Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
(Post 114378)
Feel that the job security part for CS is like an excuse for ppl who are less competence/have poorer performance as a safe heaven to keep their jobs. Corporates on the other hand has to be practical to weed out less competent and dead weights within the organisation - sth that CS doesn't really practise which leads to a higher level of inefficiencies and a bunch of farmers with no career aspiration and sense of mission.
Also the job transferability in CS is rather limited for generalist roles and in the event that one gets black listed; commit a serious mistake; immediate boss holds some prejudice; doesn't fit in with the team; and other office politics, that person would be stuck.
|
Ah, written like someone who has never worked in CS, and thinks Singapore runs a third-class civil service. Let’s start the enlightenment, shall we?
First off, nowadays, there is no such thing as automatic job security when joining CS. Practically everyone that joins is given a 1-2 year contract, to prove themselves. Sometimes, this gets extended for another year or so when the agency isn't 100% sure of the staff. So, you can take your 'iron rice bowl' safe haven argument and go fly kite with it.
People who value stability in their careers aren't necessarily incompetent or are likely to be poor performers. They choose stability so that instead of wasting time at work on backstabbing and game of thrones office politics like the corporate world, they can instead focus their energy on being productive and do some good for the country in the process. This is not to imply that CS has zero politics, but the fact of the matter is most people much rather do their jobs than find ways to get one over their work colleagues. Stability is also preferred when one has responsibilities and dependents to worry about i.e. due to selfless reasons, something corporate folk are unlikely to understand. CSR ah? You take your CSR and shove it where the sun don’t shine hor.
Corporates are practical and weed out less competent folks? Please lah, corporates base all their decisions on one thing and one thing only – the bottom line. If it saves them money in the short run, they have no qualms firing perfectly competent experienced staff just because they earn more and hence increase expenses. Furthermore, you speak about sense of mission? Providing seamless government support and services to corporate pricks like you – takes a whole lot of sense of mission to achieve. We don’t have the luxury of wasting time doing ‘client drinks’, claiming it to be work and putting the whole bill on the company account. Corporate people are about as practical as a condom is after the woman is pregnant.
Job transferability limited in CS for generalist roles ah? Then, in corporate sector, generalists get to sell baby powder one day and milk cows the next is it? At least in CS, serious efforts are being made to train/upskill staff in emerging areas like data analytics, behavioural insights, cyber security etc. to increase job transferability in the future.
Finally, “in the event that one gets black listed; commit a serious mistake; immediate boss holds some prejudice; doesn't fit in with the team; and other office politics, that person would be stuck” – Hello, in the corporate world, that same person would eventually be played out and fired.
And don’t you dare tell me that oh if gahmen so efficient, then how come got so many lapses ah? Retarded stuff happens in corporate world all the damn time – the only difference is they can choose to cover it up so long as no one dies (sometimes even that also can), whereas CS has a responsibility to make public the lapses. You find me another CS in any part of the world that is perfect, and I will find you guilty of taking drugs and hallucinating.
So, next time, think carefully before you make such sweeping statements about the CS – if you feel the urge to sweep again, go find a broom and make yourself useful to keep Singapore clean and green instead.
