“Face cream?”

The sales assistant made the suggestion confidently as I stepped into the personal care chain store. 

I retorted “no” and shot her a look containing a thousand daggers as I hastened to pick up the cleaning kit for my contact lenses.

That was last year and I was about to turn 51. The sales assistant may have innocently assumed that I needed a moisturiser because I looked older (than her). No real harm was done except for a mild bruise to my ego.

Not all age-related assumptions are quite as harmless though.

A report in November by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Tripartite Alliances for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices and Dispute Management indicated that more local jobseekers (15 per cent) felt discriminated against in 2018 compared with 2014 (10 per cent).

Perceptions of age-related discrimination also remained the highest (about 30 per cent) compared with characteristics such as gender.

Age-related bias can be a handicap for older workers. In 2019, only 52 per cent of those aged 50 and above found employment within six months after they were retrenched, compared with 83 per cent for those below 30, according to MOM data.

Luckily, our Government takes a tough stance on discrimination by employers, while offering incentives to encourage more age-related inclusion such as the Jobs Growth Initiative launched in August 2020.

Earlier schemes also help to position older workers more competitively in the eyes of employers.

For example, employers currently need to contribute only 13 per cent of an employee’s wages into his or her Central Provident Fund (CPF) if he or she is aged between 55 and 60, lower than the 17 per cent for workers aged 55 and below.

While this “pay cut” may be the lesser of two evils — the other being unemployment — it  begs the question of why compensation should be linked to age and not merit.

Fortunately, from 2022, employer contributions for workers aged between 55 and 60 will increase gradually until they reach parity with contributions for those who are younger.

MYTHS ARE JUST…MYTHS 

There is still discrimination because we believe in myths for no good reason.

Less adaptable? Ask Joe Biden who was elected President of the United States at age 78. Or our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, 67, who engages audiences on social media like an expert, among other things. They are proof that age is not a show-stopper.

Having more experience navigating change makes someone more adaptable. During the early days of the pandemic, I spoke at a couple of internal virtual seminars to help colleagues grappling with the sudden switch to working from home and other restrictions.

None of my older colleagues participated, and I was told by one of them they felt more able to take things in their stride and “get on with it”. Just saying.

Lower energy level? While a younger worker may have more energy, it is how we use and direct our energy that sets us apart.

Six years ago, I supervised a 20-year-old intern whose energy level was highest when she headed out of the office at 5pm.

I had to regularly nudge her to get things done on time and to a reasonable standard. She showed scant interest in learning or doing more, beyond her assignments, and preferred to sit and stare at the computer.

Compared to her, a 58-year-old lady I also worked with at that time buzzed around like a busy bee.

She took on projects beyond her work scope, exceeded expectations and still had plenty of energy to spare. It was easy to mistake her for someone much younger.

Past prime? While a professional soccer player may need to retire by his mid or late 30s, there are many other industries where age is just a number.

Research by Wharton professor Daniel Kim and associates in 2019 found the most successful founders of high-growth companies in the US had an average age of 45 when they started out.

This corroborates with examples closer to home, such as Ms Rosaline Chow Koo who founded CXA Group in her early 50s and grew it into one of Asia’s leading financial technology companies.  

I could go on dispelling myths but I think you get my point.

STAYING ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE

Ageing is normal, but age-related discrimination (or any type of discrimination, conscious or otherwise) is unfair, disrespectful to our seniors and also bad for the economy.

Based on MOM data, the growth in the number of resident workers aged 55 and above (84 per cent) by far outpaced that of the cohort aged 54 and below (5 per cent) from 2009 to 2019.

This is not a problem on its own if we can ensure our population stays economically active as we age. But the 2019 labour force participation rates (a measure of how economically active a population is) of residents aged between 55 and 64 (70 per cent) and aged 65 and above (29 per cent) are quite a bit lower than those aged between 25 and 54 (88 per cent).

So, we need to do more to make it easier for older workers to find or continue to work.

Nothing beats having a (bold but reasonable) target to drive change.

Just a thought-starter: What if companies in Singapore strive to have a minimum percentage of their respective total workforce comprising workers aged 55 and above? Will this work?

This kind of mechanism is not novel — the Council for Board Diversity recently called on the top 100 listed companies in Singapore to include at least two female directors on their boards.

Nasdaq went further. It proposed companies on its stock exchange to have at least two “diverse” directors (based on gender for example). 

If the proposal is passed, companies which do not meet the requirements could have their shares delisted from the exchange. 

Something like this may be just what we need, though critics will rightfully say it could be too blunt or inflexible as an instrument. Clearly, this suggestion needs a lot more work. Here are a few considerations.

How low / high should this minimum be?

To be effective, this minimum should be reasonably representative of the age groups in the population and aspirational enough. 

Those aged between 55 and 64 and those aged 65 and above each make up 15 per cent of our population in 2020, according to SingStat.

If we take into account the labour force participation rates for these age groups, it would seem (to a layman like myself) like a minimum proportion of companies’ total workforce of 10 per cent (15 per cent X 70 per cent participation rate) and 4 per cent (15 per cent x 29 per cent participation rate) for these respective age groups would be simple starting points to explore.

Should all companies be included in this scheme?

Companies in sectors (such as financial services and retail) where the nature of work does not require excessive physical labour would be a more natural fit for this scheme, while others (such as construction) could be exempted. 

Those in the scheme should be given reasonable time to meet or exceed the minimum. 

Carrots or sticks?

I think incentives may work better here as this is more about encouraging change. If companies in included sectors meet or exceed this minimum, they stand to get more incentives such as higher subsidies for the salaries or training of workers aged 55 and above, or tax reliefs.

These companies could also be inducted into an “equal opportunity employer hall of fame”. This in itself may be a great incentive as it is good for business — who would not prefer to work for or buy from companies like that?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Roger Pua has more than 25 years of international work experience, and was most recently senior director of brand marketing and corporate communications at LinkedIn. 

CORRECTION: 

An earlier version of this commentary wrongly stated that from 2021, employer Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions for workers aged between 55 and 60 will increase gradually until they reach parity with contributions for those who are younger. This is incorrect.

Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat had announced in May that the increase in CPF contribution rates for senior workers will be deferred until 2022. We are sorry for the error.