Alternative Care For Children
Alternative Care For Children
Alternative Care For Children
UNICEF EAPRO
19 Phra Athit Road
Bangkok 10200
Thailand
E-mail: eapro@unicef.org
Printed in Thailand
ISBN: 974-685-073-3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to extend our deep appreciation to everyone who has been kind and gracious in
supporting our efforts to complete this project in such a short time.
The UNICEF country offices in the four countries covered by this project assisted to make our country
visits fruitful by facilitating arrangements with government offices, non-government organizations
and faith-based organizations to interview people, visit residential facilities and access reference
materials, publications and other secondary sources of data.
We very much appreciate also their thoughtful critiques, ideas, comments and suggestions, which
have enriched the reports. Specifically we wish to thank Jasmina Byrne (Child Protection Officer),
UNICEF Indonesia; Gaye Phillips (Representative), and Nono Sumarsono (Child Protection Officer),
UNICEF Malaysia; Anne-Claire Dufay (Chief, Child Protection Section), Natalie McCauley (Child Project
Officer), Khin Thiri Win (Assistant Project Officer) and Yin Tin Han (Assistant Administrative Officer),
UNICEF Myanmar; and Amanda Bissex (Child Protection Officer), UNICEF Thailand, and Piyanart
Supaphon, at the library of UNICEF’s East Asia and Pacific Regional Office.
Individuals, agencies and organizations who provided help in the four countries include the following:
In Malaysia: Dato Shamsiah Binti Abdul Rahman (Director-General, Department of Social Welfare)
and departmental officials including Nur Ammie (Chief, Children’s Division), Inau Edin Nom (Chief,
Socio-Economy and Assistance Division), Norani Hashim (Chief, Community Development Division)
and Atika Zainal (Manager, Kompleks Penyayang Bakti). Help was also provided by Goh Chee Leong
(Director, Centre for Psychology, HELP University College of Kuala Lumpur), Aggy Hooi (Psychological
Counsellor, Protect and Save the Children Association of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur), Ho Yock Lin
(Empower) and James Nayagam (Executive Director, Shelter Homes, Kuala Lumpur).
In Myanmar: The Department of Social Welfare’s Sit Myaing (Director-General), Myint Thein (Director,
International Relations), Aung Tun Khaing (Deputy Director-General) Aye Win, (Director), Sein Win
(Deputy Director) and the Department of Health’s Yuzana Kyin (Assistant Director and Head of Medical
Social Work). Help was also provided by representatives of local and international NGOs, among
others.
In Indonesia: Pudji Hastuti (Director-General for Social Rehabilitation), Makmur Sunusi (Director of
Child Welfare Services, Department of Social Affairs) and Enny Sastranegara at UNICEF’s Jakarta
office.
In Thailand: Sanphasit Koompraphant (Director, Centre for the Protection of Children).
In the Philippines: Cecelia Ochoa (Save the Children US’s Field Office) and Steve Muncy (Executive
Director, Community and Family Service International).
Thanks are due also to Faye Balanon, whose unexpected presence at a time of crisis lent valuable
assistance and support to all of us, and Myla Macaraeg, whose commitment and hard work helped
to make the data and reports easily readable.
Our special thanks to Sawon Hong, Regional Advisor for Child Protection and Elizabeth P. de Castro,
Project Officer for Psychosocial Support of UNICEF EAPRO, for their guidance, patience and continuing
support throughout the project.
Lastly, we acknowledge the support and encouragement of the International Social Service
Philippines.
Research Team:
Wilhelmina B. Dacanay
Lourdes G. Balanon
Ma. Lyra T. del Castillo
Marilyn F. Manuel
3
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 3
List of acronyms 7
Executive summary 8
5. Findings 21
5.1 Policy context 21
5.2 The situation of children in tsunami-affected countries 23
5.3 Programmes and services for alternative care 24
5.4 Networking 30
5.5 Advocacy and social mobilization 31
8. Conclusions 38
Glossary 39
References 40
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On 26 December 2004, a powerful tsunami washed over countries along the rim of the Indian Ocean,
resulting in enormous loss of life and leaving in its wake thousands of children suddenly rendered
parentless or devoid of familial caregivers. Subsequently, a project to assess appropriate alternative
care choices for children without primary caregivers in the affected areas took stock of tsunami-
related responses as a basis for identifying sustainable and viable models, good practices and lessons
learnt with regard to the impact of the disaster on the lives of children.
The project looked at the basic framework of each country in terms of laws and implementing
guidelines for the protection of children; existing alternative care options such as adoption, foster
care, kinship care, guardianship, community-based services and their structure; the situation of
orphanages and residential centres; and recommendations for sustainable and viable models of
alternative care for children.
Four professional social workers with extensive experience in child welfare, affiliated with
International Social Service Philippines (ISS-P), undertook the project. The study focused on four
countries: Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia and Thailand. The methodology was based on:
● A thorough review of secondary data;
● Interviews with key informants;
● Visits to selected residential facilities for children; and
● Information gathered from workshops on child protection.
A significant limitation of the study was a requirement that the assessment be completed in less
than three months, while some relevant documents were available only in local languages.
The major findings of the assessment were:
● In all four countries, national laws cover provisions for the protection of children who are
abandoned, orphaned, neglected and abused. As States parties to the Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC), the four governments are undertaking measures to harmonize
national laws, policies, and programmes with the CRC. The countries are also signatories to
other international instruments for the protection of children. In addition, regional
commitments have to be implemented in accordance with membership of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
● In all the countries, it is apparent that poverty is the main reason for children entering alternative
care. Other reasons are prolonged illness, disability or death of parents; abandonment by
parents; and family breakdown causing neglect, abuse and exploitation of children. Some
parents send their children to residential facilities for the purpose of education.
● Residential care is the major and primary response to assisting children without primary
caregivers. It is the most visible, accessible and readily available service to address immediately
the needs of children requiring shelter, care and education. Residential care comes in different
forms: Reception centres or child protection centres, residential nurseries, children’s homes,
orphanages, training/boarding/monastic schools, and family/cottage complexes.
● Degrees and forms of family- and community-based programmes for children without primary
caregivers vary, including adoption, foster care and kinship care.
● Data on children without primary caregivers is limited. Where data is available, it is not
disaggregated by age, gender, the nature of problems and the types of services provided.
Concise and reliable documentation on children in care is not always available.
● Case management is limited. Many children are moved from one institution to another.
Visitation or continuing contacts with families is minimal. There are no indications that older
children participate in decision-making relative to their placement. There are neither case
plans nor reviews of the placements of children, yet these are essential in permanency planning.
● There is a lack of professional social workers (particularly in Myanmar) and the capacity of
staff working with children is limited.
8
● Collaborative partnerships between and among governments, non-government organizations
(NGOs), the private sector, donor agencies and United Nations bodies are evident in all
countries. A multi-sectoral approach is generally used in many inter-agency activities.
● All four countries have initiatives in varying degrees and forms to promote the CRC. A variety
of advocacy and social mobilization activities by governments in partnership with the United
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), international and local NGOs, communities and children
are in place.
The conclusions of the study lead to the following recommendations:
1. Establish a continuum of child welfare services (supportive, supplemental and substitutive).
● Programmes to prevent the separation of children from their families (including family support
and other services) should be available alongside alternative family- and community-based
programmes such as adoption, foster care, kinship care and guardianship.
2. Improve the quality of care for children.
● Governments of the four countries must ensure that standards for alternative care are in
place to guarantee the quality of care and the rights of children whose needs cannot be met
within their own families. All types of residential care facilities including boarding and/or
monastic schools under the management of faith-based organizations should follow
government-set standards.
● Case-management systems should be in place to ensure timely and appropriate movement
of cases. Training of para-professionals and all staff is necessary so they understand the
developmental stages of children and their behaviour, and are gender-fair and sensitive to
children’s needs. Moreover, effective case management is possible with trained professional
social workers as case managers and case workers.
3. Strengthen advocacy and the promotion of children’s rights services.
● As States parties to the CRC, governments are obliged to harmonize their national laws and
policies to the standards set by the CRC.
● A comprehensive information, educational and communication programme should be directed
at all levels towards a sustained advocacy to stress the essential role of family and community
in protecting the rights of children.
● It is essential to build and expand partnerships in order to enhance coordination between
local and national agencies and to direct available resources into more responsive child
protection programmes. Existing coordinating structures at all levels in each country must be
strengthened to address child protection issues in a combined and coordinated manner.
Overall, the results of this assessment indicate some positive progress and initiatives for children
without primary caregivers. The best environment for a child’s optimum development is within
their own families. To ensure children remain with their families wherever possible requires major
support and priority consideration by governments and other stakeholders. Protection for children
in residential facilities must include quality care. All efforts must be made to reunite children with
their own families or otherwise to place them in adoption through approved and monitored processes,
and to deinstitutionalize the children in a timely and appropriate manner. The commitment and
political will of governments, with the support of UNICEF and other partners, are imperative to
realize the fulfilment of all the rights of children without primary caregivers, including those in
tsunami-affected countries.
9
|1|
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
On 26 December 2004, an undersea earthquake off the coast of Sumatra, Indonesia generated a
massive tsunami that swept across the Indian Ocean and devastated coastal communities. The
ensuing disaster directly affected 1.5 million people in 12 countries. An estimated 225,000 lives
were lost, a third of whom were believed to be children. The tsunami destroyed not just homes,
farms, livelihoods and industries. It separated many children from their families and left many without
primary caregivers.
Children are the most vulnerable victims of the disaster. The trauma of experiencing the tsunami
and its immediate aftermath was extreme. The subsequent realization by surviving children that
they had lost one or both parents, as well as siblings and other relatives and friends, is overwhelming
for them. Government and non-government agencies at the national, regional and international
levels rallied to support the survivors, particularly children. Very many children however remain in
limbo. Children now without parents have found temporary shelter in orphanages or the homes of
friends or surviving relatives. The children have few choices.
Concerns for the welfare of these children prompted UNICEF to organize, direct and implement
programmes for tsunami-affected children, in collaboration with various agencies. Assistance
includes physical, emotional and financial support to all survivors. Studies and research to determine
the impact of emergency programmes and services are funded and encouraged. One such project,
Assessment of Appropriate Alternative Care Choices for Children without Primary Caregivers in
Tsunami-Affected Countries, investigates the situation of children in Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia
and Thailand. The study’s objectives are:
● To review and assess existing child-care services (adoption, foster care, guardianship,
community-based responses and their structure) in the four countries, including national
legal frameworks.
● To assess the situation of orphanages and residential centres (types, location, admission
procedures, facilities, number of staff, qualifications of staff, registration, monitoring
and funding).
● To identify features of effective and useful care and support interventions for children,
including key components of successful community-based programmes.
● To assess and compare various experiences and models across the four countries and
identify good practices and lessons learnt, especially in relation to the impact on the lives
of children.
● To make recommendations identifying sustainable and functional models of alternative
care by focusing on community structures.
The project to assess appropriate alternative care choices covered Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia
and Thailand. Relevant data from a study by the International Social Service General Secretariat
(ISS-GS)1 is integrated in this report.
The methodology used was based on: 1) A review of secondary data sources, including information
available online such as country reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, annual
reports, brochures, studies and research, conference and seminar proceedings, laws, decrees, rules,
regulations and guidelines; 2) interviews with government and non-government representatives; 3)
visits to selected facilities for children; and 4) observations.
Four consultants from International Social Service-Philippines (ISS-P) conducted the assessment
within three months, including visits to the four countries.
In Malaysia, UNICEF provided support and arranged meetings and visits during the five-day visit of
one consultant. The Department of Social Welfare’s Director-General, Dato Shamsiah Binti Abdul
Rahman, and managers of various divisions were interviewed. Visits were made to two children’s
homes managed by the department and other residential facilities run by Shelter Homes, an NGO in
Kuala Lumpur. Interviews were conducted with NGOs involved in post-tsunami programmes that
provide psychosocial services for child survivors and their families.
In Myanmar, two consultants undertook a five-day visit to Yangon, where they participated in the
following activities arranged by UNICEF Myanmar: 1) Attendance at a National Seminar on Social
Work and Child Protection organized by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement
(MSWRR) and UNICEF Myanmar; 2) meetings with officials from relevant government ministries,
UNICEF Myanmar, and international and local NGOs, as well as a member of the team involved in
preparing Myanmar’s country report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child; and 3) visits to
four residential facilities.
In Indonesia, the data-collection process was based on the report of ISS-GS. Two ISS-P consultants
attended a presentation by ISS-GS in Jakarta on 9-10 October 2005. This allowed an opportunity to
listen not only to the presentation but to the perspectives of government and non-government
stakeholders. In Jakarta, with the help of Makmur Sunusi, Director for Child Welfare Services,
Department of Social Affairs, the consultants visited a government-run village-like facility for children
and young people ranging from babies to 21 years. The facility included 12 cottages for 150 girls
and boys, a rehabilitation building housing 100 boys in conflict with the law, and a vocational school.
Another facility visited was a cottage complex run by the Social Protection Home for Children (Rumah
Perlindungan Sosial Anak) in Jakarta, which serves as a model in providing temporary shelter and
protection for children under seven. Five girls aged between four and seven were permitted to meet
the consultants but the language barrier made communication difficult.
1
See UNICEF and ISS-GS. 2005, November. Supporting the Development of the Alternative Care System at Provincial (Aceh) and
National Levels in Indonesia. UNICEF and ISS-GS.
Two theoretical models provided the framework for this study: 1) The ecological model adapted
from Bronfenbrenner,2 and 2) the continuum of child-welfare services adapted from Kadushin.3
Society
Socio-cultural, religious, values,
beliefs and cultural norms
about children and family life, gender
Community
Economic realities and trends,
neighbourhood characteristics and
norms, employment housing, resources,
networks, social service delivery
Family
Dynamics, roles and
interaction patterns, quality of
parent-child relationships,
connectedness with extended family
Child
Family background
and status,
personality and stage
of development
2
Colton, M.R., Sanders and Williams. 2001. An Introduction to Working with Children: A Guide for Social Workers. New York: Palgrave.
3
Kadushin, A. 1980. Child Welfare Services: An Introduction. New York: McMillan.
Keeping children within their own families offers the best environment for their development. When
a family neglects, abuses, exploits and/or maltreats children, however, the removal of a child may
be necessary to ensure the child’s safety and protection. Given this context, children may need
alternative care choices, either temporarily or permanently. Supportive and supplemental services
should be provided to families to facilitate early reintegration of children who are in temporary
substitutive care.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
Access
Referral Intake/Engagement
Outreach
APPROACHES: Community Data Gathering
■ Holistic Evaluation Family and Assessment
■ Right-Based and and
Life Cycle Termination Child
■ Family and
Community-Based BEST INTEREST
OF THE CHILD
■ Multidisciplinary
Implementation Service/Intervention
and Monitoring Planning
AGENCY/ORGANIZATION
The case-management process, as shown in Figure 3, is traced from accessing a service to the
termination of service(s). Access or entry to an agency and its services can occur through referral
or reaching out to target recipients in a community. At the stage of intake and initial contact, a
recipient’s needs are considered in relation to an agency’s services. Assessment entails analysis of
data in order to understand the recipient’s problems or situation and to develop an individual
intervention plan. This involves working with a child and/or their family on the options available to
achieve the desired outcome (that is, the well-being of the child). Implementation and monitoring
involves taking appropriate action(s) or providing services that would appropriately solve a child’s
problem and then following up on the child’s progress. During this phase, a child and his or her
family may be linked with other agencies and informal support networks, such as family members
and friends. Evaluation and termination involves determining whether the problem is solved and
the child’s needs are met, and if so, then ending the provision of services. This process reflects the
interconnected character of different phases in case-management practice.
6
Manuel, M., Osorio, B., Nuqui, T. and Saguisag, A. 2003. ‘Handbook for Social Workers on Case Management of Children in Need
of Special Protection’. Manila: UNICEF. (Unpublished.)
Alternative care programmes for children ideally are guided by a legal framework based on relevant
international measures and standards, regional commitments and national laws and policies.
7
UNICEF EAPRO. 2003. A Future for All Our Children. Bangkok: UNICEF. p.6.
8
UNICEF. 2005. ‘Siem Reap-Angkor Declaration of the Seventh East Asia and Pacific Ministerial Consultation on Children. 2005,
March 23-25.’ In Towards a Region Where Every Child Counts. Bangkok: UNICEF EAPRO. p.15.
This section integrates the results of the review and assessment of existing alternative care services
and legal frameworks in the four countries dealt with in the study. It highlights the situation of
children and the common and distinct alternative care choices available in these countries. Finally,
it presents some models of good practice to address the challenge of providing the best care for
children without primary caregivers.
Among the four countries, Indonesia was the first to ratify the CRC. This was done through Presidential
Decree No. 36 in 1990.
Myanmar became a State party to the CRC in 1991 with a reservation on Sections 15 and 37. The
Government withdrew its reservation in 1993, following the enactment of the Child Law in July
that year.
Thailand is the only country that has ratified the 1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children
and Cooperation in respect of Intercountry Adoption. In this regard, the rights of children who are
adopted by foreign families are protected.
Findings 21
Malaysia ratified the CRC in 1995 with reservations on eight Articles. The reservations are under
review and appropriate amendments to national laws are being undertaken, including the Child Act
2001.
Myanmar, Indonesia and Thailand have formally presented their first and second reports on the
implementation of the CRC to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Malaysia is in the
process of submitting its first report to the committee.
9
UNCRC. 2004. ‘Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention. Concluding
Observations: Myanmar.’ UNCRC. 30 June.
10
UNICEF and ISS-GS. Op. cit.
11
Ibid.
12
Reported by the Department of Social Welfare, Malaysia.
13
WHO. 2005. ‘Myanmar Tsunami Situation Report.’ Yangon: WHO Myanmar Country Office. 27 January.
Findings 23
From the reports available, Thailand’s government appears to have responded quickly and positively
to mobilize all resources to help victims of the tsunami. The Government, with support from
international bodies, provided relief and recovery interventions, both on the material and the
psychological levels. Services such as a 24-hour call centre where relatives could contact victims,
shelters for displaced families and children, restoration of family livelihoods, and counselling were
provided. But the registration of children without primary caregivers was slow. Table 3 reflects the
number of children in Thailand affected by the tsunami.
* Parents died, children residing in provinces other than where they lived before the tsunami
** UNICEF estimates
Source: Ministry of Social Development and Human Security, Thailand
All four countries, in varying degrees, faced problems before the tsunami with regard to health,
nutrition, education and protection of children. Indonesia and Myanmar are struggling to achieve
the Millennium Development Goals on health, nutrition and education. Infant mortality was already
high in Myanmar (48:1,000 births), Indonesia (44) and Thailand (24). Malaysia’s infant mortality rate
was 6:1,000 births in 2001.14 Myanmar had the lowest net ratio of enrolment by children in primary
education and a high rate of malnutrition of children under five. Indonesia’s rate of malnutrition was
higher than in Thailand and Malaysia. In all countries there was an increasing incidence of HIV/AIDS
and unaccompanied children were vulnerable to trafficking.
The threats faced by children in these countries have implications for guaranteeing their rights to
survival, protection, development and participation. This is especially the case for children without
primary caregivers. The interplay of familial, community, socio-economic, cultural and political factors
contributes significantly to an increasing number of children in these countries needing special
protection. These issues are tied inextricably to poverty, as many of the children at risk come from
economically disadvantaged families.
14
ASEAN Secretariat. 2003, December. ASEAN in Figures. Jakarta: ASEAN.
b) Foster care
Foster care is a form of temporary family placement for a child when his or her biological parents
are unable to care for him or her due to family problems. This placement is intended to be for a
planned period of time and does not involve the permanent transfer of parental rights and
responsibilities.
Foster care as an organized child welfare service is practised in Malaysia and Thailand, whereby
foster families caring for a non-related child are assessed, approved and supervised by government
authorities.
In Malaysia, the Court for Children may order that an abandoned child be placed in the care, custody
and control of a foster parent found to be suitable by the Director-General of the Department of
Social Welfare for two years or until the child is 18, whichever is the shorter period. Foster families
may adopt a foster child if, after two years, the child’s biological parents have not claimed him or
her and a social welfare officer has not been able to locate them. A foster parent may return a child
as long as he or she reports in person and takes the child to a protector/social welfare officer, who
then is responsible to put the child in a place of safety, such as a residential facility. The department
provides financial incentives to 148 foster families, amounting to RM250 per child per month, with
a maximum of RM500 per family per month.16
15
Lahiri, S.C. 1951. Principles of Modern Burmese Buddhist Law. Fifth edition. India: Eastern Law House. p.165.
16
Interview with Inau Edin Nom and Sulaiman Hj Ismail, Department of Social Welfare, 18 October 2005. The exchange rate was
RM13:USD1 at the time.
Findings 25
In Thailand, government services and NGOs implement foster care and provide subsidies to foster
families. More than 1,000 foster families are supervised through reportedly regular visits by social
workers from the Department of Social Welfare.17 Most foster families are related to the children,
though some foster families are selected and subsidized by the department to meet the needs of
unrelated children.
In Myanmar and Indonesia, informal fostering of children is practised. The term ‘foster care’ is
interchanged with adoption or guardianship. It is not regulated by government or social service
agencies. In Indonesia, the law appears focus mainly on residential care and adoption, which explains
the lack of regulation of foster care.18 In Myanmar, children without primary caregivers who are
taken in by families are often treated as domestic helpers. These children are at high risk of exploitation
and/or abuse.
c) Kinship care
Kinship care is the full-time nurturing and protection of a child by relatives, members of a tribe or
clan, godparents, step-parents, or other adults who have a kinship bond with a child.
Kinship care is practised widely in the four countries. It is deeply rooted in local cultures, but remains
mainly informal and is not regulated. Although most children without primary caregivers live with
extended families, there is no data on the extent and situation of these children. This is particularly
the case in Myanmar and Indonesia, where kinship care is very common. In Malaysia, families who
take care of related children may qualify for financial assistance. In Thailand, kinship care is included
within the foster-care programme.
d) Guardianship
Guardianship occurs where a court appoints a person to care for and take custody of a child and his
or her property until the child reaches the age of majority or at the discretion of a court.
In all four countries, no data was obtained with regard to children under legal guardianship, although
legal provisions on guardianship exist.
In Malaysia, the Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act 1984 (Article 303) contains requirements
and procedures on guardianship (hadanah, or custody of children) for children of Muslim families,
including the succession of guardians to be appointed by a court. For orphaned children, where the
father and the grandfather of a minor have died without nominating a guardian, a court may appoint
a guardian. A court may seek the advice of an expert on child welfare, but it is not bound to follow
the advice. The Child Act 2001 also refers to the court appointment of a guardian, but the Department
of Social Welfare does not appear to administer a legal guardianship programme.
In Myanmar, the Guardians and Wards Act refers to the guardianship of a child’s person and his or
her property. A court may be petitioned for guardianship of a minor who has not come of age and
for a child of divorced parents. A court determines guardianship and is obliged to take into account
the best interests of the child.19
In Thailand, guardianship is incorporated into the Child Protection Act 2003, which took effect in
March 2004.
In Indonesia, Law No. 23 2002 on Child Protection (Articles 33-36) provides that an individual or
institution may be appointed to serve as a guardian of a child. A new regulation on requirements
and procedures for the appointment of guardians is in process. Under this measure, a guardian
may be appointed in three situations: 1) When the parents fail to fulfil their obligations and
responsibilities to a child; 2) when the parents are legally incapable of doing so; and 3) when the
whereabouts and place of residence of parents is unknown.
17
Punnabutr, C. 2001. ‘Current Trends and Best Practices on Alternative Parental Care’. In Proceedings of the 6th Global Consultation
on Child Welfare Services. Philippines: Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB). 29-31 August.
18
UNICEF and ISS-IG. Op. cit. p.13.
19
Myanmar, Government of. 1995. ‘Initial reports of States parties due in 1993: Myanmar’. CRC/C/8/Add.9. UNCRC.
18 September 1995.
20
Eight facilities were visited: One in Indonesia, three in Malaysia and four in Myanmar.
Findings 27
c) The situation of children in residential care
Basic needs for survival such as shelter, food, clothing and education are generally provided. There
is doubt however about whether the developmental needs of the children are addressed. This is
especially the case where children with various problems and needs are placed together in one
home, such as children with disabilities, victims of abuse and exploitation, those affected by HIV/
AIDS, and those with behavioural problems.
In general, case plans or reviews of the placements of children in institutional care do not apparently
exist. Some case records were seen in some centres in Myanmar and Indonesia. The records monitor
the progress of children, but only in relation to their stay in the centre and not with any long-term
permanency planning in mind. In addition, there are no indications that older children are permitted
the opportunity to participate in decision-making relative to their placement. Many children experience
being moved from one institution to another. In Malaysia, boys who are 12 years old are transferred
to a boys’ home. In Myanmar, when children reach the age of five they are transferred to a training
school for boys or girls. In Indonesia, after six months in a child protection centre, children are
moved to a children’s home (or panti). The practice of moving children from one place to another is
not in their best interests because it is detrimental to their capacity to establish long-term and
meaningful relationships.
Most of the children in institutions in Malaysia, Myanmar and Indonesia have parents and families,
but the parents are unable to visit their children due to distance and financial constraints. Parents
also have confidence that their children are in good care. Care agencies are unable to provide
transportation assistance for families to visit and they do not coordinate with local nor other agencies
for such support. Besides, visitation or continuing contacts with families are not part of the regular
care programme and families are not encouraged to visit. Therefore, most of these children stay in
institutions until they are 18. They have no, or only minimal, contact with parents or family. Just a
few are reunited with their families or placed in adoption or foster care.
The consultants had no access to the profiles of residential care staff, but observed during their
visits that many staff members were young women who seemed interested and committed in their
work with the children. Some had received training, but most need continuing education to enhance
their knowledge and skills in working with children.
21
‘Smart partnership’ is discussed in detail in Chapter 6: Models of Good Practice.
Findings 29
Table 4: Alternative care practices (continued)
5.4 Networking
Collaborative partnerships between and among governments, NGOs, the private sector, donor
agencies and UN bodies is evident in all the countries. UNICEF has a country programme for children,
in cooperation with governments, in each country. International NGOs such as the Save the Children
and World Vision and local NGOs also operate in Myanmar, Indonesia and Thailand. Malaysia has
an institutional relationship with local NGOs and the private sector for the implementation of
programmes for children. Collaborative activities in Malaysia include trainings, seminars, workshops,
research studies and information/educational campaigns on the rights of a child.
A multi-sectoral approach is generally used in many inter-agency activities in the four countries.
Various government agencies, international and local NGOs, UN agencies and academic institutions
often work together to discuss issues and concerns, and formulate policies and plans such as national
plans or programmes for children. Coalitions and networks of agencies exist, such as the Child
Rights Working Group and the Juvenile Justice Inter-Agency Working Group in Yangon, Myanmar.
All four countries work closely with other countries by participating in meetings, workshops and
seminars held by UN agencies and ASEAN.
22
McKee, N. 1992. Social Mobilization and Social Marketing in Developing Communities: Lessons for Communicators. Penang:
Southbound.
23
Myanmar, Government of. 1995. Op. cit.
Findings 31
|6|
MODELS OF GOOD PRACTICE
The results of this study highlight the following child welfare programmes and initiatives in the four
countries: 1) Family support to keep economically disadvantaged families together and to prevent
institutionalization of children; 2) family/cottage care systems to create a more family-like environment
and avoid placement in large institutions; 3) foster care to provide more individualized care for
children in relation to their developmental needs; and 4) strategies for resource mobilization. These
actions are considered to be good practice because they are geared towards promoting and protecting
children’s rights with the active involvement of communities and the private sector.
24
See UNICEF and ISS-GS. Op. cit. Appendix 2.
■ Costs towards
un
implementation of
m
m
programme in
Co
■ Community-based
rehabilitation
or
W lun zat
ct
■ Community
Vo an
el ta io
O
Se
fa ry n
rg
organized
re
e
at
programmes
i
iv
Pr
Under this model, the private sector is responsible for the construction and implementation costs of
social welfare programmes. A facility may then be managed by an NGO while the Government
provides educational, medical and other social programmes. One example is Kompleks Penyayang
Bakti (described earlier). It demonstrates the ‘smart partnership’ concept whereby the Government
(through the Department of Social Welfare), a voluntary agency (Bakti) and the corporate sector
(Yarisan Holdings) work together to manage a facility for children.
25
Punnabutr, C. Op. cit.
The review of alternative care choices for children in the four countries revealed the following
challenges: 1) To put in place a continuum of child welfare services (supportive, supplemental and
substitutive); 2) to improve the quality of care for children; and 3) to strengthen advocacy and the
promotion of children’s rights services.
7.1.1 De-institutionalization
De-institutionalization is a process of moving away from a reliance on residential care to community-
based/family types of care for children without primary caregivers. This process must be pursued
vigorously in all four countries. This can be best achieved by developing support services for families
and facilitating the reunification of children with their families or adoptions as appropriate. Policies
and actions are needed to redirect donor support to family- and community-based services rather
than residential-care services.
7.2.4 Standards
Governments of the four countries must ensure that standards for alternative care are in place to
guarantee the quality of care and the rights of children whose needs cannot be met within their own
families. All types of residential-care facilities, including boarding and/or monastic schools under
the management of faith-based organizations, should be obliged to comply with these standards,
which should cover:
● Basic philosophy and principles of care and protection for children and the services provided
to them and their parents;
● Organization and management (vision, mission, goals, composition of boards or policy-making
bodies);
● Quality of care (ratio of staff to children, health and nutrition, allowance for clothing, toiletries,
and so on);
● Policies, programmes and case management (admission and discharge policies, individual
case records, case-loads of social workers, periodic reviews of case plans, medical, educational,
psychological and social services including opportunities for children to participate and families
to visit children);
● Personnel policies and procedures (number and ratio of staff, professional qualifications,
recruitment, hiring and continuing staff development);
● Financial management policies and procedures (accounting and auditing of funds); and
● Safety requirements (infrastructure, including sanitation, buildings and playgrounds).
7.3.3 Coordination
Enhanced coordination between local and national government agencies and in mobilizing resources
depends on building and expanding partnerships focused on improving child protection. Each country
needs to strengthen existing coordinating structures at all levels.
This study has provided an overview of the alternative care choices for children without primary
caregivers in Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia and Thailand. A summary of several significant
conclusions follows.
1. Residential care is the main response to assisting children without primary caregivers. Poverty is
a significant factor underlying the admission of children to institutions. De-institutionalization
will require much effort given the heavy reliance on residential care. Even so, moves are under
way in some places to shift from large institutions to cottage and family-like settings that provide
a more conducive environment for the development of children in care.
2. Comprehensive, community-level services are needed for families in order to prevent
institutionalization. Governments in the four countries are increasingly aware of and giving
consideration to community-based programmes such as adoption, foster care, kinship care and
guardianship, including family-support services. This is to be encouraged. At the same time,
family-support services should be prioritised.
3. Implementation of national laws is mostly weak and some practices are inconsistent with national
law and the CRC. Concepts and definitions need clarification, laws and practices need to be
reviewed, and indicators and standards on alternative care need to be constructed.
4. The quality of care provided to children without primary caregivers must improve. Standards,
responsive programmes and services, competent staff and resources are imperative to guarantee
the protection of children in residential and community-based facilities.
Any intervention to support a child cannot address his or her needs alone, but must respond in the
context of the child’s environment. As discussed, such an approach allows simultaneous consideration
of the several levels at which programme interventions may be made directly with a child: The
levels of the family, the community and cultural value systems.
Overall, the results of this study indicate some progress and innovations to assist children without
primary caregivers in the four countries. The ideal approach is for children to stay within their own
families because a family provides the best environment for a child’s healthy development and
well-being. To do this as a matter of policy will require significant support and consideration of
priorities. For children already in residential facilities, the imperative is to assure them of their rights
to quality care and to deinstitutionalize the children in a timely and appropriate manner through
family reunification or placement in adoption. This requires that the governments of the four countries,
with the support of UNICEF and other partners, make good on their commitments to uphold and
safeguard the rights of children.
Glossary 39
REFERENCES
General
Dubois, B. and Miley, K. 1996. Social Work: An Empowering Profession. Massachusetts:
Allyn and Bacon.
Dulmus, C. and Sowers, K. 2004. How Institutions are Shaping the Future of our Children.
New York: Haworth Press Inc.
Holland, S. 2004. Child and Family Assessment in Social Work Practices. London:
Sage Publications.
Kadushin, A. 1980. Child Welfare Services: An Introduction. Third ed. New York: Macmillan.
Kirst-Ashman, Karen K. 2003. Introduction to Social Work and Social Welfare: Critical Thinking
Perspectives. California: Pacific Grove Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning.
Manuel, M., Osorio, B., Nuqui, T. and Saguisag, A. 2003. ‘Handbook for Social Workers on the
Case Management of Children in Need of Special Protection.’ (Unpublished.) Manila: UNICEF.
McNeish, D, Newman, T. and Roberts, H. (Ed.s.) 2002. What Works for Children? Effective Services
for Children and Families. UK: Open University Press.
Punnabutr, C. 2001. ‘Current Trends and Best Practices on Alternative Parental Care’. In
Proceedings of the 6th Global Consultation on Child Welfare Services. Philippines:
Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB). 29-31 August.
Rose, S. and Fatout, M. 2003. Social Work Practice with Children and Adolescents. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Save the Children. 2003, July. A Last Resort: The Growing Concern about Children in Residential
Care. UK: International Save the Children Alliance.
UNAIDS and UNICEF. 2004. A Framework for the Protection, Care and Support of Orphans and
Vulnerable Children Living in a World with HIV and AIDS. UNAIDS and UNICEF.
UNAIDS, UNICEF and USAID. 2002. Children on the Brink 2002: A Joint Report on Orphan
Estimates and Program Strategies. UNAIDS, UNICEF and USAID.
UNICEF EAPRO. 2003. A Future for All Our Children. Bangkok: UNICEF EAPRO.
UNICEF EAPRO. 2005. ‘Siem Reap-Angkor Declaration of the Seventh East Asia and Pacific
Ministerial Consultation on Children. 2005, March 23-25.’ In Towards a Region Where Every Child
Counts. Bangkok: UNICEF EAPRO.
Malaysia
ASEAN Secretariat. 2003, December. ASEAN in Figures. Jakarta: ASEAN.
ASEAN. 2004. ‘Joint Communique of the Fifth ASEAN Ministerial Meeting for Social Welfare and
Development.’ 16 December. Bangkok: ASEAN.
Malaysia, Government of. 1994. ‘Caring for the Children of Malaysia: A National Plan of Action for
Child Survival, Protection and Development of Children in the 1990s.’ Kuala Lumpur.
Malaysia, Government of. 2003. Annual Report (Laporan Tahunan). Malaysia: Department of
Social Welfare.
Malaysian Pediatric Association. 2000-01. State of Malaysian Children. Malaysian Pediatric
Association.
UN Country Team of Malaysia and the Government of Malaysia. 2005. Malaysia Achieving the
Millennium Development Goals: Success and Challenges. Kuala Lumpur: UNDP.
UNICEF Malaysia. 2004. Annual Report. Kuala Lumpur: UNICEF Malaysia.
Indonesia
Indonesia, Government of. 2002. Republic of Indonesia Law No. 23 Year 2002 on Child Protection.
Jakarta: Ministry for Women’s Empowerment and Department of Social Affairs.
Ministry of Social Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia and UNICEF. 2005. ‘Indonesia Government
Policy on Separated Children, Unaccompanied Children and Single-parent Children Affected by
Emergency Situations.’ Jakarta.
UNICEF Indonesia. 2005, October. ‘Workshop Materials on the Development of the Alternative
Care System at Regional (Aceh) and National Levels in Indonesia.’ Jakarta: UNICEF Indonesia.
UNICEF and ISS-GS. 2005, November. Supporting the Development of the Alternative Care
System at Provincial (Aceh) and National Levels in Indonesia. UNICEF and ISS-GS. Available at:
http://www.iss-ssi.org/Resource_Centre/Tronc_DI/documents/Indonesia-Report2005.pdf
References 41
Thailand
National Youth Bureau, Office of the Prime Minister and UNICEF Thailand. 2000. Children in
Thailand 1990-2000: Country Report on the Follow-up to the World Summit for Children. Bangkok.
Punnabutr, C. 2001, August. ‘Current Trends and Best Practices on Alternative Parental Care.’
Proceedings of the Sixth Global Consultation on Child Welfare Services. Philippines.
Thailand, Government of. 2005, October. ‘Data on Victims of Tsunami Disaster. Thailand.’
Bangkok: Ministry of Social Development and Human Security Assistance.
UNICEF Thailand. 1997, December. Children and their Families in a Changing Thai Society.
Bangkok: UNICEF Thailand.
UNICEF Thailand. 2005, February. Child Protection Sector Analysis. Bangkok: UNICEF Thailand.
Thailand, Government of. 2004. ‘Second periodic report of States parties due in 1999: Thailand.’
UNCRC. CRC/C/83/Add.15. 31 May 2005.
NGO Group for the CRC. 2005, June. ‘Thailand NGO Report on the Implementation of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child 2000-2004.’ UNCRC.
|1|
INDONESIA
Among the four countries involved in the study to assess appropriate alternative care choices for
children without primary caregivers in tsunami-affected countries, Indonesia was the worst hit by
the disaster. Thousands of people lost their lives and thousands more, particularly children, were
separated from their families.
A study on Supporting the Development of the Alternative Care System at Provincial (Aceh) and
National Levels in Indonesia was completed by the International Social Service-General Secretariat
(ISS-GS) and UNICEF in November 2005. The report focuses mainly on the situation of children and
families soon after the tsunami, specifically in the province of Aceh, in northern Sumatra. The findings
and recommendations of the report conform with the conclusions of International Social Service-
Philippines (ISS-P) consultants with regard to the situation of children and families, programmes
and services on alternative care choices, and proposed strategies to resolve some of the problems.
The ISS-P team’s report on Indonesia is based on a desk review, participation in an ISS-GS workshop
presentation of its findings, a brief visit with Makmur Sunusi, the Director of Child Welfare Services,
Department of Social Affairs, in Jakarta, and a visit to one government institution in Jakarta, the
Social Protection Home for Children.
For detailed information on Indonesia, please see: UNICEF and ISS-GS. 2005, November. Supporting
the Development of the Alternative Care System at Provincial (Aceh) and National Levels in Indonesia.
UNICEF and ISS-GS. It is available at
http://www.iss-ssi.org/Resource_Centre/Tronc_DI/documents/Indonesia-Report2005.pdf
Other resources
Indonesia, Government of. 2002. Republic of Indonesia Law No. 23 Year 2002 on Child Protection.
Jakarta: Ministry for Women’s Empowerment and Department of Social Affairs.
Ministry of Social Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia and UNICEF. 2005. ‘Indonesia Government
Policy on Separated Children, Unaccompanied Children and Single-parent Children Affected by
Emergency Situations.’ Jakarta.
UNICEF Indonesia. 2005, October. ‘Workshop Materials on the Development of the Alternative Care
System at Regional (Aceh) and National Levels in Indonesia.’ Jakarta: UNICEF Indonesia.
UNICEF and Pusat Kajian dan Perlindungan Anak (PKPA). 2004. ‘Kalingga – For the rights of women
and children.’ Jakarta: UNICEF.
|2|
MALAYSIA
1 Introduction
This report is part of a four-country study to assess appropriate alternative care choices for children
without primary caregivers commissioned by UNICEF’s East Asia and the Pacific Regional Office
(EAPRO). The study aims to review and assess existing child-care services (adoption, foster care,
guardianship, community-based responses and their structure) and national legal frameworks; assess
the current situation of orphanages and residential centres; identify good practices and make
recommendations for sustainable and functional models of alternative care for children without
primary caregivers.
The report is presented in seven sections. The first section gives the background and aims of the
study. The second describes the profile of Malaysia to provide the context. The third outlines the
policy framework at the international, regional and national levels for the legal bases for alternative
parental care practices in Malaysia. The fourth provides a snapshot of the situation of children in
Malaysia. The fifth discusses existing alternative parental care choices to address the needs of children
without primary caregivers. The sixth section looks at some structures and mechanisms for service
delivery. The final section presents findings, recommendations and conclusions.
2 Country profile
Malaysia has a population of more than 25 million people who live on the peninsula and in the
states of Sabah and Sarawak on the island of Borneo. The country prides itself in claiming a
harmonious relationship between different peoples, most of whom are ethnic Malays, Chinese and
Indians. The official language is Bahasa Melayu but English is widely spoken. The official religion is
Islam and the population comprises Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and people of other
religions. Malaysia is a vibrant society working to achieve its Vision 2020 as a developed nation a
society that cares for the welfare of individuals and the environment.
Upon its formation in 1963, Malaysia’s estimated population was 9 million. Growing at an average
rate of 2.6 per cent until 2000, the population was about 23 million in 2000 (from about 18 million in
1990). The population growth rate since 2000 has been lower, averaging 2.2 per cent.26 Of the
population, 80 per cent live in Peninsular Malaysia and about 10 per cent live in each of Sabah and
Sarawak. Ethnic groups include Bumiputera (65 per cent), Chinese (26 per cent) and Indians (8 per
cent). The Government aims for a 2 per cent average annual growth rate by 2020, in keeping with an
expected decline in the fertility rate (3.1 per cent in 2001) due to higher educational levels (especially
among women), increasing urbanization and industrialization, delayed marriages and child bearing,
and general improvements in living standards.27
The proportion of the population aged under 15 has declined from 37.4 per cent in 1990 to 33.9 per
cent in 2001. Children aged under 15 are expected to comprise 30.5 per cent of the population in
2020. The proportion of the populated aged 15 to 64 was 59.5 per cent in 1990, rising to 65.1 per cent
in 2001. People aged over 65 accounted for 3.6 per cent of the population in 1990, rising to 3.8 per
cent in 2001. The median age of the population was 21.3 in 1990, rising to 23.2 in 2001. Males
outnumber females. The dependency ratio declined from 69.7 in 1990 to 60.3 in 2001. Life expectancy
for men has risen from 69.2 in 1990 to 70.3 in 2001 and for women from 73.7 to 75.2.28
Malaysia is a model for the transformation from a poor developing country in the 1960s to a newly
industrializing country in the 1990s. It is moving towards full industrialization by 2010. National
development plans have helped to stimulate economic growth, develop human resources and raise
the standard of living. Malaysia has enjoyed sustained economic growth since 1970, averaging
annual growth of about 7 per cent.29
In a 2004 review of the country’s progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, Malaysia
was found to have achieved most of the goals to which its government committed the country.
Poverty has been reduced, with 5.5 per cent of people living below the national poverty line 2000.
Nevertheless, poverty continues in some rural areas, particularly in Sabah and Sarawak.
26
ASEAN Secretariat. 2003, December. ASEAN in Figures. Jakarta: ASEAN. p. 2.
27
Op.cit., p. 26.
28
Op.cit., p. 32.
29
UN Country Team of Malaysia and the Government of Malaysia. 2005. Malaysia Achieving the Millennium Development Goals:
Success and Challenges. Kuala Lumpur: UNDP. p.10.
3 Policy framework
3.1 International
In February 1995, Malaysia acceded to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) with
reservations on eight Articles in relation to the country’s constitution, law, and cultural and religious
practices. The CRC was signed on 28 December 1994.
Following the 1990 World Summit on Children, Malaysia signed the World Declaration on Survival,
Protection and Development of Children on 18 July 1991. A National Plan of Action was formulated
in collaboration with various government agencies, NGOs and international agencies led by UNICEF
and the World Health Organization (WHO).31 With regard to the protection of children in especially
difficult circumstances, the following were included in the plan to address the needs of orphans and
abandoned children:32
Malaysia acceded to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) in 1995, with reservations. Since 1998, most of the reservations have been withdrawn. A
National Policy on Women was already in place in 1989. The policy endorses the objectives of
gender equality, eradication of poverty, integration of women in all aspects of national development
as equal partners with men. There is a National Plan for Action for the Advancement of Women. In
2005, Malaysia played host to a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (comprising more than 100
States that claim not to be unaligned with major power blocs) where the main agenda item concerned
women’s issues.
Malaysia ratified the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 182 on 26 February 2001. It
signed the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime on 26 September 2002. Following
the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1995, an action plan was
developed to support the country’s commitment to integration of population concerns in the national
development plan.
30
ASEAN Secretariat. Op. cit. p. 179.
31
Malaysia, Government of. 1994. ‘Caring for the Children of Malaysia: A National Plan of Action for Child Survival, Protection and
Development of Children in the 1990s.’ Kuala Lumpur.
32
Malaysia, Government of. 1994. Op. cit. p. 6.
Malaysia 47
Malaysia’s commitment to the World Summit for Social Development also strengthened
commitments to children’s rights, especially in the areas of education and health and nutrition.
3.2 Regional
As a member of ASEAN, Malaysia is committed to the Bali Concord ll (2003), the Vientiane Action
Action Plan (2004-2010) and the following regional statements related to children: the Declaration
of Commitments for Children in ASEAN (2001), the ASEAN Declaration on HIV/AIDS (2001), the
ASEAN Tourism Agreement (2002) and the ASEAN Declaration Against Trafficking in Persons
Particularly Women and Children (2004).
3.3 National
The overall thrust of social development in Malaysia is to build on socio-economic achievements
and objectives to support the development of a ‘caring society’ as envisaged in Vision 2020. Malaysia
recognizes that the building block of a caring society is the family.
A National Social Policy was promulgated in 2003 to provide a framework for social progress and
balanced development. The policy advocates a holistic approach in enhancing social development.
The main aims outlined by the Government are to enhance the life-long empowerment of the
individual, strengthen social support systems, deliver effective social services, promote social
inclusion and integration, and generate multi-sector collaboration and cooperation.33
The National Social Policy is in line with the National Social Welfare Policy of 1990, which sets as a
goal the creation of a society whose members are imbued with the spirit of self-reliance, enjoy
equal opportunities and care for one another, especially those who are less fortunate than others.
The National Development Plan makes clear that the family unit plays a pivotal role in promoting
positive values. Efforts to achieve this are to be complemented and supplemented by NGOs,
community-based organizations, schools and training institutions. The family action plan has six
guiding principles: 1) Attainment of a quality life for the population; 2) promotion of the role of
women in development; 3) encouragement for families to care for older people; 4) advocacy and
education on family development; 5) programme development for the survival, development and
protection of children; and 6) improved support from families, communities and government to
assist the vulnerable and marginalized groups.34
The Child Act 2001 (Act 611) was promulgated on 15 February 2001. Amendments were also made
to the Child Protection Act 1991, the Women and Girls Protection Act 1973 and the Juvenile Courts
Act 1947. The 2001 Act created special courts to deal with children; established the Coordinating
Council for the Protection of Children; specifies protection for children in need of care and/or
rehabilitation. The general definition of a child now conforms with the CRC (previously, Malaysia
had a reservation on this) and the Government takes into consideration the CRC’s principles.
Children without primary caregivers are included among those children in need of care and protection
under Part V, Chapter 1, (17) of the Child Act 2001:
1) The parent or guardian of the child is unfit, or has neglected, or is unable, to exercise proper
supervision and control over the child and the child is falling into bad association;
2) The parent or guardian of the child has neglected or is unwilling to provide for him adequate
care, food, clothing and shelter;
3) The child –
3.1) has no parent or guardian; or
3.2) has been abandoned by his parent or guardian and after reasonable inquiries, the parent or
guardian cannot be found, and no other suitable person is willing and able to care for the
child.
In cases such as outlined above, a social welfare officer (protector) or the police may take a child
into temporary custody until he or she can be brought before a children’s court. In this situation, the
child may be placed in a place of safety, under the care of a fit and proper person, or with a foster
parent.
33
ASEAN. 2004. ‘Joint Communique of the Fifth ASEAN Ministerial Meeting for Social Welfare and Development.’ 16 December.
Bangkok: ASEAN.
34
Ibid.
35
UNICEF Malaysia. 2004. Annual Report. Kuala Lumpur: UNICEF Malaysia. p.19.
36
Malaysia, Government of. ‘Violence against Children Report’. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Women, Family and Community
Development.
37
Malaysian Pediatric Association. 2000-01. State of Malaysian Children. Malaysian Pediatric Association.
38
Ibid.
Malaysia 49
● Malaysia’s Ministry of Health reported in 2003 that 112 children under two years had HIV
(0.21 per cent of 54,429 reported cases of HIV); 642 children aged 13 to 19 had HIV while
20,115 young people aged 20 to 29 had acquired the virus.
● About 14,000 children under 15 were orphans in 2001 as a result of HIV/AIDS, according to
UNAIDS estimates.39
Data is lacking on the incidence of children without primary caregivers, that is, children who are
orphaned, abandoned or otherwise neglected. The available data concerns only children residing in
children’s homes or with foster families, and the information is sporadic due to the varying capacities
of the homes.
Malaysia is host to about 30,000 undocumented migrants, mainly from neighbouring countries,
according to a study by the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).40 These migrants are primarily
in Sarawak and Sabah. Many have families already or form families in Malaysia. Concerns about
the well-being of children of undocumented migrants have been raised with the Government by
NGOs and countries of origin.
Children born in Malaysia of undocumented migrants do not receive nationality or citizenship. They
are therefore unable to attend school or make use of social services. Some such children end up
living on the streets and come into conflict with the law, leading to their detention and deportation
(even while their parents remain in Malaysia). Children in this situation may be regarded as lacking
parental care because they do not inform authorities of the whereabouts of their parents for fear of
arrest and deportation.
Victims of trafficking are considered ‘illegal migrants’ because no distinction is made between the
two. Nevertheless, the Child Act 2001 has provisions for the protection of children who are trafficked
or abducted within or outside Malaysia. It specifies penalties for people who are involved in trafficking
a child (including through harbouring, transferring or conferring, wholly or partly, temporarily or
permanently, for any valuable consideration). A child who is proved to have been brought to Malaysia
by fraud, misrepresentation or any false pretence or transferred for valuable consideration is to be
sent in a place of safety or placed in the custody of a relative or another fit and proper person until
the child reaches 18.
Girls and women are commonly trafficked into Malaysia for sexual purposes. The UKM study noted
that half of the 6,000 foreigners arrested for prostitution in 2003 were aged under 18. The victims
are generally placed in detention facilities.
Disaggregated data on the age and gender of the people affected is not available. Nor is information
about unaccompanied children, because measures were undertaken to ensure that children were
not separated from family members during rescue operations and children were evacuated with
their families. One child reported missing in Perak was found later to have died.
39
ASEAN Secretariat. Op. cit. p. 59.
40
UNICEF Malaysia. Op. cit. p. 49.
41
Malaysia, Government of. 2005. ‘Orientation Document’. Malaysia: Department of Social Welfare.
42
Interviews with Goh Chee Leong (HELP), Aggy Hooi (Protect and Save the Children Association) and Ho Yock Lin (Empower)
in Kuala Lumpur, 17 October 2005. HELP’s project on Strengthening Capacity in Psycho-social Responses to Emergencies
is supported by UNICEF Malaysia.
43
Observations and recommendations by Empower Executive Director Yunus Ali, 12 November 2005.
44
Interview with Inau Edin Nom, Chief, Socio-Economy and Assistance Division, Department of Social Welfare, 18 October 2005.
45
Malaysia, Government of. ‘Panduan Pelanggan Permohonan Bantuan Kewangan’. (Pamphlet on family support programmes.)
Malaysia.
Malaysia 51
Meanwhile, child protection teams conduct preventive programmes for high-risk children and their
families through crisis intervention centres and child activity centres. The latter serve as resource
centres where community members can meet and exchange ideas, in turn fostering community
spirit. The activity centres also provide counselling and crisis-intervention services, educational
support services, child development activities, lectures, seminars, workshops on parenting and other
family-oriented topics, motivational camps for children and young people, and other activities.
Community-based rehabilitation programmes for people with disabilities involve the participation
of disabled people, their parents and members of the community. The aim is to reduce the impact of
disabilities, to ensure the disabled are socially accepted and integrated in their families and
communities, to support families, and to encourage the production of helpful devices and educational
materials from locally available resources.
46
Interview with Inau Edin Nom and Sulaiman Hj Ismail, Department of Social Welfare, 18 October 2005.
47
This information is based on the Adoption Act 1952.
48
Malaysia, Government of. 2003. Annual Report (Laporan Tahunan). Malaysia: Department of Social Welfare.
49
Discussion based on the Registration of Adoptions Act 1952.
50
Interview with Department of Social Welfare Director-General, Dato Shamsiah Binti Abdul Rahman, 17 October 2005.
Malaysia 53
The consultant visited Tengku Budriah, where 234 children resided, 34 of whom were infants (10
boys and two children with disabilities).51 There were 63 boys under 12. The staff conduct monthly
case conferences and children are placed in foster homes or adopted. The number of children placed
out was not given.
The home is located on several hectares which include six blocks of buildings for the children, a pre-
school, an administrative building, a dining hall/central kitchen and a playground. Each cottage and
a nursery can accommodate 20 children. At the time of the visit, the home was over-capacity.
The home is administered by a principal and 34 staff members comprising eight social welfare
assistants, 17 health attendants, and others. The home costs about RM1 million a year to administer.
A Board of Visitors is appointed by the Minister for Social Welfare. It comprises 13 members who
visit the home regularly to make recommendations for improvements, conduct various programmes
for the children and to organize fundraising activities.
The consultant visited Kompleks Penyayang Bakti at Sg. Buloh on 17 October 2005. It opened in
July 2001 under the new concept of penyayang, which refers to developing a family-like facility
within the community. Government agencies, a voluntary agency (Bakti) and the corporate sector
(Yarisan Holdings) manage the complex together, putting the ùsmart partnershipû concept into
practice.
Child residents aged 8 to 17 are referred to the complex by a court order, the Director-General of
Social Welfare, or from other children’s homes. There were 40 children living in two cottages for
girls and two cottages for boys. An ‘adopted mother’ assigned to each cottage prepares the
children’s meals and supervises their activities. The complex is on 4.5 hectares and includes a
playground, a mosque and an orchard.
The staff comprise one social welfare officer (manager), an assistant social welfare officer, five
assistant social workers, four health attendants and four kitchen staff. The social workers conduct
counselling sessions and revision classes and keep records of the children’s progress. The children
attend school outside of the complex and receive a little pocket money. Services cover health care,
informal education, religious education and recreational activities. Cases are reviewed every three
months.
Of the 40 children initially placed at the complex, four ran away and were reported to be back with
their families, two were returned to a boys’ home due to disciplinary problems, one was adopted
out and another one was placed in foster care.52 The rest of the children have lived in the complex
for more than four years. Family members visit rarely.
51
Information also based on an interview with Sitti Sabaruni, 17 October 2005.
52
Information based partly on interview with Atika Zainal, 17 October 2005.
53
ASEAN. 2004. Op. cit.
54
Interview with Norani Hashim, Chief, Community Development Division, Department of Social Welfare, 18 October 2005.
Malaysia 55
Programmes include caring for abused, abandoned, neglected or at-risk children (including through
counselling and therapy) and raising public awareness about parenting and youth issues and the
need for individuals to be able to recognize child abuse and to act against it. Services cover families,
communities, a support network for single mothers, and young people in prisons. Professional staff
comprise seven to eight social workers, one clinical psychologist, two to three counsellors and
trained caregivers. The ratio of staff in the homes is 1:3-4 children. Staff turnover is 20 per cent, but
management reportedly ensures standards of care are maintained.55
55
Interview with James Nayagam, Shelter Homes Executive Director, 17 October 2005.
56
Malaysia, Government of. 2005. Op. cit.
57
UNICEF Malaysia. Op. cit.
58
Speech by Rudiger Luchmann, Programme Coordinator, UNICEF Malaysia, during a Seminar on Protecting the Rights of Children
of Minority Groups, November 2005.
Malaysia 57
The Child Act 2001 states that a child placed in a children’s home is expected to stay in the home for
three years or until he or she is 18. The Department of Social Welfare’s Director-General clarified
however that a child may be discharged by the home before three years has elapsed or before he or
she is 18 if the child can be placed in foster care, is adopted, or their parents are found to be capable
of caring for the child. It is recommended that more concerted action be taken to ensure that a child
stays in residential care for the shortest possible time, since such care is temporary in nature. A
child should not be alienated from his or her biological or extended family. Family visits need to be
encouraged and supported in order to keep family ties intact and to plan for reintegration.
Case management is needed for permanency planning and moving a child out of institutional care
as soon as possible. Case management should be two-pronged: 1) To prevent at the outset the
placement of children in institutions and to support families in their own communities; and 2) to
remove children already in institutions in the aim of reintegrating them with their own families by
means of placing children in foster homes or, where applicable, placing the children with adoptive
families. Social workers need to develop individual case plans to this end.
A significant concern is the policy of transferring boys to another institution when they turn 12.
Such transfers must be handled with sensitivity so that the child understands why he is being moved
and is prepared for leaving his friends, caregivers, social workers and familiar environment. Transfers
of children should be avoided as much as possible.
The Care Centre Act 1984 provides standards for residential care with regard to physical facilities,
ratio of staff to residents, programmes and services, and so on. The standards apply also to NGOs.
Standards are important to ensure a nurturing, safe and family environment for children.
Unfortunately, the consultant was unable to assess the quality of the standards because they were
available only in Bahasa Malaysia.
Although adoption and foster care are part of the alternative care choices for children without primary
caregivers, these need to be developed further. All children whose parents are no longer capable of
caring for them should have the option of adoption. Assessments of the capability of adoptive
parents and supervision before formal adoption are important for the development of a satisfying
parent-child relationship. In addition, the development of foster families must be pursued at the
local level, taking into consideration the influence of social and cultural factors. An information and
education programme through the mass media, group meetings and personal contacts may help to
give communities a greater understanding and appreciation of the benefits to children of adoption
and foster care. Incentives may encourage more families to offer to care for children in need.
The Department of Social Welfare facilitates the delivery of services at the national and local levels
in response to the needs of families and their children. An increased budget for family support and
preventive programmes, supported by professional service providers, would go a long way to
realizing the rights of all children in Malaysia.
7.3 Capacity-building
It is encouraging to note that the Department of Social Welfare intends to upgrade its programmes
and services at all levels. A priority agenda is to build and improve the skills of staff. It is recommended
therefore that professional social workers be assigned to handle case management for children in
all departmental residential facilities, as well as those in foster care and adoption. Social welfare
assistants may help social workers to gather data, conduct home visits and make related contacts,
but the analysis and interventions should be done by a professional social worker. Specific training
on case management is recommended.
All involved in the care of children must continue to be provided with staff development activities
and training so that they are aware of the latest child-care trends, strategies for behaviour
management, how to providing opportunities for children’s participation, and so on. A special focus
must be considered for working with children who have or are affected by HIV/AIDS as well as
abused and exploited children.
7.5 Conclusion
The Government of Malaysia has recognized that economic and social development are necessary
to achieve its Vision 2020. The Government has achieved most of its Millennium Development
Goals and is determined to implement its National Social Policy under the leadership of the
Department of Social Welfare. The department is being restructured so that it will be more effective
in addressing the needs of children and families, especially those who are marginalized and would
benefit greatly from development-oriented programmes and competent professional staff.
With regard to children without primary caregivers, activities are under way to strengthen family-
support programmes and shift away from a reliance on large institutions in favour of the family/
cottage system of care. Policies and standards are in place for residential care facilities. The challenge
is to develop more foster and adoptive homes in order to reduce greatly the number of children
now living in large institutions.
Malaysia’s programmes and services for children and families are comprehensive and implemented
at the national, state and district levels. The challenge here is to review and adapt policies, standards,
programmes and services so that they are all in harmony with the CRC, are gender-fair and are
responsive to the developmental needs of all children and the special concerns and needs of specific
children such as those who are ‘stateless’ and those who have or are affected by HIV/AIDS. With
technical support from UNICEF Malaysia and the cooperation of the Government, these challenges
can be addressed to meet the best interests of children in Malaysia.
Malaysia 59
REFERENCES
ASEAN Secretariat. 2003, December. ASEAN in Figures. Jakarta: ASEAN.
ASEAN. 2004. ‘Joint Communique of the Fifth ASEAN Ministerial Meeting for Social Welfare and
Development.’ 16 December. Bangkok: ASEAN.
Malaysia, Government of. 1994. ‘Caring for the Children of Malaysia: A National Plan of Action for
Child Survival, Protection and Development of Children in the 1990s.’ Kuala Lumpur.
Malaysia, Government of. 2003. Annual Report (Laporan Tahunan). Malaysia: Department of
Social Welfare.
Malaysia, Government of. 2005. ‘Orientation Document’. Malaysia: Department of Social Welfare.
Malaysia, Government of. ‘Violence against Children Report’. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Women,
Family and Community Development.
Malaysia, Government of. ‘Panduan Pelanggan Permohonan Bantuan Kewangan’. (Pamphlet on
family support programmes.) Malaysia.
Malaysian Pediatric Association. 2000-01. State of Malaysian Children. Malaysian Pediatric
Association.
UN Country Team of Malaysia and the Government of Malaysia. 2005. Malaysia Achieving the
Millennium Development Goals: Success and Challenges. Kuala Lumpur: UNDP.
UNICEF Malaysia. 2004. Annual Report. Kuala Lumpur: UNICEF Malaysia.
|3|
MYANMAR
1 Introduction
This report is part of a four-country study to assess appropriate alternative care choices for children
without primary caregivers commissioned by UNICEF East Asia and the Pacific Regional Office
(EAPRO). The study aims to review and assess existing child-care services (adoption, foster care,
guardianship, community-based responses and their structure) and national legal frameworks; assess
the current situation of orphanages and residential centres; identify good practices and make
recommendations for sustainable and functional models of alternative care for children without
primary caregivers.
The study was based primarily on desk review of secondary data sources provided by UNICEF
Myanmar, including the results of surveys and studies, conference and workshop proceedings, laws,
brochures (including reference materials provided by local and international NGOs) and online UN
resources. The consultants also visited a small number of institutions. This study however cannot
make generalizations about the conditions at all institutions in Myanmar and the reflections here
should not be taken as conclusive statements about the conditions of institutions in Myanmar.
Two consultants also undertook a five-day visit to Yangon, where they participated in the following
activities arranged by UNICEF Myanmar: 1) Attendance on the final day of a three-day National
Seminar on Social Work and Child Protection organized by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and
Resettlement (MSWRR) and UNICEF Myanmar; 2) meetings with officials from relevant government
ministries, UNICEF Myanmar child protection project officers, representatives of international and
local NGOs, and a member of the team involved in preparing Myanmar’s country report to the UN
Committee on the Rights of the Child; and 3) visits to four residential facilities. Briefings were provided
by the managers of relevant the agencies.
The report is presented in seven sections. The first section gives the background and aims of the
study. The second describes the profile of Myanmar to provide the context. The third outlines the
policy frameworks for alternative care practice in Myanmar. The fourth provides a snapshot of the
situation of children in Myanmar, particularly those in need of special protection. The fifth discusses
existing alternative parental care choices to address the needs of children without primary caregivers.
The sixth section looks at some structures and mechanisms for service delivery. The final section
presents findings, recommendations and conclusions.
2 Country profile
Myanmar is on the Bay of Bengal and shares borders with Bangladesh and India to the west, the
People’s Republic of China to the north, and Lao PDR and Thailand to the east. It has the largest land
mass in South-East Asia, stretching about 2,000 kilometres from north to south and 1,000 kilometres
from east to west. Its total land area is about 676,578 square kilometres.
Myanmar is a richly diverse country with several geographic zones. Its coastline extends 2,832
kilometres from the estuarial areas of Rakhine near Bangladesh, with hundreds of coastal barrier
and delta islands, to the tip of Tanintharyi, bordering Thailand. Mountains rise to the east along the
Thai border and to the north in the foothills of the Himalayas. The central part of the country is
primarily very dry, marked by expansive plains and wide rivers, which eventually empty into the
Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea.
Administratively, Myanmar is divided into seven states and seven divisions, consisting of 62 districts,
324 townships, 13,762 village tracts and 65,235 villages. The states of Kachin, Kayah, Kayin, Chin,
Mon, Rakhine and Shan lie around the perimeter, while the divisions of Ayeyarwady, Bago, Magway,
Mandalay, Sagaing, Tanintharyi and Yangon are located relatively towards the centre of the country.
The country is governed by the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).
Most people in Myanmar practise Theravada Buddhism (89 per cent). People of other religions
predominantly include Christians (5 per cent) and Muslims (4 per cent).
Myanmar is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in Asia. Its 135 ethnic groups are clustered
into eight main groups: ethnic Bamars (69 per cent based on the 1983 census) who mainly live in the
plains and river valleys of the Central Myanmar Division; Shans (8.5 per cent) who occupy the
frontier states bordering Thailand, Lao PDR, China, India and Bangladesh; Kayins (6.2 per cent),
Rakhines (4.5 per cent) and less numerous groups such as the Mon, Kayah, Kachin and Chin. Each
group has its own language or dialect and observes particular customs and traditions. All these
groups share several common cultural attributes, including observing respect for elders and
recognizing that the extended family is the most important unit of social organization.
3 Policy framework
This section provides a summary of international instruments, regional agreements and national
laws and related policies that provide the policy context for Myanmar’s child-welfare programmes.
59
UNICEF Myanmar. 2001, April. Situation Assessment and Analysis: Children and Women in Myanmar. Yangon: UNICEF Myanmar.
60
This data derives from a 1997 UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS).
61
UNICEF Myanmar. 2001. Op. cit.
62
Myanmar, Government of. 2002. ‘Second periodic reports of States parties due in 1998: Myanmar.’ UNCRC. CRC/C/70/Add.21. 5
November 2003.
Myanmar 63
3.3 National laws and related policies
Child-welfare programmes and services in the country, particularly for children in need of special
protection, are primarily guided by the Child Law 1993. This law was passed on 14 July 1993 (SLORC
Law No. 9/93) in direct response to the Government’s obligations as a signatory to the CRC. The
rules were promulgated in December 2001. Some key provisions of the law are highlighted below.
The law defines a child as a person who has attained the age of 16 years, while a youth means a
person who is aged between 16 and 18. The objectives of this law are: “a) To implement the rights
of the child; b) to protect the rights of the child; c) to ensure that children may enjoy fully their rights
in accordance with the law; d) to carry out measures for the best interests of the child depending
upon the financial resources of the State; e) to enable custody and care of children in need of
protection and care by the State or voluntary social workers or non-governmental organizations; f)
to enable a separate trial of a juvenile offence and to carry out protection and care by the State or
voluntary social workers or non-governmental organizations; and g) to enable a separate trial of a
juvenile offence and to carry out measures with the objective of reforming the character of the child
who has committed an offence”.63
Section 32 of the law defines children in need of protection and care, and places the responsibility
on the Department of Social Welfare to respond to children at risk. “A child in need of protection
and care, is one who: i) Has no parents or guardian; ii) earns his living by begging; iii) is so depraved
a character that he is uncontrollable by his parents or guardian; iv) is in the custody of a cruel or
wicked parents or guardian; v) is of unsound mind; vi) is afflicted with a contagious disease; vii)
uses a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance; and viii) is determined as such from time to time
by the Social Welfare Department.”64
The law mandates the creation of the National Committee on the Rights of the Child (NCRC) to
implement effectively the provisions of the law and the CRC. It also provides for the establishment
of local Committees on the Rights of the Child at the state/division, district and township levels to
provide services for the benefit of children.
Myanmar Customary Law (Burma Act XIV, 1939, or the Registration of Kittima Adoptions Act) came
into force on 1 April 1941. It provides the legal mandate for Buddhists in Myanmar to adopt a child.
This law allows for three kinds of adoption: kittima, apatitha, and chata-bhatta. Kittima is the full
adoption of a son or daughter, and only a kittima child is entitled to inheritance.
The Government has also adopted related policies and plans to protect the rights of children in
Myanmar.
● The Five-Year Plan (1996-97 to 2000-01) provides the broad parameters, indicative targets,
priorities and strategies to be implemented by line departments and agencies in accordance
with the 16 political, economic and social objectives identified by the national authorities.
● The National Programme of Action for the Survival, Protection and Development of
Myanmar’s Children in the 1990s (NPA) prioritizes the problems and needs of children and
women in Myanmar in the areas of health and nutrition, water supply and sanitation, education
and early childhood development, including children in especially difficult circumstances. A
new Myanmar Plan of Action for Children (2006-2015) was developed in January 2006 and
covers health and nutrition; safe water supply and environmental sanitation; education and
early childhood development; and child protection.
● The National Health Plan (NHP) aimed to achieve the goal of Health for All by 2000. The NPA
and the NHP both spell out the country’s commitment to achieve major sectoral goals
articulated in the Declaration on Survival, Development and Protection of Children made at
the World Summit on Children in 1990.
● The Thirty-Year Long-term Basic Education Development Plan (2001-2031) was launched with
the vision of creating an education system that could generate a learning society capable of
facing the challenges of the information age.
63
Myanmar, Government of. 1993. The Child Law of 1993. Yangon, Government of Myanmar.
64
Ibid.
65
UNICEF Myanmar. 2001. Op. cit.
66
UNICEF. 2006. State of the World’s Children 2006. Geneva: UNICEF.
67
This data derives from the 1997 UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS).
Myanmar 65
4.2.1 Children living in residential care
There is little comprehensive data on the number of children living in residential facilities in Myanmar.
About 8,000 children may live in State custodial institutions, but the figures could be much higher.
Housed in these institutions are orphans, wards of the State, children with disabilities, juvenile
offenders, street children and children formerly involved in commercial sex. Many children also live
in privately run, monastic and other faith-based institutions. Some of these institutions are registered
with the Department of Social Welfare and receive some government support while others operate
without registration.
68
At the time of the study, the exchange rate was about K1,200=1USD.
69
UNCRC. 2004. ‘Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention. Concluding
Observations: Myanmar.’ UNCRC. June 30.
70
Ibid.
71
WHO. 2005. ‘Myanmar Tsunami Situation Report.’ Yangon: WHO Myanmar Country Office. January 27.
72
Ibid.
Myanmar 67
5.1.1 Adoption
Myanmar’s adoption follows the existing Myanmar Customary Law, which differentiates between
three types of adoption among Buddhists: Kittima, apatitha and chata-bhatta. Kittima is the full
adoption of a girl or boy with the intention that the child shall inherit. Only a kittima child is entitled
to inheritance although he or she is not regarded as being on an equal footing with a birth child. An
apatittha child is one who has been adopted casually and without any intention expressed on the
part of the adoptive parents that the child shall inherit. Such a child may inherit however if the
parents have no other children or grandchildren and also no kittima child. In that case, he or she is
entitled to half of the inheritance, the rest to be divided among other relatives. Chata-bhatta is the
compassionate adoption of a son or daughter. A chatta-batta child is a foundling, a destitute, and
brought up in a family through compassion but not as a child of the family.73
Chapter 11, Rules 61-63 of the Rules accompanying the Child Law, also provides for the adoption of
a child (provided that he or she is Buddhist) who is under the care of the Department of Social
Welfare and notes the obligations of the department and the prospective adoptive parents.74 The
department is required to assess whether the parents are able to ensure that the best interests of
the child are met and may cause the adoption to be disqualified, in which case the child must
resume living at a government facility.75 The adoptive parents also have duties to ensure that they
abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the department, support the development of the
child, and act in his or her best interests.76
Prospective adoptive parents go to hospitals or institutions to choose a child. A six-month custody
period is required, during which time the adoptive parents may decide not to continue with the
adoption process. Although inter-country adoption is not prohibited, no legal framework is in place
to deal with it.77
The above data indicates the need to accelerate the review of current adoption policies and practices
to ensure that the best interests of children in Myanmar are upheld.
5.1.2 Guardianship
No data was obtained about children in Myanmar under guardianship. The Guardians and Wards
Act addresses the guardianship of the child and his or her property. Guardianship may be petitioned
to the court for a child who has not come of age or for a child of divorced parents. Guardianship is
decided by the court, taking into account the best interest of the child.78
73
Lahiri, S.C. 1951. Principles of Modern Burmese Buddhist Law. Fifth edition. India: Eastern Law House. See also the Registration of
Kittima Adoptions Act (1939).
74
Myanmar Child Law 1993, Rule 61, provides that “any person who would like to adopt a child who is under the custody and care
of the Department of Social Welfare shall apply to the Department of Social Welfare by using Form 22”.
75
Myanmar Child Law 1993, Rule 62.
76
Myanmar Child Law 1993, Rule 63.
77
Meeting with officials from the Department of Social Welfare.
78
Myanmar, Government of. 1995. ‘Initial reports of States parties due in 1993: Myanmar’. CRC/C/8/Add.9. UNCRC. 18 September
1995.
79
Chapter XIII (Training School, Temporary Care Station, Home and Residential Nursery) and Chapter XVI (Homes Established by a
Voluntary Social Worker or a NGO).
80
Myanmar, Government of. 2004. Op. cit.
81
UNICEF Myanmar. 2001. Op. cit..
82
Myanmar, Government of. ‘Training School for Girls’. (Brochure.) Yangon: Ministry of Social Welfare Relief and Resettlement.
83
Myanmar, Government of. ‘Residential Nursery Shwe Gon Daing’. (Brochure.) Yangon: Ministry of Social Welfare Relief and
Resettlement. Meeting with Government officials.
84
Myanmar, Government of. ‘Training School for Girls’. (Brochure.) Yangon: Ministry of Social Welfare Relief and Resettlement.
Myanmar 69
The school provides a dormitory-type facility. Each dormitory has a television. The dormitory for
younger girls has double-bunk wooden beds arranged adjacent to each other, with two children
sharing a bed. There is a central kitchen and a dining hall. A more ‘family-like’ structure is needed,
with small group-living arrangements such as smaller bedrooms for eight to 10 children to replace
the dormitory arrangement. Sanitation also needs some improvement.
85
Myanmar, Government of. 2002. ‘Second periodic reports of States parties due in 1998: Myanmar.’ UNCRC. CRC/C/70/Add.21.
5 November 2003.
86
Some of these studies are listed in the bibliography and deal with institutions for children deprived of parental care, the
psychosocial needs of children and social work capacity, and caring for children with regard to capacities and educational needs.
Myanmar 71
7 Findings, recommendations and conclusions
This section presents the findings, recommendations and conclusions of the study.
7.1 Findings
7.1.1 Policy environment
The 1991 ratification of the CRC was a positive step and led to the adaptation of Myanmar’s national
laws and the adoption of the Child Law 1993. In addition to the CRC, the Government has acceded to
the CEDAW. Moreover, it has pursued means to protect the rights of children through other national
policy initiatives, as cited in earlier sections. It is also noteworthy that Myanmar has complied with
the requirement to submit periodic country reports to the UNCRC.
Despite the good intentions, challenges in policy and programme implementation need to be
addressed. These include: 1) The need to harmonize national laws with the CRC; 2) the weak
enforcement of child protection laws; 3) the need to strengthen the capability of the NCRC and
related committees; and 4) the need to raise awareness about children’s rights.
The intent of the Child Law is clear in guaranteeing children’s rights, but implementation leaves
much to be desired. The UNCRC has recommended that Myanmar amend and/or repeal national
laws in order to harmonize fully with the provisions of the CRC. “The Child Law did not seem to
be in full compliance with the provisions of the Convention and international standards in areas
such as juvenile justice and child protection. The general principles of the Convention such as
non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, the right to life, survival and development, and
respect for the views of the child were not adequately reflected in Myanmar’s legislation. Moreover,
the Citizenship Act, Village and Towns Act and Whipping Acts should be amended or repealed,”
advises the UNCRC.87 Other recommendations include ”that the State party take the necessary
measures to allow children and their families who have returned to Myanmar and who are stateless
to acquire Myanmar citizenship by way of naturalization...; continue to involve civil society and
children throughout all stages of the implementation of the Convention; ensure equal access to
education and health for all children, for girls as well as boys, for all ethnic and religious minority
groups, and children with disabilities…; reform the juvenile justice system…; and take an active
approach in tackling the issue of HIV/AIDS.”88
Neither the NCRC nor its lower-level committees are fully functional. The UNCRC remarked that it
“welcomes the establishment of an interdisciplinary National Committee on the Rights of the Child
whose main mandate is the coordination of the work of governmental bodies involved in the
implementation of the Child Law. The Committee is nevertheless concerned that this Committee is
not fully operational”.89 The NCRC’s effectiveness as a coordinating and monitoring mechanism is a
concern, and the UNCRC recommends that the Government strengthen it “by providing it with the
necessary authority and resources to fulfil its mandate, namely to coordinate all activities related to
the implementation of the Convention, in an effective manner”. These recommendations indicate
that much institutional development is needed before national committee structures can be said to
contribute to the care and protection of children.
87
UN Information Service. 2004. ‘Committee on Rights of the Child Considers Second Periodic Report of Myanmar.’ Press release,
26 May. UNIS.
See also: UNCRC. 2004. ‘Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention. Concluding
Observations: Myanmar.’ UNCRC. June 30.
88
Ibid.
89
Ibid.
Myanmar 73
7.1.3 Capability-building
In Myanmar, a significant constraint is the very small number of social workers and limited capacity
of staff working with children. To help address the lack of professionally trained social workers, the
Department of Social Welfare, through its Social Welfare Training School, offers a month-long course
for voluntary social workers, voluntary probation officers and voluntary day-care teachers. No
refresher course or follow-up training is provided.90 UNICEF Myanmar, in collaboration with the
Department of Social Welfare and others, has conducted various training programmes. In 2005, two
important workshops were also conducted in Yangon, jointly organized by UNICEF Myanmar and
the Department of Social Welfare. A two-day Workshop on Standards of Care and Protection for
Children in Institutions was held in September 2005. The participants included representatives from
the Department of Social Welfare, other managers of institutions, NGOs and children. Delegates
from Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste and Viet Nam shared their experiences on the
protection of children deprived of parental care, highlighting policies and standards developed. A
draft document on standards of care and protection for children in institutions in Myanmar was
presented and discussed during this workshop.91
Social work is still new to Myanmar, with no available tertiary-level study for potential social workers.
The importance of building the capacity of social workers through professional education and
culturally appropriate training programmes is being recognized. It is in this context that the
three-day National Seminar on Social Work and Child Protection was conducted in November 2005.
The seminar provided a critical opportunity for participants to exchange knowledge and ideas about
the development of social work as a profession, and the chance to create a concrete plan of action,
detailing ways in which to develop a strong and culturally appropriate social welfare system in
Myanmar.92 Resource people from the Philippines, Singapore and Viet Nam were invited. At the end
of the training, the participants presented a Draft Action Plan for Social Work and Child Protection.
The following action points were highlighted: 1) Develop an internationally recognized curriculum;
2) make use of the curricula within the ASEAN region and adapt them to fit the Myanmar context; 3)
develop and commence a university level diploma in social work as a starting point to increase
professionalism in the field; and 4) produce high-quality short-term social work training for
para-professionals in coordination with local and international bodies.93 In 2006, the Department of
Social Welfare and Yangon University (Psychology and Law Departments) met regularly to develop
a 12-month social work curriculum, with UNICEF support. The proposal was approved recently by
the Ministry of Social Welfare and the Ministry of Education. This first such course was due to start
in June 2006.
7.1.4 Networking
Active collaboration and partnership among stakeholders is necessary in the field of child welfare
and children’s rights. Myanmar’s NCRC could play more of a role in raising awareness and contributing
to the care and protection of children.
Examples of existing strategies to coordinate the work of international NGOs and local groups working
with vulnerable children in Myanmar include the establishment of a Child Rights Working Group
and the Juvenile Justice Inter-agency Working Group. The first group’s aims include: 1) To advocate
for and support a collaborative policy environment where the rights to the survival, development,
protection and participation of children are realized according to the obligations and responsibilities
assumed by Myanmar as a State party to the CRC and the CEDAW; 2) to influence the policies of
decision-makers and practices of civil society by promoting awareness and knowledge about
children’s rights through building the capacity of members and developing materials. Participation
in the Child Rights Working Group is open to all UN agencies and NGOs working in Myanmar on
children’s issues.
90
UNICEF Myanmar and Community and Family Services International. 2001, February. ‘A Study of the Psychosocial Needs of
Children in Need of Special Protection and Social Work Capacity in Myanmar.’ (Unpublished.) Yangon: UNICEF Myanmar.
91
UNICEF Myanmar and Department of Social Welfare. 2005, September. ‘Workshop Report on Standards of Care and Protection for
Children in Institutions in Myanmar.’ Yangon: UNICEF Myanmar.
92
Long, C. 2005. ‘Opening Keynote Address.’ National Seminar on Social Work and Child Protection. 8-10 November. Yangon.
93
UNICEF Myanmar and the Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement (MSWRR). 2005. ‘Draft Action Plan for Social Work
and Child Protection.’ Workshop paper. National Seminar on Social Work and Child Protection. 8-10 November. Yangon.
(Unpublished.)
7.2 Recommendations
The great diversity and uniqueness of Myanmar’s land and people, its demographic dimensions,
poverty and the situation of children must all be considered in policy formulation, planning,
development and delivery of programme interventions to children without primary caregivers.
Some practical possibilities or action points for future direction include a range of strategies such as
policy review and formulation, programme development, improving service delivery (ethnically
and culturally relevant interventions), setting of standards, advocacy, capacity-building, networking
and research. Many of the recommendations below reflect proposals from available data sources
such as the draft action plan from the 2005 National Seminar on Social Work and Child Protection,
concluding observations of the UNCRC, and recommendations of previous studies.
7.2.1 Policy
● Undertake a thorough review and reform of existing laws and procedures to reflect or
harmonize with the CRC and other international instruments affecting children and to ensure
enforcement.
● The Department of Social Welfare (under the MSWRR), the Ministry of Health and the courts
to review jointly the current adoption legislation and practices with support from UNICEF to
ensure protection of adopted children in line with the CRC.
● Review policy of receiving children in institutions to prevent placement and drift in care.
94
Myanmar, Government of. 1995. Op. cit.
Myanmar 75
● Develop national policies, strategies and an action plan to support shifting from residential
care to family and community-based forms of care.
● Ensure that policies in the CRC, CEDAW, the Millennium Development Goals, and World Fit
for Children of which Myanmar is a signatory are reflected and/or mainstreamed into policies
and plans for children at all levels.
7.2.2 Standards
● Finalize minimum care standards in partnership with concerned stakeholders, building on
the draft standards of care and protection95 discussed at the Workshop on Minimum Standards
of Care and Protection for Children in Institutions in September 2005.
● Intensify the quality of care through registration, licensing, accreditation of social welfare
and development agencies and monitoring of standards.
7.2.4 Networking
● Enhance partnership and collaboration between and among ministries and partners to support
implementation of policies and strategies for the protection of children and to improve planning
and development of appropriate interventions (such as sharing of technical and material
resources).
● Maximize the existing network of NGOs (for example, the Child Rights Working Group and
the Juvenile Justice Inter-Agency Working Group) engaged in multi-disciplinary programmes
with vulnerable children to enhance service delivery.
95
UNICEF Myanmar. 2005, April. ‘Draft of a Study Report on Institutions for Children Deprived of Parental Care in Myanmar.’
(Unpublished.) Yangon: UNICEF Myanmar.
7.2.6 Capability-building
● Continue to build the internal capacities of the NCRC to raise awareness and contribute to the
care and protection of children.
● Strengthen and/or build the capacity of families and communities as the front line for the
protection of children. Parents and community members could be trained, for example, to
take leadership roles and to teach and support mothers, families and children in their
neighbourhoods.
● Undertake sustained skills-building initiatives for professionals, para-professionals and
caregivers through formal and informal training activities. Forums such as the National Seminar
on Social Work and Child Protection in 2005 are good venues for sharing and addressing
issues facing vulnerable children.
● Develop professional social work competencies at the national, state, division and township
levels in accordance with the action plan adopted at the seminar noted above.
● Develop and implement a university-level social work diploma in partnership with schools of
social work in the region, including those in the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.
● Undertake exchange visits/study tours to learn and share experiences.
7.2.7 Research
● Review and consolidate the findings of studies and surveys on children deprived of parental
care as the basis for developing a comprehensive and integrated strategic plan for children at
risk of being separated from their families and/or without primary caregivers.
● Disseminate and utilize the results and findings of studies and surveys. Such studies provide
a rich source of data that can inform policy formulation, advocacy and social mobilization,
programme development, networking and capacity-building, and improve service delivery.
● Identify and document good practices for replication and/or to increase the impacts of
programmes and their sustainability, and to build locally-relevant ‘theories’ or ’knowledge
bases‘. Documentation can be in the form of research or technical reports, case studies and
audio-visual materials.
● Develop a priority research agenda, including operational research on programme
effectiveness, and support the development of participatory research methods.
● Conduct studies on the impact of programme interventions and methodologies, and develop
and test a core set of indicators specifically related to children in need of special protection.
● Establish a user-friendly data-management and information system on children in need of
special protection. Uses could include advocacy, policy formulation, planning, programme
development, improvement of service delivery, and monitoring and evaluation.
Myanmar 77
7.3 Concluding statements
As in many developing countries, the challenges facing the child welfare system in Myanmar are
manifold. Poverty is the underlying cause, weakening the social fabric and eroding the society’s
safety nets. Inadequate social services for vulnerable children, particularly those without primary
caregivers, compounded by limited technical capacity and scarce financial resources, pose a great
challenge to deinstitutionalization. Moving away from institutionalization in Myanmar will require
significant effort, given the reliance on residential care and current policies and attitudes. Much
remains to be accomplished before the country’s child welfare system can fully realize the goal of
permanency planning for children in need of special protection.
The problem of institutionalization has broad implications. Poverty results in families and children
being marginalized, and this problem needs to be tackled at all levels. The phenomenon of children
without primary caregivers is a result of interrelated factors involving the family, the community
and society. It is clear that no plan for children can succeed without being closely linked to these
various contexts at all levels.
An array of services – a continuum of services – is needed to reinforce, supplement, or substitute
the functions that parents have difficulty in performing. Keeping children within their own families
offers the best environment for their healthy development and well-being. When a family neglects,
abuses, exploits and/or maltreats children, however, the removal of a child may be necessary to
ensure their safety and protection. This brings to the fore the need for alternative care options,
particularly family-based settings, that meet quality standards of care. While the CRC does not specify
a particular model of alternative care, research studies show that large institutions seldom afford
positive experiences for children. Foster care, adoption and other forms of family placement can
offer more fulfilling relationships and opportunities for children without primary caregivers.
Any interventions to support a child cannot address his or her needs alone, but must respond in the
context of the child’s environment – their family, community, society and culture. All programme
interventions should promote strengthening the role and ability of parents, the family and the
community in caring for their children. Further, no one agency and no one professional can provide
all the services needed by children. A multidisciplinary approach is required.
Taken as a whole, the results of the study indicate some positive progress and initiatives for protecting
children without primary caregivers in Myanmar. These include studies completed on vulnerable
children, the continuing development of standards of care, and a series of capability-building activities.
Also, the family/cottage home in Yangon and the traditional practice of accommodating orphaned
children in the extended family provide a foundation for further developing culturally appropriate
models of family- and community-based care, including foster care for young children. The
Department of Social Welfare, in partnership with local and international agencies and organizations,
as well as professionals and para-professionals working in the child protection system, have been
working hard to improve the situation of children in need of special protection, particularly those
without primary caregivers. Their efforts indicate that the work with institutions to reintegrate children
(deinstitutionalization) is progressing, albeit slowly.
In general, the present initiatives undertaken by the Government (mainly through the Department
of Social Welfare) with support from UNICEF, international NGOs and other stakeholders are
favourable for developing alternatives to institutional care for children without primary caregivers.
Future actions can draw and build on these initiatives, as well as good practice and lessons learnt
from across the region.
Myanmar 79
80
APPENDIX
|4|
THAILAND
81
1 Introduction
This report is part of a four-country study to assess appropriate alternative care choices for children
without primary caregivers commissioned by UNICEF East Asia and the Pacific Regional Office
(EAPRO). The data for Thailand in this report is limited because a thorough study on the situation of
children is to be conducted by UNICEF Thailand. As such, the two consultants did not conduct
interviews with key government informants or visit institutions in Thailand. The data presented
here is based solely on a desk review of materials available online and a three-day country visit,
during which time the consultants met briefly with Sanphasit Koompraphant, the Director of the
Centre for the Protection of Children, and reviewed materials such as Thailand’s Child Protection
Act 2003 and other relevant laws and policies. The review of all laws relevant to determine existing
policies and implementing guidelines for child-welfare services was limited because many have not
been translated from Thai.
The report is presented in seven sections. After this introduction, the second section gives a brief
profile of Thailand to provide the context. The third section outlines the policy framework at the
international and national levels. The fourth gives an overview of the situation of children in Thailand
while the fifth assesses interventions for alternative care for children without primary caregivers,
with particular reference to children’s welfare after the 2004 tsunami disaster. The sixth section
looks at some structures and mechanisms for service delivery. Finally, concluding statements and
recommendations are presented.
2 Country profile
Thailand is one of the countries hit by the tsunami disaster on 26 December 2004. Thailand’s
government is widely acknowledged to have led an effective response by extending immediate and
focused relief operations for the survivors, processing and identifying many of those who died, and
also dealing with the impacts on a large number of foreign nationals affected by the disaster.
Thailand’s system of government is a constitutional monarchy. The Prime Minister is the head of
government and the King is the head of state. The legislature system and structure is bicameral,
comprising a House of Representatives (500 members) and a Senate (200 members).
Ethnic groups in Thailand include Thais (75 per cent), Chinese (14 per cent), Malays (3 per cent) and
others such as Khmer, Hmong and Karen (8 per cent). The official language is Thai while other
languages spoken by people in Thailand include English, Chinese, Malay, Lao and Mon-Khmer.
Eighty-five per cent of the population practises Buddhism (Theravada). The remainder are Muslim
(7 per cent), Christian (2 per cent), non-religious (2 per cent) and undifferentiated (4 per cent).
Although state enterprises play a significant role in some sectors, the economy is market-oriented
with a strong tradition of private enterprise. Gross domestic product growth in 2004 was estimated
to be 6 to 7 per cent. According to the National Statistics Office, about 40 per cent of all employed
workers are employed in the agricultural sector, although agriculture accounts for about 10 per cent
of GDP.
Thailand occupies a land area of 513,115 square kilometres, and has an estimated population of
65.4 million as follows:96
● 0 to 14 years: 15,621,934 (23.9 per cent)
● 15 to 64 years: 44,927,392 (68.6 per cent)
● 65 years and over: 4,895,045 (7.5 per cent)
● Median age: 30.8
● Population growth rate: 0.87 per cent
● Birth rate: 15.7 births/1,000 population
● Death rate: 7.02/1,000 population
● Infant mortality rate: 20.48/1,000 live births
● Life expectancy at birth: 71.57 years (69.38 for men and 73.88 for women)
86
Bangkok Post, The. 2005. ‘Facts & Figures’. In Bangkok Post Economic Mid-Year Review. Bangkok: The Bangkok Post.
3 Policy framework
3.1 International
Thailand has been active in becoming a party to international human rights instruments and has
already acceded to five core United Nations human rights instruments:100
● The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) on 26 April 1992 and subsequently its two
Optional Protocols (on the involvement of children in armed conflict, and on the sale of children,
child prostitution, and child pornography;
● The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 29 January 1997;
● The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on 5 December 1999;
● The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women on 8
September 1985 and its protocol on 20 December 2000; and
● The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination on 28
January 2003.
Thailand has also ratified the following international instruments:101
97
UNICEF. ‘Thailand at a Glance.’ UNICEF.
98
Ibid.
99
Thailand Country Report to the East Asia and Pacific Regional Consultation on Children and HIV/AIDS, March 2006.
100
Thailand, Government of. 2005, August. ‘Major Foreign Policy Statements.’ Bangkok: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
101
Ibid.
Thailand 83
● ILO Convention No. 29 on Forced Labour (in 1969), ILO Convention No. 182 concerning the
worst forms of child labour (in 2001), ILO Convention No. 138 concerning the minimum age
for admission to employment (in 2004);
● The Hague Convention on the Protection on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
(in 2002) and the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect
of Inter-country Adoption (in 2004); and
● The UN Convention on Organized Transnational Crimes (signed in 2000) and the Protocol to
Prevent Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children and the
Protocol against Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea, And Air (signed in 2003).
3.2 National
The Thai Constitution of 1997, Section 53, is explicit about responsibility for children and young
people with no parent/s or guardian, who are entitled to care and education provided by the State.
The constitution deems it to be the State’s duty to provide children with facilities for education,
health and protection in many areas and without discrimination. The Department of Public Welfare
is the government office responsible for the provision of services to children under 18 living in
difficult circumstances. It undertakes three types of services: placing children in institutions, with
families, and in foster homes. The principle of the “the best interests of a child” is to be taken into
account in relevant policy and legislative development.102
Likewise, a child’s right to know and be cared for by his or her parents is supported by two laws:
Section 25 of the Official Information Act 1997 gives a person the right to access personal information
held in government records; and Section 14 of the Civil Registration Act 1991 stipulates that the
person who appears in the records or a representative of that person, if still a child, may request the
registrar to copy and certify his or her registration records.103
Although Thailand is not a signatory to the Convention on the Status of Refugees, the Government
provides protection to a limited category of asylum-seekers based in nine refugee camps along the
Thai-Myanmar border. People born in Thailand who do not have at least one parent with Thai
nationality may be permitted to apply for Thai nationality on an individual basis under Section 2 of
the Nationality Act 1992. Such people include children of undocumented migrants, people residing
temporarily in the country, and children of displaced persons or minority groups Application for
nationality is difficult however and Thai citizenship is unlikely to be granted to children who do not
have at least one parent holding Thai citizenship.
Other preventive educational and social measures include the following:
● The Eight National Plan on Children and Youth Development states as a goal that all parties in
society participate in child development based on the CRC and that all children benefit equally.
Emphasis is placed on developing the capacity of families, communities and society to
maximize the development potential of children and young people.
● Thailand’s draft National Strategy and Plan of Action for a World Fit for Children for the years
2005-2015 is based on the framework of the final document adopted by the General Assembly
Special Session on Children in 2002, adding certain aspects pertinent to the situation in
Thailand. Public hearings on the draft are finished and the document was expected to be
ready for submission and approval by Cabinet of Ministers in 2005.
● Under the newly established Ministry of Social Development and Human Security, the Office
of Welfare Promotion and Protection of Children, Youth, the Vulnerable, the Disabled and the
Elderly was set up to promote and protect the rights and welfare of children, among others.
The office was transformed from the National Youth Bureau, formerly under the Office of the
Prime Minister. The office promotes and protects children’s welfare and rights.
Several measures such as law reform and international cooperation have been continuously
introduced to address crimes and violations against children. These include the enactment of the
following:
102
Thailand, Government of. 2004. ‘Second periodic report of States parties due in 1999: Thailand.’ UNCRC. CRC/C/83/Add.15.
31 May 2005.
103
Ibid.
104
Ibid.
105
National Youth Bureau, Office of the Prime Minister and UNICEF Thailand. 2000. Children in Thailand 1990-2000: Country Report
on the Follow-up to the World Summit for Children. Bangkok.
106
Ibid.
Thailand 85
The State delivers basic services to children and families through government agencies, NGOs and
networks and collaborative partnerships among agencies. Assistance to help a child stay with his or
her family include counselling for the child and the family, funds to start income-generating activities,
child-support funds and family welfare services, assistance for health-care and education costs, and
other forms of financial assistance.
The core of the traditional family in Thailand remains the mother. As a Thai proverb notes: “Without
a father, a child’s life will be hard; it will have no direction. Without a mother, the situation is even
worse. It will be like a sinking boat or a broken ferry.”107 Traditionally, a child whose mother died
during childbirth was adopted by the mother’s relatives since the child was considered to belong to
the mother’s kinship group and had rights to its land and associated resources. After a mother died,
her older children (from about 12 years) would care for themselves and younger siblings. In times
of need, a mother’s kin group would provide a safety net, fulfilling the children’s basic needs and in
line with the best interests of the child and kin group.
In Thailand, women are primarily responsible for child care and related decision-making. Studies
show that urban mothers (be they blue- or white-collar workers) assess the following ‘hierarchy of
resorts’ to determine the child-care options open to her:108
● The first choice is to provide the care herself either by not working or by taking her child to
work.
● The second option is to leave the child with other family members.
● The third option, if relatives are not available, is to use either a trained or untrained babysitter.
● For wealthier families, a variety of alternative child-care centres are available. Some are
adequate while others are disreputable.
Most mothers do not want non-relatives as alternative carers for their children. If the above options
are not available, the last resort is to send a child to live with relatives in the mother’s natal
community.109
107
UNICEF Thailand. 1997, December. Children and their Families in a Changing Thai Society. Bangkok: UNICEF Thailand.
108
Punnabutr, C. 2001. ‘Current Trends and Best Practices on Alternative Parental Care’. In Proceedings of the 6th Global
Consultation on Child Welfare Services. Philippines: Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB). 29-31 August.
109
UNICEF Thailand. 1997. Op. cit. p. 49.
110
Punnabutr, C. Op. cit.
111
UN Thailand. 2004. ‘Tsunami in Thailand.’ UN. 26 December.
112
UNICEF Thailand. 2005, February. Child Protection Sector Analysis. Bangkok: UNICEF Thailand.
Thailand 87
Table 5: Child protection analysis data on tsunami-affected children
Only 15 per cent of the children orphaned by the tsunami in Thailand now live with non-relatives or
with a relative previously unknown to the child, according to UNICEF.113 Registration of these children
was slow, which led UNICEF to assist the Government in providing training schemes in social work
skills, computerized registration systems and the monitoring of vulnerable children. The child
protection analysis gives brief but substantial data that is a good starting point for targeted
interventions for children without primary caregivers.
113
UNICEF Thailand. 2005. ‘UNICEF’s work in Thailand in response to the tsunami.’ Bangkok: UNICEF Thailand. 23 June.
114
National Youth Bureau, et al. 2000. Op. cit. pp. 53-54.
7 Concluding statements
Given the limitation of the data gathered for this assessment, the following observations and
recommendations are offered.
115
NGO Group for the CRC. 2005, June. ‘Thailand NGO Report on the Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child
2000-2004.’ UNCRC.
Thailand 89
As the UNICEF analysis suggests, it is essential to identify caregivers of surviving children and to
assess their capacities to care for children.116 It is important to determine the assistance required by
families who have lost their means of livelihood and may not have the means to care adequately for
an extra child. A review and evaluation of child protection objectives for January-July 2005 serves
as basis for further planning and programme intervention. The review calls for:
● Provision of psychosocial support to social service providers (teachers and health and
community workers), and training and orientation on child care and support.
● Specialized psychosocial care and support for traumatized children and families in affected
populations, requiring a strengthening of psychosocial capacity and skills.
● Identification of separated and/or unaccompanied children and securing systems to reunite
them with their families (immediate or extended).
Care provision for children who are now without primary caregivers as a result of the tsunami,
whether they are in residential, foster or kinship care, needs to be assessed as soon as possible to
address the need for stability and continuity of caregiving. Educational continuity is important too
and likely to affect other areas of children’s lives. Keeping siblings together is also a significant
protective factor. The participation of older children in permanency planning is crucial.
It appears that kinship care or placement is the most culturally sensitive out-of-home care option for
children in Thailand, yet not much attention is given to this in terms of policies, procedures and
guidelines. The difference between relocating a child to another family for foster placement and
arranging for a child to move in with a grandparent or relative needs to be understood and articulated.
Wealthy families may choose to send their children to boarding schools with no expectation that
the children will be harmed by the experience of separation from home. It is not primarily the
separation that threatens a child but the circumstances that precipitate the separation. A decision to
move a child from his or her own home to another setting requires careful deliberation.117 Hence,
kinship care may serve as a resource but it is not necessarily the most appropriate option for a
particular child.
Thailand’s Child Protection Act 2003 is comprehensive as a core child-welfare document, but it
needs to be supplemented by implementing rules or guidelines for specific areas. For example,
child-care and placement guidelines regarding procedures for involuntary commitment of a child or
termination of parental rights are needed so that placement of a child does not leave them in limbo.
Under the Act, the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security is responsible for drafting
these guidelines and regulations.
The Child Protection Act is laudable for its provisions focused on promoting the welfare, safety and
protection of children. An area that may need to be enhanced is the functionality of the child protection
committees because they include many members of various disciplines as well as civil servants of
varied interests. The backgrounds of staff working with and for children need to be more diverse,
especially in terms of assisting children with deteriorating mental health.118
Moreover, the penalties provided in the Act for violations of children and their rights do not seem to
deter such crimes. A review of penalties and deterrents is necessary.
The planning, dissemination and utilization of research studies that are macro and holistic is
recommended.119 It is expected that such research will be undertaken soon.
As a whole, Thailand’s child-welfare system appears to have progressed well in terms of support
from the Government, legal foundations, and the professional capacity of social workers. An effective
system needs however to be reviewed continually and adapted and improved as necessary. For
example, as laws change to provide greater equality for women, new social services may emerge
that benefit children. It is to be hoped that Thailand will indeed follow this process of review and
improvement, in line with its work thus far.
116
UNICEF Thailand. 2005, February. Op. cit.
117
Webb, N.B. 2003. Social Work Practice with Children. Second Edition. United States: Guilford Press.
118
National Youth Bureau et al. Op. cit.
119
Ibid.
Thailand 91
UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office
19 Phra Atit Road
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel: (66 2) 356-9499
Fax: (66 2) 280-3563
www.unicef.org