http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/295032/1/.html

and

“Rehiring: ‘Reference manual’ in 2 years”- Straits Times, Home, Tuesday, September 18 2007

In this piece of reflection, I shall be using two separate, but complementary articles- both addressing the issue of modifying the retirement age in our nation.

The first article, about the 2007 National Day Rally Speech made by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, clearly reflects the generally concurring and supportive viewpoints of the masses with regard to the proposed governmental changes. The second provides a more factual report on how the changes will be implemented in the next decade or so, to cope with Singapore’s rapidly aging population, which will purportedly be the fourth oldest by 2050.

An increased life expectancy, without doubt, would entail the need for senior staff to work and contribute to Singapore’s blossoming economical status. Nevertheless, I believe that it is even more imperative for the government to consider the conflicting issues in light of the many benefits the advocated changes can bring about.

Are older staff members still able to retain the enthusiasm the younger generation promises in copious amounts? Or is the retaining of older workers going to bring about a major loss in productivity? These are questions the government needs to account for.

A clear reason why companies prefer employing younger workers to older ones is simply because of the cost they are able to save salary-wise. Furthermore, bright and energetic, younger workers are most certainly able to learn and adapt more quickly, and can bear the guarantee of serving the company for a longer period of time.

Taking all these into consideration, quite blatantly, why would a company opt to hire older employees out of free will, when it can hire one at a similar, if not lower salary demand? Contemplating the long-term effects, it could possibly deter foreign companies from starting businesses in Singapore, since this motion could very possibly pose unwelcome restrictions.

Another interesting point to cogitate would be how Singapore’s economic landscape would look like with the influx of foreign talents. The cosmopolitan landscape is undergoing massive transformation, and I doubt, in a decade or two’s time, it will look anything like the one at present.

As such, with the speculated population to hit 6 million people by 2010, and the extension of retirement age, job opportunities would be in even greater demand. Modifying the retirement age would, in my opinion, still come to naught if there were to be a dearth of career opportunities. In other words, while making adequate plans to deal with the aging population, creating jobs should be of similar priority.

Personally, a work-force comprising the young and old, junior and senior, is most certainly viable. The biggest problem I foresee is very much one of conflicting egos. For me, both parties are valuable to Singapore’s economic growth. And there should be no shame in having older employees draw from the capabilities of the younger ones. Vice versa, it is crucial that the hubris of the young workers are kept in check, while tapping into the valuable experience accumulated by the previous generation.

On the government’s part, better communication could be urged to clear “coffeeshop rumours”. Cogent reasons should be put forth, as to how new initiatives implemented are going to be effective. For without having the hearts of the citizens put into the effort, it is almost a sure-to-fail exploit.

All in all, I am heartened. These new moves made by the government show coherent and far-sighted planning for the future; not just the near future, but many years ahead. It is impossible for one to have a cake and eat it too- conflicts are unavoidable. On this count, it is really up to our government to ultimately make the best decision after weighing and evaluating the various options, in the best interests of our nation.