I am prompted to write this piece by a news item that appeared in this very newspaper last month. It was titled, “How to rig rules for staying in service? Tips from the veterans “. The article talks of two specific cases, where the “veterans” tweaked and altered the rules for fresh appointments, that suited only themselves. These were for positions, they would apply for, post retirement! All the earlier predetermined prerequisites of employability were intelligently re-shaped to ensure, that the only available candidates that could ever meet the hiring criteria were these two veteran bureaucrats. The eligibilities were matched with their respective CV’s. I wondered, why would they indulge into such an unbecoming act? Is it about economic need or the pomp, pelf, and the power of office held? Or, is it a combination of both? I was aghast, pained, and intrigued to read this piece; because my father, a senior civil servant “chose” to retire a year earlier, despite the government’s insistence for him to continue, with assurance of “extensions” post-retirement age, which then, I believe, was 58-59 years ( ! ). Although my father had good economic reasons to continue the service -me and all siblings were at various stages of our education- and to top it all, he was part of that class of bureaucrats who prided in being honest, upright, and unapproachable. He did not relent to those pressures. He retired himself. Hung the boots, as he used to put it, “ I will decide when to retire and not the government”.
In my opinion and belief that we as society encourage bad behaviour and practices by adhering to rules and procedures made during the days of the Raj. I remember reading that only recently the Police Act of some 1866 A.D, was reviewed and amended! Much water has flowed since 1947, but we are abiding to traditions of the Raj. Retirement is a state of mind. It has very little to do with declining reflexes. With life expectancy moving northwards, it is being established without doubt, barring medical condition, most people can remain productive members of society up to say 75 years of age. I have youngsters working alongside, who retired a few years back! They have a laidback attitude; unwilling to take challenges or embark on initiatives or dabble into any creative activities. The QED (Quod Erat Demonstrandum) here is retirement is a self-imposed condition too.
Retirement from a job/assignment came into existence around the 18th century and as mandatory government policy it became popular in the 19th and 20th century. Exegesis of the concept of retirement, records and dates back to the early 18th century. Thomas Addison was 69 years of age, when he sent the first phonogram from USA to UK…. just imagine we may have been without “light”, if Addison would have been made to retire at 60 years of age!
Retirement age typically means, an age at which a person is expected or required to cease work -and if the person is in the government sector, the individual gets entitled to receive pension; and God-forbid if the person is in the private sector, either he begins to eat into his savings or remains in preparation for the journey to the cemetery.
Most nations today have a statutory retirement age. Economists and policymakers must focus on the demographics, fiscal cost of aging, healthcare availability, life expectancy, nature of skill and profession, supply of similar workforce, while deciding the age for retirement. Most jurisdiction based on above have re-visited the age for retirement. Australia will enhance its retirement age from current 66 years to 67 years by 2023; Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, and Ireland will take the retirement age to 68 years, by 2028. In UAE, it is 65 years and in the USA the age is 67 years for retirement. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries retirement age for males is 65 years and for females it is 63 years. The EU civil servants’ retirement age is 66years.
Retirement by policymakers must be viewed against the perspective of mental health impairments and clinical depression likely to be experienced by the retirees. Today’s studies show that productivity declines after age seventy. However, when the job requirements are either dangerous or require significantly high levels of mental focus, like military service or pilots or ATC’s (Air Traffic Controllers) a mandatory age limit is preferable.
Donald Trump is Seventy Two; Reagan Left office at the age of 77 plus years, - The current senator from California, Ms. Dianne Feinstein is 87 years and Chuck Grassley too is 87 years of age and our own Prime Minister Imran Khan is almost 69 years of age. Judges’ of the US Supreme Court do not ever retire, unless called by the Creator. In Canada, Judges mandatory retirement age is 75 years old. What fails to be accurately measured by policy makers too - is the process of disengagement from some rules, to sometimes the extreme of a situation where the individual has no direction for himself. Aging can induce health related problems and issues like vision impairment, hearing losses, high or low blood pressure, diabetes etc. Many seek solace in returning with vigor to religion and religious practices. Albeit, this scribe fails to understand, why does one have to retire first; before establishing a perfect contact with the Lord! Why does one have to retire first to love God? The communication should be established before retirement and prefect communion should exist with the Almighty. Not all humans are blessed with the ability to appreciate doing nothing.
An argument that always goes in favor of having a defined retirement age is that, it allows for the new to move the old. Essentially meaning giving way to youth to get in leadership and managerial roles. This however exacts the price of having to dispense with “experience”, gathered at the institutions cost, that cannot be had overnight; it is acquired over a long period of time, with toil and hard work.
In our culture, men get married at an average age of 27-28 years and females (urban) between 20-25 years- the firstborn to such a couple, would be at least 30 years old, at the time of his father’s retirement. If the firstborn is a female, she would most likely be “married off’; and if it were a male child; he would just be in his struggling years to build a career, if he is fortunate to have found a job…. at this juncture, if the main bread earner, who is otherwise of sound mind and good health is served with notice of retirement at age of sixty; it is in my opinion a very callous attitude of the societal and corporate norms. It was a practice for me, as CEO, to check from a retiring colleague if he had obligations, liabilities and responsibilities, especially of nature like marrying off a daughter, only then decision to retire or extend the period of employment, would be taken. No wonder, because of these antiquated policies of retiring at sixty, for extension in service, the poor bureaucrats fawn all over the ministers and politicians. It is a viral disease.
It fails me to understand why anybody who is able-bodied and healthy be forced into retirement, merely on attaining 60 years in age. In our beloved country, the official retirement age is sixty years. Why? Does at sixty, a worker/individual become senile, suffers from dementia or suddenly is less competent? And, if public office holders are in seventies and eighties like Donald Trump, or the entire ”young Chinese leadership” of age 65 years and above, does it sound reasonable to render talented civil servants to the camp of the unemployed, by these oldies in the echelons of power? Ridiculous -simply. The entire thinking is delusional and demented. Not a soul demurs about the delirium of our parliamentarians regardless of age. The process of determining age of retirement based on days of the Raj, is outdated, insane and at best foolish.
Instead of professional and civil servants having a mandatory retirement age, my recommendation is to impose a mandatory retirement age for politicians - which in our context should not be beyond 55 years or at the first sign of visible senility; which is not difficult to find and judge, and doesn’t require construction of a commission of enquiry, if one watches the primetime TV Talk shows each night -if this suggested ruling were to be applied here and now, we may need premature elections immediately. Not a bad idea though; considering how the current pack are acting out to handle the pandemic. Only a few men of action are found in history to have made a graceful exit at the most appropriate time!
The writer is a senior banker and a freelance contributor