The call by an influential think tank for more flexible retirement policies, and particularly the option to work on for longer, brings to mind the example of James Blake. The former secretary for works was 72 when the government plucked him from retirement and made him chief executive of the troubled Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation in 2006. It was not the first time Blake had made a mockery of Hong Kong's de facto retirement age of 60, having also overseen the construction of the KCRC's West Rail line after leaving the civil service. That said, he had the right background to guide the KCRC towards its merger with the MTR Corporation. It would have been a waste not to have taken advantage of it.
Contrast that with the Civil Service Bureau's response to the idea of a higher retirement age. A spokesman said it would have implications for succession planning that would affect promotion prospects, slow 'natural wastage' and reduce job openings - and there were no plans to adopt it. That has more to do with a culture of resistance to change than the truism that the most valuable asset of a knowledge-based society is its human capital. True, the civil service is not alone in expecting employees to retire at 60 in the absence of a legal retirement age. But just as it set the example for big private employers in introducing a five-day week for a better work-life balance, it can do so again by revising upwards the retirement age to end the built-in obsolescence that wastes our most precious asset. For that is what blanket retirement at 60 can amount to in a developed society with a skilled workforce - the premature junking of a lifetime of education, training and retraining and experience, leaving potential untapped. The most competitive societies of the future may be those with innovative policies to exploit such assets.
The study in question comes from the Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre, which is close to Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen. It tackles the retirement age in the context of the city's future manpower and public spending needs at a time when the population is ageing and the birth rate low. The government has tried, belatedly, to deal with income support for a retired population that is growing and living longer. It did so with the introduction of the Mandatory Provident Fund Scheme. However, MPF contribution rates are too low to support fully into their later years people who have retired at 60. The study says that even having retirees work part-time could help meet future labour shortages and put a brake on the public spending needed to support them. The implications for spending must also take into account the cost of heavily subsidised health care for an ageing population that will demand access to ever more expensive advances in treatment and technology. The more people continue to earn beyond nominal retirement age, while drawing their MPF benefit at 65, the lighter the burden on the taxpayer.
Hong Kong has no law on age discrimination, though the government has guidelines for employers on eliminating it. A recent survey of 1,503 households by the Equal Opportunities Commission found that after sexual and disability discrimination - already covered by law - age discrimination ranked highest among equality issues, with 50 per cent expressing concern.
The concern is not with discrimination in employment alone, but it is safe to say public opinion is running ahead of policy. The government should consult the community more widely on optional later retirement - for the sake of the city's future competitiveness.
