Daily Lessons from Life 02 October 2014 - Re-employment age for public servants extended to 67

Foreigners at HLP showing solidarity with the Hong Kong 'Occupy Central' protesters last night: Another misguided bunch of foreigners like those Malaysians during the last Malaysian GE?

"Re-employment age for public servants extended to 67 - AsiaOne  Oct 02, 2014

SINGAPORE - From Jan 1 next year, eligible public servants can be re-employed after they turn 65, up to the age of 67. This move will benefit some 800 public officers turning 65 years old next year.

Public officers are currently re-employed up to age 65 when they reach the statutory retirement age of 62. Public agencies are already voluntarily re-employing officers beyond the age of 65, if the officers wish to continue working.

Eligible public officers who wish to continue working, can do so on the same job with the same pay and benefits, provided the job is available. Otherwise, agencies will help the officers to find suitable jobs within or outside their agency. If no jobs are available, agencies will offer a payment to help them make the adjustment while they look for another job.

These PSD guidelines for re-employment are based on recommendations made by the Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers on extending the re-employment age."

Well, the public sector has to take a lead I guessed with this re-employment age revision from 65 to 67 years old.

Lessons for me are:

1. if the potential retirees want to continue working, why not? As long as they are able and willing. That is from the individual perspective;

2. the organization will need to consider the career path of the younger generation of workers who may not be able to accept that they have to wait for another 2 or more years to get to the top of the career ladder, assuming they are able, willing and ambitious.

Also, from the costs perspective, I wonder if it is really necessary to pay the same pay when the potential retirees want to continue past 65 years old doing the same job. Reason: at that age and with that kind of pay, assuming he or she is doing well enough and the pay reflects the number of years of working has some values, there is really no need to have the same pay IF it is depriving someone younger to do the job! This is heresy I know and is controversial. Again, my simple mind says that when one is at that age, the worldly needs, besides the inevitable physical breaking down of our bodies and health, touched wood, should be lesser. Hence, lesser need for more money. Yes?;

3. As heard from the 93.8 radio talk show on similar topic, the SME Association President said that the SMEs have no issue with extending the re-employment age to 67 years old as long as the workers are able and willing as the SMEs normally have long service employees. What he probably did not state is that their pays will not be so good that they can ask for a lower pay! YET, keeping them on will mean higher costs IF the SMEs can hire lower-waged and younger and more productive foreigners! This is a REAL issue. How can we help the SMEs, which supposedly to provide more than 70% of total employment keep their older and lower paid Singapore citizen workers?

p/s: Whenever I have kopi at People's Park Complex or Chinatown Hawker Center on a lazy afternoon, I can see quite a few retirees or 'temporary out-of-job seniors' having their Tiger Beers or Anchors or whatever passing time. I wonder if they are keen to be employed or they can afford to spend time in this manner?