I wish to refer to the reports on the revision of retirement age and the extension of maximum pensionable service to 30 years from the current 25 years. It is a step in the right direction, long overdue no doubt, and Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi must take the credit for it, in particular under the current circumstances of inflation and uncontrolled rise in prices of essential consumer items.

But there is a serious flaw in limiting the maximum service to 30 years for the lower income groups. Let me attempt to explain.

Most of the employees who form the largest groups in the public service start their civil service before they are 20 years old with SPM and lower qualifications. To mention a few, they are the clerks, office boys, file searchers, technicians, drivers, mechanics, police constables and many others.

Starting work at 20 and earlier and with an extension now of retirement age to 58 (this will apply even if the retirement age remained 50) would mean that on normal retirement, their service period will be anything from 35 to 40 years.

Limiting the maximum service to 30 years for pension calculations would mean that those categories listed above will not get be getting their due pension payments for an average of 10 years each. Considering their salaries and with families to take care off, they will retire with little or no savings. They will have only their pension to survive.

The right and fair policy to adopt is pension based on the actual years of service at the time of retirement, right? Let the government and the country treat them compassionately in their old age. They are not asking for anything unfair and unreasonable but just for their pension to be based on their actual number of years served.

This is what Cuepacs has been asking for and most of Cuepacs members are from these groups.

To look at it from another perspective, those with degrees and other qualifications like doctors and engineers etc join the public service when they are above 25 or later.

The 30-year limit fits them very nicely as these are the workers who go up the ladder and retire with a high pay and their pension is based on their last-draw salary at retirement. They will draw a decent pension with good savings, unlike the lower income groups with no savings who retire at a low pay and a low pension.

It is only proper, therefore, that Cuepacs and the government give serious consideration to this matter before the enforcement of the new condition scheduled for implementation from 2009.

Maybe the 2009 budget will be an appropriate time to make this announcement. Dear PM, you have conceded 70%? Why not 100% for the sake of the poor?