Are you for or against delaying retirement age?

I recently met a school friend I had not seen in years. After the usual greetings, the first question he asked was: “Have you retired from your job?”
I usually find this question slightly irritating, but when he told me he had already retired and mentioned a few other classmates who had done the same, I understood.
Most of our batch have completed thirty years at work. The question of retirement, once distant, has become personal.
Across the world, governments are re-examining the age at which people should step away from work. Rising life expectancy, growing healthcare costs and pressure on pension systems have pushed some countries to extend retirement ages. The issue is no longer about personal choice alone, it is about economics, demographics and the nature of work itself.
Supporters of extending working life argue that people today live longer and healthier lives than previous generations. Many in their sixties and even seventies are physically fit, mentally sharp and capable of contributing. Remaining at work offers structure, purpose and social connection.
Economically, the case is even stronger. Countries like Germany and France have raised retirement ages to 67 and 64, respectively, mainly to protect public pension systems. Japan is also actively encouraging companies to retain older workers. While in Singapore, flexible re-employment schemes allow seniors to continue in less demanding roles while still earning an income.
For individuals, working longer, particularly in non-manual jobs, is associated with better physical health and reduced risk of depression. Financially, delaying retirement helps people build more savings and rely less on their pension.
On the other hand, delaying retirement age can be damaging to the health of workers in physically demanding jobs such as construction, farming, or nursing. If older workers stay longer in their posts, younger workers may face slower career progression. In some Arab countries, this is a serious concern.
In some societies, retirement is seen as a time to devote oneself to family, faith, or community service.
Sweden and Norway adopted a more reasonable approach by offering partial retirement, where older employees reduce their hours gradually while still contributing their skills. This way, retirement becomes a transition, respecting both financial needs and human dignity.
In the Arab world, where family bonds remain strong but social change is shifting traditions, the conversation is equally relevant. Some older adults want to remain active in their professions while others prefer to step back and spend more time with grandchildren or in community work. What is needed is choice, not compulsion.
In my opinion, retirement is less about a number and more about readiness financially, physically and emotionally. Delayed retirement has clear advantages, but it also carries risks. The challenge for societies, including ours, is to design systems that respect both the vitality of older workers and the opportunities owed to the young. In the end, retirement should not be about simply leaving work, but about entering the next stage of life with dignity and purpose.

Dr Hamed Al Sinawi
The writer is a senior consultant psychiatrist at SQU Hospital