UNITY, CHOPSTICK AND CULTURAL ASSIMILATION

 

"We are Borg, you will be assimilated, resistant is futile" 
The famous quote from Start Trek

Tun Dr Mahathir's recent statement on Chinese culture and assimilation stirred controversy among the Chinese community, but I remained unfazed. Recognizing Dr. Mahathir as a skilled politician, I understood his strategy to garner majority support, yet I found a deeper message in his words—highlighting "unity" and "assimilation."

Assuming that Dr. Mahathir implied the necessity of assimilation for unity, I delved into the concept. Anthropologically, assimilation refers to the absorption of diverse ethnic groups into a dominant culture. This led me to ponder whether minority cultures could truly become Malay, as our constitution defines Malays based on religious, linguistic, and cultural criteria.

However, historical and global examples contradicted the notion of assimilation as a panacea for unity. China, despite a common language, remains culturally diverse. Similarly, the United States and religious denominations experience internal divisions. Even in Malaysia, political parties aligned with the majority culture witness fragmentation.

Constitutional assimilation does not ensure genuine unity. Minorities retain aspects of their culture, enriching the majority culture. Hence, I argue that true unity lies in diversity, emphasizing the well-being of the "rakyats." Unity is an action—a commitment to care for all, irrespective of race or religion. It transcends assimilation, encouraging unconditional love and understanding.

In conclusion, my perspective rejects assimilation as a path to unity. Instead, I advocate for unity in diversity, recognizing and celebrating the unique contributions of each culture. Unity, as a dynamic concept, requires continuous effort and a genuine embrace of our differences for a harmonious society.

LAND AND THE ISSUE OF LICENSES FOR AGED CARE CENTRES

 

Random pix of property in Malaysia

In the foreseeable future, demographic shifts in Malaysia predict that more than 10% of the population will be over 60 years of age by the year 2030. This aging population will likely necessitate an increased demand for aged care services, prompting concerns about the current state of aged care centers in the country. Presently, over 95% of the approximately 1700 aged care centers are situated in residential housing estates, encompassing various types of dwellings such as terrace houses, semi-detached houses, or bungalows. However, the snag lies in the fact that the land upon which these centers are located is categorized as "residential land," resulting in a staggering 80% of these facilities operating without proper licenses.

The predominant model employed by aged care operators involves leasing residential properties for commercial or charitable purposes, leading to a situation where local councils often require these properties to undergo 'temporary conversion' to operate as aged care centers or other care facilities. Consequently, the licensing dilemma primarily rests with the state and district councils, which regulate land use across various regions. Rather than assigning blame to specific entities for the prevalence of unlicensed centers, it is essential to recognize that the roots of today's licensing challenges extend beyond immediate circumstances. Quoting Albert Einstein, "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." The current issues surrounding licensing in the aged care sector have their origins in historical priorities and choices that prioritized economic development, infrastructure, housing, industry, education, and health over specific land allocations for aged care. To comprehend the present licensing issues faced by operators, it is crucial to examine the interface between the aged care industry and the National Land Code of 1965. The requirement for 'temporary conversion' renewal every one or two years, subject to changing guidelines, forms a key aspect of the licensing process. The heart of the matter lies in the absence of a designated land category for aged care in Malaysia, with land use traditionally divided into agriculture, building, and industry, leaving a critical gap in the planning of housing developments.

Addressing this long-standing issue requires a new consciousness in land use planning. While this shift in awareness may not immediately resolve the existing licensing challenges, it paves the way for a more profound and courageous approach. An amendment to the land act, enforced retrospectively to all current residential developments, becomes essential. This amendment should not only silence detractors and opposition but also grant freedom of conversion for the operational tenure of these centers without the need for frequent renewals. Moreover, an amnesty provision for existing unlicensed centers during the legislative transition would provide a pragmatic solution to the pressing issues faced by the aged care sector in Malaysia.