The voice unheard - the voice of elders

Manel ABEYSEKERA

I write with reference to the excellent observations made by Dr. Tilak S. Fernando in the Daily News September 12, 2011, commencing with a well reasoned distinction about the labels attached by civil society to some of its members, labels which I consider quite uncivil.

He rightly points out that what needs attention is that there are people with ‘Restricted Ability’ for various reasons and makes the moot point that government and society need to give more thought to their situation by, metaphorically ‘stepping into their shoes.’

Dr. Fernando focuses mainly on ‘accessibility’, particularly to buildings and this has been ably advocated by its well-known protagonist Dr. Ajith C. S Perera right up to the Supreme Courts, resulting in mandatory law for ‘inclusivity’ in accessibility to all public buildings and for punitive repercussion on violators of it.

Positive factor

In the context of senior citizens suffering from non-accessibility increasing in number and the demographic picture of Sri Lanka also showing a shift towards an increasingly elderly (over 60) population adds gravity to the situation.

At the same time, according to excerpts from papers presented at the recent Centre For Poverty Analysis Colloquium, there has been a population trend from 1991 to 2011 characterised by an increase in the share of working people in the population, so that the share of dependents - either too young or too old - remained low during the period, a positive factor, indicating that now is the time for supportive action for accessibility not only with regard to its physical aspect but also to other relevant material facilities.

With regard to accessibility of buildings, I would like to state that the Protection of Elders Act of 2002 resulted in a Gazette Notice directing that existing buildings as well as new ones should create such accessibility by 2008; but alas, there was little or no visibility of action to this end. Further, the 2011 amendment to the Act resulted in the much-demanded legalization of the Elders Card (which unfortunately needs to grant many more facilities for its Holders) and states that non-compliance of the directives in it would be construed as punishable. Yet, many areas of the basic needs of elders remain inaccessible to them such as Health Insurance, stipends to non-pensioners, non accessibility of markets/or even to dry rations, reduction in the cost of essential medication, to mention just a few.

Police records

The NGO Forum on Ageing (NFOA) established in 1999, the UN Year of the Older Person with membership of both institutions as well as individuals caring for elder and their cause, has been consistently urging the Elders Secretariat of the Ministry of Social Services, to take viable measures for elders instead of indulging in academic exercises of Action Plans without deadlines for implementation nor realistic grouping of measures in a practical time-frame.

Most elders have given yeoman service to society only to be relegated to the shelf of retirement and forgotten thereafter instead of being supported to live in dignity and comfort in the few years left to them.

Is it therefore any wonder that as pointed out by Prof. Ravindra Fernando, Senior Professor of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology of the Colombo Medical Faculty - as quoted in the media - as saying that according to Police records, of the 4,018 people who committed suicide in 2009, 701 were elders while in the first six months of 2011, of the 2,023 who did so, 390 were elders.

Has Sri Lanka, with its laudable health services over the years which enabled Sri Lankans to live longer only driven a large number to suicide? Do politicians seek their vote only to forget their needs?

Now is the time to face facts and ACT - promises are not meant to be pious intentions confined to paper.

The writer is the founder and member of the NFOA