Khaberni - Is it plausible that the president's tours in the provinces and the holding of cabinet sessions outside the boundaries of the Fourth Circle, suddenly disclosed the extent of “welfare” that Jordanians live in, thus necessitating an amendment to the social security law?
It is certain that he discovered how many provinces live with quality services.
It is certain that he saw how women work to support their families at a pace that allows for additional years of work.
It is certain that he observed fewer wrinkles and a decline in heart and degenerative diseases, as well as stable health conditions in accordance with extending the retirement age until 2040 and 2047.
It is certain that he felt the abundance of jobs, stability of incomes, and reassurance of youth about their long-term career future.
In this picture, the equation is clear: we went to the field, saw the abundance, so we decided to add years.
It seems we were lucky with previous governments that never stepped beyond the borders of Amman, because going out to the provinces suddenly revealed welfare, and that the age of the citizen is the variable that needs to be adjusted.
Then came the amendments: A gradual process starting after 2030, protecting current beneficiaries, maintaining the age difference between men and women, talk of independence resembling the central bank model, and assurances that the goal is to protect rights and ensure sustainability.
We are not against reform, but against partial reform.
Nor do we want to wake up each year to a new amendment.
It is certain that the president saw the suffering.
He read the unemployment figures.
He witnessed real challenges in the labor market.
He thought about self-employment, which should have been the foundation for building a productive society before increasing the age.
Reform is not a number on a birth certificate.
Social security is a long-term trust contract between the state and the citizen.
And the citizen's age has become the easiest link in the equation, the safety valve whenever calculations tighten.
The citizen works in an economy that pressures him daily.
He bears inflation, unemployment, and costs of healthcare and education, then he is asked for additional years.
When extension is proposed as a solution, the question arises:
Is the flaw in the age of the participant… or in the efficiency of asset management?
We all know that the book value of undeveloped land, whose purpose for purchase remains unclear to this moment, does not cover long-term commitments.
Owning the asset is not sufficient; operating it is decisive.
The asset that remains a number in the lists does not protect a retirement fund.
Sustainable returns alone create the balance.
The difference is big between owning land… and turning it into a productive project.
Between nominal gains… and real cash flow.
Between storing capital… and operating it.
Extension is an administrative measure,
But sustainability is created by investment efficiency.
If we do not grasp the core of the issue today, then the extension will not be the last.
The equation that is treated superficially will impose itself again in years in a more severe form.
Dr. Ja'far, we understand the magnitude of the problem and acknowledge the pressure of the figures, and we thank you for the effort you make to address imbalances that have accumulated over years without treatment.
But reconsider yourself, review your figures, and reread your notebook that accompanied you in your tours; remember what you actually saw of suffering, and remember those wrinkles that don't appear in the tables, then redirect the compass of reform towards the essence of the matter.
Comprehensive reform is based on two parallel tracks: a gradual and studied adjustment of age standards, and a genuine development of the investment model to become a national wealth manager working with a production mindset, not a freezing mindset.
The issue is not a year here or there.
The issue is trust.
Trust that every additional year in the citizen's work is matched by higher efficiency in managing his money, and trust that the reform includes the entire structure, not just the weakest link in it.
Sustainability is built when static assets turn into working assets, and when capital operates with efficiency that matches its commitment to the generations.
Only then does the amendment become true reform… not just another number in the law.
