Active Ageing Carnival
Written by ED on November 19, 2007 – 4:34 pm - Posted in Current Affairs, Singapore, Society |Does changing the name of a movement means a change in the propaganda behind our ageing population as described by Minister Lim Boon Heng? For those who are lost, the Senior Citizens’ Week has been re-branded as Active Ageing Carnival. The first carnival was launched on Sunday by Minister Lim Boon Heng.
For a start, I always view the importance of a campaign residing more in the objectives it is trying to achieve than just another appropriate name. Afterall, if there is really an appropriate name, it got to be “Work Until Both Legs Straighten”. But that’s beside the point. Like I’ve said, I see little importance in how they name their campaign.
The ageing population has always been a critical issue for Singapore. With this, we see a whole new approach from our government in recent years to promote aggressively for the aged to stay in employment. On the surface, it appeared that the elderly are encouraged to enjoy life and new activities. Afterall, Minister Lim said that we should change our mindsets about ageing. Yet, this previous statement was contradicted by himself by a later statement in which he says, “Therefore it’s necessary to change this mindset and we’re going to get more employers to be ready and open to people who are above 60.”
Sometimes, I wonder what the various individuals meant as “changing of mindset”. It is a fact that most Singaporeans slog a lot in their younger years in order to pave their ways for retirement. That was how we were brought up in our society, at least. For all these years, Singaporeans often believe that with all the hardwork we have put in throughout our lives, that would ensure us a smooth retirement in Singapore. But as this campaign has shown, there is more than meets the eye with all the talks about contributing back to the society as we grow older.
Is working the only way of contributing back to the society? I’m afraid I beg to differ, very greatly from what Minister Lim is trying to advocate here. While it is good for one to remain active with work no matter what our ages are, I don’t see how it is a must for one to continue working beyond the retirement age. Much least, to enforce it by regulations to a point where Singaporeans have no choice otherwise. If there is a chance for me to post a question to him, I would ask something like…
“Is it wrong, if an elderly does not work after retirement and spend more time on leisure or family activities?”
No matter what various organizations proclaimed to advocate, it still throws us back to one common objective. Why don’t we be honest and admit, “We just don’t want you to stop working” instead of beating around the bush?
It is also very interesting to read their definition of a “rich and fulfilling life”. Is remaining in the work force the ONLY benchmark whether an elderly is having a fulfilling life? In a way, I feel this is a very naive drive behind the entire campaign. True, there are bit and pieces of leisure activities included in these campaigns. But each time someone stepped out to support the campaign, they will never be able to detract from the “encouragement to work or employ those above 60.” That - being sufficient to tell you what this “active” ageing is all about.
Last but not least, Singaporeans do not have a choice whether to work or not to. Retirement age has been raised, so it’s really not our say to choose if we want to remain in the workforce after our retirement. Personally, is it the Rights of the government to interfere and dictate how I should live my remaining years after retirement? Although I am far from retirement, I must say nobody has any Rights to tell me how I should live my final years after retirement. Not even the government or some Ministers.
Coming back to the propaganda, are Singaporeans the ones needing a change in mindset? Or is it our Ministers who need to change their mindset about contribution to the society?
November 19th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
While it is good that there are now employers who do not mind employing older workers, the focus should then shift on why the elderly need to work.
For a start, the elderly who have little or no life savings will benefit from this initiative. We should, hopefully, no longer see the elderly poor pushing around carts and so on collecting used cans and old newspapers nor selling tissue paper from table to table. Also, those who feel that their self-worth is measured by hours in the office can continue to feel worthy.
Yet, I do not agree at all with the government FALSELY creating a need to work by withholding the CPF of the elderly. The CPF was supposed to be an instrument that replaces the pension scheme, i.e. you expect payout when you retire. However, we now see the government raising the minimum sum you need to maintain in your CPF account so that you have less liquidity when you’re old, therefore forcing people to look for income by working.
The annuity scheme is also a farce — why give me a minimum sum of money out of my CPF contributions when I am old and thereby forcing me to work to supplement that measly sum??
Do we really need so many older workers in the workforce? Aren’t we supplementing our workforce today already with all the foreign imports? Who is to say that the elderly won’t find it difficult to land a job because of this free movement of labor? We now have globalization to thank for incoming foreign talents, and in the next few years we will have the ASEAN charter to thank for more foreign (oh, wait, I mean fellow ASEAN) workers to fill those spots.
Let the people withdraw all their CPF; I am sure the elderly are matured enough to manage their funds! Remove the annuity initiative too.
I agree with you — given what we see and hear today, we are just being forced to work till we pass on, a la the horse in Animal Farm. It’s now “four legs good, two legs better!”.
[Reply]