcare.

Prevalence research

Research by the Singapore Children’s Society, published in October 2006, examined parents’ childrearing and how children view this. Over 1000 interviews were conducted with 533 parents (248 fathers, 285 mothers) and 533 children aged 10-12 years (262 boys and 271 girls) covering different ethnic groups, mostly middle-income families. The part of the study which focused on disciplinary practices found that reasoning was considered the most effective practice by both parents and children, but physical punishment was also used. Mothers tended to inflict physical punishment more frequently than fathers, though both regarded it as ineffective. Children were reported as “neutral” about both its effectiveness and its fairness. (Shan, S.-C. H., Hawkins, R. & Whee, L. K., 2006, The Parenting Project: Disciplinary practices, childcare arrangements and parenting practices in Singapore, Singapore Children’s Society)

A telephone poll of 358 people following the resignation of a school principal for breaking Ministry of Education guidelines on corporal punishment was carried out by the Sunday Times (by the Singapore Press Holdings’ research arm in April 2004) and found that seven in 10 favoured corporal punishment. (Reported in Sunday Times, 2 May 2004)

A Lifestyle (Sunday Times) poll of 50 people found that nine in 10 think girls are less well-behaved than they used to be and six in 10 approved of corporal punishment for girls. (Reported in “Girls behaving badly”, Sunday Times, Singapore, 9 May 2004)

Recommendations by human rights treaty bodies

Committee on the Rights of the Child

“While noting the education programmes and guidelines that restrict and discourage the use of corporal punishment, the Committee reiterates its deep concern that corporal punishment, including caning, is still considered a lawful form of discipline in the family, schools and institutions.

“In light of the Committee’s general comment No. 8 (2006) on the right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment, the Committee recommends that the State party:

1. prohibit unequivocally by law, without any further delay, all forms of corporal punishment, including caning, in all settings;
2. continue to systematically train teachers and personnel working in institutions and youth detention centres on positive,  non-violent forms of discipline as an alternative to corporal punishment; and
3. continue to sensitize and educate parents, guardians and professionals working with and for children on the harmful effects of corporal punishment with a view to changing the general attitude towards this practice, and promote positive, non-violent, participatory forms of child-rearing and discipline as an alternative to corporal punishment.

“While noting with appreciation the existence of a separate juvenile justice system in the State party, the Committee is deeply concerned that despite its previous concluding observations (para. 45): …

b) corporal punishment and solitary confinement are still used to discipline juvenile offenders;

c) male children between the ages of 7 and 16 years are subjected to caning and other forms of punishment for many offences in the Penal Code and other laws….

“The Committee recommends that the State party continue to strengthen its efforts to ensure the full implementation of juvenile justice standards, in particular articles 37, 39 and 40 of the Convention and other relevant international standards, such as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh Guidelines) and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty (the Havana Rules), taking into account the Committee’s general comment No. 10 (2007) on children’s rights in juvenile justice. It recommends that the State party: …

b) revise its legislation to prohibit the use of corporal punishment and solitary confinement in all detention institutions for juvenile offenders….”

(2 May 2011, CRC/C/SGP/2-3, Concluding observations on second/third report, paras. 39, 40, 68 and 69)

“The Committee notes with concern that corporal punishment is permitted by law in the home, schools and institutions and as a form of punishment for male juvenile offenders.

“The Committee recommends that the State party amend its legislation to prohibit corporal punishment in the home, schools, institutions and the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the State party conduct well-targeted public awareness campaigns on the negative impact corporal punishment has on children, and provide training for teachers and personnel working in institutions and youth detention centres on non-violent forms of discipline as an alternative to corporal punishment.

“The Committee is concerned that the minimum age of criminal responsibility is too low, that all persons in conflict with the law under 18 are not afforded special protection, and that corporal punishment and solitary confinement are used to discipline juvenile offenders.

“The Committee recommends that the State party:

d) prohibit the use of corporal punishment, including whipping and caning, and solitary confinement in all detention institutions for juvenile offenders, including police stations….”
(27 October 2003, CRC/C/15/Add.220, Concluding observations on initial report, paras. 32, 33, 44 and 45 (d))

Universal Periodic Review

Singapore was examined in the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review in 2011. The Government rejected recommendations to prohibit corporal punishment of children (A/HRC/18/11, Report of the Working Group, paras. 97 and 99). Examination in the second cycle is scheduled for 2016.