Work to live longer

LKY has said it and proven this to be true. He is a living example. Yesterday there was a letter to Today’s paper disputing this claim and quoting two research papers, one by Japanese Nobel Laureate Dr Leo Esaki and another by Dr Ephrem Cheng of the University of Alberta. Both papers pointed to people living longer if they retired earlier than later. The studies based on American workers in AT&T and Boeing, Lockheed and Lucent concluded that employees who retired at 65 died within two years of retirement. On the other hand those who retired at 50 or 55 could live up to 85. Is there a contradiction or conflict in LKY’s position and those of the two academic. Actually no. What is important is that people who retire early should continue to work on a part time basis and ‘at a more leisurely pace, without the stress of the daily grind.’ And, ahem, that is what LKY is doing. He had retired from the premiership many years back and is working at a pace comfortable to him, without the stress of the daily grind. For those who are going to continue to work and retire after 65, the study says they will die within two years after retirement. But there is a little hope. If they just stay on the job, they may live and work till the day they die, may be 80 or 85, provided the job is still there for them. The food court cleaners are the best example. They will live to a ripe age, working happily in the food court. But my experience in the food courts is that none of them appear happy. They are mostly grumpy, grouchy, hot temper and quarrelsome, anything but happy.


Wally Buffet said...


The cleaners at the food courts are definitely unhappy in their jobs. It's a no brainer. Would you be smiling if day in day out, you have to wipe the tables and clear the swill left behind by a typical Singaporean eater. Once, a Mediacorp news anchor tried doing the job for half a day for a special interest programme. She squealed that it was definitely no walk in the park!
And the pay is really peanuts. The fat is left for the food court operator's directors.

Let's not talk about politicians but contrast this with someone like an independent director of public companies. He goes to meetings driven by an Ahmad. He has a secretary to cater to his whims. He sits in a well appointed office. At meetings, he looks attentive and nods his head repeatedly but probably is yawning on the sly. And he probably gets a seven figure annual income.

Who do you think wants to retire early?

But God has a mysterious way to right the wrongs of society. The cleaners will probably live to a ripe old age, minding their grand children. The parasite directors will most likely die of cancer or a heart attack. Gout will constantly attack them too. Too much rich food, entertaining and sloth, not to mention trying to prove how virile they still are after sundown.

I'll yam seng to that!


Anonymous said...

True or not is left to be debated.

But my uncle, who retired at 53 is still pretty healthy at 89. Another uncle, his brother, who retired around 55 is still dabbling on the stock market at 86.

Do I believe that people just die, two years after retirement at 65? And not because they fell sick because of strenuous work beyond their physical capabilities between 55 & 65? You tell me!

Wally Buffet said...

Wow! What exceptionally good news!

Since I was forcefully retired at 49 as I couldn't get a decent job after getting caught playing truant all the time, I think I can expect to live up to 90!

Now I have a part time job. Being a human model for bootiful good time girls to practise and hone their seduction skills on..........so they know how to fleece the fat cat suckers.


Matilah_Singapura said...

Work to live longer is true with one caveat: that the "work" you are doing is "satisfying" in the broadest existential sense. i.e. "make your vocation your vacation".

If you you have a shovelling shit job which leaves you depressed, despondent, tired, fed-up, frustrated, under-paid, un-validated, unappreciated and generally unhappy, chances are you will die, but suffer horribly before you finally give out.

Do I feel sympathy? Not in the slightest. We all have choices, and it begins in our minds.

From the moment each of us is born, we are in the chaos of existence and the struggle of life.

Those who give up on themselves (and on life)deserve their lot -- we all reap what we sow, and earn our fates.

Natural law at work: nature doesn't give a shit about you...or your feelings, or your plans.

Kaffein said...

Isn't it better for Singapore when people die earlier? At least we don't have an aging population and social problem which many developed countries are beseeched with.

Then perhaps the government won't need to provide more handouts for those who can't find jobs after 65 since many won't live that long after retire! Wow... ain't it sweet? And there will be more menial jobs available since there aren't many older people taking them up. Thus the government can welcome more foreigners with open arms and these people can fill the places. The government can solve a lot of their medical problems and need not ask the people to put so much money into MediSave since many are gonna die early before they get sick.

If only LKY knew... har!

Now we gotta pay these old folks to be cleaners when foreigner should suffice. And also pay millions for those 'greater ancient gods' in addition to paying my PM to be the most well-paid PM in the world! What a tragedy!

For that matter, anyone would have worked till he dropped dead if he is paid millions to travel around the world and give talks. And funny that it was mentioned that older workers need to change their mindsets and be willing to work under a younger manager.

I often tell my colleagues and team members: Preach only what you are able to do. Talk is cheap.


Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

I share your view Kaffein. Should let people retire early and die early. Then there is no need to save so much money in the CPF for nothing. Let them retire at 55, take out their CPF money and enjoy themselves for the last few years of their lives.

It is so pathetic to see the oldies crawling over everywhere trying to make a living, to struggle for an existence till 80 or 90. It is misery. Nothing to gloat about living that kind of lives.

Anonymous said...

Work or no work, smoke or no smoke do not make much difference to longevity.

What matters is how happy one is in living.

Suffer and live long is a torture to any being. Having too much and still wants more could also be a cause of dissatisfaction and regret. Not knowing how to apportion a huge fortune to the successors can also be a headache. Wanting younger and better looking partners than the spouse may cause lots of heartaches. So, it is happiness that matters and not how long one lives.


Matilah_Singapura said...

There is nothing wrong with dying early, especially when your job becomes so "painful" you can't take it no more.

Consider, Jesus Christ:

No smoke, no drink, no fuck, talk too much cock -- his job -- eventually pissing off "the elite"...dead at 34.

Anonymous said...

If the people do not fall sick or die early without falling sick, the doctors and nurses no job, the hospitals do not make money(profits). No No.

Just something empirical, those who commit felo-de-se are lucid and physically mobile. Those that lie in beds, can't talk and can't eat no strength and ability to commit suicide and therefore have to make their kins suffer. Retribution(kharma) maybe at work for many cases as many are sick because they are sick emotionally, spiritually from disappointments with livings. These result in depressions, heart attacks, hypertensions and physical ailments resulting from the aforesaid.

Are the rich and powerful immuned from sickness? No No, they too go through the mills only some Privileged Ones are immuned from paying medical bills while receiving the Privileged Class Treatments. Some have security service on top of medical ones and all gotten free of charge. Or do the tax payers foot them?


Matilah_Singapura said...

Sickness, old age and death are certainties in life lah.

Why should these "natural" events in everyone's lives (no one is immune) be politicised to a point where the state has to mandate taxation and regulation to rob Peter to pay for Paul's illness?

Just because "luck" doesn't go the way we like it doesn't give us an automatic claim on someone else.