MAS for Mid Career Professionals

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Haha anything more than 3 months get deferred, so fat hope on cashing out more

what is meant by deferred?
does that mean MAS does not give more than three months bonus? (and that three months includes the 1 month "AWS")

bumps ......

Originally Posted by Unregistered

what is meant by deferred?
does that mean MAS does not give more than three months bonus? (and that three months includes the 1 month "AWS")

any insight on this?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

what is meant by deferred?
does that mean MAS does not give more than three months bonus? (and that three months includes the 1 month "AWS")

It simply means that in the rare event anyone gets more than 3 months of bonus, the "more than 3 months amount" won't be paid all at once, but paid in portions over the next few years.

Btw MAS doesn't have the concept of AWS, which is pretty silly anyway and nowadays refers to Amazon Web Services more than anything else.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

so long story short is not worth joining?

I would say its not a bad place if:

1) You want more reasonable hours with ok compensation (ok, but not great)
2) You have a genuine interest in the job you are applying for (e.g. if you are applying for a regulatory role than you should at least be mildly interested in regulatory supervision). The reason is because such skills may or may not be easily transferable outside.

However, you should spend more time considering if:

1) You want to develop technical industry skills. E.g. Let's say you join the MAS department that supervises banks. You won't learn technical banking skills like credit analysis of SMEs. Rather, you learn the regulations that banks need to comply with and how to assess the risks of a bank (geddit? they are different things).

2) You cannot work with red tape. The amount of red tape in MAS is considerable, similar to other stat boards or ministries. However, this is also highly dependent on your boss. If your boss is a big picture guy, then stuff moves quite easily. If he isn't, then bottlenecks will appear in the process which makes it incredibly slow and frustrating.

For example, if you propose something new, there will be 99 questions asked by people up the chain. This is normal, for it is important to get clarity before proceeding. However, let's say after more research, the proposal is clearly not feasible anymore and you suggest to scrap it. You will also get asked 99 questions, such as: why was it proposed in the first place, are you sure its really not feasible, did you ask XXX for their opinion, what did YYY have to say about this, will we really be ok without the proposal, can you do an alternative proposal, etc. Had this been in the private sector, it would have taken less than a day to resolve, as things that are clearly not feasible would be simply chucked aside.

Yes, a large part of the job is dealing with red tape like this and while most people can take it, some simply can't.

3) You are not ok with people correcting your words/sentences even if they have the same meaning. This is a feature that almost everyone who does a government job will encounter. Most people get shocked at the start regardless.

Everyone has their own writing style, and it is always possible to construct two different sentences that mean the same thing. However, due to red tape, your boss may want specific edits to an email that you are sending out. You read his edits, and feel strongly that they mean exactly the same thing as what you wrote. Nonetheless, you have no say in the matter but to go along with him. Alternatively, you could try and reason with him but there would be little benefit as it would seem that you are arguing over a trivial issue.

If you absolutely cannot accept this, don't join. But most people get over it after a few weeks, having been resigned to their fate.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I would say its not a bad place if:

1) You want more reasonable hours with ok compensation (ok, but not great)
2) You have a genuine interest in the job you are applying for (e.g. if you are applying for a regulatory role than you should at least be mildly interested in regulatory supervision). The reason is because such skills may or may not be easily transferable outside.

However, you should spend more time considering if:

1) You want to develop technical industry skills. E.g. Let's say you join the MAS department that supervises banks. You won't learn technical banking skills like credit analysis of SMEs. Rather, you learn the regulations that banks need to comply with and how to assess the risks of a bank (geddit? they are different things).

2) You cannot work with red tape. The amount of red tape in MAS is considerable, similar to other stat boards or ministries. However, this is also highly dependent on your boss. If your boss is a big picture guy, then stuff moves quite easily. If he isn't, then bottlenecks will appear in the process which makes it incredibly slow and frustrating.

For example, if you propose something new, there will be 99 questions asked by people up the chain. This is normal, for it is important to get clarity before proceeding. However, let's say after more research, the proposal is clearly not feasible anymore and you suggest to scrap it. You will also get asked 99 questions, such as: why was it proposed in the first place, are you sure its really not feasible, did you ask XXX for their opinion, what did YYY have to say about this, will we really be ok without the proposal, can you do an alternative proposal, etc. Had this been in the private sector, it would have taken less than a day to resolve, as things that are clearly not feasible would be simply chucked aside.

Yes, a large part of the job is dealing with red tape like this and while most people can take it, some simply can't.

3) You are not ok with people correcting your words/sentences even if they have the same meaning. This is a feature that almost everyone who does a government job will encounter. Most people get shocked at the start regardless.

Everyone has their own writing style, and it is always possible to construct two different sentences that mean the same thing. However, due to red tape, your boss may want specific edits to an email that you are sending out. You read his edits, and feel strongly that they mean exactly the same thing as what you wrote. Nonetheless, you have no say in the matter but to go along with him. Alternatively, you could try and reason with him but there would be little benefit as it would seem that you are arguing over a trivial issue.

If you absolutely cannot accept this, don't join. But most people get over it after a few weeks, having been resigned to their fate.

thanks for taking the time to type all this out
what if you join a tech role in MAS?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

thanks for taking the time to type all this out
what if you join a tech role in MAS?

That's easy to answer. You will likely become a "vendor manager" or end up in some type of business analyst role (similar to other government "tech" roles apart from GovTech and maybe a few other specialized agencies). But best to clarify with your interviewer.

The pay is not bad for the hours, but in terms of exposure, MAS may not be your thing. Most of the govt bodies are trying to develop data science capabilities though.

喜欢下注体育但是害怕赌输很多吗？
想获得更多赌注来赢钱？
返水等每个星期太久？想更快速得到返水？

哎！别担心！一切在LCLYBET就可以给到您。
0.35%每日体育返水
每日结算&领取！
除了能每日领取0.35%体育返水外，每周体育返水也少不了啊！
双重返水优惠，唯有LCLYBET尊贵会员可以领取❤️
在家就能享受体育博彩的乐趣！
现在就注册赢大钱： .lclybet.com

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I would say its not a bad place if:

1) You want more reasonable hours with ok compensation (ok, but not great)
2) You have a genuine interest in the job you are applying for (e.g. if you are applying for a regulatory role than you should at least be mildly interested in regulatory supervision). The reason is because such skills may or may not be easily transferable outside.

However, you should spend more time considering if:

1) You want to develop technical industry skills. E.g. Let's say you join the MAS department that supervises banks. You won't learn technical banking skills like credit analysis of SMEs. Rather, you learn the regulations that banks need to comply with and how to assess the risks of a bank (geddit? they are different things).

2) You cannot work with red tape. The amount of red tape in MAS is considerable, similar to other stat boards or ministries. However, this is also highly dependent on your boss. If your boss is a big picture guy, then stuff moves quite easily. If he isn't, then bottlenecks will appear in the process which makes it incredibly slow and frustrating.

For example, if you propose something new, there will be 99 questions asked by people up the chain. This is normal, for it is important to get clarity before proceeding. However, let's say after more research, the proposal is clearly not feasible anymore and you suggest to scrap it. You will also get asked 99 questions, such as: why was it proposed in the first place, are you sure its really not feasible, did you ask XXX for their opinion, what did YYY have to say about this, will we really be ok without the proposal, can you do an alternative proposal, etc. Had this been in the private sector, it would have taken less than a day to resolve, as things that are clearly not feasible would be simply chucked aside.

Yes, a large part of the job is dealing with red tape like this and while most people can take it, some simply can't.

3) You are not ok with people correcting your words/sentences even if they have the same meaning. This is a feature that almost everyone who does a government job will encounter. Most people get shocked at the start regardless.

Everyone has their own writing style, and it is always possible to construct two different sentences that mean the same thing. However, due to red tape, your boss may want specific edits to an email that you are sending out. You read his edits, and feel strongly that they mean exactly the same thing as what you wrote. Nonetheless, you have no say in the matter but to go along with him. Alternatively, you could try and reason with him but there would be little benefit as it would seem that you are arguing over a trivial issue.

If you absolutely cannot accept this, don't join. But most people get over it after a few weeks, having been resigned to their fate.

Is there any discernible difference between joining as a mid-career professional versus joining fresh out of university as a graduate officer? I would think (and hope) the learning opportunities are the same - can anyone clarify this point please?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Is there any discernible difference between joining as a mid-career professional versus joining fresh out of university as a graduate officer? I would think (and hope) the learning opportunities are the same - can anyone clarify this point please?

The turnover for fresh joiners are pretty high imo. If u are looking for experience, the private side is way better, pay and progression is much better also.