One of my
colleagues and I like to describe ourselves as being in the “past the sell-by
date,” club. For me, it’s simple. Most of my working life was freelance and I
only got “properly employed” at 40 in a standard office job. Given that I
switched modes “late in life,” it was clear that there was only going to be so
much I could achieve in the context of corporate Singapore and as long as I can
pay bills, I take what I can get.
My colleague is
in a different situation. He has worked for multinational in a “sexy”
department (finance) and the proof of his competence is found in the fact that
he was sent round the region by his former employer as a “trouble-shooter.”
There is, however, one fatal flaw to his CV, which cancels out whatever
knowledge and experience he may bring to the table – he’s over 60.
Like it or not,
ageism is a problem in Singapore, a society that proclaims that it has “Asian Values,”
or respect for the elderly. For many, the reality of a decent old age is clearing
trays and flipping burgers at McDonalds. While the “homeless” in Singapore may seem
small compared to other places, most, if not all, are old.
These sights
may be the most visible example of the horrors awaiting anyone growing old.
However, age discrimination is also more subtle. The fact is that anyone past
45 struggles to get a new job, no matter how qualified they may be for the said
job.
However, as
with the case of other “isms” in Singapore, whenever someone says that an “ism”
as a problem, there will be an equal or greater number of people trying to
justify that “ism.” In the case of “ageism” we had Members of Parliament
voicing concerns that employers felt that being able to be sued for “age discrimination,”
was a bad thing laws against age discrimination were a “concern.” It took the
president to inject common sense into the discussion.
However, laws
on their own aren’t going to change things. Culture needs to be changed and
given how pervasive the influence of the government in society, the government
should lead the change.
Unfortunately, a
government stuffed with “brilliant” people has proved unable to move beyond
existing paradigms. Everything seems to centre around inviting the global one
percent and their minions to buy expensive housing in Singapore, even when it
comes to the lack of babies. The government’s argument is that since people are
not reproducing despite the government throwing money in subsidies at the
maternity ward, it become necessary to attract the one percent and their
minions to keep the nation young.
However, the
reality is, you can’t force people to have kids if they don’t want to and as a
few letters to the press have pointed out, people who are constantly stressed
from paying for the world’s most expensive properties, don’t make babies.
Singapore’s
manpower planners should look at our water policies, which have been brilliant.
We managed to maximise and recycle every drop water to the extent that nobody
feels that Singapore is in fact water scarce. Why can’t we do the same with our
manpower?
Sure, I get
that people under 40 may appear fresher and may be inclined to work for less.
However, those of us over 40, bring certain advantages to the table. One of the
greatest gifts we bring is the fact that we understand our strengths and
weaknesses. The young are looking for what they want in life and need the space
to experiment. We, the proverbial oldies, know what we can get done.
The example
that comes to mind, is the story of George Foreman, who at the age of 45, became
the oldest man to win the Heavy Weight boxing championship, when he knocked out
the 26-year-old Michael Moorer.
Foreman was
officially “past his prime,” in a sport that involves getting hurt. He was
slower than the likes of Evander Holyfield and less “explosive” than Mike
Tyson. However, the “old” Foreman knew his strengths and weaknesses and used them
to give himself a far better game plan than his opponents. As the link below states
– the Foreman past his prime was in some ways better than the prime George Foreman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeLeNhix2pk
.png)
Instead of
trying to force everyone not to sack the uncle in the corner or to be a bit nicer
to the aunty carrying trays, let’s listen to what the “uncles” and “aunties”
and try to design job scopes that utilise the things they can do most
effectively.
Sure, redesigning
jobs is not going to be easy but it would be a worthwhile investment if you can
maximise human resources. People who get a second chance often prove to be exceptionally
motivated and effective. George Foreman could reinvent himself as a boxer in
his forties to win a title. The Public Utilities Board (PUB) ensures that every
drop of water used in Singapore is maximised. Why can’t we do the same for the
human resources that wants to be useful?
1 comment
I agree that the government should take the lead. By maybe prioritizing civil service employment for those above 40. Instead of hiring the young and fresh out of school, those that have served the country by working in the private sector should be given a second chance in the civil service if they lose jobs.
Post a Comment