Don't call child 'useless' - it could be abuse

Study shows awareness is still low on what constitutes emotional abuse

By Janice Tai , Leslie Kay Lim, The Straits Times, 7 Jun 2012

YOU may be an abusive parent - and not even know it.

Awareness among Singaporeans on what qualifies as emotional abuse is still low, a new two-year study by the Singapore Children's Society (SCS) claims.

Emotionally abusive acts could include calling one's child 'useless' or not hugging the child, said researchers who compiled the list after reviewing child abuse cases here and overseas.

Such acts continue to be perceived by most people as less serious than acts of physical and sexual abuse, said the study.

Experts say emotional abuse is often a root cause of problems such as depression anxiety or eating disorders.

The findings, however, struck a nerve with some who question if it is fair to state that not hugging a child may be abusive.

The SCS has conducted similar studies in 1994 and 1997. The aim is to track shifts in perception on child abuse, and to promote greater awareness on the issue.

Experts say there is a greater consensus on what constitutes physical and sexual abuse, but less so for emotional maltreatment.

While the latest study showed that awareness on emotional abuse is low, it is higher than that shown by earlier SCS studies.

For example, in the 1997 survey, 27 per cent of respondents viewed calling a child 'useless' - a potentially abusive act as defined by the SCS - as abusive, compared to 38 per cent in the new survey.

Experts said one reason fewer adults viewed some acts as being abusive was that victims of emotional abuse often go undetected.

Another reason is cultural: Asians tend to be less expressive and less likely to report such abuse.

Last year, there were five reported cases of child emotional abuse, compared to 47 for physical abuse, and 25 for sexual abuse.

The SCS survey, conducted in 2010 and last year, polled 500 members of the public and 1,155 professionals, such as lawyers and doctors, who deal with child abuse cases. They were asked to rate 18 acts - from tying a child up to never hugging a child - and decide if these may be abusive.

Social workers and psychologists The Straits Times spoke to said victims of emotional abuse often go unrecognised until other problems surface.

Dr Ken Ung Eng Khean, a senior consultant at Adam Road Medical Centre, said that of the 70 child cases he sees monthly, most involve emotional abuse.Although the children see him for depression anxiety or eating disorders, emotional abuse is often a root cause of the problem, the psychiatrist said.

The tendency to seek help for more visible symptoms explains why reported cases of emotional abuse are 'the tip of the iceberg', said social worker Shannon Chew at Trans Safe Centre, a welfare group.

Psychologists here said the definition of emotional abuse has to be framed in a cultural context: Some Asians, for instance, are more reserved and do not hug.

But the SCS said parents not hugging their children can be a form of 'emotional neglect'.

The experts noted that being verbally critical is also more common in Asian societies. Ms Geraldine Tan, a psychologist at the Centre for Effective Living, said: 'Teachers in the West instruct kids to report immediately if people lay a hand on them or spout verbal abuse... (but) in Asia, terms like 'silly' or 'stupid' are common.'

Mrs Michelle Ong, 38, who has two young sons, said indicators such as hugging may not be suitable in an Asian context. But the corporate communications manager has noticed more parents hugging their kids nowadays. She herself does it all the time. 'Life is a miracle, and hugs are a way of sharing my love for them.'

* Affection: Families hold key in striking right balance

MR AMOS Wu stated that our young ones should not be overly protected from emotional hurt ('Best and worst of times for young?'; Monday).

We published the study cited by Mr Wu's letter. This research looked at what people think is abuse.

The kinds of actions that Mr Wu refers to are not individually as serious as physical abuse. But if chronic and repeated, they might in fact yield serious consequences.

The items in our study, including the behaviour of never hugging a child, were selected following studies of child abuse case files and previous studies of child abuse.

A pilot study was also conducted locally to select behaviours that were considered abusive in Singapore's context.

Never hugging a child was one of the behaviours suggested from the pilot study.

It is true that in our Asian society, parents traditionally do not hug their children or show them much overt affection. However, this is changing. Never hugging a child is becoming an example behaviour that could indicate a lack of parental affection or concern.

Whether it actually does so is another matter, but we need to know public attitudes as a part of determining the position locally.

Our data highlights that 41 per cent of the respondents, like Mr Wu, think that the actions described are harmless, whereas research elsewhere suggests otherwise. This is worth knowing.

Children and their families differ. It cannot be assumed that a 'one size fits all' approach can be adopted in raising children.

Parents need to use their judgment. However, their judgment can be usefully informed by research into the likely consequences of parental actions for children.

No one, certainly not the Singapore Children's Society, advocates overprotecting children.

Rather, it is best to strike a balance between overindulging and withholding affection from a child.

Just where that balance falls will depend on the particular family concerned.

Associate Professor John Elliott

Chairman, Research Committee

Singapore Children's Society

ST Forum, 21 Jun 2012

Long road to freedom from emotional hurt

I WAS 12 years old when the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports placed me in foster care after I suffered physical and emotional abuse ('Best and worst of times for young?' by Mr Amos Wu; Monday, in reaction to the article 'Don't call child 'useless' - it could be abuse'; June 7).

My parents shouted at me and reminded me constantly that I was nobody's child. They told me they had wanted to place me in an orphanage but those who ran it begged them to take me home.

I was forced to pray to seek forgiveness for 'offences' which I supposedly committed.

When I topped my class in school, my teacher called my parents to tell them the good news. My parents accused me of cheating. Even when I was in foster care, I lived in fear. During my secondary school years, I was in a state of constant anxiety because I believed I was of little worth. While the physical wounds and bruises healed fairly quickly, it took me eight more years, until I was 20 years old, before I felt liberated from the emotional hurt.

A baby and a very young child cannot speak and convey their needs or discomfort to their caregivers. They do so instead by crying. Not comforting these children is indeed a form of emotional abuse and neglect as well. Emotional abuse is difficult to identify and I am thankful to the ministry for protecting and rescuing victims like me.

The ministry's action also conveys the right message to parents of their responsibility to ensure the well-being of their children, physically and emotionally.

Charmaine Lui (Ms)

ST Forum, 21 Jun 2012

Best and worst of times for young?

THE June 7 article ('Don't call child useless - it could be abuse') reminded me of one of Charles Dickens' famous lines. To paraphrase him, the present younger generation seems to be living in both the best and the worst of times.

It remains to be seen whether we are entering the age of wisdom or foolishness, now that we are paying so much attention to the emotional welfare of the young. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Where is this path of mollycoddling leading us to? Can protecting the young from every shade of conceivable emotional hurt help them in the long run?

As a taste of things to come, labelling non-hugging as abusive is certainly stretching it a bit too far. The apt analogy here is shielding the child from every type of germ, whereby this non-exposure deprives the kid of the ability to build bodily resistance to germs. Must we allow the child to be insulated in an artificial protective bubble? Is non-contamination by negative elements really something worth achieving?

I do not gainsay the usefulness of the results of the latest study by the Singapore Children's Society. Indeed, emotional abuse is often a cause of problems such as depression, anxiety or eating disorders.

While it is commendable that social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists are helping the young deal with emotional abuse, planners must be circumspect and ensure a robust framework that does not result in the absurd eventuality of raising a generation of psychologically fragile people who need to be protected against every shade of emotional stress.

Last Saturday's article ('Teacher tells students: You are not special') on Wellesley High School English teacher David McCullough Jr addressing his school's graduating class sums up my sentiments on this matter. He said to his charges: 'You've been pampered, cosseted, doted upon, helmeted, bubble-wrapped... feted and fawned over and called sweetie pie.'

He was critiquing an emergent generation that is 'overly managed, overly protected and exquisitely nurtured'.

Amos Wu

ST Forum, 18 Jun 212