Compare civil service salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

i do not think you should join the AO scheme for the money. If you want money, then you should remain in the private sector and save the public sector from potential embarressments from hiring the wrong person.

Except for President and top PSC scholars, e.g SAFOS and SPF overseas, the rest join as MA first, before being promoted to AO.

Wrong, none of the scholars are guaranteed AO. Many President's and SAFOS and SPFOS have failed to make AO. Everyone starts out as MA.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am aware of how the AO scheme works, just not how much they are remunerated. Neither did I indicate at any point that I was planning to join the AO scheme, but even if I was planning to, I am doubtful I will cause the civil service any embarrassment. I just want to know how much a 30-year-old male AO would earn, and whether that salary is competitive with what someone of his ability would earn in the private sector. At a time when the electorate is concerned about the salaries of their ministers, it stands to reason that we should also examine the pay of our civil service officers, especially the elite who are being trained to become ministers some day.

No, it doesn't stand to reason to conflate political salaries with civil service salaries. If you're going to scrutinize people who are purportedly trained to become ministers, why not also examine the pay of top CEOs and lawyers and doctors as well?

The fact is that a civil service career is a profession like every other career, and there is good cause for using money to attract the best people. If we accept that there's a need to pay teachers and social workers more to attract better people, then we cannot judge civil servants, even AOs, by another standard. Politics, on the other hand, is a calling and you do not want to attract people with money. You obviously have some agenda against AOs and their pay, so please take it elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

No, it doesn't stand to reason to conflate political salaries with civil service salaries. If you're going to scrutinize people who are purportedly trained to become ministers, why not also examine the pay of top CEOs and lawyers and doctors as well?

The fact is that a civil service career is a profession like every other career, and there is good cause for using money to attract the best people. If we accept that there's a need to pay teachers and social workers more to attract better people, then we cannot judge civil servants, even AOs, by another standard. Politics, on the other hand, is a calling and you do not want to attract people with money. You obviously have some agenda against AOs and their pay, so please take it elsewhere.

The stupidity is staggering. Why can't the civil service be a calling? Some would argue that teaching is a calling. So too the legal service. If the money is coming from taxpayers, I don't see why we can't examine it. As for lawyers and doctors and top CEOs in the private sector, they are not being funded by my money, so why would I care what they earn? I suggest you take your stupidity elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Wrong, none of the scholars are guaranteed AO. Many President's and SAFOS and SPFOS have failed to make AO. Everyone starts out as MA.

That is true in some sense. However, what I meant was that SAFOS and SPFOS end their career in SAF or SPF and then rejoin the AO service. If you do not believe, look out for the media release when CDF or any service chiefs retire from service. The media release will state that the officer 'returns to the Administrative Service"...

MA typically change ministry once every 2 years. SAFOS and SPFOS tend to stay within the same service , eg SAF or SPF till they reach service chief or assistant commissioner level.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The stupidity is staggering. Why can't the civil service be a calling? Some would argue that teaching is a calling. So too the legal service. If the money is coming from taxpayers, I don't see why we can't examine it. As for lawyers and doctors and top CEOs in the private sector, they are not being funded by my money, so why would I care what they earn? I suggest you take your stupidity elsewhere.

Oh, the tired little taxpayer argument. From the way you talk it's easy to tell that you're likely to be someone who doesn't even pay tax at all, or one who thinks that the pathetic amount of tax he pays, which probably makes up 0.000000001% of our government revenue entitles him to act all boss for once in his life. The fact that you specifically targeted top civil servants instead of ALL civil and public servants down to the teachers and janitor (before I called you out in front of everybody) shows that your concern is not so much how your tax money is used in general. Rather you are eyeing AO pay with green eyed envy and deluding yourself into thinking you are some sort of their paymaster. Your initial "argument" that we should look at their pay by virtue of their potential for politics broke down when I simply pointed out that many private sector people go into politics too. one thing is for sure: the Admin Service would never take in someone like you, so you can beat it and show yourself the door.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

That is true in some sense. However, what I meant was that SAFOS and SPFOS end their career in SAF or SPF and then rejoin the AO service. If you do not believe, look out for the media release when CDF or any service chiefs retire from service. The media release will state that the officer 'returns to the Administrative Service"...

when you talk about those who rejoin the AO, need to note that you're talking about those scholars who did make it to top service chiefs and commissioner posts. many safos and spfos never make it there to begin with. also, need to note which came first in a successful safos/spfos career: appointment as AO or appointment to service chief positions? you can be an AO in the military or the police.

MA typically change ministry once every 2 years. SAFOS and SPFOS tend to stay within the same service , eg SAF or SPF till they reach service chief or assistant commissioner level.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Oh, the tired little taxpayer argument. From the way you talk it's easy to tell that you're likely to be someone who doesn't even pay tax at all, or one who thinks that the pathetic amount of tax he pays, which probably makes up 0.000000001% of our government revenue entitles him to act all boss for once in his life. The fact that you specifically targeted top civil servants instead of ALL civil and public servants down to the teachers and janitor (before I called you out in front of everybody) shows that your concern is not so much how your tax money is used in general. Rather you are eyeing AO pay with green eyed envy and deluding yourself into thinking you are some sort of their paymaster. Your initial "argument" that we should look at their pay by virtue of their potential for politics broke down when I simply pointed out that many private sector people go into politics too. one thing is for sure: the Admin Service would never take in someone like you, so you can beat it and show yourself the door.

Haha. You are absolutely correct. They would never take me in, because they couldn't possibly afford to pay me what I am getting now. You can continue your ad hominem attacks, which fail to address my query but only emphasise your own stupidity. I have found out whatever information I need anyway, so over and out.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Haha. You are absolutely correct. They would never take me in, because they couldn't possibly afford to pay me what I am getting now. You can continue your ad hominem attacks, which fail to address my query but only emphasise your own stupidity. I have found out whatever information I need anyway, so over and out.

If you want to lie on the Internet, at least make it believeable. First if you actually earn that kind of money, why would you even bother comparing? Low self-esteem/small dick? Secondly, it's really hard for anyone to believe that with your peasant level of English (i.e. "emphasise your own stupidity") and obviously limited vocab, you could have made it into any one of the prestigious high-paying occupations which require an actual education. Lastly, please, if you were someone who earns that much, you would be mixing around in circles that included top civil servants or at least people who know them. Losers who ask around about top pay on Internet forums obviously don't have such elite friends.

Then can't even make a coherent argument or a rebuttal to my points some more. Sigh.

guys/gals,

side track a bit. i'm offered a job in a govt sector. have 10-11 yrs working experiences in sales in the private sector but thought of having a change so applied for a govt job.

now they offering me a position in sales, although the product/service is rather new to me.

drawing $5000 now but am being offered 4,300 only..

whats the pros and cons of working in the civil service? worth it? oh btw, im 37 now.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

guys/gals,

side track a bit. i'm offered a job in a govt sector. have 10-11 yrs working experiences in sales in the private sector but thought of having a change so applied for a govt job.

now they offering me a position in sales, although the product/service is rather new to me.

drawing $5000 now but am being offered 4,300 only..

whats the pros and cons of working in the civil service? worth it? oh btw, im 37 now.

wat class of degree you got?
1st class, 2nd upper or others, please specify?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am also been offer a job in a certain ministry at $3700

previously been in private sector 3.5 years engineering sector with annual salary about mid-50K

After speaking to HR personnel in the ministry, the new offered position only had an annual salary about $2000 lesser...which is way below my expected annual salary (I wanted 20% more my previous annual salary)

They don't negotiate!!!! It is either you answer them 'YES' or 'NO'

I gave them a 'NO'

I am jumping ship to get a pay increment, not a pay cut or getting same salary as b4!!!