Retirement plans risk hurting young
The proposed raising of the retirement age for state officials from 60 to 63 requires prudent consideration and implementation. The plan by the National Reform Steering Committee overseeing social issues was published in the Royal Gazette on Friday together with other national reform plans proposed by committees covering 11 areas.
The plan’s legal status remains unclear. On Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said the national reform plans are legally binding and state agencies have no option but to implement them. But yesterday, he said the plan is just a proposal for further study and can be changed.
Putting aside the debate over its legal status, the proposal, if implemented, will cause a big structural change in a bureaucratic system that involves more than two million officials and a huge budget. As a result, every taxpayer should be given the chance to have their say.
The plan will be implemented step by step over the next six years.
Those who were due to retire at 60 between 2019 and 2022 will stay on in office until they reach 61, while those who turn 60 in 2023 or 2024 will have the option of working until they are 63.
After 2024, the mandatory retirement age for all government officials will be 63.
The reform committee cited Thailand’s ageing society as a reason for its proposal.
There are several aspects that the government should take into consideration before implementing the plan.
First of all, the fact that Thailand is becoming an ageing society more quickly than its neighbours and will soon match Japan in terms of demographics.
According to the World Bank, by 2040 more than a quarter of the country’s population, or 17 million people, will be 65 or older.
Today, about 10% of the population is aged 65 and above, or 6.5 million people.
People of working age will shrink by 11% over the next 20 years.
Thailand’s working-age population — people in the 15-65 age group — will start to decline for the first time in 2018, according to the SCB Economic Intelligence Centre.
Neighbouring Malaysia will not experience a similar downturn until 2047, while the working-age population in Indonesia and the Philippines will continue to grow beyond 2050. Moreover, Thailand’s total population will peak in 2029, at around 69.7 million, before falling gradually thereafter.
This slide towards an older populace, and potential labour shortages, will definitely affect the country’s productivity as well as the bureaucracy.
In addition, today’s elderly are much healthier than before and can work well beyond the age of 60.
State officials remain as capable, if not more so, due to their experience and expertise.
Given these factors, it seems reasonable to raise the retirement age for civil servants.
However, one major argument against is that many state officials are unproductive. Should they also be retained for a longer period?
One of the national reform agendas is to scale down the bureaucracy. Is this proposal against that agenda?
In the armed forces, in particular, there are about 2,000 officials in high-ranking positions. Many of them are known to be serving in inactive posts. Will their retirement be pushed back too?
Moreover, I believe that many state officials would be unhappy at the idea of having to work for an extra three years they could be spending with their families and loved ones.
Many officials would actually rather retire earlier; at 55, the age at which their pension is eligible to be paid in full.
At a time when the country is facing the challenges of disruptive technology and joining the 4.0 era, it is likely that younger generations will be needed to lead the revolution, particularly in the government arena.
If existing officials are to stay longer, there will be fewer places left for the young and dynamic.
As a result, raising the retirement age for state officials, while necessary due to the changing demographics, must be done selectively rather across the board.
Areas where the retirement age should be raised must be considered carefully.
Priority should be given to those who are working in highly-skilled fields such as science and technology as well as medicine and healthcare.
Most importantly, pushing back retirement must not create obstacles to the young and talented being given a chance to bring fresh, modern ideas to an antiquated system.
Officials whose should be urged to take on advisory roles in their last years of employment, so their experience can be harnessed without impeding the path of young blood.
The scale of these changes must be limited, at least initially, and, in the meantime, the government should think about how to attract younger, more capable workers to enter the bureaucratic system over the coming years.
Good salaries and benefits cannot be the only methods used to attract the best young minds into government service. Vision, challenge and an open-minded attitude and working environment are equally, if not more, important.
If existing officials are to stay longer, there will be fewer places left for the young and dynamic.