The proposal to raise Malaysia’s retirement age from 60 to 65 has ignited a nationwide debate, one that reaches far beyond policy and dives straight into the heart of intergenerational equity, workforce planning, and national resilience. As with most sweeping changes, it demands more than a knee-jerk reaction. What we need now is nuance – not noise.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has wisely hit pause on the idea, stressing that the matter has yet to be tabled before Cabinet and must undergo a detailed assessment. “Let the ministry study the implications first,” he said, referring to potential ripple effects such as fiscal burden, job creation, and demographic shifts. The proposal deserves attention, yes – but not adoption without proper debate and scrutiny.

This more cautious tone came in the wake of a call by Azalina Othman Said, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department for Law and Institutional Reforms, to consider 65 as the new benchmark. Her rationale: many at 60 remain healthy, skilled and eager to contribute. Judges in Malaysia already retire at 65, and in some ASEAN countries, the cap is even higher.

Azalina’s suggestion, made in a personal capacity, has thrown a match into a dry field of public anxiety. Her remarks coincided with the re-emergence of the Hadiah Bahasa award, a symbolic moment celebrating national language and identity – but it was the retirement proposal that truly captured public attention.

The backlash and the bottleneck

Reactions came thick and fast. Critics argue that the policy, if implemented broadly, would clog already narrow pathways for younger workers. Many see it as the latest example of an age-old pattern: older workers holding on while younger ones wait for their turn at the wheel.

In a country where the youth unemployment rate hovers around 10% – more than triple the national average of 3% – the perception is that any delay in older workers stepping aside worsens job scarcity and wage stagnation. A former police officer, now a pilot, put it bluntly: “Sixty is a time to hand over power and responsibility to those who are younger. Enough is enough.”

The Malaysian Youth Council also came out swinging. Its president Mohd Izzat Afifi Abdul Hamid said raising the retirement age may deepen socio-economic rifts. He cited the 2013 shift from 55 to 60, which reportedly cost nearly a million job opportunities for young jobseekers. With over 300,000 graduates entering the labour market each year, the stakes are high.

“This is not a matter of choosing between the young or the old,” Mohd Izzat said, “but about ensuring fair policies that guarantee economic security for all parties.”

False dichotomy, real consequences

Much of the debate is framed in binaries: the old versus the young, job creators versus job blockers. But this line of thinking is a red herring. Age should not be the sole axis on which opportunity turns. Rather, what we need is a flexible, differentiated approach to retirement – one that accounts for job types, physical demands, financial realities, and career trajectories.

Economist Aimi Zulhazmi argued that many older Malaysians simply cannot afford to stop working at 60. With housing loans still being paid off and prices on a steep incline, extending one’s career can be more necessity than choice. “Many want to continue working beyond 60 as long as the body permits,” Aimi said, suggesting a staggered or role-based system could preserve upward mobility for the young.

Others, however, are wary of what this might mean in practice. Akmal Husin, a 42-year-old teacher, challenged the notion that most 60-year-olds are raring to go. “Colleagues as young as 55 already take frequent medical leave,” he told the South China Morning Post. “They’ll spend the next decade coping with deteriorating health if forced to stay longer.”

There’s truth in both perspectives. A senior engineer in a desk-based role may thrive until 70, while a bus driver or nurse may not. A one-size-fits-all policy would miss the mark by a country mile.

Towards a two-way street

It’s clear that the retirement age conversation cannot be isolated from the broader fabric of Malaysia’s labour economy. Bank Negara recently revealed that over two-thirds of Malaysians cannot raise RM1,000 (US$234) in an emergency, and fewer than half feel financially secure about retirement. This points to a system already stretched thin – where expectations outpace reality, and retirement can feel more like a cliff edge than a graceful transition.

Yet frustration among younger professionals is just as palpable. Some feel they’re not just waiting in line – they’re being handed the toughest tasks while senior colleagues coast along. “They always come up with excuses, saying I’m not familiar with this system, why don’t you young people do it,” one social media user vented. This speaks less to age, and more to adaptability and accountability – qualities that matter at any stage of life.

A more balanced model would treat retirement not as a fixed endpoint, but a phased off-ramp. It could include optional part-time arrangements, mentorship roles, or project-based contracts for those wishing to stay engaged while making room for others. It would recognise that contribution isn’t always about clocking hours – sometimes, it’s about passing the torch with care.

Don’t throw out experience with the bathwater

Amid the uproar, we must be careful not to discard institutional memory and hard-won wisdom. In high-stakes sectors such as law, healthcare, and diplomacy, experience is more than an asset – it’s a backbone. The current uncertainty over whether Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and two other senior judges will receive tenure extensions is a case in point. When leadership vacuums emerge without successors in place, continuity suffers.

But retaining senior leaders should not come at the cost of stifling fresh talent. A healthy organisation, like a well-tended orchard, requires both deep roots and new shoots. This means fostering a pipeline where mentorship, not monopoly, becomes the guiding principle.

Not just about retirement – but rethinking work

The current conversation reveals more than just views on when people should retire. It exposes deeper structural gaps in how Malaysia treats career progression, financial security, and intergenerational equity. Raising the retirement age without strengthening support systems – such as upskilling, healthcare access, and financial planning – would be akin to patching a roof while ignoring the cracks in the foundation.

Instead of debating whether 60 or 65 is the “right” age, perhaps we should be asking: what does a sustainable, inclusive workforce look like in 2030 and beyond?

Policies must evolve with demographic trends, but also with empathy and foresight. Flexibility should be the name of the game – allowing those who wish to work longer the option to do so, while not blocking those at the start of their journeys from building a life and livelihood.

To put it simply: longevity shouldn’t come at the expense of legacy. Malaysia must strive to become a nation where opportunity isn’t bound by age, but by ability, ambition and adaptability.

Retirement reform can’t be driven by nostalgia or fear – it must be shaped by courage, compassion, and a commitment to the future. Let’s not turn the age debate into a tug-of-war. Instead, let’s build a ladder that lifts everyone.