Firstpost.com
This is an age-old question: what is the right age to retire? Especially if you are working for government and we taxpayers have to pay for your services.
It is symptomatic of the casual way in which we address the issue that a Group of Ministers (GoM) led by P Chidambaram will be deliberating on whether or not to raise the age limit (at the time of selection) for public sector CEOs from 58 to 60, as recommended by the SK Roongta Committee.
There is nothing wrong with the idea as such, but it can't be done in isolation. Can one decide what is the right retirement age for one set of public sector employees and not the rest? Especially since the age bar can, by exception, be extended at political whim? Example: E Sreedharan, the iconic chief of the Delhi Metro, retired only at 80 last year.
This writer believes that the case for not raising the retirement age in India is stronger than the case for doing so. For one main reason: in a young country, where two-thirds of the population is below 35, it does not make sense to let retiring people block growth for younger leaders.
But before we elaborate on this argument, consider the completely arbitrary nature of the age limits we now have: while government servants retire at 60, there is a proposal to raise the age limit to 64 . In the judiciary, Supreme Court judges retire at 65 and High Court judges at 62. Wonder why less wisdom or experience is required in the high courts than in the apex court? Some senior jurists think the retirement age for judges should be 70 .
Army chiefs, on the other hand, have to retire at 62. But it's not so simple : armed forces personnel retire at 56 if they have not crossed the rank of Lt Colonel by then; Colonels retire at 58, Brigadiers at 59, Major Generals at 60, Lt Generals at 61 and the Chief of Army Staff at 62.
Politicians, of course, never retire. They only leave office feet first. In contrast, US Presidents are packed off after two years (eight years) whatever their age.
Before we come to definitive answers, let's hear the arguments for and against raising the retirement age in any public sector service whether it is a commercial undertaking, or the judiciary, or the army or an administrative service like the IAS.
It is argued that we need to raise the retirement age in all our government/public sector services for the following reasons.
One, the country would lose valuable experience and wisdom if we let people go at 60 (or whatever is the current official age of retirement now in any service).
Two, with overall health parameters improving, age does not usually bring disability or inability to function at one's peak for longer. If people could work well till 58 earlier, now 60 seems more natural. In future, 65 may seem just a fine.
Three, raising the retirement age opens up the possibility of giving leaders longer tenures a five-year tenure for a CEO is possible only if he becomes CEO at 55. Else he will get less. If the retirement age is raised to, say, 65 across all government employment, more CEOs will get longer tenures even if they get the top job a bit later.
Four, raising the retirement age also delays pension payments, enabling more contributions into the kitty for longer. In countries with a growing proportion of old people (as in Germany, Denmark, etc), this is the preferred solution to avoid underfunding of pensions.
Five, chronological age is not a determinant of fitness for any job.
On the other hand, let's look at the downside as well. The arguments against raising the retirement age are as follows, and look stronger:
One, keeping people longer means lowering opportunities for brighter and younger people especially in leadership positions. The brightest and the best may thus leave the public sector for better prospects elsewhere.
Two, a hypercompetitive world needs younger, more nimble leaders and older people are less willing to adapt to the new challenges, whatever their level of experience.
Three, some jobs are simply not right for older people for example, active service in the army, or in technology jobs. Rude physical/mental alertness is always a function of age, and cannot be understated. Whatever be their relative experience levels, and whatever the actual outcome in one particular tournament, a Magnus Carlsen at 23 will always be a stronger chess player than a Viswanathan Anand at 43. A 50-year-old general will be mentally and physically more fit than a 60-year-old though there will be the odd 60-year general who will be better than a 50-year-old.
Four, asking people to retire early is not the same as not using their experience fully. Retired generals, executives and government servants do not have to be army chiefs or secretaries to be of use. E Sreedharan could always have been a mentor to a Delhi Metro chief without being the executive head. Moreover, retirement from an official job is not the same as a vegetative experience a second career can well be the answer after 60.
Five, chronological age matters, not because one specific 65-year-old can't be fitter or more agile than a 60-year-old, but because in government you can't have norms that will be subjectively applied depending on the individual. This is precisely the arbitrariness we are trying to avoid.
The reason why American Presidents have term limits is to ensure that there is a constant infusion of new blood and one popular president can't stay on forever. Bill Clinton demited office when he was barely 55 but is anyone arguing that he couldn't have handled one more term or that he didn't deserve one? Ronald Reagan, who was one of the oldest presidents to be installed in office, may well have continued but for the term limit. (Stupidly, though, in the US system, Supreme Court judges decide their own retirement age and some have stayed on well past 80, even when they may have been partially senile).
To be sure, even the current retirement age is practically meaningless in our system of political patronage, where retiring bureaucrats and judges and public sector officers find ways to extend their power beyond 60 with the help of political bosses.
As an Indian Express report last year noted, "Details of nearly 90 such (post-retirement) appointments made in recent years show…civil servants being parked as governors, information commissioners, and as heads or members of a slew of bodies such as the Union Public Service Commission, the National Commission for Minorities, Central Information Commission, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Most of these posts enjoy the rank of secretary to the government of India or above. In the case of some officers, new positions have been created to accommodate them." Babus seem to have an ability to extend their retirement ages unilaterally, never mind what the rule-book says.
Some 18 of the 21 Supreme Court judges who retired after 2008 were given sinecures or other powerful positions in various quasi-judicial bodies. Markandey Katju managed to wangle a Press Council job even after 65 when the whole media scene is getting younger and younger. An ability to recite the Hanuman Chalisa is surely no qualification for Katju to remain in office after retirement?
The system clearly needs fixing. The retired should stay retired, even though their expertise can always be used in a consultative, non-executive capacity.
The point is simply that a younger nation needs younger leaders. They can always choose to use the oldies as sounding boards. Having older people block the ambitions of younger people is the quickest way to frustration and rebellion.
The Chidambaram-headed GoM that will consider raising the age limit for public sector CEOs should also scrap the lower age limit for them which is currently 45. There is no reason why the public sector cannot have CEOs younger than 45. Most CEOs of technology companies and even in services are below that age.
The solution to the problem of giving CEOs a longer and fixed tenure does not lie in raising the retirement age, but in making people CEOs or judges or army generals or secretaries to the government at a younger age.
The issue of how good or young you feel about yourself at 60 is irrelevant. No one gives up power easily. It is unfair to ask Sachin when he will retire; that question should really be put to the BCCI, Sachin's employer.
The old must make way for the young . And raising the retirement age in government jobs, or even public sector jobs, is not a great idea in this context. In a country with an average life expectancy of 65-66 years, how does it make sense to ask government servants to stay on their jobs till 65?
The writer is editor-in-chief, digital and publishing, Network18 Group
.jpg)
{ 0 komentar... Views All / Send Comment! }
Posting Komentar