IPS survey on our Elderly: What the Mainstream Media did not tell you

We refer to the article “IPS study on ageing: 8 in 10 elderly confident their needs will be taken care of” (Straits Times, Oct 15).

It states that “The study, commissioned by the Council for Third Age (C3A), a government-funded group which promotes active ageing, covered more than 2,000 people between the ages of 50 and 74 years who lived in three-room Housing Board flats or larger housing units.”

1 and 2-room flats excluded?

- So, does it mean that about 20 if not a higher percentage of the elderly in Singapore, living in HDB 1 and 2-room flats were not covered in the study? In this connection, we believe a relatively higher proportion of the elderly live in 1 and 2-room flats, compared to their proportion in the population.

Half not “financially adequate”?

As to “The results showed that just over half the respondents rated their current (54 per cent) and future (52 per cent) financial adequacy as “good/very good/excellent”. The rest gave a “poor/below average/average” rating.”

- Does it mean that about half of the elderly are not “financially adequate”?

If we had included those in 1 and 2-room flats – will this figure balloon to more than at least 60%?

What the media did not report?

We would like to highlight the following, which were not reported in the media report:-

… 48.1% agreed that “There is a lack of suitable jobs to match my qualifications, experience or desired working arrangement”

… 68.0% of the (age 50 – 54) cohort agreed that potential employers preferred to hire younger workers (widespread age discrimination?)