HK must achieve justice for the most vulnerable
As she promised during her election campaign, Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has created a Commission on Children. Although it is not statutorily independent and is chaired by the chief secretary for administration, Matthew Cheung Kin-chung, with the secretary for labour and welfare, Law Chi-kwong, as his deputy, the new commission must be given every chance to prove its worth. It started work on June 1 (Children’s Day), and its in-tray is full.
In its terms of reference, the commission is given responsibility for promoting and promulgating the rights which children enjoy under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although the UNCRC has applied to Hong Kong since 1994, many of the rights have yet to be fully realized. Convention signatories are required to implement child rights, which include the right to life, survival and development, to having their views considered, to protection from abuse, neglect and exploitation, and to a standard of living adequate for a child’s proper development.
As the commission will discover, children are not being protected as adequately as they should be from a variety of dangers. This is because the criminal justice system has not been updated, and many of the traditional laws designed to safeguard children are now inadequate. Child abuse, for example, is a huge problem, exacerbated by crowded living conditions and family tensions. In 2016, for example, the Social Welfare Department reported 882 cases of child abuse, rising to 947 cases in 2017, with 236 cases in the first quarter of 2018. These figures are just the tip of the iceberg, and many cases simply do not appear on the radar, particularly when they involve mental or emotional abuse.
If a child receives a physical injury, such as a cut or bruise, there is tangible evidence to support an investigation. However, when a child suffers emotional abuse or neglect, the situation is quite different, as there is no hard evidence for investigators to use. If a child is persistently frightened, bullied, ignored, isolated or scapegoated, or is denied love and affection, the psychological impact can be dreadful, yet culprits invariably evade justice. Hong Kong’s colonial-era child cruelty law is simply not designed to cover child psychological abuse, and reform is essential.
The child cruelty law must therefore be widened. It should specify that willful cruelty likely to cause psychological harm or suffering is an offense, and that someone who causes unnecessary suffering or injury to a child is liable to prosecution, irrespective of whether the child sustains physical or psychological harm. As nobody else is acting on this, the children’s commission must take the lead.
Child suffering, of course, is always horrific, but the death of Yeung Chi-wai in 2013 shocked even hardened observers. The coroner concluded that Yeung, a 5-year-old boy with Down syndrome and a mental age of 18 months, had died from misadventure while in the care of his drug-dependent mother and her boyfriend, both of whom took the drug “ice”. Yeung was found to have a high level of the drug in his system, and probably poisoned himself by swallowing a piece he found lying around. Although police investigated, nobody could be prosecuted, due to weaknesses in the criminal law, particularly as no drugs or paraphernalia were found at his home. Yeung’s tragedy is not unique, and the Hong Kong Committee on Children’s Rights has disclosed that at least 11 other children have also recently suffered abuse, neglect and injury, because of substance abuse by parents or caregivers.
To overcome this problem, Britain in 2004 introduced a law which makes it an offense — punishable with 14 years’ imprisonment — if somebody causes the death of a child or should have known that the child was at significant risk of serious harm and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. In 2006, the Law Reform Commission was tasked to consider if Hong Kong should have a similar law, but, 12 years later, it has still not reported, which is extraordinary. Mr Cheung, as the children’s champion, must now try to galvanize the LRC.
In other parts of the world, surveys have revealed that it is far too easy for children to gain access to online pornography. In the United Kingdom, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children says an entire generation of children risks being “stripped of their childhoods”. The effects of online pornography on children can be devastating, and access must be strictly controlled, as in the offline world. The UK’s Digital Economy Act 2017, for example, now controls online pornography content by mandatory age-verification, with providers being required to ensure adult websites are not accessible to those under 18. Another pressing task for the children’s commission is, therefore, to analyze this problem and, if necessary, to prod the Security Bureau into action.
Cyberspace apart, stringent checks are required of those who have access to children. Although the Security Bureau introduced its Sexual Conviction Record Check in 2011, which enables employers to check if applicants for child-related work have prior sexual convictions, a check is only possible if the job seeker consents. The scheme, moreover, while covering teachers, social workers, pediatricians, librarians, school cleaners and school-bus drivers, does not include volunteers or private tutors. Child safety requires comprehensive checking of everyone involved with them, but the present arrangements leave them at risk. Predators can and do pose as volunteer tutors, and parents must be able to check their criminal records before hiring them. The children’s commission must stridently make the case for better vetting.
In 2013, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urged governments to “explicitly prohibit by law corporal punishment in the family, schools, institutions and all other settings”. Although corporal punishment is banned in schools and correctional institutions, it remains lawful in homes. A recent survey by Against Child Abuse revealed that, out of 1,562 children interviewed, 847, or 54 percent, had been physically punished by their parents, sometimes with hands but also with hangers or rulers, and 5 percent said they were punished daily. Their “crimes” ranged from poor school results, disobedience to poor daily habits, such as playing computer games. Force, however, traumatizes the child and can cause untold suffering, and is invariably counterproductive. By contrast, reprimands, curfews and withdrawal of privileges can all be salutary, as the children’s commission should clearly explain to policymakers.
The Commission on Children is now the voice of the most vulnerable, and it must not be afraid, when necessary, to roar. A minimalist approach to child interests is no longer tolerable, and effective policies must be formulated within a reasonable time. The criminal justice system requires a drastic shakeup, and the commission must be an agent for change.