Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Put simply, you are wrong. Do you read HR guidelines in their entirety? Probably not. They may not be updated frequently but nevertheless they exist. There is a list of offences/misconduct for which proceedings leading to possible termination/suspension/demotion. “Poor performance” can be subjective and is very much determined by those with which the power balance lies. It is for the very reason people can’t be easily let go for “poor performance” in the public service, that there are comments on this thread about jiak liao bees.
Back to your mistaken belief on this point. Usually conduct warranting dismissal of public officers is serious misconduct or neglect of duty. Neglect of duty is on a far different scale from performance that your boss is not happy with. Example of serious misconduct is conflict of interest, which I trust you understand the meaning of. Please read carefully HR guidelines and other relevant public service regulations (some of which are publicly available) before you go around spouting erroneous statements or taking actions that are not in line with HR protocols/processes.
|
You are right. My base assumption, which I believe to be fair one, is that most employees who leave
MAS involuntarily are due to performance issues rather than because they breached
MAS rules and regulations.
Still, this does not negate my point.
You can be the best performer in a company but if the company closes down or decides to relocate out of Singapore, your job is gone. This simply does not happen in the public sector, and especially not if you are a top performer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Did you read the post carefully? Probably your cognitive bias precludes you from doing so. Which part of the post was about expecting more remuneration for talking a lot? There are people who were promoted in the last promotion cycle because they are good at talking a lot and/or spend every waking hour on work. But the paragraph you cite in this post was amongst others about the type of work environment that, together with adequate remuneration, is a measure of a workplace that make employees want to stay on in the long term - or leave after a few years. A perfunctory glance at the joiners and leavers suggest to me that MAS does not have an issue recruiting new, good hires who are attracted by the regulator brand. The issue I think it has is retaining them. For the different reasons that have been posted on this forum. We can agree to disagree, but don’t miss the crux of the point and/or reframe the point to repeat your own point. |
I have tried to read your post again and again, but it is still unclear what you are saying. Does
MAS have a retention issue or not? And is it because the remuneration is not enough?