MR WEE Char Lee, 85, spends three to four hours nearly every day volunteering at an activity centre for senior citizens.

 

The father of three grown-up children shares jokes and gossip about the ways of the world with his peers who frequent the centre. Laughter and camaraderie are what keep him going, acknowledges the former executive in a multinational firm, who has both savings and family support.

 

Not too far from the Tiong Bahru centre that Mr Wee frequents are some not-so-fortunate older folk who face a far more uncertain future.

 

I met one of them, Mr Ang Seng Hwee, 65, late last year. He and his wife, Madam Lee Siew Moi, were both surviving on the $297 he got in Central Provident Fund payments every month. Madam Lee, who is in her 50s, could not work because of an earlier wrist injury. He had just lost his job as a cleaner.

 

They later applied for aid from the Government, which they received. But for three months after Mr Lee lost his job, the couple would walk 20 minutes from their York Hill rental flat to a temple for free food.

 

Demographers have called ageing one of the defining global trends this century. According to some estimates, no other country will age as rapidly as Singapore.

 

The big challenge for policymakers, caregivers and the elderly themselves is to ensure that most older folk end up like Mr Wee, rather than Mr Ang.

 

Between 2008 and 2040, the Republic's proportion of those aged 65 and above will increase by 316 per cent - more than any of over 50 developed and developing countries studied by the United States Census Bureau. The number of older folk here is set to double to 600,000 in under a decade and triple to nearly a million by 2030.

 

Several factors explain Singapore's rapid ageing. First, thanks to rapid advances in medical science, more people are living longer. Singaporeans have among the longest life-spans in the world. In 1960, a person born in Singapore could expect to live 65 years. By last year, that figure had risen to 82 years.

 

Meanwhile, the fertility rate - or the average number of children born to a woman of child-bearing age - has plummeted. It was six births per woman at the peak of the baby boom in 1957, declining to about 4.6 births when Singapore attained independence in 1965. It fell to below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman in 1977 and is now 1.2.

 

 

SINGAPORE is marking a milestone in the history of ageing. The first cohort of baby boomers born between 1947 and 1965 - during the global post-World War II surge in procreation - turns 65 in Singapore this year.

 

But while people are living longer, they may not be in the best physical and mental health.

 

For a start, the numbers of older folk who are disabled and those who live alone - and may therefore be lonely - have doubled.

 

Over the past decade, the number of those aged 65-plus rose by 50 per cent to around 340,000. Of these, 100,000 live alone or only with an elderly spouse, double from 10 years ago.

 

The elderly who live alone are a particular concern. In 2000, there were only 15,000 of them. Now, there are 35,000 and the figure will exceed 80,000 in less than two decades.

 

More than 50 older people have been found dead at home since 2007. Old age depression also appears to be on the rise.

 

The number of older folk who are disabled and face mobility problems - like those who use a wheelchair - also doubled to 36,000 between 2000 and 2010.

 

Fears of old age disability prey on the minds of many. In a poll commissioned by the Lien Foundation in 2009, 'being a burden to family and friends' and 'medical costs' ranked as the top two fears associated with death and dying.

 

What does all this mean for Singapore as a society?

 

For a start, it needs to invest heavily in eldercare infrastructure. This includes senior activity centres at void decks where lonely seniors can find companionship, and rehabilitation centres for those with mobility problems. Also needed are nursing homes and group homes that cater to the elderly who are frail.

 

The Government, guided in part by a specially constituted inter-ministerial committee on ageing, has already begun to invest in such infrastructure.

 

Last year, the Government injected $700 million into an Eldercare Fund, to bring it to a total of $2.5 billion. The money will be used for projects to help older folk stay healthy, engaged and active.

 

At the same time, it also announced a $1 billion Community Silver Trust Fund, under which it will match private donations made to voluntary welfare organisations working in the eldercare sector dollar-for-dollar.

 

Community-based services for the elderly are also being ramped up. The number of senior activity centres (SACs) will be increased from 41 to 58 by 2016. By then, these SACs will cater to 39,000 elderly folk, up from the current 18,000. Some $70 million will be set aside for SACs over the next five years.

 

The Government has also expanded its subsidy system to cover two-thirds of Singaporean households who have elderly members who cannot look after themselves. In the past, only half of such households enjoyed subsidies. Households with a per capita income of up to $2,200 qualify, up from $1,400.

 

The extra help can be used for home-based, community-based and institutional care. This year, 40,000 frail old people will get the enhanced subsidies, 10,000 more than before.

 

The Government, however, can do only so much. Ordinary Singaporeans must also do their bit to ensure that the elderly do not feel that they are a burden to society.

 

 

IN A rather bizarre display of selfishness earlier this year, residents in Toh Yi Drive and Woodlands protested against the building of studio apartments and daycare centres for the elderly in their estates. Some residents likened the facilities to 'death houses'.

 

This is in sharp contrast to the experiences I had during a recent visit to Britain, the Netherlands and the United States to study senior-living options that could work in Singapore.

 

I was struck by the number of prescient, private individuals who anticipated the ageing challenge, stepped in early and helped change their own lives - and those of countless others.

 

Many of them were affluent, educated senior citizens themselves who believe in the 'Power of One'.

 

They anticipated gaps in the eldercare system, conducted polls among their peers on needs, lobbied charities and their respective governments for funds and started movements that have since spread nationwide.

 

They believe that when it comes to overcoming major national challenges like ageing, governments cannot go it alone. Private citizens can be powerful and positive agents of change.

 

Many institutional facilities for the old in all three countries, I realised, are run by large pools of volunteers. In Singapore, volunteering, or even neighbours helping neighbours is still the exception, rather than the norm.