AS the retirement age debate continues, it is important to remember that behind the statistics and numbers are real people whose lives will be affected by any changes.
Many individuals would have already been planning their retirement based on the current retirement age of 60, and any changes to this could have significant consequences.
Just a few nights ago, when attending a reunion dinner, many of attendees who were my schoolmates, though only 57 years old, confided that they could not wait to retire.
Many have also made plans to retire early. The reason is simple: “I have been in the job for too long and I am getting bored
doing the same thing day in, day out.”
Some want to just spend more time with family, friends and grandchildren while others wish to pursue their hobbies, venture into something else or continue to work albeit in other professions and on a part-time basis. Some plan to simply quit their job due to health issues.
Of course, some have no choice and wish the mandatory retirement age would be extended for they still need the income to support their livelihoods. Some do not mind working beyond the age limit, for as long as they are still mentally and physically fit, as they genuinely love their job.
Looking at the trend worldwide, there must be good reasons for many governments to require their civil servants to retire at the age of 60.
I don’t and I cannot deny that while it is true that physical and mental disabilities can decline with age, this is not always the case for every individual.
I acknowledge that there are also many employees who, despite reaching the age of 60 (some of my colleagues included), are still in good health and possess valuable experience and skills that can be utilised in the workplace.
Some of them, due to their experience, skills and commitment, are performing even better than many of the young ones. Compelling these individuals to retire at a certain age would mean depriving their employers of their valuable talent and experience.
Of course, we also cannot deny that with the advances in technology and changes in work, many jobs are becoming less physically demanding and more focused on knowledge and experience.
As a result, older employees can still make valuable contributions in areas such as mentoring, training and strategic planning. They can also provide a valuable perspective based on years of experience, which can be useful in decision-making and problem-solving.
Due to the rise of the gig economy and freelance work, many older workers are choosing to continue working beyond the traditional retirement age. This, without a doubt, can be beneficial for both the individual and the company.
Generally, however, while many individuals may be in good health and able to continue working after 60, others may experience health issues that prevent them from doing so. This can be particularly challenging for individuals in physically demanding jobs or those with health conditions that require regular medical attention.
By extending the retirement age, the government may be forcing these individuals to continue working beyond their physical and mental capacity, potentially putting their health at risk.
As such, the government mustn’t extend the age limit to 65 despite vigorous calls by some sectors. The same should also apply to the private sector.
If deemed inevitable, the government should instead opt for extending the services of the employees but on a contract basis which is open to renewal at the end of the contract.
Sincerely, without prejudice, in one way or another, older individuals may find it difficult to continue working until 65.
Any move to extend the retirement age would only have negative consequences on younger workers and would also give rise to many social consequences.
With older workers remaining in the workforce for a longer period, there may be fewer opportunities for younger individuals to enter the workforce and gain valuable experience. This then can create a bottleneck effect, where younger workers are unable to advance in their careers due to a lack of available positions, resulting in long-term consequences for the economy and society.
Retirement is often seen as a time when individuals can enjoy the fruits of their labour and spend time with family and friends. Forcing individuals to work for longer could take away this important time and place additional stress on their personal lives.
Extending the retirement age could have a bearing on those in low-income jobs where many individuals in these positions
may not have the luxury of retiring comfortably at 60 and may need to continue working to make ends meet. By extending the retirement age, the government may be placing additional stress on these individuals, who may already be struggling to cope.
So far, the government has increased the retirement age of Malaysian civil servants three times. The first was from 55 to 56 in 2001, then to 58 in 2018 and finally to 60 in 2012.
In summary, extending the retirement age to 65 could have negative consequences for older individuals, younger workers, and those in low-income jobs. Aside from offering employment on a contract basis, the government should also focus on finding ways to support retired individuals, including providing access to healthcare, retirement benefits, and other forms of support.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.
