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".