Even those 'over the hill' need chores to maintain their faculties

The Straits Times, February 9, 2007


The writer of 'Senior citizens have a moral and social obligation to take care of themselves' (Online forum, Feb 6) cautions the elderly against over-reaching in case they 'incur pain through their own foolishness'. He quotes two examples: A 66-year-old man broke his arm falling off a step ladder while fixing a light. Another, a 65-year-old child-minder who fell and broke her front teeth pursuing a frisky grand-daughter. The writer emphasised that their medical costs exceeded what they tried to save by not outsourcing.

I applaud his empathy but find it misplaced. Does he imply that those of age are, by default, accident-prone, less capable and should see themselves as such? Hence, avoid risks by farming out doable tasks? Don't other people suffer similar accidents too, age and fitness notwithstanding?

Even if money were no object, those 'over the hill' need motivation with responsibilities and chores to maintain their faculties and dexterity - retaining a sense of usefulness to forestall depression and dementia. The senior George Bush even parachuted in his 70s - others needn't go that far to prove they 'still have it'.

Our culture traditionally age-defines behaviour tabooing with labels like 'lau hiau' ('old flirt' in Hokkien) the 'overactive' and fashionable elderly. My mother succumbed to dressing in darkening hues until I reasoned with: 'You'll only have black left when you reach 80'. Media writers 'formula-ise' lines like, 'Despite his age, so-and-so...'

To countervail this, senior citizens shouldn't downplay their interests and abilities despite their reduced dexterity and sense of balance. Of course, they should observe peculiar medical precautions in the process - the osteoporotic shouldn't risk falling, et cetera.

That employers flagrantly discriminate betrays a festering ageism and derogations like 'cantankerous' and 'fogey' don't implicate the young - even 'elderly' debilitates. Depictions of older people invariably confer weakness, inferiority and neediness. Our seniors have bought into this with excuses like, 'I'm too old for ...' when opting out or embarrassed.

The writer stated that the grandmother who fell stood in as a maid because he could not trust a hired maid with her grand-daughters - yet, she was deemed undeserving of pay for the same job. Was this how ageism at work began? He also cautioned that those older shouldn't 'labour under the impression that they're 35'. If 35 starts off disability, what about 50 being the new 40, 60 being the new 50 and so on as longevity extends?

Anthony Lee Mui Yu