Compare civil service salary

Hi all,

Not in the public sector and will probably never be in.

But I am curious as to why government jobs are seen as iron rice bowl? What is the rationale behind this phenomenon?

Would think the governemnt would be eager to cut costs and fire non performers. One could argue that government jobs contribute more to sg than private sector jobs in social and culture aspects and thus should be held to a higher standard.

Is it because the government does not need smart and innovate workers but instead people who are willing to do repetitive tasks due to bureaucracy?

hi guys, im currently in the civil service, and am considering an offer from a new agency. they offered me two options:
a) to retain my salary and years in service etc. >> the HR said i have a high chance of being promoted within the next two years if this were the case
b) to get a slight increment in salary (like a merit increment 4%), and forgo all the leave, years in services etc. >> so it might take me longer to get promoted thereafter in the new agency

er. is what the HR said true? I thought they always start off on a clean slate anyway when you leave for a new agency (like the performance records in the old agency wouldn't really affect anything...)

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi all,

Not in the public sector and will probably never be in.

But I am curious as to why government jobs are seen as iron rice bowl? What is the rationale behind this phenomenon?

Would think the governemnt would be eager to cut costs and fire non performers. One could argue that government jobs contribute more to sg than private sector jobs in social and culture aspects and thus should be held to a higher standard.

Is it because the government does not need smart and innovate workers but instead people who are willing to do repetitive tasks due to bureaucracy?

Perm positions are very difficult to fire unless for obvious reasons like crime. For instance the superiors would be required to write reports justifying firing and it would probably need to go up to senior management level for approval. Not sure if it is due to political repercussions as civil service is associated with the ruling party.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi all,

Not in the public sector and will probably never be in.

But I am curious as to why government jobs are seen as iron rice bowl? What is the rationale behind this phenomenon?

Would think the governemnt would be eager to cut costs and fire non performers. One could argue that government jobs contribute more to sg than private sector jobs in social and culture aspects and thus should be held to a higher standard.

Is it because the government does not need smart and innovate workers but instead people who are willing to do repetitive tasks due to bureaucracy?

In short, if you are a perm staff (different from those on contract), they cannot really fire you in economic downturn for reason such as cost saving. Whereas in private sector, they do it all the time. As the above poster has pointed out, for them to get rid of you, it is likely due to something criminal in nature. Of course the public sector does get rid of non-performers but there is a very long process (PRP) involved to safeguard against any potential unfairness/discrimination etc but in turn, it is quite difficult getting rid of non-performers because you need a lot of justification. So the PRP is a double-edge sword. But yes, I always find the biggest difference between public and private sector is that they can't get rid of you to save cost (i.e. retrenchment) hence people like to say it is an iron rice bowl.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

In short, if you are a perm staff (different from those on contract), they cannot really fire you in economic downturn for reason such as cost saving. Whereas in private sector, they do it all the time. As the above poster has pointed out, for them to get rid of you, it is likely due to something criminal in nature. Of course the public sector does get rid of non-performers but there is a very long process (PRP) involved to safeguard against any potential unfairness/discrimination etc but in turn, it is quite difficult getting rid of non-performers because you need a lot of justification. So the PRP is a double-edge sword. But yes, I always find the biggest difference between public and private sector is that they can't get rid of you to save cost (i.e. retrenchment) hence people like to say it is an iron rice bowl.

Now they seldom offer perm positions, so they are also getting smart.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

hi guys, im currently in the civil service, and am considering an offer from a new agency. they offered me two options:
a) to retain my salary and years in service etc. >> the HR said i have a high chance of being promoted within the next two years if this were the case
b) to get a slight increment in salary (like a merit increment 4%), and forgo all the leave, years in services etc. >> so it might take me longer to get promoted thereafter in the new agency

er. is what the HR said true? I thought they always start off on a clean slate anyway when you leave for a new agency (like the performance records in the old agency wouldn't really affect anything...)

If it's a transfer of service, eg, ministry to ministry, the yrs of service can be brought over.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Now they seldom offer perm positions, so they are also getting smart.

Well this is something within their control. Rather than navigate through the bureaucracy to get someone off the team.

This is ultimately a losing situation for candidates hoping to join the civil service. Although people who are under scholarships arent affected at all. So civil service will still continue to get their steady supply for scholars.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

hi guys, im currently in the civil service, and am considering an offer from a new agency. they offered me two options:
a) to retain my salary and years in service etc. >> the HR said i have a high chance of being promoted within the next two years if this were the case
b) to get a slight increment in salary (like a merit increment 4%), and forgo all the leave, years in services etc. >> so it might take me longer to get promoted thereafter in the new agency

er. is what the HR said true? I thought they always start off on a clean slate anyway when you leave for a new agency (like the performance records in the old agency wouldn't really affect anything...)

Dont waste time. Just take the higher pay if more than 5%.

Nobody can 100% confirm u will promote.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Dont waste time. Just take the higher pay if more than 5%.

Nobody can 100% confirm u will promote.

5% sounds pretty low. You are just basically getting about a few months advance in increment since you probably won't get another increment till more than a year later. I would consider only if it's 10% or more

Anyone knows which ministries have better work-life balance? Planning to move so I can enjoy life abit more.