By Salma Khalik

POLITICIANS and statisticians have been concerned about the coming 'silver tsunami' - a sharp growth in the number of elderly people in Singapore.

To prepare for this 'heavy burden', Singapore has been pushing for more babies and young migrants - so there will be a large enough group of economically active adults to support the retired.

But new studies raise the possibility that we may be on the wrong track - beginning with the term 'silver tsunami'. An article in prestigious medical journal The Lancet this month was a case in point.

It noted studies showing that people in developed countries are not only living longer, but also remain healthy for much of their lives, unlike in less developed countries, where the elderly tend to be plagued with serious illnesses.

People are still 'healthy' today at the age of 85, the article said, though many suffer from some form of chronic ailment. But with modern medicine and prompt treatment, they suffer from 'moderate' rather than 'severe' difficulties.

It continued: 'People younger than 85 years are living longer and, on the whole, are able to manage their daily activities for longer than were previous cohorts.'

These figures tell us we will have to redefine what 'elderly' means, said Dr James Low, senior geriatric medicine consultant at Alexandra Hospital.

He has noted the changes over the 13 years he has been in the field of geriatric medicine: His patients have gone from people in their 70s to people in their 80s and even 90s.

Good geriatric care is keeping people fairly healthy for more years than before. As a result, they are very sick only for a short period towards the end of their lives, Dr Low said.

This means that the number of years they are dependent on others has shrunk, while the years in which they can contribute to society has increased. Hence, the hordes of healthy and active 60 and 70 year olds. Seventy is the new 50.

However, many in Singapore - including some policymakers and health professionals - remain concerned, even obsessed, about 62 and 65.

Sixty-two, of course, is the retirement age, while 65 is the arbitrary number the World Health Organisation uses to distinguish the middle-aged from the so-called elderly.

The reality is that, for more and more people, nothing happens on their 62nd or 65th birthdays to turn them overnight from active and useful citizens into dependent ones. Examples abound: There are many people in their 70s and 80s here who are making significant contributions to society, whether in business, culture or government.

The two most prominent among them in Singapore are President SR Nathan, 85, and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, 86. Mr Lee maintains a travel schedule today that is as intense, if not more so, as when he was 65. Indeed, he celebrated his 86th birthday last month in London.

So why warn of a 'silver tsunami', a term loaded with negativity and which conjures the image of a tidal wave of frail, dependent old people threatening to wreak havoc on the rest of society?

Why not view Singapore's new post-65ers as a rich pool of talent, experience and leadership that ought to be tapped into, as developed societies elsewhere are doing?

Studies of more than 30 developed countries - including Japan, the United States and many European countries - found that people in their 60s and 70s are still in excellent health and able to contribute to the economies of their countries.

A change in the retirement age by just a few years would immediately change the ratio of dependent elders to active workers for the better - and reduce the pressure on strained pension systems.

Singapore is moving towards increasing the retirement age from the current 62 years. It might want to go one step further: Encourage people to continue working into their 70s.

Indeed, as Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Paulin Straughan has urged, there is a need to rethink the formula for economic sustainability.

'If we are able to extend the economically active group to include those in their late 60s...will we have to rely so heavily on migration, or can we re-examine our policies to see if we can maximise the potential of our population,' she asked.

The Lancet authors from Denmark and Germany suggested something similar: 'A reasonable strategy to cope with the economic implications of population ageing is to raise the typical age of retirement, and most governments are moving in this direction.

'Improvements in health and functioning, along with the shifting of employment from jobs that need strength to jobs needing knowledge, imply that a rising proportion of people in their 60s and 70s are capable of contributing to the economy.'

Older people could choose to work fewer hours a week. Studies have found that a shorter working week reduces stress and prolongs healthy years. This would let seniors earn enough to live on so their retirement savings could last longer.

In tandem with such moves, society needs new thinking: We must accept that people in their 60s and 70s are not at the end of their useful lives, but can be active contributors.

It is important not just for younger people to view the greying population differently; it is, perhaps, even more important for older people to view themselves differently.

A change in thinking among policymakers is also in order. The recent lifting of the 60-year limit for people eligible to receive a cadaveric organ for transplant is a move in the right direction. It shows that the health-care system no longer writes them off as not worth saving.

Changing the retirement age - and yes, even pushing back the age for 'elderly privileges' such as cheaper movie tickets and public transport fares - would send the right signals.

So, perhaps, would removing the 10per cent salary cut when a worker turns 60, though that was a policy instituted to encourage employers to retain such workers.

If there were a change in mindset, no such encouragement would be necessary.

salma@sph.com.sg