T he old saying that it is rare for one to live up to 70 years no longer applies, academic-turned-politician Dr Law Chi-kwong, Hong Kong’s welfare minister, pointed out recently.

Law has also called for a redefinition of the term “elderly”, suggesting it would be more accurate to describe people in their 60s as “middle-aged”.

Saying this under different circumstances at another time might be appreciated as complimentary and encouraging for the city’s senior citizens, but unfortunately the current political atmosphere tends to sideline good intentions and sour logically sound suggestions.

That is exactly the case with the government’s much-criticised decision to raise the age eligibility from 60 to 65 for elderly welfare subsidies from February 1.

Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was similarly pilloried for echoing Law’s argument, especially after she held herself up as an example, claiming that she still works for more than 10 hours a day at age 61.

The city’s hard-working leader later conceded that she had been too frank, and promised to be more diplomatic in expressing herself in future.

Lam admits ‘room for improvement’ after fury over old-age payments

There is no denying the global trend of “silver workers” keeping jobs beyond 60, but there is a big difference between those who are willing to stay on due to market demand and those who have to look for employment to earn a basic living at that age.

While 60 is still quite a common legal retirement age around the world, employers are becoming more flexible – but such a trend is never without controversy, such as in the case of Japan trying to raise it to 70 as an option.

In mainland China, which has a social safety network that needs much improvement, the retirement age is 60 for men and 55 for women. In many enterprises, it can be just 50 for female workers.

Senior officials follow a different set of rules which allows them to work up to age 65 or even longer. Since 2018, authorities have been looking at extending the retirement age in a gradual way, hand in hand with reform of the country’s social welfare system. One goal is to unify women’s retirement age at 55 first.

Both lawmakers and government should reflect on welfare feud

Back in Hong Kong, here is a little reminder for everyone: in 1997, when the city returned to China, the average life expectancy was about 70-plus; now the average for men is nearly 82, and 87 for women.

Imagine what the case might be in another 20 or 30 years with scientific advances, improved health care and better working conditions.

That explains why the city’s biggest employer, the Hong Kong government, has extended the retirement age for new joiners from 60 to 65, starting in 2015, and made it an option for those joining since 2000.

The government’s aim, apparently, is to kill two birds with one stone: solving the manpower problems of the civil service while also encouraging the private sector to follow suit.

But in this capitalist society, whatever example the government sets before it becomes a legal requirement, the private sector is not obliged to follow. The latter can be more serious about taking into account cost considerations such as medical insurance and employers’ contribution to workers’ mandatory pension funds.

Then there is also a lifestyle issue. The popular Cantonese phrase “going ashore” – referring to someone with enough savings to say an earlier goodbye to a full-time job – is widely regarded as a great personal achievement.

To give or not to give: Paul Chan faces tough choices as budget day nears

But for the unskilled groups, how many jobs are available in this Knowledge Age economy and how willing is the private sector to walk an extra mile to help?

The contrasting silence from the business community or their political representatives in the legislature has been quite telling during this controversy.

Ironically, an upside to the whole row over setting a new age threshold for welfare payments is the opportunity it presents for this rich yet ageing city to seriously look into where the real job market lies for silver workers in need.

At the end of the day, the retirement age affects the overall welfare system and vice versa.