For years, the unfairness of Malta's early retirement rules has been pointed out by employer bodies, trade unions, civil society, affected workers and, more recently, by Opposition MP Ivan Bartolo. Yet the anomaly remains stubbornly in place.

The Malta Chamber of Commerce, the Malta Employers Association, The General Workers Union and the UHM-Voice of the Workers are all in agreement that banning those who opt for retirement at 61 from undertaking any form of active legal employment as an employee or self-employed person has many adverse impacts. PN MP Ivan Bartolo has joined the chorus.

Yet the Labour government does not want to listen.

The issue is simple enough for anyone to understand. A person who has worked for more than four decades and paid all the required social security contributions may choose to retire at 61. But once that decision is taken, the same person is effectively prevented from taking up any form of employment until reaching the age of 65 without facing penalties or losing benefits. In practice, many people feel they are being told: you have earned the right to retire, but you are not free to continue contributing to society on your own terms.

That is not a modern social policy. It is an outdated contradiction.

These are not individuals asking for special treatment. They have already fulfilled their obligations to the state. They have spent 40 years or more working, paying taxes and contributions, and helping build the country's prosperity. To deny them the flexibility to work part-time, take on occasional employment or remain professionally active is to ignore both economic reality and basic fairness.

The government's response has been to dangle additional financial incentives before those over 61 who remain in full-time employment. More money, we are told, will encourage people to keep working.

But that misses the point entirely.

Many workers reaching 61 are not looking for higher earnings in exchange for more years of full-time labour. They are looking for balance. After decades of work, many would like to wind down gradually rather than stop abruptly. They may wish to work fewer hours, take on less demanding roles, mentor younger colleagues or simply remain active without the pressures of a full-time schedule. The current system offers them little room to do so.

In doing this, Malta is wasting one of its most valuable resources: experience.

A 61-year-old worker often possesses skills, institutional memory and practical knowledge that cannot easily be replaced. At a time when many sectors complain of labour shortages and struggle to retain experienced staff, it makes little sense to discourage older workers who are willing to continue contributing. Other countries are trying to keep older citizens engaged in the workforce through flexible arrangements. Malta, by contrast, is still operating under rules that belong to another era.

There is also a deeper social consequence. When people who want to work legally discover that the system penalises them for doing so, some inevitably begin looking for alternatives. The risk is not merely theoretical. Restrictive rules can push activity into the informal economy, undermining tax collection and weakening respect for the system itself. A policy that discourages transparent work is a policy that ultimately harms everyone.

Most importantly, the present arrangement creates a sense of injustice. Two people may have worked for the same number of years and paid the same contributions, yet one who chooses early retirement finds himself treated as though he has forfeited certain freedoms. That is why many affected individuals speak of feeling like second-class citizens.

They should not.

A society that truly values work should also value those who have spent a lifetime doing it. If someone has contributed for more than 40 years and earned the right to a pension, that person should be able to decide whether to continue working a few hours a week, take up consultancy work, or remain professionally active without fear of penalties.

This debate has been going on for years. Governments have acknowledged the concern, promised to study it, and then moved on. Meanwhile, thousands of workers approaching retirement continue to face a false choice between stopping work entirely or remaining in full-time employment longer than they would like.

The country can do better. Reforming these rules would not be an act of generosity; it would be an act of justice. People who have given 40 years of their lives to work deserve dignity, flexibility and freedom of choice in the later stages of their careers. They have earned nothing less.