I welcome the many calls to increase the retirement age of employees in the government and private sector to 60 to 65 years of age. There are many advantages to the move especially in areas where as one gets older (provided they are still healthy) he or she is more of asset than a liability to the organisation.

This applies to academicians, researchers, scientists, doctors, engineers, lawyers, writers, technicians and many more. Among other things senior professionals from these fields with their wealth of knowledge and experience can be tasked to mentor the new recruits in the organisation.

A balanced age group of young and old employees in an organisation have always stood out prominently in many areas especially in productivity. On the other hand it’s a burden to allow the ‘deadwood’ and those who have been unproductive and who have disciplinary problems, especially those suspected of corrupt activities, to continue their services in any organisations.

These ‘parasites’ should be shown the exit as they are not only a burden to tax payers but have the potential to tarnish the image of the organisation. A proper appraisal mechanism should be in place to ensure that the public sector does not allow one to move on automatically to a 60-year-old retirement.

Having said that we should not hold back those who wish to opt out at 55, otherwise it will only lead to unnecessary resentment which will be counterproductive.

The public sector should also consider re-employing those who have retired and whose services are essential to the nation on a contract basis.