IMDA (under MCI)

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What has the HR team done to improve IMDA branding?

Maintain a falsely-positive façade on linkedin by routinely posting how happy staff are and how collaborative the working environment is

more like architects of a DOOMED future

Their director posted how proud she is of her team. Anyone care to show what they’ve helped with?

IMDA trying very hard to claim credit for Snow in Midsummer after the film made it to the Venice International Film Festival

what a shameless PR exercise to stay in the limelight!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think that at least some parts of IMDA have reason to exist, for example the regulatory functions like for media, telecom, PDPC. There are existing projects that IMDA could be excelling at, and exciting ones that IMDA could take on.

But as one other poster described it... "poverty of leadership". How many leaders like ACE, D, DD, are here for the long haul, as compared to being secondees who are just going through a rite of passage in being seconded, and are here to chalk up some quick high-profile wins on their CVs so that when they return to mothership they can get promoted? To many of them, staff are mere tools to help them achieve these objectives. They don't actually care about the welfare and development of staff, and they're only "nice" to staff to the extent that it helps them achieve their self-interested objectives.

Now, whether these ACE/D/DDs are here for the long or short term, how many have actual domain knowledge in the area they're supervising? What can they actually contribute? Can we count the number on two hands? One hand?

My colleagues and I write speeches and TPs, and hell - we know how much domain knowledge and experience the folks giving them have. I've personally witnessed Ds and DDs making inaccurate representations to sister agencies and foreign government officials quite a few times because of lack of domain expertise, and even saying things antithetical to IMDA's policies. It left me completely speechless. But these people still get the glory and promotions and move on. The speechwriters, who actually know their stuff, continue to be small cogs in the machinery.

And even if these ACE/D/DDs here for the long haul, are they decent towards staff, or tyrannical/dictators, acting purely in their own self interest, or power hungry and trying to expand their empire and build fiefdoms?

It *might* work when the self-interest of these people coincide with what's good for IMDA overall. But I think much much more often than not, the interests of this gargantuan gaggle of bad eggs diverge as between themselves, let alone as between themselves and IMDA, resulting in a heck of a mess within IMDA and low morale at the working level.

A bunch of colleagues and I are actually worried about the future of Singapore and policies in relation to key areas that IMDA is responsible for. It's like watching a huge grand building slowly burn and collapse, and not being able to do anything about it.

I'm the 'poverty of leadership' commenter, heh. And it pains me to read your post. Am in ministry and the problems are exactly what you've documented here so clearly, except multiplied x10 because the ministry is much smaller, and obviously seen as a place for skorers to get an easy promotion and bounce on.

We are wholly dependent on IMDA colleagues, and the pathetic 'layerings' of 'policy input' we dribble on top of our submissions can't save entire divisions of staff who are ignorant (no fault of theirs if they are young and/or new), led by team leads/SADs/DDs/dirs who are equally ignorant and totally not invested in their staff because they know their time in the job is only temporary.

The absolute refusal by these 'leaders' (I never heard managers use this term on themselves 10 years ago but it seems to be very in vogue now to call oneself a leader as a substitute for real leadership) to recognize people with actual knowledge (they will gaslight you as being too 'ops' or 'technical'), and the insistence that people post out after two or three years max does not serve the staff, the organization and, ultimately, the country. However, dir-level positions are created seemingly every other month to create the illusion of advancement for scholars who bring nothing in terms of knowledge, and very little when it comes to people management.

But in the end, this wayang and exercise in musical chairs has to continue so that PSD is assured that it's maximised its ROI on the millions it spends each year on scholarships.

After all I've said above, you would think that the logical move is then to move to IMDA, and I've been fact heard this suggestion quite a few times. Unfortunately, after I've seen the effect LCH has even on long-serving staff, and what I've read in this forum, going to IMDA at this point would clearly be a leap from the frying pan into the inferno. Imagine my dismay when I heard that LCH's tenure at IMDA was extended for another two years because there was nowhere else in the public service he could move to.

I work with DCE Aileen's side of IMDA, and have nothing but respect for her. The IMDA colleagues I have spoken to feel the same. I wonder how she feels about the endless parade of SAF clowns and unqualified jokers who get to lord it over her when she's paid her dues and done her time.

P.S. I see someone replied to you and identified you as corp comms. My first thought was that you were from a policy division - in a ministry that's where the speeches and TPs come from.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm the 'poverty of leadership' commenter, heh. And it pains me to read your post. Am in ministry and the problems are exactly what you've documented here so clearly, except multiplied x10 because the ministry is much smaller, and obviously seen as a place for skorers to get an easy promotion and bounce on.

Why out of all ministries and stat boards would anyone choose to join MCI...

Do you actually learn anything useful for your career there?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why out of all ministries and stat boards would anyone choose to join MCI...

Do you actually learn anything useful for your career there?

Folly of (not-so) youth, was escaping from an even worse job. As I've told people recently, anything I've learnt (aside from affecting a general air of servility around senior people) I've picked up myself. The policy divisions are weak and aren't being served well by the fact that they're being used largely to host easy postings for scholars.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Folly of (not-so) youth, was escaping from an even worse job. As I've told people recently, anything I've learnt (aside from affecting a general air of servility around senior people) I've picked up myself. The policy divisions are weak and aren't being served well by the fact that they're being used largely to host easy postings for scholars.

Lol ok I was wondering and that explains why there are people getting promoted every 2 years up to SAD/DD+ roles despite having little experience in their roles.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Main reason is because they have difficulties hiring Singaporeans with its reputation. Most Singaporeans would have seen glassdoor and salary forum review before they try to apply.

That's why CC is a ****ing piece of garbage. HR recruitment strategy is to take the easy way out by hiring people who don't hold SG passports instead of addressing the root problem of why IMDA has a toilet bowl reputation.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Lol ok I was wondering and that explains why there are people getting promoted every 2 years up to SAD/DD+ roles despite having little experience in their roles.

Haha yep, consider the mystery solved. People can come in as AD/SAD, not understand how anything works, and be moved up to SAD/DD in a year. The key is just to have at least a couple of people reporting to you on paper, which is an easy administrative matter. At ranking sessions, the DSes won't know what they have or haven't done, as long as their dirs (who are fellow scholars) are willing to vouch for them.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I thought it is compulsory for ALL govt agencies to hire Singaporeans only? HR not doing due diligence in screening candidates leh. Which hiring dept in imda has the audacity to flout rules and hire PRs?

s://.psd.gov.sg/newsroom/pq-replies/breakdown-of-employees-citizenship-in-civil-service-and-statutory-boards/ No, the gov alr say can hire a small amount of foreigners.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm the 'poverty of leadership' commenter, heh. And it pains me to read your post. Am in ministry and the problems are exactly what you've documented here so clearly, except multiplied x10 because the ministry is much smaller, and obviously seen as a place for skorers to get an easy promotion and bounce on.

We are wholly dependent on IMDA colleagues, and the pathetic 'layerings' of 'policy input' we dribble on top of our submissions can't save entire divisions of staff who are ignorant (no fault of theirs if they are young and/or new), led by team leads/SADs/DDs/dirs who are equally ignorant and totally not invested in their staff because they know their time in the job is only temporary.

The absolute refusal by these 'leaders' (I never heard managers use this term on themselves 10 years ago but it seems to be very in vogue now to call oneself a leader as a substitute for real leadership) to recognize people with actual knowledge (they will gaslight you as being too 'ops' or 'technical'), and the insistence that people post out after two or three years max does not serve the staff, the organization and, ultimately, the country. However, dir-level positions are created seemingly every other month to create the illusion of advancement for scholars who bring nothing in terms of knowledge, and very little when it comes to people management.

But in the end, this wayang and exercise in musical chairs has to continue so that PSD is assured that it's maximised its ROI on the millions it spends each year on scholarships.

After all I've said above, you would think that the logical move is then to move to IMDA, and I've been fact heard this suggestion quite a few times. Unfortunately, after I've seen the effect LCH has even on long-serving staff, and what I've read in this forum, going to IMDA at this point would clearly be a leap from the frying pan into the inferno. Imagine my dismay when I heard that LCH's tenure at IMDA was extended for another two years because there was nowhere else in the public service he could move to.

I work with DCE Aileen's side of IMDA, and have nothing but respect for her. The IMDA colleagues I have spoken to feel the same. I wonder how she feels about the endless parade of SAF clowns and unqualified jokers who get to lord it over her when she's paid her dues and done her time.

P.S. I see someone replied to you and identified you as corp comms. My first thought was that you were from a policy division - in a ministry that's where the speeches and TPs come from.

Just send LCH back to the navy lah...oh wait he also got a bad rep there haha