It was reported that the Chief Secretary to the government Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan’s who is due to retire on 23rd June 2010, has had his service extended for a year until 23rd June 2011. It would appear that extending the service of senior government officers is now a norm rather than a case-by-case basis.
If one looks back at past holders of the appointment of the Chief Secretary, each and every one of them has had their service extended pass their compulsory retirement age. Even now, when the retirement age of civil servants have been extended from 55 years to 58 years, a further extension is still needed for some. Why is this so, is baffling. If this be the case, why not just extend the service of all government servants to 60 years, like in most developed countries. I retired at the age of 55 years, and I am now 66 years old and am not yet senile. In other words, I am still productive, with the mental capacity to think ably.
I believe this issue has been debated many a times, and I remembered, even Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (Ku LI) has given his opinion that does not favour the extension of service of selected senior government servants. It is quite absurd to say the least, that the extension is needed to maintain continuity. And what is so important that others cannot continue or perform the job of the incumbent. If this be the reason, than there is something seriously wrong with the succession plans within the top echelon of the civil service.
The same can also be said of the Armed Forces. How many times has the holder of the post of the Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) been extended? It is a norm that the holder of the post gets an extension; sometime up to a third extension. Why has this to be so for the Armed Forces, where it practices a high level of deputation for almost every appointment?
Taking the case of the CDF, anytime when the CDF is away or invalid, either one of the service chief will deputized the appointment. There is absolutely no problem with this arrangement, because at the level of the service chiefs, there is already a common understanding among all the three service chiefs, as to the nature of work that the CDF does, and whatever he does is to the knowledge of the service chiefs. In very simple terms, every action of the CDF is known to the service chiefs, and that the CDF does not decide or do things unilaterally.
The same can also be said of the position of the three service chiefs, where each has a deputy. And it is for the aforesaid reasons that I do not see any justifiable reason for the post of the CDF and the three service chiefs be extended pass their compulsory retirement age.
I am informed that the Chief of Army is due to retire in a few months from now, and there is already a talk that he is seeking an extension, or is awaiting for the government to offer him an extension, as reported in the media. I am also aware that the CDF has not many more months left, and let us hope that there is already a clear succession plan as to who should be the next CDF, and also the new Chief of Army.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION