The proposal to extend the retirement age of civil servants would also have an impact on the more than 300,000 employees in government-funded welfare, educational and medical institutions. The private sector would be expected to follow suit, too.

Some people are concerned about the effect of raising the retirement age on Hong Kong's existing workforce.

However, with an unemployment rate of just 3 per cent, the impact on employment opportunities would be minimal.

In fact, employment rates for people aged over 50 have been rising here in the past decade. But Hong Kong's employment rate for those aged 60 to 64 stands at 37.7 per cent, much lower than that of our neighbours such as Japan (60.5 per cent), Singapore (58.1 per cent) and South Korea (57.8 per cent), which also face the problem of ageing populations.

Hong Kong's workforce is expected to decline from 2018 so it's especially important to consider how we can effectively utilise an elderly workforce. During Hong Kong's demographic window - the time when there is a relatively high proportion of people of working age - the government has more resources at hand. But this window is due to close by 2016, and the age dependency ratio will rise rapidly after that. With a later retirement age, the window would remain open until 2025, giving us extra time to tackle the challenges of an ageing society, alleviating the pressure of a shortage of workers.

Of course, such a move would also affect the opportunities for young people to climb the career ladder. But more experienced employees in the workforce could make the transition smoother.

Also, the government and private companies should be more innovative when making use of older workers by, for example, employing them in staff training and development, where they can pass on their experience and knowledge.

Other arrangements such as part-time and consultancy work, plus volunteering, would further enhance our human capital.

Universities in the US and Australia, for example, do not impose a mandatory retirement age; as long as a person can still contribute to teaching, research and training, he or she can continue working.

Some people claim the move would increase the government's financial burden. But this may not necessarily be the case. By extending the retirement age, the government would have to pay out less in pensions benefits; based on its own calculations, it ends up out of pocket if retired civil servants live more than 13 years after they finish work. Hence, the longer an individual is at work, the lower the costs of pension payments. In the meantime, these older workers can be an effective force by using their knowledge, experience and personal relationships to benefit the whole community.

Of course, we also need to eliminate age discrimination at work. One example is the current practice of excessive premiums for medical insurance for those aged 60 and above. An open and transparent audit system in government is also necessary to avoid accusations of favouritism, as are ways to strengthen youth training, increase work efficiency and broaden the type of work available.

Extending the retirement age would give people a choice and meet the needs of society. It would also bridge the gap between the current retirement age of 60 and the availability of Mandatory Provident Fund payments, which only begin at 65.

The changes would not only affect the 160,000-plus civil servants, but would impact on the total workforce of more than 3.5 million. All workers should be given the choice, so Hong Kong can maintain its competitiveness and develop sustainably. We should aim, above all, to create family-friendly workplaces while ensuring a smooth transition to retirement, to give people a more fulfilling life. Workers' income and mental well-being need to be protected, too. Remember, we should work to live, not live to work.