DSTA (under Mindef)

what is the highest position in a non-superscale level?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

what is the highest position in a non-superscale level?

Not familiar with DSTA job title, but if it's the same as other stat boards then it should be either a Senior Deputy Director or the first level of full Director.

What kind of scholars are we talking about here? Dsta scholarship recipients?

Is it true that the pay stagnates after some time? What could be the reason for it?? And is other ministry better than dsta in terms of pay

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Is it true that the pay stagnates after some time? What could be the reason for it?? And is other ministry better than dsta in terms of pay

this is nothing to do with dsta. even in pte sector most ppl unless is hipo strong performer pay will go up very fast at first then start to stagnate from late 30s onwards

Originally Posted by Unregistered

this is nothing to do with dsta. even in pte sector most ppl unless is hipo strong performer pay will go up very fast at first then start to stagnate from late 30s onwards

So if you're a strong performer, you will do well on dsta too?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So if you're a strong performer, you will do well on dsta too?

yes strong performers can go up to director level which is consider superscale. of course if ur those kind who believe ur gonna be some top banking CEO making millions every year then cannot compare.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It's not just fast or slow, but the general thinking is very different. Gov sector emphasize on follow process, documentation, step by step, approval layer by layer etc.

Pte sector want things done fast, problem solving mode, flexible to change, find ways to keep budget or cut cost etc.

For e.g. earlier this year we had a girl who join us from a ministry for 5 years. Her job was to support the clients to exhibit their products. When she first start, she came to the first monthly meeting with a long pre-read, some research she did with clients & online, and a few concepts for the boss to see what he want.

Boss say not interested in any of these, he just want to know what she want to do, when and how much will it cost and what we get out of the whole thing in the end. Lucky for her she quite pretty with good personality so a lot of colleagues willing to help her and she slowly adapting now.

Just a case to show the difference.

No offence but the example you highlighted doesn't really reflect the differences in culture between the public and pte sector. Even in the civil service, bosses will expect their staff to make recommendations and plans on their own, seeking inputs only on issues above the staff's level. I imagine this is proper staffing wherever one goes, pte or public.

The key differences in culture between the public and the pte sector, IMO are the bureaucratic processes and the assessment of ppl. Many other posters have pointed this out correctly. Public servants, even those that serve as technical specialists tend spend a large portion of their time dealing with paper writing and holding meetings to get projects or project related decisions approved. It is not uncommon for people to spend more time dealing with bureaucracy in a project rather than working on the project itself. I believe this is a major factor when people complain about how "slow" government agencies are.

Due to the bureaucratic system, there is also a large emphasis on one's ability to deal with such things in assessment of potential. If you're a good engineer but poor at writing papers, chances are you'll have a lower ceiling than someone who is a a mediocre engineer but good paper pusher. Not that I'm saying this is wrong. Indeed a good engineer may not make a good manager and vice versa. However in the case of public service, much of these paper work deal with issues that exclusive and unique to the sector which you will not encounter outside.

These are the reasons why people who have spent too many years in the public sector finds it difficult to switch to the pte sector, and why there is this "stigma" associated with a long working history in government agencies. An engineer with 5yrs' experience in the public sector vs another candidate with 5yrs in the pte sector, the former is less developed in his core area (engineering stuff) compared to the latter. A hiring manager will thus make the right decision and hire the latter.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

No offence but the example you highlighted doesn't really reflect the differences in culture between the public and pte sector. Even in the civil service, bosses will expect their staff to make recommendations and plans on their own, seeking inputs only on issues above the staff's level. I imagine this is proper staffing wherever one goes, pte or public.

The key differences in culture between the public and the pte sector, IMO are the bureaucratic processes and the assessment of ppl. Many other posters have pointed this out correctly. Public servants, even those that serve as technical specialists tend spend a large portion of their time dealing with paper writing and holding meetings to get projects or project related decisions approved. It is not uncommon for people to spend more time dealing with bureaucracy in a project rather than working on the project itself. I believe this is a major factor when people complain about how "slow" government agencies are.

Due to the bureaucratic system, there is also a large emphasis on one's ability to deal with such things in assessment of potential. If you're a good engineer but poor at writing papers, chances are you'll have a lower ceiling than someone who is a a mediocre engineer but good paper pusher. Not that I'm saying this is wrong. Indeed a good engineer may not make a good manager and vice versa. However in the case of public service, much of these paper work deal with issues that exclusive and unique to the sector which you will not encounter outside.

These are the reasons why people who have spent too many years in the public sector finds it difficult to switch to the pte sector, and why there is this "stigma" associated with a long working history in government agencies. An engineer with 5yrs' experience in the public sector vs another candidate with 5yrs in the pte sector, the former is less developed in his core area (engineering stuff) compared to the latter. A hiring manager will thus make the right decision and hire the latter.

Not really. What you are saying is very surface level observation. A lot of mega size old MNCs are famous for being every bureaucratic and writing paper, attending multiple meeting sort of culture. There is nothing wrong in being bureaucratic as it is needed in complex organizations for governance and consistency.

The main thing is about difference in priorities: objective vs follow protocol mentality. GE for e.g. is famous for being bureaucratic, but that doesn't mean their culture is anywhere close to public sector. In fact they are very performance driven and manage poor performers out actively.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Not really. What you are saying is very surface level observation. A lot of mega size old MNCs are famous for being every bureaucratic and writing paper, attending multiple meeting sort of culture. There is nothing wrong in being bureaucratic as it is needed in complex organizations for governance and consistency.

The main thing is about difference in priorities: objective vs follow protocol mentality. GE for e.g. is famous for being bureaucratic, but that doesn't mean their culture is anywhere close to public sector. In fact they are very performance driven and manage poor performers out actively.

I agree with you that some degree of bureaucracy is essential and quite prevalent in larger companies. I presently work in an MNC and yes, I am still required to attend meetings and write reports from time to time. The difference is now, such things take up only about 20% of my time whereas in the civil service this could go beyond 50% on a regular basis.