Video: "Hope she rots in hell..." Worst Mom Ever
 |
| Megan Khung died after her mother Foo Li Ping's boyfriend Wong Shi Xiang punched her in the stomach. PHOTOS: CCXXCXCX/INSTAGRAM, SHIN MIN DAILY NEWS READER, INSTAGRAM |
Theresa Tan
APR 11, 2025
The death of four-year-old Megan Khung, who suffered horrific abuse at the hands of her mother and her former boyfriend, has shocked many Singaporeans.
Topmost on people’s minds are these questions: Why did Megan have to die? What more could the child protection authorities and social service agencies have done to save the child?
The death of four-year-old Megan Khung, who suffered horrific abuse at the hands of her mother and her former boyfriend, has shocked many Singaporeans.
Topmost on people’s minds are these questions: Why did Megan have to die? What more could the child protection authorities and social service agencies have done to save the child?
On April 8, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) gave a timeline of the actions taken by Beyond Social Services (Beyond), which runs the pre-school Megan attended, and the authorities involved in the case.
More than five years after Megan’s tragic death in February 2020, there is now more heat than light.
In its media statement on April 8 and public replies about the case, the MSF flagged what Beyond failed to do – but said less about what it actually did to try to keep Megan safe.
In a statement on the night of April 11, the ministry said it will conduct a further review on the Megan Khung case, which will cover the responses of all parties involved – including Beyond, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), MSF’s Child Protective Service (CPS) and the police.
Additional information that Beyond had shared with the MSF after the ministry issued its earlier statement will be included, and conclusions will be published after the review is done.
No single organisation can shoulder the burden and responsibility of child protection work alone. It takes a village to keep a child safe from their abusive parents.
Beyond stronger protocols and processes, what is needed is also a shared mindset that we are in this together.
In its April 8 statement, the ministry had said that the report Beyond submitted to the ECDA did not fully describe the severity of her injuries, compared with the evidence presented in court documents when Megan’s mother and her partner were charged. “This resulted in inadequate interventions by the relevant agencies,” it said.
The MSF also noted that Beyond did not escalate the case to the MSF’s CPS, which manages high-risk child abuse cases and which has the statutory powers to remove children from their families to keep the children safe.
To be fair, Beyond made multiple efforts to protect Megan when it suspected abuse.
For example, the agency drew up a plan to keep Megan safe – moving her out of her mother’s house to temporarily live under the care of her grandmother.
Beyond also consulted a child protection specialist centre, which manages child abuse cases of low to moderate risk, after Megan’s mother took her home to live with her, withdrew her from the pre-school and became uncontactable.
It also went again to ECDA, the regulatory authority for pre-schools, to ask if the girl was enrolled in another pre-school.
Social workers familiar with child protection work say that the Beyond staff had done their part by consulting a child protection specialist centre.
These centres would have alerted the CPS to the case if they deemed it serious enough based on the information they had, such as the recency, frequency and severity of abuse.
It is important to point out that with the benefit of hindsight, especially after a court case where a host of details are laid bare, one can see a fuller picture.
But at that point, Beyond and the other agencies would have been dealing with limited, incomplete and even inaccurate information based on their interactions with Megan’s family, when events were unfolding in real time.
And these professionals would have to make assessments and decisions based on the information they had back then.
What adds to the challenge of managing such cases is that the nature of abusive behaviours is volatile and unpredictable, and situations can change quickly in a matter of hours or days.
Mr Martin Chok, deputy director of family and community services at Care Corner Singapore, said there can be a sudden escalation in the severity of abuse after periods of peace and calm.
He added: “Some caregivers deny us access to the child, or they hide the truth.”
Collective effort needed to tackle abuse
On Feb 21, 2020, the mother’s former boyfriend punched Megan in her abdomen and she died after months of senseless violence. The couple burned her body on May 8, 2020, to hide their crime.
On April 3, Megan’s mother, Foo Li Ping, 29, was sentenced to 19 years’ jail.Wong Shi Xiang, 38, was sentenced to 30 years’ jail and 17 strokes of the cane.
When things go wrong, as members of the public, we all can play a part by resisting the tendency to bay for blood.
It is critical to give the authorities time and space to find out what went wrong, how processes and protocols can be remedied or improved, and how agencies and their staff can be better equipped to do their work.
In reality, no organisation can go the distance alone in child protection work. It needs to be the collective work of agencies, with their respective expertise, competencies and resources, to look out for and help the vulnerable and their families.
To save children, social service professionals have to work with and help their family members too. And these include perpetrators of the abuse.
Mr Chok said: “Child protection work is not short-term intervention. It requires long-term support and working with different partners to keep the child safe and to build up the caregiver’s ability to manage their stressors and to solve problems.”
In Megan’s case, it would also be instructive if the MSF gave a more detailed account of the roles and responses given by the agencies involved.
To be clear, protocols on how pre-schools should handle suspected abuse cases were enhanced after Megan’s death. In 2021, new operational guidelines and workflows specifying the actions to take if pre-schools suspect a child is abused were included in a code of practice for pre-schools.
For example, if there are concerns about sexual abuse, noticeable injuries or signs of immediate threat to the child’s safety, pre-schools are required to consult the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline within two hours.
If a child with abuse concerns has been regularly absent or is withdrawn from pre-school without valid reasons, pre-schools are required to inform the social worker or MSF’s child protection officer working with the child. This was not required before 2021.
If the child is not known to any social service agency or CPS, pre-schools must report the matter to ECDA, which will then assess whether a report to CPS is necessary, said MSF.
The ministry has also reviewed and tightened the operating processes between ECDA and CPS.
The MSF has repeatedly said that tackling domestic abuse has to be a whole-of-society effort, as such violence happens behind closed doors and the secrecy surrounding abuse makes it hard to detect or prevent. It takes all eyes and ears – from neighbours, colleagues and teachers, to social service professionals and healthcare workers – to spot and report the abuse.
The number of child abuse cases each year is significant.
In 2023, there were 2,787 new child abuse cases with low to moderate safety and risk concerns and another 2,011 new high risk cases.
And these are just new cases, not counting existing ones.
So Singapore needs all hands on deck to keep these thousands of children safe from their violent loved ones.
Social service professionals and agencies need to know and feel they will be supported if things go south – despite the best of intentions and efforts.
It bears highlighting that there is no fool-proof child protection system anywhere in the world. Beyond processes and protocols, it is important to nurture this “we are in this together” mindset in tackling abuse. Such an attitude would make all the difference.
Then it no longer becomes just my job, or your job; my responsibility or your responsibility. It becomes our collective duty – and our shared humanity – to keep the other Megans out there safe.
Theresa Tan is senior social affairs correspondent at The Straits Times. She covers issues that affect families, youth and vulnerable groups.
The Bare Minimum For Singapore To Protect Children Like Megan Khung
by Dr Hana AlhadadApril 15, 2025
Dr Hana Alhadad is a researcher and advisor at EveryChild.sg. With a background in community development and psychology, she champions the well-being of neurodivergent children, single mothers, victim-survivors of family violence, and children & youth across Singapore.
Dr Hana Alhadad is a researcher and advisor at EveryChild.sg. With a background in community development and psychology, she champions the well-being of neurodivergent children, single mothers, victim-survivors of family violence, and children & youth across Singapore.
In this contributed op-ed for RICE, she shares her take on the Megan Khung case and calls for stronger collective action to protect vulnerable children in Singapore.
The sentencing of Megan Khung’s mother and her partner has left Singapore confronting a brutal truth—one marked by grief, outrage, and a sense of collective failure.
Megan was just four years old. She endured prolonged abuse that ultimately led to her tragic death—a fate that should have never happened. It goes without saying that her case underscores the urgent need to re-evaluate and strengthen our child protection systems.
I say this because Megan’s story is not an isolated tragedy. Over the past decade, at least seven children in Singapore have died from abuse.
These cases often follow a similar trajectory. Someone notices—sometimes a teacher, a neighbour, a relative—raises a concern, and hopes the system will intervene. But due to fragmented responses, unclear thresholds for risk, or limited legal avenues, the danger persists. The danger deepens.
In Megan’s case, it was all of them. They noticed, and they tried. Yet their efforts were not enough. Not because they didn’t care, but because the scaffolding needed to act quickly and decisively simply wasn’t there.
When Caring Isn’t Enough
What makes this case even more devastating is that Megan was not invisible.
Her preschool educators noticed the signs of abuse and acted. A trusted social service agency followed up. Her grandmother filed a police report. Individuals did what they could within their roles. Reports were made, but the severity of risk was not adequately communicated or understood.
Megan was removed from school, isolated from protective adults, and ultimately left beyond reach.
This was not a failure of concern. It was a failure of coordinated, systemic action. And it is a failure we must not allow to happen again.
In the wake of Megan’s death, respected voices within the social service sector have spoken with painful clarity and moral urgency. Among them is Cindy Tay, the Director of Home at Children’s Aid Society and a highly-regarded, long-standing practitioner in the field. She reminds us that while systemic reform is necessary, we must never lose sight of where accountability ultimately lies: with the perpetrators of abuse.
She also points to a deeper crisis: the breakdown of coordinated responsibility, the missed opportunities to intervene, and the structural ambivalence that allows red flags or urgent concerns to be noted, but not decisively acted upon.
Cindy raised urgent questions: Did agencies receiving reports treat them with the gravity they deserved? Did regulatory bodies respond adequately, and were police action and follow-up sufficiently coordinated? When concerns were raised, was there anyone truly accountable for seeing them through? Were frontline workers supported with clear, expert guidance?
Nonetheless, her call is clear. Professionals with child protection expertise must be made available to support families, teachers, and even case workers from the very first report of possible harm to a child. These professionals are trained to respond with urgency, not hesitation, and must be given the mandate to act decisively before harm escalates.
Another experienced social service practitioner, Lim Jingzhou, voiced deep discomfort with how the tragedy has been publicly framed—particularly the rush to assign blame to a single agency or individual.
He warned that this instinct to scapegoat not only distorts the truth but also distracts us from the deeper, systemic failures that left Megan unprotected. When frontline workers or single agencies become the focus of blame, we lose sight of the fractured ecosystem around them—the ecosystem that failed to act, to connect, to lead.
Lim called for solidarity with those on the ground who acted out of care, even when the structures around them faltered.
These reflections echo the Singapore Children’s Society, which has called Megan’s death a “collective failure” of the system.
They recommend that all preschool educators receive mandatory, ongoing child protection training, and every preschool should appoint a child safety officer—someone with both the training and authority to escalate concerns effectively.
The Need to Do More
Recent news reports confirm that the government is indeed planning a further review into Megan’s case, extending beyond the initial findings. This broader investigation is set to examine the responses of all agencies involved, not just one.
It comes after significant public outcry and sustained calls from many in the social service sector who, like us, believe that meaningful accountability must go beyond one organisation. Accountability should be applied across the entire system.
Importantly, like many other organisations working with children, we call for this review to be independent, thorough, and transparent. A full and honest accounting of what went wrong must inform what comes next. Not to assign blame for blame’s sake, but to ensure that no future child is failed in the same way.
Cases like Megan’s don’t just reveal gaps in detection and response. They also cast a long shadow, eroding public trust and leaving frontline professionals shaken and discouraged.
This growing uncertainty and grief must be addressed head-on. When a child is failed so completely, it not only raises questions about what went wrong, but it also raises doubts about whether anything will truly change.
What’s needed now is not only better response mechanisms but a recommitment to making child safeguarding, well-being, and holistic development a national priority.
This calls for more than a one-off inquiry or reactive policy tweak. Real change means sustained, structural reform: stable funding for a stronger, more coordinated child protection system; better training and support for those on the frontlines—educators, social workers, caregivers; and investment in prevention, not just crisis response.
It also means finally addressing long-neglected gaps, from early screening to primary education—especially after the age of seven—where too many children still fall through the cracks.
Training alone won’t be enough without a clear system of support and escalation when red flags appear. We need a central child safeguarding body—independent, trusted, and well-resourced—that can cut across silos, offer trauma-informed assessments, and support frontline workers across sectors.
We need laws that place a child’s safety above parental rights when the two conflict. Protective caregivers must be empowered to act early, and agencies must be held accountable when they fail to escalate.
This urgency must extend to police protocols. Reports from caregivers or relatives should trigger immediate, trauma-informed responses. The threshold for intervention must be clear, because a missed report or delayed follow-up can mean the difference between protection and tragedy.
Child protection is complex, human work. It demands real-time coordination, not a passive wait-and-see approach. And it must be empowered to act—quickly—before a child slips out of sight and into danger.
We are not alone in this call. Countries like the United States, Australia, and Hong Kong have already established mechanisms to ensure child deaths are not just grieved, but thoroughly investigated, so lessons are learned.
Singapore needs the same. Systems must evolve. Safeguards must strengthen. No failure should ever be repeated in silence.
These are not upgrades. They are the bare minimum for any society that claims to put children first.
Stretched Thin
One of the most troubling aspects of the public discourse following Megan’s death is the implied deflection of responsibility onto (partially funded) social service agencies and non-profits. The discourse misses the fact that these bodies are already stretched to their limits trying to plug gaps in services for the most vulnerable.
These organisations do critical work, often under immense pressure and with limited resources. Critically, they do not have the full authority to act decisively in high-risk cases. And yet, when things go wrong, they’re still expected to carry the blame.
It is also, unfortunately, inaccurate to assume that simply raising the alarm will prompt a swift response from government services. Those working on the ground know this is not the case.
Government-linked services are just as overburdened, often operating at the brink of crisis management, rather than being able to invest meaningfully in upstream, preventive support.
Upstream work refers to the systems, support networks, and interventions that prevent harm before it begins—work that builds the foundations for safety, healing, and lifelong wellbeing. It includes early childhood development services, family strengthening programmes, accessible mental health support, early intervention for learning or behavioural difficulties, and strong, consistent caregiver support.
Too often, our systems are structured around crisis—responding to harm rather than preventing it. Preventive services are fragmented, under-capacitated, and treated as secondary when they should be central.
If we want fewer children to fall through the cracks, we need to build bridges earlier, not just stronger safety nets below.
A Culture of Upstanders
This is also a call for a cultural shift. Too often, abuse is treated as a family matter—kept behind closed doors, spoken of in hushed tones.
But child protection is not a family issue. It is a collective moral duty. We need a society that pays attention, that listens, and that chooses not to look away. Because silence, too, is a response.
That means cultivating a culture of upstanders, not bystanders. People who notice when something feels off, who ask difficult questions, who stay engaged even when it’s uncomfortable or inconvenient. Sometimes, protection begins with a question no one else dares to ask.
This responsibility cannot fall solely on professionals. It must extend to all of us—neighbours, relatives, educators, caregivers. We need to give people the tools, knowledge, and confidence to act.
That includes knowing what signs to look for, who to call, and how to persist when the first door doesn’t open. And just as importantly, we need systems that stand behind those who do speak up.
Being an upstander takes courage. Every time someone stepped forward for Megan, it meant something. It wasn’t enough this time—but it mattered.
Our task now is to make sure that the next time someone raises the alarm, it leads to protection, not loss. Protecting children shouldn’t be seen as exceptional. It should be what we expect of ourselves, and of the systems we’ve built to keep them safe.
A Collective Responsibility For Our Children
Megan’s death was not just a heartbreaking loss; it was a systemic failure. It revealed where safeguards faltered, processes stalled, and institutions failed to respond in time. It holds up a mirror to our collective hesitation, assumptions, and underestimations of what was needed.
Yet this tragedy can also be a catalyst for change—a moment to stop patching cracks and start rebuilding from the foundation.
Singapore must take the next step: establishing an independent panel, empowered by law, to examine child deaths due to abuse.
This body should have the authority to access cross-agency records, conduct thorough investigations, and issue public findings with actionable recommendations. Crucially, it must operate impartially, free from conflicts of interest and independent of the institutions involved.
Yet this tragedy can also be a catalyst for change—a moment to stop patching cracks and start rebuilding from the foundation.
Singapore must take the next step: establishing an independent panel, empowered by law, to examine child deaths due to abuse.
This body should have the authority to access cross-agency records, conduct thorough investigations, and issue public findings with actionable recommendations. Crucially, it must operate impartially, free from conflicts of interest and independent of the institutions involved.
Honouring Megan’s memory requires more than mourning—it demands transformation. We must strengthen systems, but also deepen our shared responsibility to protect every child. This means moving beyond fear, blame, and silence.
Child safety cannot be fragmented—one agency, one case, one reaction at a time. It must be embedded in how we operate—across schools, communities, laws, leadership, and funding.
Let us commit, as individuals, organisations, and as a society, to relentless safeguarding. Let us create structures that see, hear, and believe children. Let us ensure that help is not only available, but trusted and accessible. And let us make child safety not just a service, but a national ethos.
Let this be a call not just to mourn, but to act. To protect every child, long before it’s too late.
Megan deserved that. Every child does.
[If you have read all the way until here, that's the story, that's the analysis and commentary by people in the field, and who are "experts". This section is just my comments on this case. You can skip this part.
If you watched the video at the start of top of this blogpost, you would have gotten the whole picture of how Megan was abused, tortured and died.
I personally could not watch the whole video. I found it, even in the indirect retelling, with no graphic illustrations, to be horrible. Soul-suckingly horrible.
My wife commented that Megan looked like our daughter at that age. Which made it even more traumatic for me.
The comments on this story were merciless to the abusers and murderers. And the "expert's" comments was about how to prevent any further such horror stories from happening.
These reactions are normal, natural, and understandable.
Yes, there is a part of me that wants horrible things to happen to the abusers. I am sure the prisoners sharing the cell with Wong, probably also feel the same. And they might act on their feelings.
Same for Foo.
But nothing done to the two will bring back Megan.]
No comments:
Post a Comment