Dear Editor,

I’ve always found it a bit odd that the retirement age for some key offices in Jamaica has remained at 60 years old when in various countries, including the United States, England, Ireland, and Australia, the pensionable age for their equivalent is somewhere between 65 and 70.

Indeed, there’s been a move in recent years to increase the retirement age. In fact, in the United Kingdom in March of this year the Government agreed with the conclusion of an independent report that the increase in State pension age from 66 to 67 is appropriate for the public sector, including the director of public prosecutions (DPP), with a further potential increase to come.

Therefore, I welcome the move by the Government of Jamaica to extend the retirement age for both the DPP and the auditor general (AuG).

My receptiveness of the decision to increase the retirement age of both offices to 65, with a possibility of an extension to 70 years, is based on principle and not centred on personality. The principle being people often give the best of their service between 55 and 70, having already accumulated the experience necessary to navigate challenges presented in important offices.

That said, I am of the view as well that both office holders, Paula Llewellyn and Pamela Munroe Ellis, are a credit to Jamaica and have performed well. This heightens the extent to which I find bizarre opposition from the People’s National Party to an increase in the retirement age of the DPP in particular.

I find what seems to be partisan grandstanding by Opposition Leader Mark Golding and company concerning this uncontroversial increase in the retirement age of the DPP and the AuG shameful and unnecessary.

Tanya Hylton

tanya.hylton.01@yahoo.com