�ݺ�ߣ

Changing the way we think of the elderly
The Straits Times, 13 April 2011, Salma Khalik
IS THE media giving the issues of the elderly and ageing fair coverage? The problem lies not in
the amount of coverage, but in the way these subjects have been covered. Yes, there are
positive stories. But for every positive story, there are many more negative ones.
The purpose behind the stories might not be negative, but the elderly are often portrayed as
frail, sick, forgetful and in need of help. They are the victims of robbery or have ungrateful
children and have to sue their children in court for maintenance.
So is the media at fault for portraying such an image of the elderly? Yes, because it is
happening. There is no denying that. No, because very often, the media is merely reflecting
societal values and reporting information.
This very bleak picture of ageing appears to be shared by many – knowingly or unwittingly. A
favourite description of the ageing population is the term "silver tsunami".
We hear from Mr Lim Boon Heng, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, "that the silver tsunami
is unavoidable". Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan says that more money will be pumped into
building more nursing homes, community hospitals and other step-down facilities to cater to the
coming "silver tsunami". And Senior Minister GohChok Tong says it is timely "to reflect on how
to adapt and adjust to this silver tsunami".
Silver tsunami is such a catchy phrase that it is on the tip of everyone's tongue. While what they
are saying might be positive – build more, help more, prepare – the term itself has very negative
connotations.
What does tsunami conjure up in the minds of people? The destruction of Indonesia's province
of Aceh in 2004 and the catastrophe in Japan's Fukushima prefecture this year. Is that how we
see the older members of our society? As an unstoppable tidal wave of frail and dependent old
people threatening to wreak havoc on the rest of society? Perhaps it is time we consciously
stopped using such derogatory terms.
Singapore is a multiracial society that condemns racism. It is an enlightened society that frowns
on sexism. So why do people embrace ageism without so much as batting an eyelid?
How leaders of society – and the media – define the elderly and ageing shapes the attitudes of
the population. So what are the attitudes of Singaporeans towards ageing? One broad
generalisation is that older people have less value. Any job hunter in his 40s or 50s will tell you
how high this age bar is.
This "old is less valuable" generalisation is reinforced by Central Provident Fund cuts for
workers from the age of 50. So 50 spells old.
ElderShield, the national disability insurance for people aged 40 and older, is insurance against
disability, not age – so why is it called ElderShield? Because elderly equates to disability? And it
starts at 40.

Yes, older people tend to have more illnesses. They are not as strong or as fast as they were
some decades ago. But there are also many people in their late 60s and 70s – and some even
in their 80s – who are as able to do things as younger people in their 30s and 40s can. For the
majority, little changes between the ages of 64 and 65. But once they have had their 65th
birthday, they suddenly become part of the burden that society has to deal with.
Yes, that might have been fitting when life expectancy was a mere 70 years. Someone who is
65 would expect only five to 10 more years of life. But people are living longer today, with many
living well into their 80s. Singapore has more than 10,000 nonagenarians.
The elderly of the future will also be very different from the elderly of the past. Those who are
aged 65 in the year 2030 are people in their mid-40s today. They will be educated, fairly well-off
and probably pretty health-conscious. Many will remain fit – both physically and intellectually –
for another decade or two.
Given the longer lifespans, 65 is relatively young. Even today, no one would classify either SM
Goh, 69, or Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, 87, as elderly dependents. But both fall squarely
within the United Nations' definition of the elderly – that is, people aged 65 and older. Both are
in the category of an elderly person that 10 adults are supporting today.
Are they exceptions because both were former prime ministers? Or are they reflections of the
truth on the ground – of capable, independent older adults of today and the future?
Perhaps it is time to redefine the term elderly. That would lead to a paradigm shift. No longer
would four adults in Singapore be said to support one elderly person in the year 2030. Forget
chronological age. Instead, base our planning on only the number of frail or dependent people.
The rest, the active and independent seniors, should be seen as just another group of ordinary
people – like those middle-aged or younger.
It is time to change these negative images and get people to start thinking that "old can be
gold".

�ݺ�ߣ

"Changing the way we think of elderly" - The Straits Times

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to "Changing the way we think of elderly" - The Straits Times (16)

More from pepperleejy (10)

"Changing the way we think of elderly" - The Straits Times