People Power Party leader Samak Sundaravej stands during a group photo at a Parliament House in Bangkok. On January 21, Thailand's crown prince opened the country's first elected parliament since a coup 16 months ago, with allies of deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra back in charge under the People Power Party. (AFP/Pornchai Kittiwongsakul)
_________________________________________________________
BANGKOK, Thailand (Bangkok Post), January 25, 2008:
EDITORIAL
Caring for the aged
If everything proceeds the way it should, parliament will elect a new prime minister on Monday. In all likelihood, the choice for the country's 25th premier will be Samak Sundaravej. He is 72 years old.
Make no mistake: this is not an attempt at ageism. The age of the new prime minister is a tell-tale sign of what is going on in the larger context in society. Although many of us would rather put the "Old Ginger" government behind us as quickly as possible, considering its less-than-vigorous performance during the one-plus year in office, again, there is a grain of truth in the nickname given to it, based on the relative seniority of its members. Some might laugh at the nickname, but the reality is no laughing matter.
The truth is, Thailand in general is growing old, and fast too. And the new government, despite its early age, had better come up with a comprehensive policy response to the population trend or face the consequences which would pose obstacles to the already difficult plan for economic progress and social cohesion.
At present, Thailand is the second most aged country in Southeast Asia, next to Singapore, with older people, defined as those who are 60 years and above, constituting more than 10% of the population. The snag, however, is we are ageing faster than others in the region. In 12 years, the proportion of older people is projected to almost double to 19.8%. It will be a critical point as it would mark the first time in the country's history that the population of older people would exceed that of children less than 15 years old. The good news is this is a long-term challenge and we are afforded a bit of time to come up with how to best prepare ourselves to cope with it. The bad news is the shift in demographic ratio will bring about sweeping changes that can choke unaware economic planning at the national level and cause a lot of hardship at the family level for individuals who are not prepared to adjust.
The UN Population Fund's report on ageing in Thailand stipulated that the higher number of older people will imply "a reduction in income per capita, savings and investments, as well as increase in public expenditures on social security, health care and welfare of older persons". It says the number of working-age adults potentially available to contribute to support the population aged 65 or more will be reduced by half. All these predictions point to a possibility that people who are getting old now will face economic hardship, even poverty, unless they have somehow managed to garner adequate financial resources or rely on their family for assistance. Unfortunately, a survey of the elderly in 2002 revealed that only a third of the older people can make ends meet.
The 30-baht universal health care scheme will continue to serve as the backbone of the support system. The ageing trend, however, has the potential of burdening an already stretched scheme to breaking point. Instead of relying only on the healthcare end, the government will have to invest in other pro-active, long-term social security schemes such as universal pension, finding more income-generating possibilities for older people.
We will have to tackle some rather difficult questions if we are to prepare ourselves for the eventual change in our population structure. Would we want to consider extending the mandatory retirement age to 65?
Are there other mechanisms to support our so-far excellent family unit in taking care of the old apart from the existing tax reduction? Or how to go about setting a programme so that every worker has his or her pension fund?
The Ministry of Labour itself admitted that a universal pension scheme might be too costly for the country and that it does not have enough experience or knowledge yet to develop a model that will cover the large number of informal workers.
These questions must be taken into account as we are formulating public policy today, as apparently it will take a long time just to map out. The country could become too old and feeble to react if we waited.
© Copyright The Post Publishing Public Co., Ltd. 2008
