AGEISM-NEED FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION LAW

Speech by K. Siladass

at MCHA Conference on 24^th July 2019 on Healthy Ageing

The general consensus is that it is not the culture of the Asians to be disrespectful to the elders – be it the parents or grandparents, or generally, elderly persons. The younger generation revere the elders, and hold them in high estimation. There is an Arab proverb which says, if you do not have an old man at home buy one.

The great Roman statesman, orator, lawyer ad philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero tells us that during the great Olympiad all seats in the stadium had been occupied, and when an elderly person showed up, the youngsters stood up as a mark of respect and offered their seats. These were the common features in a civilized society. It was unnecessary to enact laws to teach, regulate and instil good manners, to honour the elderly.

Today, even Asian countries are enacting laws to protect their senior citizens. Was it necessary? If that is a wrong question to ask, would it be proper to assume that Western education has actually altered Asians’ mindset, especially relating the veneration extended to the elders, generally. In dealing with the Western education I am mindful of the benefits the human kind had derived through it: but what could be very distressing is the changes that had occurred after two world wars which had indeed caused attitude related difficulties that seem insurmountable.

We, Asians know that there were discriminations everywhere, even after countries had been decolonized the new national government were slow or totally disregarded any notion to eradicate every form of discrimination. And discrimination were of varied kind, and nationalism was gaining popularity. And there was strong movement towards racism, and racism blended with religion became too popular. And because popular too. We were growing accustomed to racism, and sexism. The West was arming itself against discrimination wherever it may be found. United Nations and human rights organization were devising methods to combat discrimination of every form. And Asians too were looking at the ways discrimination could be arrested: notwithstanding the fact, in Asian countries legalized discrimination was a norm, in the name of race or religion, or both.

There was one area where US seemed uncomfortable and that is the abuse and discrimination against elders. Although, race discrimination was rampant one incident showed that discrimination is not confined to race, or religion for that matter. The elders were being discriminated in a subtle manner and this was highlighted by Robert Neil Butler in his article “Age-Ism: Another Form of Bigotry.”

Butler referred to the National Capital Housing Authority’s proposal¹ to purchase Regency House, a high-rise apartment building in Chevy Chase for the elderly poor, and held hearings on its proposal. The hearings were attended by middle class and middle-aged white citizens of Chevy Chase and they were against the purchase of luxury housing with a swimming pool on the roof of the Regency Hotel for older people who were not accustomed to luxury. Some of the statements made at the hearings were published in the local newspapers and they were:-

                        “You would open the door for people who don’t know how to live.”

“Slums are made by the people who live in them.”

“It (public housing) has to come sometimes but not this time or in this place.”

“I am not against old folks, believe me.”

“Who wants all those old people around?”

Butler went on to explain that the use of Regency House for the elderly poor carried implications beyond Chevy Chase: The classic or scapegoat explanation for prejudice turns upon the unconscious effort to justify one’s own weaknesses by finding them in other – in other races, religious, or nationalities. Personal insecurity, once generalized, becomes the basis of prejudice and hostility.²

Butler added:

“Age-ism describes the subjective experience implied in the popular notion of the generation gap. Prejudice of the middle-aged against the old in this instance, and against the young in others, is a serious national problem. Age-ism reflects a deep seated uneasiness on the part of the young and middle-aged-a personal revulsion to and distaste from growing old, disease, disability; and fear of powerlessness, ‘uselessness’, and death.

“Cultural attitudes in our society reinforce these feelings. We have chosen mandatory retirement from the work force and thus removed the elderly from the mainstream of life. Age-ism is manifested in the taunting remarks about “old fogeys,” in the special vulnerability of the elderly to muggings and robberies, in age discrimination in employment independent of individual competence, and in the probable of inequities in the allocation of research funds.”

At that time, in 1969, Butler confined ageism as parallel to racism. But in 1987, Butler defined ageism “as a process of systematic stereotyping and discrimination against people because they are old, just as racism and sexism accomplish this for skin colour and gender.”³

Butler did express his concern about “the probable inequities in the allocation of research funds.”

Since the term ageism had evoked considerable attention, as the literature on ageism had been steadily increasing, but not plenty as that on racism or sexism. The database Psychinfo, contained 3,111 articles on racism, 1385 articles on racism, 1385 articles on sexism and only 294 articles on ageism.⁴

The articles on ageism devote much attention on examining Butler’s definition which seemed too wide. There are suggestions that ageism should be restricted aimed at protecting the elders from abuse and humiliation. And in deserving cases they should be respected and their talent recognized with proper reward.

There is admittedly some confusion as to the definition of the term ageism, and it has been pointed out that it “is distinct in many ways from other isms.”⁵ I am inclined to this view as racism is against other races altogether whereas sexism is against women generally. Ageism is relative to age. A person when he is young, strong and useful society will like him or her: but, when aging process reaches a point of no return the discrimination is too obvious. This could be seen from some of the ways elderly people had been dealt with.

A letter to The Guardian in 1989 complained that the writer’s aunt sought medical treatment from the NHS for her varicose veins which had begun to be painful. The specialist told her that she could not have the operation to replace the damaged veins with artificial ones because it was not advisable for a person of her age to have an operation! Furthermore, the operation for varicose veins was essentially a cosmetic one and therefore normally reserved for younger women who needed to keep their husbands happy. The letter ended with a question: “Is this official NHS policy?” ⁵

We are not to be left out in this type of saga in Malaysia. Thomas Foo in his letter to New Straits Times wrote:

“A week ago, my wife, who is in her 70s, had a fainting spell after her walk. I took her to a private hospital, where the doctor recommended that she be admitted for some scans and tests. It turned out that there was nothing serious. I went to the admission counter to process her admission procedures. In spite producing a credit card to pay for the bill, I was asked to act as a guarantor and to produce another guarantor. My sister-in-law, a retired headmistress, offered to be a guarantor, but she was rejected since she was above 60. This requirement is disturbing as elderly people without children or those with children living abroad will have problems looking for guarantors.”

There are a plethora of description demeaning the elderly: for example: “dirty old man”; “second childhood”; “old age symptoms showing”; “fussy old man”; “grey tsunami” and other terms.

Aside the demeaning description of the elderly there have been remarks suggestive that the elderly had outlived their usefulness. The improved life span, to those who complain that the elderly are a burden on the economy have not been very kind. We have a British novelist Martin Amis who compared the growing army of elderly to “an invasion of terrible immigrants, stinking out the restaurants and cafes and shops.” Christopher Buckley, is an American author, and both, Amis and Buckley encourage euthanasia. Amis has offered “a Martini and a Medal,” and Buckley suggested “tax breaks” for euthanasia volunteers.

The Economist editorial pointed out that “Amis and Buckley are right to warn about the threat of the ‘Silver tsunami’. Most people understand about the ageing society in the abstract. But few have grasped the size of tsunami or the extent of its consequences.”

The comparison of aging with tsunami was indeed distressing least to say; for, how could one equate the natural aging with disaster which is also natural. Tsunami causes disasters, and how could old age cause similar violence. Was the editorial suggesting that aging would have terrible consequences such as that of tsunami in Japan?

But, it would be wrong to single out Economist alone who had embarked on a journey to vilify the elderly people: In June 1989, The Guardian in its editorial categorically stated that, “we must see old men, constitutionally and not in further chaos, defeated and removed.”

If we look at all these we could reasonably conclude that abuse against elderly person is rampant in this country. And ageism has also entered into Asian region.

India, which is known as the bastion for respecting and honouring elderly people had to pass laws to protect the elderly. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 makes it a legal obligation of children to provide for their elderly parents, abandoning them is a criminal offence. The Indian law aim to protect biological, adoptive or step-parent, grand-parents, or senior citizens over 60 years who cannot maintain themselves, can claim maintenance.

Senior citizens who do not have children can claim maintenance from an adult relative who is in possession of their property or will inherit the property on their death.

Malaysia too has similar problems. Children abandoning parents after taking away their savings or have property transferred to them. Most of the disabled old parents end up in charitable homes. I would urge the Government to look to India as a model to enact similar law as the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 so that the elders will not be left in the lurch.

……       end      ……

Notes:

¹See Age-Ism: Another form of Bigotry

²ibid

³In the Encyclopedia of Aging

⁴Thomas Nicolai Iversen, Lars Larsen, Per Erik Solem: A conceptual analysis of Ageism

⁵Quoted by Bill Bytheway and Julia Johnson in their article On Defining Ageism

MR. PERFECT, LIM KIT SIANG

by

K. Siladass

My association with Lim Kit Siang began more than half-a-century ago: 1968 to be precise. He was then the organising secretary of the newly formed Democratic Action Party, (DAP). DAP was registered as a political party on 18^th March, 1966 and the founding members were C.V.Devan Nair,Dr. Chen Man Hin, Dr. S. Seevaretnam, D.P.Xavier, Zain Azahari Zainal Abidin among others.

At that time, Devan Nair was the sole-spokesman in Malaysian Parliament holding the DAP flag; having been elected under the People’s Action Party ticket in 1964 when Singapore was in Malaysia. Singapore was expelled from Malaysia on 9^th August 1965, but the UMNO-led Alliance government was unhappy with his presence in Malaysian politics.

To many in the ruling party, Alliance, the presence of Devan Nair in Malaysian Parliament was an irritating relic of Lee Kuan Yew’s entry into the Malaysian political scene, which in a way introduced a brand of political thinking, which involved the economic well being of all Malaysians, and mutual respect, thus moving away from race based politics pursued by Alliance, its partners, and the extreme leftist ideology advocated by socialist parties that had found common ground in forming Socialist Front.

The political philosophy of the Alliance was not only outdated but did have the effect to stifle the growth of multi-racial unity and importantly religious harmony. UMNO believed in unity based on race and religion and its own pattern of culture. Having built a strong Malay base, UMNO thought it will be in a better position to accumulate unrivalled political power, and economic empowerment of the Malays. The philosophy of power sharing was accepted as the most fundamental base for governance in this country, and improvement of the economic status of the Malays was acknowledged as a national programme but that does not mean the rest should be discarded. However, the economic empowerment of Malays did not translate the policy correctly, for, the actual beneficiaries were a handful of Malays who were cronies of those in power.

The expulsion of Singapore was not received well even in UMNO quarters. There were some in that party who thought that the draconian Internal Security Act now repealed and substituted with worst provisions was enough to deal with the types of Lee Kuan Yew and keep Singapore within Malaysia. Although this was possible, the late Tunku Abdul Rahman was not inclined to such a course. He preferred expulsion. Now, having seen the back of Lee Kuan Yew, Devan Nair was looked upon as his sole spokesman in Malaysia. Whenever and wherever Devan Nair addressed public rallies people thronged to hear him, as if he was carrying some message from Lee Kuan Yew.

When Lee Kaw, the first DAP member of the Johore Legislative Assembly and I with few others decided to form DAP branch in Kluang followed by other branches in North of Johor, Devan Nair did attend some of the public rallies. When going to one such rally in Kluang and seeing the huge crowd, Devan Nair jocularly remarked, “Shall I tell them (the crowd) that I have no message from Kuan Yew?” Devan Nair accepted the political reality of the day. His continual presence in Malaysian politics will be exploited by DAP-adversaries to hamper its growths as a strong opposition to UMNO-dominant-Alliance.

In fact by 1968, Devan Nair reduced his DAP political activities in Malaysia and Goh Hock Guan emerged as the Secretary-General of the party. Malaysian Parliament was dissolved at the end of the first quarter of 1969 paving way for general elections in early May. And Devan Nair, as Malaysia’s torch-bearer of democratic socialism decided to pass on the torch to Dr. Chen Man Hin, Goh Hock Guan and Kit Siang. Devan Nair would return to Singapore to continue with his crusade in trade unionism.

During the formative years of DAP, Kit Siang and I would travel in his Fiat 1100 to various parts of Johore to establish DAP branches.

The 1969 general elections came and the results showed that the opposition had made significant inroads into the then Alliance’s strongholds. The Socialist Front had earlier decided to boycott the election. It was the final political harakiri, the Labour Party of Malaya had committed. It paled into oblivion and eventually disappeared from the Malaysian political scene altogether. DAP established itself as a party with appreciable followings in Malaysia, and a force to be reckoned with.

Election results in Penang showed that the opposition Gerakan had gained majority of seats to form the State Government. In Perak and Selangor, Alliance had lost its majority and the signs were clear that the opposition coalition could form State Governments. Alliance could not wrest Kelantan away from PAS. However, riots broke out on May 13^th. In actuality, Kit Siang had on 13^th May, 1969 morning, left KL for Sabah to assist the election campaign of a panel of independent candidates in Kota Kinabalu, Sandakan and Tawau. It was whilst speaking at a public rally at Kota Kinabalu on 13^th night he learnt of the riot on the same day. On 14^th May 1969, Kit Siang was served with an order to leave the State of Sabah as he had criticised Dato Mustapha, the then Chief Minister of Sabah at a public rally.

As there was only one flight then between KL and Sabah, Kit Siang took the flight on the following day eg. 15^th May 1969 and landed in Singapore as KL was already under curfew and Subang airport was closed. Kit Siang returned to KL on 18^th May 1969 and was arrested on landing.

May 13^th riot had caused immeasurable damage with loss of lives and property. Many reasons were attributed to the cause of riot, lies, fabrications distortions were aplenty. One reason among those false and fabricated ones was that Kit Siang had provoked the riot by his conduct, and this falsity has been perpetuated among the Malays even up to now. The actual reason, as truth unfolded did show that neither DAP nor its leaders were the cause but the loss of power in certain States, and the diminishing people’s support led some irresponsible persons to ignite the riot.

A state of emergency was declared and in consequence of which [Tun] Razak became the Director of the National Operation Council. Parliament was suspended, and with it,all fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution were also suspended.

In the meantime, Razak had brokered a coalition of all parties in the country both in Peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia, hence Gerakan led by Dr. Lim Chong Eu, People’s Progressive Party then led by S. P. Seenivasagam and PAS, and other parties came under one umbrella called Barisan Nasional. DAP stayed out. Had DAP joined the Barisan at that time, the then leaders of DAP such as Dr. Chen Man Hin and Lim Kit Siang would have been made Federal Ministers. Aside that, the party would also have found itself in the State Executive Councils at least in the States of Perak and Selangor. But, DAP elected to stay away from Barisan Nasional, as it was alleged that there was some differences between MCA and DAP over the number of ministers each party should have; but that friction was put to rest when DAP firmly chose not to join Barisan Nasional. Soon after this development Hock Guan resigned from DAP as a result of which Kit Siang became the Secretary-General. Goh Hock Guan’s departure did not have any impact on the party.

As far as I was concerned, I decided to read law and, in late 1974, left for England.

In 1976, Kit Siang came to London to take his final Bar examinations. He had begun to read law whilst in detention. I had not seen Kit Siang ever since his detention following the May 13^th incident. The meeting between us in London was a reunion after a long period. I managed to get him a room in the London House at Mecklenburg Square where I had been staying.

The Bar examinations arrived, and Kit Siang was very enthusiastic, energetic and very confident that he could make it through. First day was good. He was happy with his performance. Second day too saw his confidence peaking the height of delight. Now, it could be the third day of the examinations that he felt hopeless and miserable. According to him he had faired poorly on that day’s examination paper. We had a long chat over dinner. He was determined to give up. I did tell him that he should concentrate on the remaining papers and not brood on his performance on one paper. Would he listen? It was too difficult to change his mind.

During his brief stay in London House, Kit Siang would come to see me at about five every morning to collect hot water. When we took leave after dinner on the evening of his disappointed performance, I told him, “I will see you in the morning Kit. Good night.” His reply was not convincing. But, I had a nice feeling that he would show up.

At five in the morning, as I had expected Kit Siang came to collect hot water. I then knew that he will complete his remaining papers. “Ok. Since I’m already here, let me finish it,” he said. He finished the remaining examination papers and before leaving for home he left some cash, his examination index number and his house telephone number to contact him once the results were out.

The results were out and Kit Siang passed with distinction. Shocking. Here was a candidate who was at the verge of throwing in the towel, yet had made it with astounding excellence.I called Kit Siang and informed him of the splendid results. And what did I get? “Stop Sila. Don’t joke!”

I repeated the result, yet, he wouldn’t believe. “Are you drunk?” was another insinuating arrow from him. He asked for the index number, which I repeated. Correct. Name: K.S. Lim. No! That’s not my name was his response. I told him that the Council would not publish the full name. Still he wouldn’t believe. The conversation ended. About half an hour later Kit Siang called and interrogated me further on the results. I thought Kit Siang was not in a mood to believe me.

A few days later, I received a telegram from Kit Siang. He was coming to London and requested me to meet him at Heathrow. From the time I received him at the airport and during the train journey to Chancery Lane, his suspicion did not abate. He was under the impression that something was amiss. He was sure that he had failed a paper so how could he pass with distinction? Unbelievable.

I remember it was on a Saturday that he arrived in London. We got down at Chancery Lane. He insisted that we go to the Inns of Court’s office to see the results. It had been few days since the results were published. The notification may have been taken down. All these factors did not prevent him from going to the office. We did go to the Inns of Court’s office at Gray’s Inn, it was closed.

On Monday, he went to the Lincoln’s Inn Treasury and, to his delight learnt that he had indeed passed with distinction. I am sure he then believed that I had correctly seen the results, and was not influenced by alcohol content when I conveyed the pleasant message, a few nights ago. That was not the end of the matter. He wondered whether he could see the paper that he had miserably performed and understand how it was marked. I laughed at his strange attitude. “They won’t show you.” I said.

Kit Siang was called to the Bar of England and Wales, and when he left for home, he was still unsure how he got through with distinction. That was Kit Siang, a man with steely determination and who believes in impeccable performance.

I have always found him to possess a kind of dedication in whatever he does. He is never satisfied with his own performance. On being successful in effecting a change of government with the co-operation of other parties at the last general elections, he was modest, displaying his inherent disassociation with false hopes. I was not surprised when he said, “I am surprised we won.” That is Kit Siang, Mr. Perfect.