Reading SVIP

ASEAN, 15 October 2020 - The United Way Worldwide and ASEAN Foundation have joined hands with 3M and Community Chest of Korea to help at-risk communities with food security and hygiene crises in Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand by launching the ASEAN COVID-19 Active and Robust Response (ASEAN CARES) programme.

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a devastating health and socio-economic crisis across the region, putting marginalised people at a higher risk of poverty and food insecurity. The International Labour Organization estimates that the pandemic has threatened the livelihoods of 218 million informal workers, which represents 67% of the total employment in the region. Furthermore, in a worst-case scenario, the World Bank projected that the pandemic will push an additional 11 million people into poverty.

In its pilot stage, the programme will provide access to food and basic hygiene for vulnerable individuals and groups such as families with children, people with disabilities, women headed household, elderlies, refugees, migrants and pregnant and lactating women in Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand. In partnership with local civil society organisations (CSOs), the programme will also roll out nation- and region-wide awareness campaigns to educate the public about the danger of COVID-19 and how to prevent it from spreading.

United Way Worldwide International President, José Pedro Ferrão, commented: “On behalf of United Way Worldwide, I am pleased to partner with the ASEAN Foundation to help Southeast Asian communities hit hard by COVID-19. This pandemic is a new challenge for all of us, but I trust that we can respond to food-security issues and more by mobilising community's caring power together. We look forward to working with ASEAN Foundation to bring much-needed relief and long-term recovery to vulnerable communities in the region.”

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) was founded in 1919 in Paris in the aftermath of World War I. The war had shown a need for close cooperation between Red Cross Societies, which, through their humanitarian activities on behalf of prisoners of war and combatants, had attracted millions of volunteers and built a large body of expertise. A devastated Europe could not afford to lose such a resource.

It was Henry Davison, president of the American Red Cross War Committee, who proposed forming a federation of these National Societies. An international medical conference initiated by Davison resulted in the birth of the League of Red Cross Societies, which was renamed in October 1983 to the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and then in November 1991 to become the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

The first objective of the IFRC was to improve the health of people in countries that had suffered greatly during the four years of war. Its goals were “to strengthen and unite, for health activities, already-existing Red Cross Societies and to promote the creation of new Societies”

There were five founding member Societies: Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States. This number has grown over the years and there are now 190 recognized National Societies – one in almost every country in the world.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) was founded in 1919 in Paris in the aftermath of World War I. The war had shown a need for close cooperation between Red Cross Societies, which, through their humanitarian activities on behalf of prisoners of war and combatants, had attracted millions of volunteers and built a large body of expertise. A devastated Europe could not afford to lose such a resource.

It was Henry Davison, president of the American Red Cross War Committee, who proposed forming a federation of these National Societies. An international medical conference initiated by Davison resulted in the birth of the League of Red Cross Societies, which was renamed in October 1983 to the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and then in November 1991 to become the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

The first objective of the IFRC was to improve the health of people in countries that had suffered greatly during the four years of war. Its goals were “to strengthen and unite, for health activities, already-existing Red Cross Societies and to promote the creation of new Societies”

There were five founding member Societies: Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States. This number has grown over the years and there are now 190 recognized National Societies – one in almost every country in the world.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) was founded in 1919 in Paris in the aftermath of World War I. The war had shown a need for close cooperation between Red Cross Societies, which, through their humanitarian activities on behalf of prisoners of war and combatants, had attracted millions of volunteers and built a large body of expertise. A devastated Europe could not afford to lose such a resource.

It was Henry Davison, president of the American Red Cross War Committee, who proposed forming a federation of these National Societies. An international medical conference initiated by Davison resulted in the birth of the League of Red Cross Societies, which was renamed in October 1983 to the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and then in November 1991 to become the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

The first objective of the IFRC was to improve the health of people in countries that had suffered greatly during the four years of war. Its goals were “to strengthen and unite, for health activities, already-existing Red Cross Societies and to promote the creation of new Societies”

There were five founding member Societies: Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States. This number has grown over the years and there are now 190 recognized National Societies – one in almost every country in the world.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) was founded in 1919 in Paris in the aftermath of World War I. The war had shown a need for close cooperation between Red Cross Societies, which, through their humanitarian activities on behalf of prisoners of war and combatants, had attracted millions of volunteers and built a large body of expertise. A devastated Europe could not afford to lose such a resource.

It was Henry Davison, president of the American Red Cross War Committee, who proposed forming a federation of these National Societies. An international medical conference initiated by Davison resulted in the birth of the League of Red Cross Societies, which was renamed in October 1983 to the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and then in November 1991 to become the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

The first objective of the IFRC was to improve the health of people in countries that had suffered greatly during the four years of war. Its goals were “to strengthen and unite, for health activities, already-existing Red Cross Societies and to promote the creation of new Societies”

There were five founding member Societies: Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States. This number has grown over the years and there are now 190 recognized National Societies – one in almost every country in the world.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) was founded in 1919 in Paris in the aftermath of World War I. The war had shown a need for close cooperation between Red Cross Societies, which, through their humanitarian activities on behalf of prisoners of war and combatants, had attracted millions of volunteers and built a large body of expertise. A devastated Europe could not afford to lose such a resource.

It was Henry Davison, president of the American Red Cross War Committee, who proposed forming a federation of these National Societies. An international medical conference initiated by Davison resulted in the birth of the League of Red Cross Societies, which was renamed in October 1983 to the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and then in November 1991 to become the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

The first objective of the IFRC was to improve the health of people in countries that had suffered greatly during the four years of war. Its goals were “to strengthen and unite, for health activities, already-existing Red Cross Societies and to promote the creation of new Societies”

There were five founding member Societies: Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States. This number has grown over the years and there are now 190 recognized National Societies – one in almost every country in the world.

There is no doubt that older people have to counter many health issues and other problems. Therefore, they need a full-time caretaker. For this reason, some people opine that it is beneficial for elderly people to spend the last phase of their lives in nursing homes; however, others think that they should stay with their family members. In my opinion, older people should live in nursing homes as they have experienced and specialized staff that can efficiently take care of them.

On the one hand, some people are of the view that during old age a person ought to live in nursing homes and I agree with them. Firstly, the health of an elderly person continuously deteriorates; thus, it is important that they are surrounded by medical experts. Secondly, these nursing homes are designed in such a way that they are safer for the elderly. They also use the latest technologies and innovations to make the life of elderly people comfortable and convenient. For instance, nursing homes are well equipped with lifts, computerized wheelchairs, and escalators to name a few.

On the other hand, there are many people who argue that seniors should be able to live with their family members in their homes. There are certainly some benefits to this arrangement. To start with, elders are happier in the company of their children and grandchildren. They feel loved and cherished when they get to live with their near and dear ones. However, there is a serious problem with this arrangement. Oftentimes, youngsters are too busy to take care of their aging parents. They spend long hours at the workplace leaving their sick or old parents alone at home. Consequently, the elderly often have to battle depression and loneliness. Also, if they are alone at home, they may not get immediate care and attention in a medical emergency.

In conclusion, the elderly should live in nursing homes as they receive proper care and attention there. Moreover, in the nursing home, their health is regularly monitored by nurses and doctors whereas at-home family members are often too busy to devote time to their needs.

There is no doubt that older people have to counter many health issues and other problems. Therefore, they need a full-time caretaker. For this reason, some people opine that it is beneficial for elderly people to spend the last phase of their lives in nursing homes; however, others think that they should stay with their family members. In my opinion, older people should live in nursing homes as they have experienced and specialized staff that can efficiently take care of them.

On the one hand, some people are of the view that during old age a person ought to live in nursing homes and I agree with them. Firstly, the health of an elderly person continuously deteriorates; thus, it is important that they are surrounded by medical experts. Secondly, these nursing homes are designed in such a way that they are safer for the elderly. They also use the latest technologies and innovations to make the life of elderly people comfortable and convenient. For instance, nursing homes are well equipped with lifts, computerized wheelchairs, and escalators to name a few.

On the other hand, there are many people who argue that seniors should be able to live with their family members in their homes. There are certainly some benefits to this arrangement. To start with, elders are happier in the company of their children and grandchildren. They feel loved and cherished when they get to live with their near and dear ones. However, there is a serious problem with this arrangement. Oftentimes, youngsters are too busy to take care of their aging parents. They spend long hours at the workplace leaving their sick or old parents alone at home. Consequently, the elderly often have to battle depression and loneliness. Also, if they are alone at home, they may not get immediate care and attention in a medical emergency.

In conclusion, the elderly should live in nursing homes as they receive proper care and attention there. Moreover, in the nursing home, their health is regularly monitored by nurses and doctors whereas at-home family members are often too busy to devote time to their needs.

here is no doubt that older people have to counter many health issues and other problems. Therefore, they need a full-time caretaker. For this reason, some people opine that it is beneficial for elderly people to spend the last phase of their lives in nursing homes; however, others think that they should stay with their family members. In my opinion, older people should live in nursing homes as they have experienced and specialized staff that can efficiently take care of them.

On the one hand, some people are of the view that during old age a person ought to live in nursing homes and I agree with them. Firstly, the health of an elderly person continuously deteriorates; thus, it is important that they are surrounded by medical experts. Secondly, these nursing homes are designed in such a way that they are safer for the elderly. They also use the latest technologies and innovations to make the life of elderly people comfortable and convenient. For instance, nursing homes are well equipped with lifts, computerized wheelchairs, and escalators to name a few.

On the other hand, there are many people who argue that seniors should be able to live with their family members in their homes. There are certainly some benefits to this arrangement. To start with, elders are happier in the company of their children and grandchildren. They feel loved and cherished when they get to live with their near and dear ones. However, there is a serious problem with this arrangement. Oftentimes, youngsters are too busy to take care of their aging parents. They spend long hours at the workplace leaving their sick or old parents alone at home. Consequently, the elderly often have to battle depression and loneliness. Also, if they are alone at home, they may not get immediate care and attention in a medical emergency.

In conclusion, the elderly should live in nursing homes as they receive proper care and attention there. Moreover, in the nursing home, their health is regularly monitored by nurses and doctors whereas at-home family members are often too busy to devote time to their needs.

There is no doubt that older people have to counter many health issues and other problems. Therefore, they need a full-time caretaker. For this reason, some people opine that it is beneficial for elderly people to spend the last phase of their lives in nursing homes; however, others think that they should stay with their family members. In my opinion, older people should live in nursing homes as they have experienced and specialized staff that can efficiently take care of them.

On the one hand, some people are of the view that during old age a person ought to live in nursing homes and I agree with them. Firstly, the health of an elderly person continuously deteriorates; thus, it is important that they are surrounded by medical experts. Secondly, these nursing homes are designed in such a way that they are safer for the elderly. They also use the latest technologies and innovations to make the life of elderly people comfortable and convenient. For instance, nursing homes are well equipped with lifts, computerized wheelchairs, and escalators to name a few.

On the other hand, there are many people who argue that seniors should be able to live with their family members in their homes. There are certainly some benefits to this arrangement. To start with, elders are happier in the company of their children and grandchildren. They feel loved and cherished when they get to live with their near and dear ones. However, there is a serious problem with this arrangement. Oftentimes, youngsters are too busy to take care of their aging parents. They spend long hours at the workplace leaving their sick or old parents alone at home. Consequently, the elderly often have to battle depression and loneliness. Also, if they are alone at home, they may not get immediate care and attention in a medical emergency.

In conclusion, the elderly should live in nursing homes as they receive proper care and attention there. Moreover, in the nursing home, their health is regularly monitored by nurses and doctors whereas at-home family members are often too busy to devote time to their needs.