The Hon. (Dr.) Nishantha Samaraweera

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, regarding the matter raised in this Adjournment debate, we must consider the basis on which the public sector retirement age was extended to 65 at that time. It was due to the economic crisis then prevailing and the constraints on recruitment, not due to a lack of youth needing jobs. That extension was intended as a short-term measure.

¶ 02 Looking at Sri Lanka’s population pyramid, about 22 percent are aged 15-30 and about 14 percent are aged 30-40; in total, roughly 35 percent of the population are youth. The Government has a duty to provide jobs and bring their skills, capabilities, and modern education into the public service. Therefore, raising retirement age should not become an obstacle to inducting youth.

¶ 03 Retirement age extensions are justified only if there is a shortage in the public service or in the layer immediately below. From what Hon. Kariapper and Hon. Dayasiri presented, that has not been clearly established across the board. Thus, when considering raising retirement age, we must weigh efficiency, productivity, training opportunities for youth, and fiscal costs. Extending retirement to 65 does not necessarily reduce expenditure; it can also deny youth entry and delay trained cadres joining service. We must consider all these factors and focus on overall efficiency and effectiveness.

¶ 04 Thank you, Hon. Presiding Member.