Potato and leek stew: "Response to articles 2 and 3"

I found it interesting that two contradictory articles were placed on the same page. They both refer to the article “Ageing- but still ‘actively engaged” in which NTUC Income is said to retain older employees. The first article’s writer disagrees with older Singaporeans working because he feels that they are causing the job shortage and should leave the jobs to needier people. The second article’s writer applauds NTUC Income for retaining older employees as he feels that it benefits them both physically and mentally.

I personally think that the first article has a very biased perspective. He makes the assumption that the older Singaporeans who work are ‘just working to pass time’ and are ‘depriving others from jobs’. I find the use of the word “depriving” very strong, and it makes the older Singaporeans seem as though they are the main cause of job shortages. Another assumption he made was that all these people are financially independent and do not need a job to sustain themselves. He wrote that they are supported by their children or have sufficient savings and pensions. But what if they need the money to survive because their children are not providing for them? This contradicts his title of “It’s a question of need” because they the elderly will be the needy ones in this case. An interesting inference that I made from this article was that either the author is jobless or that he knows someone in their 40’s or 50’s who is jobless. The phrase “in their late 40’s and 50’s” comes out quite often and there are very specific examples provided that leaves me the impression that the author is describing his own situation.

Throughout the whole article, from the title to the very last sentence, readers get the impression that the argument is one-sided due to the relentless complaining. The way the writer presents his case is very aggressive and he lacks empathy to such a large extent that he actually comes across to readers as rude.

To me, the most disturbing issue was the fact that although he kept on saying that there were no jobs for the needy, he kept on referring to the “needy” in the age group of 40’s and 50’s. He forgets that the greatest impending problem that post-university students face as they enter the working world is the lack of jobs. Unemployment rate is high in Singapore and it is affecting NOT just the people in their 40’s and 50’s but also in the younger age groups. Young adults also need jobs to survive and doing away with the older generation will not decrease job shortages. Our population is constantly growing and the best his short-term solution can do is to provide a few jobs. In the long run, Singapore has to come up with a better solution to ease the demand for jobs.

The second article gave readers a more balanced view about the issue. It stressed on the other benefits of work for elderly people besides income. The first writer only thought that the elderly people’s purpose of working was to earn income but the second writer was able to bring to light other important reasons why they should continue working. Besides relieving financial pressure by providing for themselves, elderly people gain health benefits. Working keeps them physically and mentally active and this is very important to maintain a healthy lifestyle. At their age, their bodies degenerate easily and forced inactivity of retirement will lead to old age diseases like Alzheimer’s if they remain inactive. It is a healthier way to live too because it is definitely better than staying at home and watching television. By socializing and earning an income, it gives them “a sense of self-worth”, thus allowing them to feel useful, and not as though they were living off their children’s money.

However, although I cannot disagree with the first writer that the elderly are taking up jobs, I find it unreasonable that he should push the blame of the job shortage to them when the number of elderly people working is in fact, very insignificant. Recently, the government has also stepped up its efforts in creating more jobs to cater to the unemployed. I have a cousin whose job is finding employment for unemployed people and she states that the main problem with Singaporeans is that they are too choosy for jobs. They are plenty of opportunities, it is just a matter of grabbing it or waiting for a "better" one which might never come.

Personally, I find the complaining excessive to the point that it sounds like whining. Much improvement could be made on the part of the writer to bring his point across pleasantly by using the correct choice of words.

I feel that it was the newspaper’s editor’s intention to put the two articles on the same page. The stark contrast between the two shocked me at first because in the first article, the elderly were being discouraged to work so that they would be more opportunities for the needier ones but in the second article, it actually complimented NTUC Income in its efforts for retaining their elderly workers. One was against the idea, the other for it. One was upset that the elderly were taking up jobs while another presented the benefits of working at an old age. With both contrasting arguments side-by-side, it made it easier for me to compare the different viewpoints.

word count: 908 words

I apologize for my word count that has exceeded 500 words but since I am responding to 2 articles, I hope you can understand that I need more than 500 words. Thank you.