| Today 12:18 AM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
You can be the best performer in a company but if the company closes down or decides to relocate out of Singapore, your job is gone. This simply does not happen in the public sector, and especially not if you are a top performer
|
If you’re talking about outright retrenchment of “top performers” in the public service, I agree to a limited extent. From my conversations with and observation of “top performers” over the years, however, their position as they know it can be “gone” through redesignation (to a position not to their expectation) or being superseded by someone the organisation/service deems more suitable. For some, this is too much of an affront to pride and they leave. Voluntary or not, it’s debatable.
As for your example, in theory it is not incorrect. In practice, unless the company is also undergoing restructuring and/or rationalisation of headcount, a relocation need not automatically translate into your job being poof. At the very least, there will be an attempt to move you to different roles within the MNC, if we are indeed talking about “best performers”. And even if the company were to close down, a truly “best performer” with competitive skills should have no issue being headhunted for another job.
In any case, I don’t think anyone is really disputing there is more “job security” in the public sector, in the sense that employers have to jump through more hoops to rid themselves of someone they don’t like - including but not limited to picking on “performance issues” so as to make it unbearable for the employee on the receiving end. The issue which provoked responses other than mine, is that the dichotomy you drew between work in the public and private sectors in your original posts appears too rigid, and reveals the textbook views of someone who has never worked outside of the public sector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I have tried to read your post again and again, but it is still unclear what you are saying. Does MAS have a retention issue or not? And is it because the remuneration is not enough?
|
It seems that your weakness goes beyond inability/unwillingness to listen effectively to views different from your own but also inability/unwillingness to comprehend/accept what is in plain sight (in this case, the perspectives on your two “questions” which I decline to repeat again).
Since we are (still) unable to agree to disagree, pls don’t waste your breath engaging as your starting point was not to be consultative. Read more of Ray Dalio or observe other positive examples in MAS, if it helps your learning and development. 
|
| Yesterday 09:25 PM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
From a review of the earlier post on “job security”, are you the same guy who keeps shouting out about FSG here and there, as though hoping that someone up there in FSG will notice? If so, granting you your wish!
Well I can tell you that I had personal conversations with some of the resignees from departments in FSG. My question to them was, from the outside the work in your department looks glamorous, you appear to be on the cusp of promotion or are otherwise secure in your position, your immediate bosses seem ok, why leave?
Some of the answers (paraphrased):
- Job scope in reality was not what they expected and/or keeps changing from job description
- Management keeps chasing next new shiny thing, as a result of which job scope is not predictable
- Demanding bosses and their questions
I believe these reasons would have been informed to HR during the exit interview. (Does HR do anything with that questionnaire?)
For avoidance of doubt, these people include those who have come to MAS from industry, stayed for a number of years (3 to 5 or more), and then chose to left again - possibly for a lower salary.
So it is true, it is not all about the money. But your logic applies both ways. Balanced against other push factors, the supposed job security provided by MAS doesn’t at all appear to be the fortress you describe. If it were, people who have willingly joined MAS from industry and are doing ok, why not stay here their entire career? What are the factors that cause the itch around years 3-7? (When they are still marketable)
Let’s not extend the argument to the whole public service, because we can only credibly comment on those organisations we have worked in - even so, our experience would be reflective of the specific teams we worked in. Some departments have fantastic bosses, so it’s entirely believable that in those cases job security makes up for below the market pay.
I don’t think people who post negative comments on this forum necessarily hate MAS or want it to fail. Very much to the contrary, some people care enough to point out what needs change because they do love MAS and know there are good, talented ones in the place who can bring about change. But what is truly off putting is people who insist on a one-sided rosy narrative because they think it’s what their higher ups feel assured to hear. A wise person would ask if the criticisms or comments have basis, where management or staff can do better (since it takes two to clap), how the most well meaning initiatives by top brass can be effectively implemented… in a nutshell, put money where the mouth is! |
I agree. We should always think of ways to improve.
Personally, my own jobscope turned out to be quite different from what the job description said. It is pretty annoying. But there are other reasons why I'm still here I guess, along with the colleagues who have stayed. Ultimately its a balance of pros and cons that each person must weigh for themselves.
Management chasing the "next new shiny thing" is actually important for our work. Especially in FSG, new risks are emerging all the time, and it is incumbent upon us to assess whether such risks can be managed by our FIs. Cyber risk and AI risk in particular, will become very prominent within the next few years. As much as I don't want to jinx myself, cyber attacks will increase in frequency and severity as the world becomes much more digitalized. Climate risks probably not so much.
What I disagree with, however, is the adhoc manner in which such risks are dealt with. The right way should be for top management to sit down and come up with the best way to address these risks. How to assign work between the departments, what data needs to be collected and how to store it, is existing legislation enough to address these risks, do we need to shift headcount or add more headcount to be able to tackle these risks, what kind of expertise should we be looking to obtain, do we have such expertise in-house, etc. A strategic view is definitely required.
But no. What usually happens is that some random boss casually comes across an article online that talks about this risk. He/she then suddenly feels that this is an important risk, and then sends an email to the departments asking them whether our FIs are exposed to this risk. The officers then have to scramble to ask the FIs for such information, with no sense of how urgent this matter is, or if it is even urgent in the first place. The FIs themselves sometimes also don't even collect such information in the first place. Anyway the boss gets his/her report after the officers hastily put together something for him/her and replies with a simple email of acknowledgement.
Here are issues with the process:
1) The boss doesn't consult with the other bosses whether this is a risk that MAS should devote attention to. He/she is simply basing it off an article that was published. It might actually be a small risk or a risk that is already managed relatively well.
2) If it is an important risk, then it must be considered what is the information needed to address this risk.
3) If this risk is established to be important and recurring, then a formal process should be instituted among the departments to monitor this risk, along with regular data submission. Instead, arbitrary data is being collected each time which makes it unpredictable for the FIs. This is because the process of data collection each time was not seriously thought through.
4) Even after the data is submitted, there must be an analysis of the data, with people expressly designated to do it. The question then needs to be asked who are the people who should do it and are they qualified to do it.
5) After the analysis has been done, it remains to be discussed what is the residual risk left, and whether any remediation to the legislation or supervisory framework needs to be carried out.
This is a fairly straightforward process that I think everyone in MAS, even the bosses, agree with.
Unfortunately, it is not being implemented very well. Instead, we get patchwork of random information collection that needs to be carried out, sometimes for seemingly unimportant items just because a boss got too carried away with the article. And then after an email to the boss, the issue is considered "closed", until the boss reads his/her next article some time in the future, when he/she suddenly gets reminded of the risk again. You also have to factor in the change in boss(es), where the new boss might be clueless as to what the old boss had asked.
So yes, the poor officer has to deal with this unpredictable behaviour because no systematic approach in the organization was taken to address such risks. And yes, there are certain bosses who expect the officer to have a lot of information about the FI on hand, without considering whether such information is collected routinely. The officers are not from Hogwarts and simply cannot come up with stuff on the wave of a wand.
|
| Yesterday 08:33 PM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Put simply, you are wrong. Do you read HR guidelines in their entirety? Probably not. They may not be updated frequently but nevertheless they exist. There is a list of offences/misconduct for which proceedings leading to possible termination/suspension/demotion. “Poor performance” can be subjective and is very much determined by those with which the power balance lies. It is for the very reason people can’t be easily let go for “poor performance” in the public service, that there are comments on this thread about jiak liao bees.
Back to your mistaken belief on this point. Usually conduct warranting dismissal of public officers is serious misconduct or neglect of duty. Neglect of duty is on a far different scale from performance that your boss is not happy with. Example of serious misconduct is conflict of interest, which I trust you understand the meaning of. Please read carefully HR guidelines and other relevant public service regulations (some of which are publicly available) before you go around spouting erroneous statements or taking actions that are not in line with HR protocols/processes.
|
You are right. My base assumption, which I believe to be fair one, is that most employees who leave MAS involuntarily are due to performance issues rather than because they breached MAS rules and regulations.
Still, this does not negate my point.
You can be the best performer in a company but if the company closes down or decides to relocate out of Singapore, your job is gone. This simply does not happen in the public sector, and especially not if you are a top performer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Did you read the post carefully? Probably your cognitive bias precludes you from doing so. Which part of the post was about expecting more remuneration for talking a lot? There are people who were promoted in the last promotion cycle because they are good at talking a lot and/or spend every waking hour on work. But the paragraph you cite in this post was amongst others about the type of work environment that, together with adequate remuneration, is a measure of a workplace that make employees want to stay on in the long term - or leave after a few years. A perfunctory glance at the joiners and leavers suggest to me that MAS does not have an issue recruiting new, good hires who are attracted by the regulator brand. The issue I think it has is retaining them. For the different reasons that have been posted on this forum. We can agree to disagree, but don’t miss the crux of the point and/or reframe the point to repeat your own point.
|
I have tried to read your post again and again, but it is still unclear what you are saying. Does MAS have a retention issue or not? And is it because the remuneration is not enough?
|
| Yesterday 03:50 PM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
You are right that I have many talented and qualified colleagues in MAS, including in my very own department. People come to MAS for a variety of reasons. Some even took a paycut to come here, and did so willingly. If money was everything, they won't have done so. Many of them like the job security of working for the public service, furthermore in an area that they have expertise in.
Like I said, if you are in for the money, you should go elsewhere. Find somewhere your "talents" can take you. The public service has a relatively fixed payscale, but offers a good amount of job security in exchange.
Life is a marathon, but not everyone competes in the same way. Some people choose to run faster at the start and then slow down later, while other people choose to maintain a constant pace throughout the marathon. Some people are very driven to finish in 1st place, while others are content just to complete the marathon. Some people are totally focused on the race, while others like to take in the sights and sounds during the run. I don't see any of these choices as being inherently worse than others.
You seem upset to me because it appears that you want to finish in 1st place, but are being held back because you are in MAS. If this is indeed the case, I strongly urge you to cut yourself loose, and find an organization that can carry you to where you want to be.
|
From a review of the earlier post on “job security”, are you the same guy who keeps shouting out about FSG here and there, as though hoping that someone up there in FSG will notice? If so, granting you your wish!
Well I can tell you that I had personal conversations with some of the resignees from departments in FSG. My question to them was, from the outside the work in your department looks glamorous, you appear to be on the cusp of promotion or are otherwise secure in your position, your immediate bosses seem ok, why leave?
Some of the answers (paraphrased):
- Job scope in reality was not what they expected and/or keeps changing from job description
- Management keeps chasing next new shiny thing, as a result of which job scope is not predictable
- Demanding bosses and their questions
I believe these reasons would have been informed to HR during the exit interview. (Does HR do anything with that questionnaire?)
For avoidance of doubt, these people include those who have come to MAS from industry, stayed for a number of years (3 to 5 or more), and then chose to left again - possibly for a lower salary.
So it is true, it is not all about the money. But your logic applies both ways. Balanced against other push factors, the supposed job security provided by MAS doesn’t at all appear to be the fortress you describe. If it were, people who have willingly joined MAS from industry and are doing ok, why not stay here their entire career? What are the factors that cause the itch around years 3-7? (When they are still marketable)
Let’s not extend the argument to the whole public service, because we can only credibly comment on those organisations we have worked in - even so, our experience would be reflective of the specific teams we worked in. Some departments have fantastic bosses, so it’s entirely believable that in those cases job security makes up for below the market pay.
I don’t think people who post negative comments on this forum necessarily hate MAS or want it to fail. Very much to the contrary, some people care enough to point out what needs change because they do love MAS and know there are good, talented ones in the place who can bring about change. But what is truly off putting is people who insist on a one-sided rosy narrative because they think it’s what their higher ups feel assured to hear. A wise person would ask if the criticisms or comments have basis, where management or staff can do better (since it takes two to clap), how the most well meaning initiatives by top brass can be effectively implemented… in a nutshell, put money where the mouth is!
|
| 15-06-2024 02:58 PM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
You cuckoo or what? If quantum computing becomes hot, why will anyone still want to talk about classical computing?
It's like the latest Iphone 15 pro just released and here you are asking why they never talk about Ipod mini anymore.
Covering emerging risks is not the same as saying other topics are not important; this is quite obvious. I expected better from a fellow MAS staff. Sad.
|
Haha you are a perfect example of stupidity. Hot does not mean right. Many people like to buy hot stocks end up losing money. Legacy is just as important, cos history provides good lessons. There are the smart ones who understand that, then there are idiots like u who only see the "hot" stuff. I'd expect more intelligence from MAS staff. Very very sad
|
| 15-06-2024 10:43 AM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I think you are confusing yourself when you mix up retrenchment with "being managed out" or mental health suffered". With retrenchment you don't have a choice. With the other 2 you have a choice to continue to work. Mental health and all that BS are just an excuse for weak people who can't handle stress. If that were the case, i suggest you look for jobs like security guard at condo instead. No stress. Your entire perception towards work is wrong to begin with
|
1. OP here. To clarify, I am not the one who replied at 2.26pm yesterday. While they accurately represented my views on the managing out point, I do not know who they are.
2. In any case, the references in my post to claims of being managed out and mental health suffering due to work environment is from previous posts on this forum thread written by others. Disbelieve if you will, but I can categorically tell you I am also not those posters. Following from this, your statement about my “entire perception towards work” is woefully inaccurate.
3. “ Mental health and all that BS are just an excuse for weak people who can't handle stress.” - this statement seems to run directly counter to recent statements this year by then DPM (concurrently CM MAS, as he then was) that mental health is a key national priority, having grown in importance in Singapore and around the world. It is the subject of one of two new consultative groups formed, alongside climate action. If you dare, provide these contrarian views together with your full name to the group. So it can be known that such uncharitable views persist in the workplace. Include your current designation, just in case your position lends your words more weight. Don’t hide behind anonymity.
4. Your views on security guard (whether at condo or elsewhere) reflect a gross lack of touch with the ground. Far from being a cushy job, there are reports aplenty of security guard being subject to physical abuse and more. At least with psychological abuse from toxic/narcissistic bosses, one can escape for sanity sake.
5. Remember that if some day in the future you ever hope to join GE (general election, not the insurer owned by OCBC bank), you need concrete demonstration of being in touch with reality. If not, don’t be one of those who come here with motherhood statements about serving the public. The colleagues you don’t like, the counterparts from stakeholders that MAS works with who annoy you because you think they are cmi (cannot make it) or cui or whatever, are they not Singaporeans too? Learn to humbly serve those people who are different to you, before you pontificate and punctuate every other sentence about serving Singapore and Singaporeans!
|
| 15-06-2024 09:06 AM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
What makes the public service an iron rice bowl is that you cannot be sacked other than for poor performance.
|
Put simply, you are wrong. Do you read HR guidelines in their entirety? Probably not. They may not be updated frequently but nevertheless they exist. There is a list of offences/misconduct for which proceedings leading to possible termination/suspension/demotion. “Poor performance” can be subjective and is very much determined by those with which the power balance lies. It is for the very reason people can’t be easily let go for “poor performance” in the public service, that there are comments on this thread about jiak liao bees.
Back to your mistaken belief on this point. Usually conduct warranting dismissal of public officers is serious misconduct or neglect of duty. Neglect of duty is on a far different scale from performance that your boss is not happy with. Example of serious misconduct is conflict of interest, which I trust you understand the meaning of. Please read carefully HR guidelines and other relevant public service regulations (some of which are publicly available) before you go around spouting erroneous statements or taking actions that are not in line with HR protocols/processes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
All these are perfunctory words that any company can easily state and every employee wishes for. I fail to see that they have any substantive value. In fact, I find it odd you continue to hold on to expectation of remuneration in return for "long hours spent on work".
Just because you made some suggestions and gave some 'constructive' questions doesn't automatically entitle you to more money. Honestly. No company will pay its employees more just because they talk a lot. None. Some people talk a lot but say nothing at all.
|
Did you read the post carefully? Probably your cognitive bias precludes you from doing so. Which part of the post was about expecting more remuneration for talking a lot? There are people who were promoted in the last promotion cycle because they are good at talking a lot and/or spend every waking hour on work. But the paragraph you cite in this post was amongst others about the type of work environment that, together with adequate remuneration, is a measure of a workplace that make employees want to stay on in the long term - or leave after a few years. A perfunctory glance at the joiners and leavers suggest to me that MAS does not have an issue recruiting new, good hires who are attracted by the regulator brand. The issue I think it has is retaining them. For the different reasons that have been posted on this forum. We can agree to disagree, but don’t miss the crux of the point and/or reframe the point to repeat your own point.
|
| 15-06-2024 12:13 AM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
If you have this mindset, you are probably the JLBees that public service needs to rid of. You speak of the private sector as a jungle and public sector as a sanctuary. Wow. You mean are not confident of holding down a job in the private sector? Many officers in MAS are qualified professionals with professional skills and MAS experience is just an add on to the CV. I know many lawyers, CFA holders, Actuarial Science, Financial Accounting people who have real skills and would do a better job than those floating in Compliance, Legal, Risk Management and Finance out there. Well if private sector is indeed a jungle, these MAS people can go out to replace them since it is survival of the fittest.
You can compare down the pyramid and even thank Lord for being born in Singapore and not Gaza. Go ahead. We are more interested in how to get ahead in our marathon of life in Singapore as it is while you stare down at your navel and stay thankful thats all because you really have no competing skills outside of public sector. Wonder why public sector kept you? Is because you will be contributing to unemployment figures and more work for MOM otherwise.
|
You are right that I have many talented and qualified colleagues in MAS, including in my very own department. People come to MAS for a variety of reasons. Some even took a paycut to come here, and did so willingly. If money was everything, they won't have done so. Many of them like the job security of working for the public service, furthermore in an area that they have expertise in.
Like I said, if you are in for the money, you should go elsewhere. Find somewhere your "talents" can take you. The public service has a relatively fixed payscale, but offers a good amount of job security in exchange.
Life is a marathon, but not everyone competes in the same way. Some people choose to run faster at the start and then slow down later, while other people choose to maintain a constant pace throughout the marathon. Some people are very driven to finish in 1st place, while others are content just to complete the marathon. Some people are totally focused on the race, while others like to take in the sights and sounds during the run. I don't see any of these choices as being inherently worse than others.
You seem upset to me because it appears that you want to finish in 1st place, but are being held back because you are in MAS. If this is indeed the case, I strongly urge you to cut yourself loose, and find an organization that can carry you to where you want to be.
|
| 14-06-2024 11:54 PM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Not surprising. Bunch of dicks really. One jump on the bandwagon, everyone jumps in. As if the other topics are not impt. Next time quantum computing becomes hot, rest assure every town hall, omc will be about it.
|
You cuckoo or what? If quantum computing becomes hot, why will anyone still want to talk about classical computing?
It's like the latest Iphone 15 pro just released and here you are asking why they never talk about Ipod mini anymore.
Covering emerging risks is not the same as saying other topics are not important; this is quite obvious. I expected better from a fellow MAS staff. Sad.
|
| 14-06-2024 11:45 PM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
So I beg to differ that lower pay package in MAS comes with the added perk of a worry less existence. On the contrary, there have also been more than one recounting on this forum of instances where people claimed their mental health suffered as a result of work environment.
|
Mental health suffering as a result of work environment can be in virtually any company, not just MAS.
What makes the public service an iron rice bowl is that you cannot be sacked other than for poor performance. If your role somehow becomes unnecessary, the public service will simply place you somewhere else, even if not in MAS (if you are a contract staff then it's a different story).
In an MNC however, you can be the best CFO or the best software developer, but if Head Office one day says "Singapore is too expensive, we are relocating to another country", there goes your job. That is it. They retrench you when they want to. Your whole team may just be let go. You could be doing a perfect job but the next day an email comes wishing you "All the best in your next endeavour!"
This, indeed, is the wonderful difference of being in the public service, that no one is appreciating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Serving the public and loving the public service is not synonymous with not questioning deeply entrenched beliefs and ways of working. The environment must therefore evolve such that people are free to question constructively and still be afforded the space to flourish. In the long term, such intangibles are inseparable from financial remuneration because it is factored into the equation of what people receive in return for long hours spent on work. Have a long reflect in the mirror and ask yourself whether such quirkiness exist before rushing to defend.
|
All these are perfunctory words that any company can easily state and every employee wishes for. I fail to see that they have any substantive value. In fact, I find it odd you continue to hold on to expectation of remuneration in return for "long hours spent on work".
If you join an organization, the organization has certain goals that it wants to achieve. It hires you because it believes you can achieve those goals. In return, they give you remuneration and in the case of the public service, considerable certainty in tenure of employment. It is completely on your on free will and volition that you accept these terms.
If for whatever reason, you feel that you are not being remunerated fairly, and would like to seek greener pastures, the door is always open. But needless to say, you will lose some of the job security as a trade-off.
Just because you made some suggestions and gave some 'constructive' questions doesn't automatically entitle you to more money. Honestly. No company will pay its employees more just because they talk a lot. None. Some people talk a lot but say nothing at all. If you believe you deserve remuneration for doing so, then it is incumbent upon you to find a company that provides this.
|
Topic Review (Newest First)
