IMDA (under MCI)

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why does IMDA hire PRs from China and India? I'm not referring to C-suite level but your average AM and M roles.

The job doesn't even require niche skills so there's no reason not to hire locals...some more this is a gov agency.

The recruitment process is so sus

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?

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?

Not true - different roles in ministries and statutory boards require different levels of security clearance, and being a citizen isn't a requirement for non-sensitive roles. That said, I haven't come across a non-citizen in a ministry, though I could be wrong.

I actually have come across PRs in IMDA, and while I've got no issue with them and accept that they could have been hired for their skills/experience, what did puzzle me is that I work closely with a dept which deals with sensitive areas, and while the PR colleague doesn't have access to secure e-mail, he's actually responsible/aware of quite a bit of the content which goes *into* sensitive material. Even if the PR colleague doesn't get to see the sensitive document, it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out what the work he's doing is going towards.

In this particular example, I also don't see that any special skills are required - the job is largely info-gathering and processing, so not sure why they couldn't get a Sinkie, knowing that it would ultimately touch on sensitive areas.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Nope, I don't see a need to defend the leadership of IMDA. The posts and posters here already reflect how nonsensical the whole organization is.

You can easily take a look at the forums for other stat boards and ministries and see the difference yourself. The posts in those forums don't call for XX person or YY person to step down in every single page.

The fact of the matter is that IMDA has no strong reason to exist, that's why staff keep doing funny things to appear relevant.

Even if IMDA were to close down tomorrow, no one will bat an eyelid.

It's best you all get off the ship. If you want to work in an IT-related field in the public service, there are many other stat boards where you can do so.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I remembered seeing LCH being interviewed by CNA during this year's ATxSG. It looked so choreographed and cringey. He obviously memorised all the answers but pretended like he has the domain knowledge. Kudos to the CNA presenter for keeping a straight face.

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.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

LCH and the HR dept need to hire their own publicists if they want to clear their bad rep. I remember awhile back the marketing & comms dept were hiring someone who can do thought leadership for the senior management, most probably for LCH. Can you imagine positioning that incompetent guy as the subject matter expert in front of press media? Like, he can't even convince techies in IMDA his competency, now he need publicists to position him as tech expert?!!

LCH is so shameless, he should just quit when it's clear nobody likes him.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

IMDA folks, I need your perspective on this. I tried sending an email to a few directors in imda. My email was delivered to all, except one director.

I was notified by the mail delivery subsystem that my message to the person wasn't delivered because address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail.

Er, but I copy and paste the email address from SGDI directly, and my previous emails to the said director were delivered successfully a few weeks ago.

Does this imply that the director has left imda? Or the director blocked me from emailing her?
Does gov IT system allows employees to block someone from communicating with them?

Now my mind is full of ???.

Who is the director? You need to tell us in order for us to help you

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.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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.

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.

Seems like you're from imda corporate comms. Understand that content is king, and the current trend for corporate leaders is thought leadership. I also came from corporate comms background, had produced thought leadership articles and messages for the C level at a tech company pre-covid.

Ideally, thought leadership yields the best results when the leader has some semblance of sound expertise in their domain. What thought leadership does is to bring out and magnify their inner expertise, and position them as subject matter experts in front of media and public stakeholders.

But if the leader has barely any sound knowledge in their domain, thought leadership is at best an interim solution for personal branding, not a long term solution. The leader himself has to eat the humble pie, acknowledge his weaknesses and take massive efforts to arm himself with tech wisdom so he can actually gain respect from his underlings in the company. What's the point of gaining respect from press media when he can't even get it from his own pple in the company?!

Currently, what your comms dept is doing is helping lousy, incompetent leaders to wayang in front of the public for personal glory, while you guys are doing all the heavy lifting. You guys are perpetuating the notion that it is ok to fuel narcissistic leaders' egos despite lacking in substance, and therefore are complicit in the false, staged narrative of imda. Thought leadership is a horrible idea coming from your director. She should have asked you guys to be LCH and HR's personal publicists to manage their bad rep online instead lol.

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.

Yes, IMDA should focus on its regulatory functions and stop its other mickey mouse activities.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Yes, IMDA should focus on its regulatory functions and stop its other mickey mouse activities.

Well there are mickey mouse activities going on in those teams as well.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

CC def does not seem to have the experience, skills or knowledge. What she does is parrot and wag and act like she does a lot. Blind leading the blind. Only empty talks on employer branding.
What has the HR team done to improve IMDA branding? This forum just shows how screwed up the agency is. These HR people are just commanding high salary (ADs earn a lot in IMDA). Shouting architects of digital future (gags) is a laughing stock. The HR team needs to be overhauled.

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