Salary.sg Forums - Reply to Topic
Salary.sg Forums  

Go Back   Salary.sg Forums > The Salary.sg Discussion Forums: > Companies > MAS for Mid Career Professionals

Companies Discuss companies and organisations.




Salary.sg Forums

Thread: MAS for Mid Career Professionals Reply to Thread
Your Username: Click here to log in
Human Verification To prove you are a human and not a computer program that spams, please check the box below and answer any further questions if prompted.

Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
30-09-2022 12:49 AM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
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.
30-09-2022 12:45 AM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
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.
29-09-2022 07:25 PM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
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
29-09-2022 01:10 AM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
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).
28-09-2022 10:56 PM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
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
28-09-2022 12:10 AM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
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.
27-09-2022 02:28 PM
Unregistered What happens when your salary is nearing the cap of your grade.

Do you get redesignated to the next grade ie. AD2 to DD1 or do you simply get 0% increment every year?
25-09-2022 11:09 PM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Poor in what ways?
Honestly if you ask me, it is because the scope of work has exploded but the organization is not agile enough to respond to it. Regular officers have become burdened with this massive increase work that they are expected to handle without any difficulty.

One prime example is on the regulatory front. There are huge loads of new regulations coming in simply because the world has become more complex to regulate. Much of these regulations arise from developments in the US and Europe that Singapore usually follows. This is natural and understandable. 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".

There are other issues that are not entirely the fault of MAS. During COVID-19, many other companies experienced a situation where everything went online and communications were expected to become instantaneous. A letter-by-letter exchange between 2 parties now warrants a response overnight. This is unsurprising, given that such convenience should have been adopted long ago. 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. Indeed, it is the routine/mundane matters that are most suitable for digitalization. Suffice to say, you have to actually join MAS before you find out about this. I try very hard not to blame management for this, but from the management personnel I have interacted with, they are very good at understanding their own policy area but are terrible at adopting digitalization practices in their departments (or perhaps there is just no such culture in the organization). In any case, digitalization usually does not fit into KPIs or maybe it fits in the wrong manner into KPIs.

One knows that banks have to digitalize quickly or risk being left behind by the competition. The regulator on the other hand faces no such pressure. Hear hear.
23-09-2022 09:25 PM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Is 9k for a 33yo the normal progression for non-IT/FO?

It seems from the posts here that people tend to hit DD by early 30s and the pay for DD is around 10k
DDs are usually on 200k package la. 10k is too low
23-09-2022 04:46 PM
Unregistered Is 9k for a 33yo the normal progression for non-IT/FO?

It seems from the posts here that people tend to hit DD by early 30s and the pay for DD is around 10k
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT +8. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2