MAS for Mid Career Professionals

Originally Posted by Unregistered

But what is not acceptable is that MAS is not hiring staff at a fast enough pace to keep up. The workload has increased by 50% but the staff count has only increased by 10%.

The choices are quite simple to me actually, you either make a real effort to address the staff shortage, or you stop being a hero and regulate within your means. There is no shame at all in being a less-sophisticated regulator. We ought to recall the trite saying that "one cannot have his cake and eat it too".

I can shed some light on this. Headcount is not MAS' fault since manpower is limited for all public sector agencies centrally by MOF under MMF (s://.mof.gov.sg/news-publications/parliamentary-replies/Productivity-Growth-of-The-Government), and agencies are penalised if they hire above their MMF quotas (most agencies will have their annual budget from MOF reduced for each headcount over quota, or else they have to pay an equivalent penalty sum to MOF if they are revenue-generating agencies like MAS).

Therefore, the only way forward is to deprioritise work, and management needs to be aware of the risk trade-offs in assigning headcounts to BAU stuff vs new areas like crypto and e-payments.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

But what MAS sorely lacks is its ability to digitalize.

It is somewhat ironic that MAS keeps pushing its financial institutions to digitalize, but its own internal processes are so manual and slow. A lot of information is scattered all over the place and impossible to find. This is because for some departments, there seems to be the lack of a proper filing system, even for routine/mundane matters.

Management is well aware of this hypocrisy, but this stems from an organisation culture issue and generally culture issues can't be solved easily. Unlike profit-driven private companies where you can force rapid culture change from top-down and fire those who refuse to change or somehow get them to resign (even then, this worked for DBS but not for Lazada), you can't do that in public sector agencies not only because of the potential backlash, but also because it runs contrary to the government's objective of trying to encourage people to remain in the workforce (yes, it's mainly the older ones who are more resistant to change everywhere, even in the private sector).

Maybe the whole public service needs to come up with a way to penalise people who refuse to learn and adapt in some way, but that's probably a far larger point for another day.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I can shed some light on this. Headcount is not MAS' fault since manpower is limited for all public sector agencies centrally by MOF under MMF (s://.mof.gov.sg/news-publications/parliamentary-replies/Productivity-Growth-of-The-Government), and agencies are penalised if they hire above their MMF quotas (most agencies will have their annual budget from MOF reduced for each headcount over quota, or else they have to pay an equivalent penalty sum to MOF if they are revenue-generating agencies like MAS).

Therefore, the only way forward is to deprioritise work, and management needs to be aware of the risk trade-offs in assigning headcounts to BAU stuff vs new areas like crypto and e-payments.



Management is well aware of this hypocrisy, but this stems from an organisation culture issue and generally culture issues can't be solved easily. Unlike profit-driven private companies where you can force rapid culture change from top-down and fire those who refuse to change or somehow get them to resign (even then, this worked for DBS but not for Lazada), you can't do that in public sector agencies not only because of the potential backlash, but also because it runs contrary to the government's objective of trying to encourage people to remain in the workforce (yes, it's mainly the older ones who are more resistant to change everywhere, even in the private sector).

Maybe the whole public service needs to come up with a way to penalise people who refuse to learn and adapt in some way, but that's probably a far larger point for another day.

I dont think its about culture at all. FIs do not have unlimited budgets and they are also struggling to hire. Ultimately it boils down to the managers. By and large they do not have any exposure working in private companies and they are clueless how to manage people in a fast changing environment. You need people with real working experience. Ymmv

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I dont think its about culture at all. FIs do not have unlimited budgets and they are also struggling to hire. Ultimately it boils down to the managers. By and large they do not have any exposure working in private companies and they are clueless how to manage people in a fast changing environment. You need people with real working experience. Ymmv

Oh yes it is totally about culture (e.g. risk aversion, lack of recognition for innovation, low tolerance for failure). There are plenty of online articles on the importance of organisation culture. There is also a lack of motivation, especially among the ones who have stuck around for a long time and have hit the cap for their salary grade.

What is your suggestion then, fire all those managers at one go and replace them with private sector managers? Don't forget that these people are still domain experts, even if their processes and attitudes may be somewhat lacking. Who are you going to replace say, regulators and policymakers with, someone from the private sector who is good at sales or business but has never written regulations, done procurement properly or dealt with parliamentary questions before? These are far worse problems than simply being slow.

I'm sure management reads this forum from time to time, so you can try posting helpful suggestions and see if they are taken up (and no, firing people en masse isn't a solution).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Oh yes it is totally about culture (e.g. risk aversion, lack of recognition for innovation, low tolerance for failure). There are plenty of online articles on the importance of organisation culture. There is also a lack of motivation, especially among the ones who have stuck around for a long time and have hit the cap for their salary grade.

What is your suggestion then, fire all those managers at one go and replace them with private sector managers? Don't forget that these people are still domain experts, even if their processes and attitudes may be somewhat lacking. Who are you going to replace say, regulators and policymakers with, someone from the private sector who is good at sales or business but has never written regulations, done procurement properly or dealt with parliamentary questions before? These are far worse problems than simply being slow.

I'm sure management reads this forum from time to time, so you can try posting helpful suggestions and see if they are taken up (and no, firing people en masse isn't a solution).

Still not about culture. If they have vast real working world experience they would know how to manage risk aversion, innovation etc.

The solution is a simple one. Those managers are just too complacent and comfortable and face no threats of being replaced or downgraded. Bring in people with real life experience and give them power to challenge these JLB

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I can shed some light on this. Headcount is not MAS' fault since manpower is limited for all public sector agencies centrally by MOF under MMF (s://.mof.gov.sg/news-publications/parliamentary-replies/Productivity-Growth-of-The-Government), and agencies are penalised if they hire above their MMF quotas (most agencies will have their annual budget from MOF reduced for each headcount over quota, or else they have to pay an equivalent penalty sum to MOF if they are revenue-generating agencies like MAS).

Therefore, the only way forward is to deprioritise work, and management needs to be aware of the risk trade-offs in assigning headcounts to BAU stuff vs new areas like crypto and e-payments.

This is a patently bizarre argument.

If it is indeed true that because of budget reasons, MAS cannot hire additional staff who are needed to meet the rapid development of emerging risks, then the right answer would be for MAS to inform its paymaster that it will henceforth limit its engagement on these emerging risks. This is not to say that MAS will completely be oblivious to these risks, but rather, we will not undertake any work that is beyond necessary.

Instead, MAS has gone the other way round. Despite being without sufficient resources, it has adopted an aggressive "I-must-be-the-hero" attitude and volunteered way beyond its capabilities. How can this be right? I suppose part of the problem stems from cultural issues where we are too inhibited to say no. Management has very fancy ideas and sometimes loses sight of our mandate. Or perhaps they interpret our mandate so loosely that everything that occurs on earth is something we should look into.

It is also puzzling that you consider MAS a "revenue-generating agency". Tell me which other Central Bank in the world is considered a "revenue-generating agency" by its government. This classification in and of itself is ridiculous when applied to a Central Bank. The mandate of the Central Bank is clear, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the "revenue" it generates. You simply can't measure how much "revenue" we have generated through our efforts to maintain non-inflationary growth and macroprudential stability.

In fact, if we are indeed penalized by MOF (or whoever else) because we are hiring the staff that we need to safeguard our mandate, then the real question is whether we need to be more independent in this area.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What is your suggestion then, fire all those managers at one go and replace them with private sector managers? Don't forget that these people are still domain experts, even if their processes and attitudes may be somewhat lacking. Who are you going to replace say, regulators and policymakers with, someone from the private sector who is good at sales or business but has never written regulations, done procurement properly or dealt with parliamentary questions before? These are far worse problems than simply being slow.

I'm sure management reads this forum from time to time, so you can try posting helpful suggestions and see if they are taken up (and no, firing people en masse isn't a solution).

Strange that you impute a suggestion that the original poster never even mentioned. Where on earth did he mention that people should be fired en masse? Please stop engaging in hyperbole.

i joined as an AD earlier this year (2022). Joined from pte sector with several yrs of exp there. Was offered 5.3k+

I have to be stuck in AD role for at least 3-4 more years?
What is the annual increment likely to be? Heard it could be from 300/month to over 1k/month?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

i joined as an AD earlier this year (2022). Joined from pte sector with several yrs of exp there. Was offered 5.3k+

I have to be stuck in AD role for at least 3-4 more years?
What is the annual increment likely to be? Heard it could be from 300/month to over 1k/month?

Just out of curiosity, are u grade 11 or 12?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is a patently bizarre argument.

If it is indeed true that because of budget reasons, MAS cannot hire additional staff who are needed to meet the rapid development of emerging risks, then the right answer would be for MAS to inform its paymaster that it will henceforth limit its engagement on these emerging risks. This is not to say that MAS will completely be oblivious to these risks, but rather, we will not undertake any work that is beyond necessary.

Instead, MAS has gone the other way round. Despite being without sufficient resources, it has adopted an aggressive "I-must-be-the-hero" attitude and volunteered way beyond its capabilities. How can this be right? I suppose part of the problem stems from cultural issues where we are too inhibited to say no. Management has very fancy ideas and sometimes loses sight of our mandate. Or perhaps they interpret our mandate so loosely that everything that occurs on earth is something we should look into.

It is also puzzling that you consider MAS a "revenue-generating agency". Tell me which other Central Bank in the world is considered a "revenue-generating agency" by its government. This classification in and of itself is ridiculous when applied to a Central Bank. The mandate of the Central Bank is clear, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the "revenue" it generates. You simply can't measure how much "revenue" we have generated through our efforts to maintain non-inflationary growth and macroprudential stability.

In fact, if we are indeed penalized by MOF (or whoever else) because we are hiring the staff that we need to safeguard our mandate, then the real question is whether we need to be more independent in this area.

I have to say i fully agree with what you said. Brilliantly written. If the person who spoke about cultural root issues and how Mas is a revenue generating company, is from the senior management, I have serious doubts about Mas leadership capabilities. It is always easy to blame everything on culture and conclude that you have no solutions. Put it simply, you appear to be concerned about the situation but you in fact do nothing and leave things as it is

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Just out of curiosity, are u grade 11 or 12?

Grade 12. A grade 11 isn’t gonna be getting just 5.3 will he/she?

Any responses/thoughts to my queries posed earlier?