 |
| The MASW was set up in 1973 almost half a century ago |
SOCIAL WORK in Malaysia, we will argue in this paper, unfortunately, has not been accorded much credit, even credibility, for many years up until arguably perhaps today. Indeed, since it was formally and legally established in March 1973, and despite its membership of many international agencies, the Malaysian Association of Social Workers (MASW) and its members, and the profession itself, do not appear to be as well understood by the Malaysian public – and possibly even by the government – compared to more “established” professions, like nursing and physiotherapy. It is as if the problems that social workers attempt to resolve are seen either as unresolvable or too petty to entertain.
In this paper, we critically examine this scenario. It is, we argue, a sad scenario that needs to be addressed urgently by the state (government). Malaysia is part of a global system sharing similar socio-economic structures and institutions all of whom result in social problems of varying complexities as each nation in the system seeks to “progress” and maintain their own social sustainability against the pace of rapid development.
Our paper is made up of three parts. In Part I, we provide a “mapping” of social work in Malaysia, outlining its history, development, possible misconceptions, and contemporary concerns and directions. We ask here: Is there really “buy-in” by the various stakeholders? And if there isn’t, why not?
In Part II, we (re)introduce the almost forgotten, yet admirable, Vision 2020, tabled by Tun Mahathir in 1991, during his first stint as Malaysia’s Prime Minister. More specifically, we focus on just one of the nine challenges, the challenge to create a “caring society” by 2020. Using this as our go-to goal for social work – and looking at specific areas, e.g. children with disabilities, community foster families, safeguarding and protection of children, including bullying and drug addiction and elderly support and care – we examine and evaluate if there is sufficient professional and official concern and support for social work in contemporary Malaysia, and perhaps more suitably, ask if there has been sufficient political will. Our explicit aim here is to highlight these issues and to suggest better attention through “mainstreaming many of those services” as this may be a way to bring about equal justice to the victims, sufferers as well as improved services for the vulnerable sections of the community. Otherwise, they will always be marginalised in terms of any service uptake in a diminished resource pool.
This leads us to Part III, where we map out directions for the future, suggest types of developments which have been successful in neighbouring and international countries. Here we will also outline what would be the ethos and institutional support needed for social work to be provided professionally, for all Malaysians who may need such services.
- This is an abstract for a paper presented at the MASW-JKM-ISM international Social Work Symposium 2019, Kuala Lumpur, 27-28 April. Read here. Jim TW Lim (read more about him here) was a former Director of Social Services (UK). Zaharom Nain is Professor of Media and Communication Studies at the University of Nottingham in Malaysia.
1. Introduction
Good afternoon, colleagues. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to present what we may call a “think paper”, designed to provoke, to challenge and, hopefully, to suggest some ways forward for the profession of social work in Malaysia.
Our paper begins with the proposition that social work in this country has been woefully “stuck in the middle ages” (to borrow a phrase). We contend that its practice throughout the country remains mostly unseen and unheard – and unappreciated – despite the fact that there are at least nine higher education institutions producing graduates “fittingly” for this profession that is still widely unrecognised amongst the public. Is this an academic study, then, one of choice? Especially when there are few and far between opportunities in pursuance of a worthwhile career?
But, as always, perhaps it is pertinent to start from the beginning.
Zulkarnain and Zarina (2014), in a rather bland and descriptive chapter titled “Social work in Malaysia”, begin with the observation that [1]:
A few decades ago, the majority of the Malaysian public had never actually heard of the term ”social work”. The most familiar terms were for the welfare department, community, and voluntary work (gotong royong), which are closely knitted and often used interchangeably.
What is evident is that, the situation has hardly changed. Indeed, as the authors themselves state towards the end of their chapter (ibid.),
Social work as a profession is still relatively unknown to the public. Many still see it as welfare-related work (giving charity and dole-out by ministers’ wives), or volunteer work (gotong royong). There is a paradox among the policymakers; while they are concerned with the affairs of social issues in the country and see the need for social work programmes, there exists a certain vagueness of understanding of what social work education and practice really entails.
Indeed, to elaborate, social work in Malaysia is currently represented in the main platforms. That is to say, the majority of practitioners work in the Department of Social Welfare (Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat), now under the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Services. These personnel are followed by hospital-based welfare officers, while the rest of social workers work in civil society organisations (CSOs). There are allied and related occupations in the criminal justice systems and within religious societies/charities serving their particular communities.
Unlike most western countries where family and child care law feature more prominently and social workers’ intervention often influence case outcomes, Malaysia’s family law for Muslims (who make up 60% of the Malaysian population) is largely governed by the Shari’a courts and the civil courts mainly handle such cases for the minority non-Muslim communities. Given this situation, it is not surprising that social work does not feature prominently as a recognised profession nor social workers as recognised professionals.
The Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat (JKM) social work “workforce” assesses and dispenses a whole range of assistance to individuals and families. It is commonly reported that many of the kind of assistance available is often not easily publicised and hence, uptake and publicity is through individual initiatives by the social workers.
Just as medical social workers (working from hospitals), undertake their functions strictly within that hospital’s policies (some hospitals, mainly private ones, are known to assess financial circumstances regarding ability to pay for treatment), the CSO-based workforce would operate within the organisation’s main operational service delivery arrangements.
Likewise, within Malaysia’s criminal justice system, there are staff who perform various duties of probation monitors or parole enforcers, divided between juvenile and adult categories.
Allied social work occupations may also be found in correctional and training establishments and the many large Government run children’s homes. As a consequence, many people frequently misconceive the social work function with counselling. This may well explain the lack of impetus in defining precisely what is social work and its potential benefits to the communities and to the institutions and agencies in Malaysia.
2. So, what do we have?
Principally, what we have is a range of tasks and activities which closely resemble the “social work function”, but so far have not been fully recognised. Such recognition, we contend, is crucial not so much for formality’s sake, but to ensure that the occupation is formally recognised and legalised. This would go a long way towards protecting the rights and interests of the public, while at the same time, upholding and maintaining the quality competency standards of social workers, like other professions in the service of the public.
Now, evidently, the whole idea and practice of care, protection, nurturing and support for sections of the Malaysian community is not highly regarded. They are, instead, widely seen as activities not for professionals but rather for families; and this usually means women and housewives. There is, thus, of course gender bias.
Since independence in 1957, Malaya – and, later in 1963, Malaysia – quite rightly prioritised its economic development, focusing on its abundant natural resources, later on industrialisation, and now supplementing all that with the service, tourism and other professional industries.
In the rush towards developed status, it would seem that the country’s duty of care for its vulnerable, aside from education, health and child care, has been left largely to community and voluntary efforts. Thus far, these efforts, quite often have had to be shouldered by religious organisations and CSOs.
The Alliance and later the expanded Barisan Nasional (BN) government for the past 60 years evidently saw its role as only intervening for those with the highest need and, perhaps, those who could command huge public concern. There was seemingly little or no thought given to the idea of universality in social or welfare benefits and care.
We would therefore argue, given this scenario that, despite the formation of the Malaysian Association of Social Workers (MASW), almost half a century ago, in 1973 and the setting up of a social work academic programme in 1975, that there is still much to be done.
Indeed, at this stage – and in this first part of the paper – we would argue that there has not been enough “buy-in” by the various stakeholders and communities in contemporary Malaysia, leaving social work and social workers still very much unappreciated, unrecognised and unattractive in a very real sense – as a profession by wider society and as a viable area of study by potential students.
3. So, where can we go from here?
In 1991, during his first stint as Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, announced his Vision 2020. It captured the imagination of the Malaysian public and the “Vision” was widely discussed, if not adopted, in similar developing countries. Of the nine challenges the nation needed to overcome in order to become “developed”, the challenge to become a Caring Society is instructive and of concern in this part of our discussion.
After he stepped down from his stint as PM in 2003, his Vision clearly took a backseat under both Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and later, the now internationally famous (for the wrong reasons) Najib Abdul Razak.
But since Mahathir has returned as PM, perhaps it is time to revisit one component of Vision 2020, the creating a Caring Society component, even if 2020 is just around the corner. We believe that the concept of a Caring Society should – and will – go beyond 2020. It should therefore be the basis for the development of potential directions social work can take.
It is a simple enough concept – that apart from economic and political development (also targeted in the Vision), Malaysia and Malaysians also need to be humane and take responsibility for looking after each other, caring for each other. The concept recognises that (Malaysian) society is not monolithic and that, generally, the strong must take care of the weak, the poor, the vulnerable (the elderly, the disabled, the young, for example). The marginalised must no longer remain marginalised. It is to be a commitment and duty by all in Malaysian society.
In a Caring Society, we cannot merely allow “social work” to be narrowly defined as the welfare of charity activities, like those headed by groups like the “wives of ministers” group, publicly committing themselves to performing patronage to various selective social welfare CSOs and “doing their bit”.
In a Caring Society, the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Services must do more. The ministry was seemingly established for all – often uncontroversial - matters affecting women and families and anything vaguely classified as “community affairs”.
Its history and uneventful performance under the BN government, suggests that it is a convenient ministry which dispenses aid and welfare as circumstances dictate. It has not really plotted viable and sustainable strategies and even policies for social work and social workers, to provide recognition and help elevate the profession and its professionals.
But let us look briefly at what services segments of Malaysian society currently receive and which are found wanting.
3.I Children with disabilities
Services are infrequent and sometimes non-existent depending on where you live. Many parents cope well, often with the families’ own resources and many rely on the charitable organisations or religious groups within their neighbourhood.
The Welfare Department will only become involved if there is an urgent referral due to a service shortfall. As we know, the key issue with those children living with disabilities is the capacity of the families/carers and we feel that such parents should be given more help and support.
**The strategic aim here must be to professionally and substantially support carers of children who suffer from significant and substantial disabilities.
There appears to be a trend, seemingly following trends and practices in early western societies, for children at risk, such as orphans and children whose interests are better served away from their natural parents, to be placed (housed) in government homes. These institutions are large and often resemble state “prisons” for children.
We would endorse the efforts of the national charity, Orphan Care, whose key objective is to enable children to remain within families instead of being raised in an institution.
Again, we would urge the new Pakatan Harapan (PH) government to rethink BN regime’s practice of placing children under 18 years into such residential homes. They are inappropriate and deny many children the necessary personal and relationship skills development often found in small family group arrangements.
We feel that, as a first step, the PH government, must begin a serious audit into both the financial and non-financial costs of maintaining these types of homes, and undertake research into residents’ outcomes.
Alongside this – and perhaps as urgent – is the need for government efforts to promote “fostering” as a worthwhile and legitimate task by the community in caring for the less fortunate.
Fostering, as an activity, is the provision of a “family substitute” for the child, capable of offering asylum and care. Herein would lie a crucial (new) role for trained social workers – carrying out systematic and rigorous checks and assessments on these “foster families” as is done in many developed countries.
The government, in partnership with CSOs, must begin a campaign to promote the concept of fostering and allocate resources for the task. After all, an “abandoned child” or a “child deemed in need” in the country, must be the responsibility of the government.
**Hence, the strategic aim here is to ensure the all children or young citizens are entitled to – and given – good care and parenting and the majority are satisfactorily cared for by their own families and in their own family settings.
However, where there are those whose less fortunate lives are denied this entitlement, it is incumbent upon the state to take over a corporate parenting role. In the case of Malaysia, it does do that. But we feel that the institutional residential care provided is inappropriate and, instead, such children should be in foster care homes or in registered small family group homes. And professional social workers would play a key role in monitoring and supervising these homes.
Children are vulnerable and they always need protection and they often need safeguarding. By this, we mean that all institutions that cater for children must have operating procedures which do that without compromise.
Malaysia has legislated for child protection and that is a start. However, it seems to have failed in developing any programme for monitoring its efficacy in enforcing the legislation as there are reported child deaths and injuries either at homes or at institutions which care for children.
So, is the legislation failing? Or is there a deficit in understanding its operational requirements amongst the multi-agencies concerned? We suspect it is the latter. We also feel that at the heart of this is the lack of urgency or importance attached to this amidst the many other functions the agencies undertake. We are referring to schools, children’s centres, clubs and such like. Being CSOs, most are not professionally vetted or even licensed due to confusion and apathy between state and federal agencies. Here again, well-trained teams social workers would be welcome, indeed necessary.
Malaysian secondary schools for older children have been under the spotlight for their failure to protect their own pupils from bullying and intimidation. Reports have surfaced that some teachers turn a blind eye to such instances due to their own fear, or a lack of confidence in their own school management’s ability and desire to deal with such matters. This is unacceptable and it boils down to poor discipline due poor management in such schools which can also result in instances of illicit drug-taking.
** The strategic aim here is to ensure all agencies with children as a service user must be rigorously inspected and monitored, to ensure that children are safeguarded and protected as far as possible. We contend this is currently not being down systematically. And, once again, it is not that difficult to envisage professional social workers coming into the picture and taking up the slack.
3.II Elderly support and care
We contend that many of the services catered for elderly people are either poorly resourced residential establishments or hospitalised care. There is little publicity or priority given to services which may extend an elderly person’s life, based on their own choosing. Or if there was a better range of services. We are thinking of the yet undeveloped area of community based care.
There are many elderly persons who would do anything, if only they could continue to remain in their own homes for as long as they physically and mentally can, but for want of the right support services.
We propose a “care-giver” service that will perform this role. For many, this would be life-changing and it would enhance the quality of the person’s life. This care-giver would perform all the tasks necessary to maintain “aid to daily living” and would act to befriend, to assist and to provide for the individual person. We need to pursue, in this regard, routes to secure basic training and accreditation for this new workforce, to end in attaining vocational qualifications.
We wish to distinguish this role from that of being a maid or a nurse. Their primary task is not purely domestic nor is it dispensing action in accordance with a medical treatment plan. Theirs is the role of confidante, a professional companion well versed in the needs of their “client”. Once again, here, we see that crucial role that a trained – and preferably experienced – social worker can and must play.
**The strategic aim here is to extend options in service provision for the elderly in our community, so as to enable them to live life with greater dignity and independence and to enhance their quality of life in their advancing years. Here again, residential confinement should be a preferred last resort.
4. Moving forward Post-GE14
We started by outlining the beginnings of social work in Malaysia. In the second section of our presentation, we discussed some the problems social work faces in contemporary Malaysia, alluding to Vision 2020 as providing a possible road map. We conclude here by trying to chart out directions for the future.
Here we will also outline what would be the ethos and institutional support needed for social work to be provided professionally, for all Malaysians who may need such services.
Social work, as a profession befitting of an advancing nation like Malaysia, needs full recognition by the various communities and institutions in Malaysian society. The profession needs affirmation by the government of the day.
Given that we now have a new, purportedly reform-minded government, we feel the first step that needs to be taken is to table the languishing and virtually abandoned Social Workers Bill in parliament. This proposed “Social Workers Act” having been scrutinised through its technical committee for years now simply needs passing.
We contend that the passing of this piece of legislation will immediately boost the morale of countless social work personnel in Malaysia. It would give notice that Malaysia recognises the contribution this newly approved profession has made to the peoples of this country, including, but not exclusive to, children and families.
More, those universities which have been running graduate programmes will feel vindicated. Official and legal acknowledgement through the Act, we believe, will help make social work climb up the popularity ladder, thus helping its programme and courses to be presented as “preferred ones”, as opposed to those less popular ones often “still available”.
At the same time, it will help open up new research opportunities in a complex sociocultural and political environment like Malaysia in this long-neglected area of the social sciences.
This will in all likelihood also signal the beginning of more carefully “thought-out” social services which are safe, appropriate and sensitive to users, almost all of whom are vulnerable and in great need. Importantly it will ensure that mainly, if not, only the committed and genuine, will be “entrusted” with the task of protecting, supporting and caring. This, in turn, will provide opportunities for greater innovation in service delivery from all sectors involved in social care.
The present set-up of government provision, supplemented by the voluntary not-for-profit sector will most likely change, as service users will begin to dictate the changes in provision to suit their needs.
In many developed countries, social work and social care services are localised. They are run by local authorities following prescribed frameworks set by government so that services can be consistent and comparable, in quality terms. The belief behind this is that local people are best placed to identify needs and arrange provision.
Similarly, services will not necessarily be all state provided as other providers oftentimes can do a better job. Hence, a mixed economy of care is often the case in many developed countries.
In the above scenario, which Malaysia could successfully emulate, the federal government will provide service frameworks, set service and practice standards, regulate and monitor management and service delivery, and enable local authorities to deliver services in partnership with a range of local or national specialist social services providers.
In practical terms, the developments will hopefully see the establishment of a professional agency concerned with regulating the profession and with licensing of the services related to this field.
All social workers will require registration for practice, for employment, just as doctors, nurses, and others do. All service providers, from child services to adult support and to elderly care services will also be subjected to fee licensing and inspections.
This proposed Social Care Commission will also be concerned with determining the minimum standards of education and training and will collaborate with the Education Ministry on accreditation and quality assurance matters.
We have suggested a road map and a broad workable framework; we hope the government will give the long awaited matter its deserved consideration. We believe this will lead to the wide-scale recognition and development of social work and the enhancement of this area as a deserving profession and its practitioners marked out as respected professionals.
[1] Zulkarnain A Hatta and and Zarina Mat Saad (2014): “Social work in Malaysia”. Book chapter in Christine Aspalter (ed), Social Work in East Asia. Routledge: London. https://ebrary.net/2165/sociology/resources_structure
No comments:
Post a Comment