LETTER | Malaysia, like other parts of the world, is experiencing the unprecedented population ageing phenomenon. Data from the Malaysian Department of Statistics illustrates that 7% of the older population were aged 60 years and over during 2005 which is anticipated to double (14%) by 2028. By 2030, we will don a new title, an "ageing nation".
Following the adoption of the National Policy for the Elderly in 1995, issues of population ageing have gained increasing attention. Malaysia, too, has acknowledged the urgency of this challenge and is in preparation to address this phenomenon. The is a need to increase public awareness, policy and planning to develop infrastructure, as well as support action-oriented research that will directly translate to comprehensive and cohesive social strategies, policies, and legislation to protect not just the current older Malaysians but the future of all Malaysians.
We had recently witnessed many various promises made by several of our political leaders on the subject of better meeting the needs of our elderly which they so rightly deserve. However, and sadly, this has not transpired as espoused. More disconcertingly, a recently released media report clearly indicated that certain departments representing the government are quite openly suggesting the opposite of what the leaders had promised.
Aged care service providers are an important part of the provision of care for the Malaysian elderly. Although the Private Aged Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 2018 had been passed, the regulations have yet to be enforced. Currently, the Care Centre Act 1993 regulates the aged care centres’ in Malaysia.
This act is linked to various departments, mainly, town councils, fire, health, licensing and welfare. It involves an arduously complex web of bureaucracy and power relations between all these departments which compounds the expeditious process of the act with differential interpretations and administrations of each department. Naturally, the outcome of this is the frustration of service providers and ultimately the negative flow-on effect to the elderly who are consumers and recipients of the service.
The media recently highlighted a case where an aged care centre which had been operating with a license had suddenly been issued a letter from the city council citing that their license has been revoked due to complaints from residents in the neighbourhood. The application of such an administrative directive defies common sense logic and is much detrimental to the facility, not least that considerations of the elderly already being residents there have not been considered in the matter. Such a lack of consideration, consultation and insensitivity for the aged by the council is contemptible.
The complaint from the residents were about the cars of visitors and the presence of ambulances which they quoted as a “nuisance”.
It is sad that society appears to discriminate against the aged. I qualify this statement in citing that the house next to my mother’s has been converted to a children’s after-school centre and multiple cars are parked daily in the vicinity with children's’ parties and noises. Yet, this seems to be tolerated by the community. Ageism exists and is insidious at first but gradually will resonate profoundly with society.
Ageism is crystallised around how one’s experience interacts with developments in social policies and other less formal social discourses such as those associated with adult ageing and the life course.
Alienation of our elderly because of social stigma and prejudices seems to be our recourse in addressing the aged. It is more convenient to move our elderly to a section of society that they are away from the mainstream. This shows the lack of empathy and compassion as a society we live in. It equates to our removing of those in our community with mental health to asylums. It reflects on the backwardness of our society.
As the growing ageing population becomes a global phenomenon in the next decade, Malaysian society owes much to itself to reflect on our values towards the aged. To continue to marginalise and devalue this vulnerable group of people who are in most need at the time of their life is a scandal in our society.
Our leaders have a moral as well as a legal obligation and responsibility to ensure that such a travesty towards the aged is not perpetuated by society’s lack of moral values.
The negative impact of ageism through discriminatory practices such as housing and social policies are profound to the elderly and their quality of life. Our strategic directions towards caring for the aged by our leaders and those involved with policy planning must embrace a culture of sensitivity and understanding of the needs of ageing and its physical and psychological dependencies.
Discriminatory practices should be denounced and frowned upon and an education process should be in place and play a major role in educating the public. For us to achieve and avail ourselves to a progressive nation's status, we must first look after our old. Ingrained behaviour and stereotyping the aged have no place in a modern, progressive society.
As a nation, we must work together with the public through health professionals, the government and policy-makers to commit to the holistic care of the elderly through sound, well-thought-out ideas and policies that convert to sustainable infrastructure that would enable our elderly to enjoy a quality of life that they rightly deserve with respect and dignity.
The writer is vice-president, Association for Residential Aged Care Operators of Malaysia (Agecope)
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.
