I’ve been unemployed for a good portion of my working life
and when I got a “corporate” job in my late thirties, everybody told me that I
had to hang onto it because it was probably the only job that I would have. The
reason for it was very simple, I started “working properly” in my late thirties
and by the time I reached a certain level, I’d be “too old” to be employable.
Like it or not, one of the worst of the “isms” in Singapore
is ageism. While “racism” (particularly with the riots in the USA) and “sexism”
make media headlines, ageism affects far more of us and in an age of shorter
working life cycles, is perhaps a larger and more serious issue. Singapore is
filled with too many stories of people in their mid-forties who have been
retrenched and unable to find work but still stuck with mortgages and children
whom they need to send to school.
In a way, the down and out situation in Singapore is the mirror
opposite of London. When I lived in London, the tramps camping at my door were
inevitably young and white, who had fallen into a drug habit. In Singapore, by
contrast, the old are inevitably old. In the pre-Covid-19 world, all you needed
to do was to sit in any outdoor eating area and you’d find that the people doing
the “heavy stuff” like carrying dishes were inevitably old as were the people desperate
enough to go round tables trying to sell you tissue paper for a dollar or so.
What makes this scene particularly sad is the fact that
Singapore claims loudly and proudly to be an “Asian” society that “respects” elders.
Ironically, the biggest proponent of “Asian Values” was the late Lee Kuan Yew,
who grew up with a disdain for anything Chinese until he entered politics and realized
that it was the Chinese Educated who demonstrated in the streets. The late Mr.
Lee was a poster boy for “active aging,” working well past his ninetieth
birthday. However, while he was busy ensuring himself jobs in the cabinets of
his successors, it was a singular act. All his cabinet colleagues, including Goh
Keng Swee, his loyal deputy who did the work, retired in what was called “leadership
renewal,” or the process of getting the old to give way to the young.
Mr. Lee was in theory right to focus on “leadership renewal.”
There is such a thing known as hanging on too long and letting the things that
made you great become a total liability to the people you once cared about. “Arab
Spring” old folks on top who didn’t know when to let go.
However, a good idea has been taken to an extreme, where old
folks who never had salaries of our well-paid ministers are pushed out of work
once they hit a certain age. In many cases its usually at an age where people
still have mortgages and other hefty bills to pay. How did this happen?
I believe that the heart of the problem is ideological. Singapore
is famous for being the world’s “nanny state,” with the government behaving
like a stern parent. For the most part, the parent has been wise in many of its
decisions. However, the parent has been unable to listen to the realities on
the ground. There’s been an ideological conflict at the heart of our governing
philosophy. On one hand we’ve told the people that the only viable source of
employment is foreign investors and the government. On the other, hand there’s
also a message of “non-welfarism” where the government claims that it does not
give out cash because it wants people to be self-reliant.
This was perfectly fine when we had multinationals coming in
and hired people for life. However, this isn’t the case anymore. The
multinationals may still use Singapore as a regional base but the real markets
are in other parts of Asia, with more to offer.
Hence the situation became such that the “big” growth
drivers were not hiring the way they used to and people were stuck with rising
expenses and less stashed away.
Like it or not, our CPF system, while useful, is inadequate.
My ex-boss at Citibank, Mr. Eddie Khoo, told me, “Ask Singaporeans about a
retirement plan and they’ll tell you there’s CPF. What they fail to realise is
that most of your CPF is used for housing, it doesn’t give you enough cash.”
Mr. Khoo was correct in that most of our forced savings was
tied up in housing. What he didn’t add was that the government’s solutions to
the “aging” problem has been to tie up CPF monies in CPF. First, they’ve been
raising the minimum sum requirements along with the retirement age. Then they’ve capped the limit of what you can
use it for.
If I take myself as an example, the only thing that CPF has
helped to do has been to defray my mortgage payments. However, beyond that, it’s
become like a mirage, where I see more money being added to the account but
with further restrictions on withdrawal, it is money I will realistically not
be able to utilize as I age no matter how much I have.
In addition to increasing the retirement sum, the other
method has been to raise the retirement age. Like everything else coming from
the Singapore Government, this sounds good in theory. Yes, people are aging but
they’re healthier than they used to be and can remain useful. As Senior Minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam
has said, “No one is too old to hire, too qualified to adapt.”
Unfortunately, the practice is rather different and getting
Mr. Tharman’s words into practice will take time. You cannot change a culture
of age discrimination overnight, even if the problem needs to be solved
urgently.
Again, I take myself as an example. I am turning 46 in
November. I left my corporate job last year between my age and a Covid-19
ravaged economy, I’m challenged to think of what I’ll do next to feed myself. I’ve
psychologically accepted that I am unlikely to ever go back to full time
corporate again.
So, what does someone like me do? Effectively, my only
assets are the fact that I’m relatively healthy and I’ve met a few interesting
people and done one or two things.
So, to ensure I have enough money to pay for my bus card, I
take up a bit of blue-collar work here and there. It’s not going to make me
rich anytime soon but a few dollars in the pocket here and there. In addition
to this, blue collar gigs allow me enough time to look at other things.
I write more and I look for a bit of PR work here and there,
which I can put aside to pay down debts and to set aside for the day when I’m a
bit too old to do very much. Hopefully, I’ll be able to do things.
However, the question remains, while I ever be able to earn
enough remains on my mind and the answer for many people my age, is ironically,
to look at other places to live. A lawyer I know is looking at Manchester as a
retirement venue. An old editor believes that home may be in India. My kid, is telling
me that we should look at Vietnam as a possibility. My Dad moved to Thailand and
has a decent enough life. His point being, at 70 plus he gets the odd job here
and there and he can afford a comfortable life style, which he cannot in Singapore.
Perhaps the government in Singapore should consider this. If
the aging are not allowed to contribute to Singapore, why should they stay
there and spend retirement funds there?
