By Joachim Ng
Most economists and politicians are barking up the wrong tree over the nation’s ageing population. No doubt, the 2024 data shows that the percentage of Malaysians over 65 has risen to 7.7% or 2.6 million people. The population of 60 years and over has increased to 11.6% or 3.9 million people.
Perak leads the country with the highest percentage of residents aged 60 and over at 14.9%, with 9.9% aged 65 or older. It is with distinction that our silver state can stand tall and show off its brilliant shine.
Throughout the country, 41 sub-districts consisting of mukims, bandar (towns), and pekan, have reached a “super-aged” society where 20% or more of their populations are aged 65 years and above.
So, what’s the issue? Politicians are concerned because it means their voter support base isn’t growing and may jeopardise their odds of winning at the polls. Economists are raising five major concerns: first, predisposal to sickness; second, youth joblessness; third, lower productivity; fourth, higher dependency ratios; fifth, financial naivety.
Let’s start with the fifth concern. Economists believe that oldies (defined as persons aged 60 and above) are technologically naive and easily fall victim to scammers because their brain slows down. But are scam victims mostly oldies? No. in Taiping earlier this year, a 36-year-old successful businessman lost RM418,000 to a fake inspector who accused him over the phone of having committed a crime.
The scammer sent a “warrant of arrest” to the businessman on WhatsApp and instructed him to transfer an entire bank fixed deposit amount to different bank accounts. Obviously, the scammer had an accomplice working in the bank who would also be a non-oldie. In the last few months of 2023, four managers aged in their 40s lost a total of RM3.5 million after falling prey to job, investment, and parcel scams.
Furthermore, are these scammers aged 61-79 or 21-59, aged or younger people? What’s at fault if youngsters turn dishonesty into a lifestyle?
As regards the third and fourth concerns, the retirement age (meaning your active income stream halts) is a modern invention. Up till the late 19th century, no country had a retirement age because all men were expected to work till near-death. Farms especially needed all hands at the till.
How did the retirement age come about? High birth rates and a soaring youth population in the 20th century sparked a crisis, and political leaders found the solution in pushing out the oldies so that they could be replaced by new young entrants.
At the beginning, though, the retirement age was designed to be set at five years before the average life expectancy reaches its end. In Malaysia it was set at 55 when the average life expectancy was 60, and it was assumed that every retiree would have five years of savings to last till death.
This retirement age of 55 was unduly prolonged until the average life expectancy had reached 75 in year 2013. Only in that year was the retirement age raised to 60. It should have been raised to 70. The average life expectancy for Malaysians in 2024 is 76.8 years of age. It will reach 80 in year 2040.
Age 70 is the appropriate retirement age now, and that assumes the extra years of working life will enable retirees to accumulate savings to last 10 years. Only one economist, Prof Dr Chung Tin Fah of HELP University, has the courage to propose raising the retirement age to 65, and if possible to 70, at one hop.
He based his proposal on data released by the Government that 58% of 54-year-old EPF members had less than RM100,000 in their retirement savings. Can this amount last them 20 years? No.
Another proponent is in the medicinal field. Consultant rheumatologist Prof Dr Sargunan Sockalingam says Malaysians should be allowed to work up to age 70. It is a bad mistake to consider people above the age of 60 to be physically incapable and mentally slow.
We will discuss the health topic later. For now, let’s discuss dependency and productivity. Malaysia is trapped in the rigid conservatism of its aged belief that oldies are slow at work, incapable of grasping new technology, and suffer debilitating illnesses.
Around the world, surveys have found oldies contributing to entrepreneurial enterprises while embracing new technologies. They have proven to be crucial sources of wisdom, guardians of corporate culture, sources of team-building traditions, and useful in customer relations particularly in handling complaints.
In Italy, oldies are regarded as goldies. Its “gold mine” comprises workers aged above 60 and they are treasured for the 3Es – experience, energy, enthusiasm. They also display job loyalty and rule compliance more than young workers.
Singapore is the nearest example of an aged workforce making hefty contributions to the republic’s continuing productivity. Across the board, you find oldies at work up to age 67. In the republic, employers are not allowed to terminate workers on grounds of age because that is discrimination and a violation of the right to work.
In the United States, persons aged 75 and older are the fastest-growing segment of the workforce. The chief executive of Armani is aged 89, and Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate is run by a 93-year-old man.
In sharp contrast to the global trend, universities in Malaysia dismiss certain categories of lecturers when they reach 45 despite their experience and vast accumulation of knowledge useful to students.
Oldie victimisation in Malaysia runs far deeper than gender discrimination, and it is generally unsuspected that the hidden reason for this practice is that employers crave to maintain the “low pay” wage structure. This is achieved by favouring young workers who are employed at low starting salaries.
When the basic minimum wage was recently proposed to be raised from RM1,500 to RM1,700 – well below the RM2,000 recommended minimum – employers across the board screamed for exemption.
The second concern expressed is that retaining oldies means youth joblessness. Oldies are not to blame for youth joblessness but economists. For decades the Government has swallowed the argument by economists that for the economy to grow, there needs to be an ever-enlarging consumer base for local produce.
This requires women to accept baby making as their principal role in life. Hence, a soaring birth rate has been encouraged and women receive monetary incentives for every baby without limit. Mothers of 10 or more babies receive honours from non-governmental organisations who ignore the effect of over-population on the global climate.
The unanticipated consequence was an over-supply of youngsters who needed job opportunities and career advancement. Hence came the argument that keeping oldies on the job causes youth joblessness. To solve the problem, get rid of the old.
Now we tackle the top concern: predisposal to sickness. Oldies are regarded as being prone to contracting debilitating illnesses and hence are no longer suitable for work. But psychologists know that many oldies do contract severe illnesses after retirement because they have lost a purpose for living.
When you have a successful job, you feel that you are contributing to society and this keeps you going year after year. Once forced out, you lose that sense of worthiness and your body starts decaying fast.
“Oldie blaming” took a bizarre form three years ago when suggestions were made to limit the issuance of driving licence to senior citizens aged 70 and above on grounds that their health condition could be a factor contributing to road accidents.
But just a week ago, traffic police disclosed that for the first nine months of this year 70% of the death toll in road accidents were students aged 18 and below. A tragic accident that occurred last month in Dungun saw three university students on motorcycles killed when a 49-year-old motorist crashed into them. Not a 69-year-old.
We will continue this discussion in the next article.
=========================
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Ipoh Echo
