When Progress Leaves Behind the Generation That Built Singapore
As Singapore becomes more advanced and prosperous, are we inadvertently leaving some of our older citizens with fewer ways to earn a living and retain their independence?
A recent video showing elderly Singaporeans collecting discarded cans and bottles got me thinking about the generation that helped build modern Singapore. These were the men and women who worked through the 1970s, 80s and 90s. They raised families, supported ageing parents, endured financial crises and contributed to Singapore's transformation into one of the world's wealthiest nations.
Many did so with little formal education. Based on the 2020 Census data, approximately 20% of residents aged 65–69 had no formal qualifications. This proportion increased with age, reaching over 70% among those aged 85 and above. Yet a lack of qualifications never meant a lack of skills, experience or resourcefulness.
Many learned their trades through experience, working in factories, construction, transport, markets and small businesses. When industries changed or jobs disappeared, they found other ways to earn a living.
Some repaired and sold second-hand goods at Sungei Road. Others became karang guni collectors, hawker assistants, cleaners or odd-job workers. These occupations seldom paid much, but they offered something beyond money: independence, purpose and the dignity of earning one's own living.
For many, providing for themselves and their families was a matter of personal pride.
When progress closes doors
As Singapore developed, so did the requirements for participating in its economy.
Formal qualifications and recognised certifications became increasingly important. While these helped improve professional standards, they also created barriers for experienced older workers whose skills were acquired through decades of practical work.
In 2017, the closure of Sungei Road removed a familiar livelihood for some older traders who depended on selling second-hand goods. Alternative arrangements were offered, but they did not necessarily recreate the same affordable and flexible opportunities.
Even taxi and private-hire driving, a source of flexible income for many older Singaporeans, has a statutory age limit of 75. This serves legitimate road safety objectives but also removes an employment option for those who remain capable and wish to continue working.
Individually, these developments have reasonable justifications. But consider their cumulative impact on someone with limited formal education, modest savings and decades of practical experience.
With each passing decade, another door may be closing.
When even spending money becomes more complicated
Singapore's rapid adoption of digital payments offers another perspective.
Digital payments have made life more convenient for millions, including many seniors. But for older Singaporeans with limited digital confidence, navigating smartphones, payment applications and electronic transactions can be challenging.
Although Singapore notes and coins remain legal tender, businesses are permitted to refuse cash payments if customers are appropriately informed beforehand. We have therefore reached a point where someone can walk into a shop carrying legitimate Singapore currency and still be unable to make a purchase.
Consider the elderly worker who earns a few dollars collecting cardboard, repairing household items or performing odd jobs. These transactions have traditionally been conducted in cash. As more businesses go cashless, some of these individuals may find fewer places where they can conveniently spend what they have earned.
The CDC voucher scheme illustrates this challenge. When nationwide digital vouchers were introduced in 2021, the Government recognised that some seniors would struggle to access them, making assistance and printed vouchers available through community clubs.
This was an important safeguard, but it also highlighted something we sometimes overlook: making a service available digitally does not automatically make it accessible to everyone.
Even recycling is changing
The Beverage Container Return Scheme, introduced in April 2026, offers another interesting example.
Its environmental objectives are commendable. Consumers can receive a 10-cent refund for returning eligible beverage containers, encouraging recycling and reducing waste.
But the scheme has also changed the economics of collecting discarded bottles and cans.
Materials that previously earned relatively little when sold by weight can now generate higher returns through deposit refunds. This potentially creates better earning opportunities for elderly collectors, but also attracts competition from others who previously had little incentive to collect recyclables.
The refunds are electronic rather than cash, although compatible EZ-Link cards provide an option for those without smartphones.
Meanwhile, concerns about people rummaging through public bins and leaving rubbish scattered have prompted reminders about littering offences and possible fines.
Public hygiene matters, and nobody should be entitled to leave a mess simply because they are collecting recyclables.
Nevertheless, it is worth considering how an environmental initiative can reshape the livelihoods of elderly Singaporeans who have quietly collected recyclable materials for years.
Again, the issue is not whether the policy is right or wrong, but whether we fully understand its effects on different groups.
Have we confused financial assistance with dignity?
Singapore has progressively expanded financial assistance for vulnerable seniors through programmes such as Silver Support, Workfare and ComCare. These are important safety nets, and we should acknowledge that many older Singaporeans are financially comfortable and have benefited enormously from our nation's progress.
Yet a vulnerable group remains whose employment opportunities are increasingly constrained by age, health, education and economic change. And I wonder whether financial assistance alone addresses their needs.
For a generation accustomed to working hard and providing for their families, the opportunity to earn a living can carry enormous personal significance. We should not romanticise hardship or expect elderly people to continue working when they would rather retire. Nor should anyone feel ashamed of accepting assistance they need and are entitled to. But neither should we assume that financial support can replace the independence, purpose and pride that come from contributing.
There is a difference between helping someone survive and allowing them to live with dignity on their own terms.
Perhaps we need to rethink how we measure progress
None of these developments was intended to disadvantage older Singaporeans.
Digital payments improve efficiency. Qualifications help maintain professional standards. Road safety regulations protect the public. Recycling initiatives support environmental sustainability.
All have legitimate objectives, and many also benefit seniors.
But policies and technologies do not operate in isolation. Their consequences accumulate, and different groups experience them differently. A digital service may make life easier for most users while creating significant barriers for a small minority. An employment requirement may improve standards while excluding experienced individuals who lack recognised qualifications.
And a policy can achieve every target set for it while creating difficulties that were never part of its original measures of success.
Perhaps we should look beyond whether individual initiatives deliver their intended benefits and consider how they collectively affect those least able to adapt. Can we modernise while retaining accessible payment options? Recognise practical experience alongside formal qualifications? Preserve flexible, low-barrier opportunities for older people who still wish to work?
These are not arguments against progress. They are questions about making progress more inclusive.
Singapore's extraordinary transformation was made possible, in no small part, by the generation that is now growing old. We cannot preserve every traditional occupation or shield everyone from change.
But perhaps we owe it to them to ensure that progress does not unnecessarily take away their remaining opportunities to earn, contribute and remain independent.
After all, the true measure of progress is not simply how advanced, efficient or wealthy we have become, but whether those who helped us get here can continue to live with dignity and choice.
Comments