The new legislation by this government to extend the retirement age of judges to 67 years old invites some comments. To start with, to extend the retirement age of civil servants from 60 to 65 years old should require a change in our Constitution not by a simple majority vote in Parliament. This amendment in Parliament is therefore clearly unconstitutional and discriminatory. Where is the concept of equality and fairness applicable to civil servants to give them equal opportunity?

Judges are civil servants like Education Officers, Medical Officers, Teachers, Permanent Secretaries and other Officers of whatever their status. The government can't amend the law just like that. Judges can stay on till their 67 years primarily because it is argued that they have acquired more wisdom and knowledge.

On the other side, what about those medical consultants and other senior officers who work round the clock ? Have we not sponsored them to go abroad to enhance their knowledge to acquire expertise knowledge and so on ? Officers in the field of education are sent abroad to take their P.G.C.E, and other specialist qualifications. These specialist qualifications are usually acquired at or after the age of 50. Is it not wastage of human resources and money?

If judges can be allowed to stay till the age of 67, why not for the other categories of officers in the public sector? And say that the government has declared his intention of making Mauritius an Education Hub as well as encouraging the expansion of Science education on the island. Who are those parents foolish enough to spend million of rupees on their children to become science teachers in secondary schools and hardly having any promotions and ending up with peanut pension?

We know of cases of those who did law and eventually within a short period become judges whereas their bright science classmates are still queuing to become senior education officers. I think if we are sincere to ourselves, we should set up a genuine committee comprising members from different occupations in the public service to review the following:-

(1) Salaries of Ministers, Speaker and MPs

(2) Qualifications and salaries of public officers in different grades

(3) To extend the retiring age of all civil servants to the same limit—to avoid discrimination.

(4) To review the composition of the Pay Research Bureau. Important decisions concerning careers, salaries and conditions of services cannot be left in the hands of few Public Officers.

Last but not least, we should think about those youngsters who are now joining the public services. What are their promotional prospects? By allowing the elders to hang on to their posts for some extra 5 to 6 years, are we not denying them their promotional prospects?

I would like to quote one shocking fact. A junior officer drawing a meagre salary on retirement is appointed as adviser or chairman to a post which normally requires qualification which he/she does not hold and which carries salaries 3 or 4 times higher than what he/she used to draw by virtue of political affiliation.

Is this not a big kick in the teeth of those highly qualified professionals who are still waiting for their rightful chances and dues? Is this what we call democracy and equality of chances for our people?

Ahmad Macky