Retirement of public servants
The Government
has decided on compulsory retirement of all public servants who
reach the age of 60. According to a news item quoting Public
Administration Minister John Seneviratne, this will apply to
even the Security Forces. Accordingly some 12,000 public
servants who reach the age of 60 this year will not be given
extensions. It was also revealed that more than 2,000 public
servants, most of them holding senior positions, obtain
extensions every year.
The stated objective of strictly enforcing the age rule for
retirement is to create openings for the younger generation in
the State sector and pave the way for promotions for junior
staff. The Minister of course is justified on this count given
the large army of unemployed waiting in the wings. Youth unrest
too could result if employment opportunities are not created for
the young. We saw this happen in 1971 and all steps should be
taken to prevent a repetition. From this point of view the
Minister is justified in enforcing the age rule.
There is also another side to the coin. The 60 year
retirement ceiling came into being at a different time in a
different age. That was a time when one was considered over the
hill when one reached the age of 60 when one's faculties were
considered to be on the wane. Thus, such a person was considered
both physically and mentally unfit to continue in his task. This
was the reason for the drawing the line at 60.
However in this modern age with the new advances in the
medical field, the advent of health foods enhancing vigour and
drive, mechanisms and devices that helps retain youth and
energy, extending the life expectancy of an individual one would
consider the 60 year age limit for retirement to be unfair. Also
under the circumstances one expects to be at his/her prime at
the age of 60 years where one's work output is expected to reach
the maximum levels. Most Government servants may also still have
children of school going age at this time of their life and to
'evict' them at such a crucial time although it is the legal
norm, too could result in a crisis.
Therefore, the Government should give its thought seriously
to some of the consequences of retiring people at 60 years of
age. It hardly needs to be stressed that we need the best people
in the public service today more than at any other time if the
Government is to effectively take forward its development
programs. Who better to undertake this task than those with
experience and knowledge acquired over a long period of time?
New recruits among the youth however much qualified they may be
would not fit into their new role at once. They would be all at
sea with their new tasks and will take some time to establish
themselves. And time is one commodity that the Government cannot
afford to waste if it is to get its act together.
There can be nothing to substitute experience. The best
course of action would be to retain the professionals and
experts even if they have reached the compulsory retirement age
if the Government is to implement its development programs with
any degree of success. Of course it should get rid of the
deadwood. It is common knowledge that most Government
departments are overstaffed with some corporations bursting at
the seams mostly with political appointees who are mere time
servers. On no account should extensions be granted to such
types. It should be limited to certain categories whose services
will be of importance in the present context.
While the decision by the Government not to grant extensions
to those public servants beyond 60 years could be justified it
should also ensure those who will replace them will be equally
or more qualified to perform the task of their predecessors. We
say this because the practice still is to fill Government
vacancies with political appointees. If this be the case then it
will be a defeat of the purpose of the applying the retirement
age. What should be uppermost in the minds of the authorities is
productivity. Merely replacing competent people, although they
have reached 60 years of age, with unproductive novices would
seem irrational and not in the best interest of the public
sector which is already reeking with corruption and
inefficiency.
The Government should strike the proper balance when applying
the age rule for retirement of public servants. It would be wise
not to throw away the baby with the bath water. |