Many governments have toyed with the idea of extending the retirement age for civil servants, following the footsteps of Western countries. Yet, none has treated it as seriously as the current administration.
Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul floated the idea of retirement extension earlier this month, and this week, the government will discuss the matter with the Office of the Civil Service Commission to prepare for policy implementation, including the criteria and pension calculation model.
The idea of extending retirement age for public servants is to address the country’s ageing population, which is expected to result in a shrinking pool of people entering public service and an ensuing decline in its competency.
Supporters argue that, as Thailand is set to become a “super-aged society” by 2033, with almost 30% of its population 60 or older, the working-age group will shrink.
Keeping older and experienced workers in their jobs — especially those requiring specialised skills, such as judges or professors — will help mitigate the labour shortage.
Meanwhile, the courts and prosecutors have already implemented pilot schemes that extend the retirement age to 65-70.
Supporters have said that the extended retirement age also provides seniors with opportunities to rely on themselves and build more savings, reducing elderly poverty and dependence on the state or their families for financial support.
Extending the mandatory retirement age would also help shore up the Social Security Fund (SSF), which is projected to face a deficit within the next two decades.
Regarding the labour shortage, critics argue that the problem is not concentrated in the public sector. They say hundreds of thousands of young graduates are waiting for officials to retire so they can enter the service or advance in their bureaucratic careers.
Many also raise concerns that the Thai bureaucracy, which employs over a million workers and requires about 800 billion baht in wages, is currently bloated, cumbersome, and inefficient.
What is needed, they say, first and foremost, is meaningful structural reform rather than retaining older officials.
Out of a score of 100, the Global Competitiveness Report by the World Economic Forum (WEF) gives only 55 to Thailand’s bureaucratic and legal systems.
The International Country Risk Guide’s indicator also reports that the country’s quality of government is rapidly declining, overtaken by Vietnam, which reportedly has a better-performing bureaucracy and law enforcement.
As for the purported help to the SSF, the government should strive to make its investment and management more efficient, transparent and invite new members instead of extending retirement age, to avoid paying huge pension funds to senior members of the fund.
The government’s policy revolves around three issues: the ageing population, labour shortages, and cost concerns. However, it misses a crucial aspect: the rapid pace of technological change and the skills required to navigate the modern world.
The country’s future competitiveness is a critical factor. While retaining older civil servants may be helpful, this benefit must be weighed against the high risk of compromising other prospects.