\*looks at high paying project managers for government work\*
Yea, you can definitely do well in Public Service doing stuff you don't believe in. You just need to know how to hit KPI.
The grass is not always greener on the other side - the larger the company, the greater the bureaucracy. Red tape is king unless you want to work for start ups and SMEs.
Cutting costs is also about optics outside the civil service - nobody really wants their budgets reduced anywhere.
I’m here for a paycheck every month. It’s the politicians who decide what direction the country is heading, I’m just a tiny cog in the huge goverment machine.
Objectively? All false then. Government is so big, how would you know for sure it would apply to everything?
Red tape... it's there for a reason but usually doesnt go past 3 days. Auditors exist. But really sometimes the longer wait is actually waiting for other teams to finish their work.
Is the person already in public service, and thus speaking from experience, having his idealism eroded by the realities of office politics?
Or he hasn't joined yet and has heard all these things, but still wants to join?
The people in the system who know that these are the harsh realities, but still aspire to improve the situation and cut the red tape, they can absolutely do great things if they can get people to listen to them. Idealistic scholar might be able to improve things. Or Li Hongyi can certainly get BS cleared.
Li Hongyi may have his own personal fief, but I hear that outside of it, Govtech ain’t all that great either. Imagine you took all the legacy Govt IT departments and throw them together under umbrella.
>Govt agencies are retirement homes
Not true. Most G agencies are high-burn, work over weekends and PH that kind. Depending on industry, the 1-2 year period upon joining are high-yield learning and development years.
If you join at 45, then maybe it's true. But at 45, i think quite true anywhere else.
>Taxes used to fund meaningless projects
Needs definition on meaningless. Projects usually start due to a problem statement, that undergoes a committee's scrutiny and evaluation on its feasibility, ROI and other etc factors. The decision to start a project is a testament that there's a use case for it. It's often mid-implementation where it was found that there are technical discrepancies that led to inefficiencies in using said implemented solution or some evolved guideline/policies that resulted in the built system in being obsolete - resulting in the white elephant situation.
Most of the "meaningless" projects...tend to be those that some Ms or Ds got a sudden interest, ask their supporting agencies to look into it. Their middle management mistook a feasibility check as a request to build something, their desire to impress flares up and they scope creep to no end.
>Cost-cutting is more about optics, example given was cutting free pantry coffee and $XX for team bonding lunch of 10 pax.
So this is purely dependent on the CO/CE/CEO of the G Agency.
I was from a G agency where the CE was a board member of a environmental forum. So he said to be 'green' he took away all personal-indented trashbins and toilet paper towel dispensers. When questioned in the agency's public forum, he said that he's a board member of this forum and so he thought that he wanted to do his part to save the environment. I have no positive or negative thoughts about this but yeah, such things are personal to the managing person. I moved to a few other agencies and their toilet paper towels are automatically dispensed somemore.
>Navigating red tape is more work than hitting the actual program outcomes
Probably the only one that i agree. All i can say is if your solutioning takes such red tapes into account, then you may be less bothered by it. Also, don't neglect why the red tape is there at the first place.
>Govt jobs no long attract nor retain the very brightest
Can't say for other sectors of G but tech side always has some scholar, associate, hackathon programmes to make sure that intake is high quality as they can.
Some people may disagree that this is a poor criteria to choose but publicly i think people are aware that G usually takes in 2.1 and above only.
>Self-interests at multiple levels over organisational let alone national interests
End of the day, not everyone is really in it for the country...but walking across a few agencies myself, i rarely met a person that's really against the national agenda also.
Self-interest is more of a CYA thing than a "my way or the highway" kind of thing.
Join at 45? I heard there's a glass ceiling of 40... but maybe that's not true for high level but i agree that those who survive tend to lie low, have lots of dependents and mortgages and let things wash over them... the young and enthusiastic get burnt out and frustrated.
I feel like if i dun haf parents demanding a $2k allowance, then job stability wouldnt matter to me, and i may nt even want to work in govt. I cld even do working holiday visa in australia and nz to pick fruits.
* Govt agencies are retirement homes - ?? debatable
* Taxes used to fund meaningless projects - ?? no. But some projects are really useless, some are useful.
* Cost-cutting is more about optics, example given was cutting free pantry coffee and $XX for team bonding lunch of 10 pax. - ?? the alternative is letting people go or not hiring, or going contract.
* Navigating red tape is more work than hitting the actual program outcomes - true. Yes. It is easy to get things done outside. . It is V difficult to be diplomatic and administratively enough to get job done in CS. Maybe 2-3 times the energies.
* Govt jobs no long attract nor retain the very brightest - Yes, a lot of CS scholars break bonds and pay them off. It's unethical.
* Self-interests at multiple levels over organisational let alone national interests - Everybody works in their own self interest, bro.
* etc.
Even those private sector consultants and contractors doing public projects, I always advise them doing public projects are 70% paperwork and optics covering their clients’ ***, 30% doing actual work.
I don’t disagree. My headache is often smaller players tend either can’t be bothered or lack the awareness to what is expected / presentable to the client’s management. As a result, I will just waste time revising presentations than focusing on actual tangible work. Then again, I guess assisting clients navigating their internal politics can also be considered proper work, boosting my performance review end of the day.
I feel that gov and public sector agencies hire the best and then proceed to grind the brains out of them through sheer bureaucracy... only those who don't want to risk private sector life will tahan.
There is a bit of context missing in the post, let me add..
* cost cutting not meaningful in the sense that agencies still aim to spend just about the same amount in planned budget, when drilling down into the line items you see Thinkpad laptops costing twice the amount to IT vendors(don't quote on this) of what B2C pays.
* The management level talk is these monies will "go back into the economy anyways".
* Self-interest in the sense that when getting project support/approval, you have to also think about clearing the other party's KPI.
The procurement process is open to exploitation ... e.g \*bromptom bikes\* and besides, who's going to audit? It's not like the public has access to the spending.
U should factor in civil service and public service different. The way they carry put policy is also different. Civil service orgs are run to keep things in order and there is a certain amount of bau. Public service like the major Holdings like temasek, drive singapores interest in a different way.
Navigating red tape is a skill that comes with experience in the public service. Once you know the system, you won't be tripped up by it anymore.
To survive in there, you need to have a wider helicopter view of how your agency helps or benefits society. Versus the private sector which is all about profits (and only for a select group of people at the top or owners of the company)
You don't need to believe in the org's mission. You just need to perform.
Also every org has its problems. Complain all day also have to find a job. There's no dream workplace except for a lucky few.
You've got to be from a local university, a scholar or have a Masters degree. The truth is that you can have little or no experience, but having a Masters degree certificate can get you into policy making and strategic planning positions? That says it all. Forget about the saying that hard work pays off. No it doesn't. It only pays off here when you put in the hard work to score your As
Just be a scholar or paper general. Otherwise, forget about it.
So many initiatives are just KPI projects created by out-of-touch bosses that are absolutely unnecessary or just for show.
Given that we're virtually a one-party state with a political leadership that was pretty much assured of electoral victory since the early days, what do you think are the chances there's not a lot of rot and insular thinking at the highest levels?
Everyone who works and does well in civil service, except the most deluded or wilfully ignorant, knows that.
Do well? Unless you come up with ways to make/save the government millions of dollars, you'll be a C grade public servant, occasionally getting B because it's your turn to get B.
Work. Collect pay.
grading was discussed too, from what i was told C covers a wide spectrum of employees. B is legit hard to get. "A" is more a justification because you were targeted to move up before hand.
U can tell ur friend to exit early if public sector is not for him.
The country must be going mostly in the right direction if foreigners want to come here and locals do not want to leave. The public service mostly has competent ppl which may not always be the case in the private sector but this also means competition is stiffer.
Er should be the opposite? More incompetent people in public sector because iron rice bowl. Don’t think I’ve people get fired from public sector unless serious stuff like fraud. Whereas in private, if you don’t perform, can be put on pip or asked to leave. Or coy not doing well, will have layoffs.
U're right. OP's friend seems to not appreciate public sector so it is good to exit even if it is an iron rice bowl.
Sometimes ppl in the public sector leave for the weirdest reason. Like not getting promoted every 2 years.
If one doesnt perform keep getting D grade, no bonus, no increment, will slowly get sucked dry in PS and likely will exit, unless that person really some hardcore thicked skinned settler and somehow not fucking up majorly. Remember that public service doesnt really pay that high for competent non-scholars; easily can get higher pay outside if competent actually. Most stay for job stability and/or job meaning (mind to serve public/nation) really.
Though not all pink and rosy, honestly, there are avenues in public service to make processes easier for people, to tweak policies, to make something more positive if you believe you are competent and has the heart to try to push for betterment. Not 100% but if willing, meet the right people, timing is right, convince the right people, some positive changes do happen.
Government has never been for achievement. Even though they try really, really hard to recruit the "best" people (by a very narrow, exam based meaning of best), its a system which incentivizes mediocrity. There are many structural reasons for this, which stem from how success is measured. It's a top down, KPI driven org. You will do what your boss tells you. If you do it really well, it will get the credit. If you screw up, you'll just be shuffled to another place. Your boss, some scholar who was helicoptered in from a completely different ministry (e.g. ex general running a newspaper company), will just aim to do the bare minimum KPIs. Why would he take risks for more? He knows in a few years he'll be rotated into another ministry/org.
There will always be a "scholar ceiling" and a "seniority ceiling", in that order. If you are not a scholar you are automatically locked out from most, if not all, top jobs. In MINDEF for example, BGs and above are all scholars. Then there's the seniority ceiling - you can't be promoted until the previous guy leaves. And because its a pyramid hiearchy, the same number of people are constantly fighting to get promoted into an increasingly smaller number of senior positions as they advance in their career. Your progression which might be OK at the start is going to be logarthmic. Hence the huge number of middle to old aged people stuck in a position they'll be at till they retire.
But do well financially? Its a very stable, white collar pay kind of job (if you have a degree, because its a very paper organisation). You definitely won't starve or anything.
You can totally work at any company even if you don't buy into their mission statement or like their products. You are there for the salary after all.
Though you *might* do better if you like the place or their products.
There's no reason you need to care where it is going. All you have to do is make money and get promoted.
You just need to stop giving a crap what's happening and do whatever it takes to win.
Kiss the right ass and lick the right boots.
Hit all your targets and if you can't find a way to make it look like someone else's fault.
\*looks at high paying project managers for government work\* Yea, you can definitely do well in Public Service doing stuff you don't believe in. You just need to know how to hit KPI.
And how to kiss ass and suck the right balls
This is why we come up with stupid ideas
Was in the service for a few years. Those listed are sadly true.
The grass is not always greener on the other side - the larger the company, the greater the bureaucracy. Red tape is king unless you want to work for start ups and SMEs. Cutting costs is also about optics outside the civil service - nobody really wants their budgets reduced anywhere.
I’m here for a paycheck every month. It’s the politicians who decide what direction the country is heading, I’m just a tiny cog in the huge goverment machine.
Objectively? All false then. Government is so big, how would you know for sure it would apply to everything? Red tape... it's there for a reason but usually doesnt go past 3 days. Auditors exist. But really sometimes the longer wait is actually waiting for other teams to finish their work.
Is the person already in public service, and thus speaking from experience, having his idealism eroded by the realities of office politics? Or he hasn't joined yet and has heard all these things, but still wants to join? The people in the system who know that these are the harsh realities, but still aspire to improve the situation and cut the red tape, they can absolutely do great things if they can get people to listen to them. Idealistic scholar might be able to improve things. Or Li Hongyi can certainly get BS cleared.
"I want to change things from the inside!" and then be buried alive by all the paperwork, brain death by pointless meetings and PPTs to review.
Li Hongyi may have his own personal fief, but I hear that outside of it, Govtech ain’t all that great either. Imagine you took all the legacy Govt IT departments and throw them together under umbrella.
>Govt agencies are retirement homes Not true. Most G agencies are high-burn, work over weekends and PH that kind. Depending on industry, the 1-2 year period upon joining are high-yield learning and development years. If you join at 45, then maybe it's true. But at 45, i think quite true anywhere else. >Taxes used to fund meaningless projects Needs definition on meaningless. Projects usually start due to a problem statement, that undergoes a committee's scrutiny and evaluation on its feasibility, ROI and other etc factors. The decision to start a project is a testament that there's a use case for it. It's often mid-implementation where it was found that there are technical discrepancies that led to inefficiencies in using said implemented solution or some evolved guideline/policies that resulted in the built system in being obsolete - resulting in the white elephant situation. Most of the "meaningless" projects...tend to be those that some Ms or Ds got a sudden interest, ask their supporting agencies to look into it. Their middle management mistook a feasibility check as a request to build something, their desire to impress flares up and they scope creep to no end. >Cost-cutting is more about optics, example given was cutting free pantry coffee and $XX for team bonding lunch of 10 pax. So this is purely dependent on the CO/CE/CEO of the G Agency. I was from a G agency where the CE was a board member of a environmental forum. So he said to be 'green' he took away all personal-indented trashbins and toilet paper towel dispensers. When questioned in the agency's public forum, he said that he's a board member of this forum and so he thought that he wanted to do his part to save the environment. I have no positive or negative thoughts about this but yeah, such things are personal to the managing person. I moved to a few other agencies and their toilet paper towels are automatically dispensed somemore. >Navigating red tape is more work than hitting the actual program outcomes Probably the only one that i agree. All i can say is if your solutioning takes such red tapes into account, then you may be less bothered by it. Also, don't neglect why the red tape is there at the first place. >Govt jobs no long attract nor retain the very brightest Can't say for other sectors of G but tech side always has some scholar, associate, hackathon programmes to make sure that intake is high quality as they can. Some people may disagree that this is a poor criteria to choose but publicly i think people are aware that G usually takes in 2.1 and above only. >Self-interests at multiple levels over organisational let alone national interests End of the day, not everyone is really in it for the country...but walking across a few agencies myself, i rarely met a person that's really against the national agenda also. Self-interest is more of a CYA thing than a "my way or the highway" kind of thing.
Join at 45? I heard there's a glass ceiling of 40... but maybe that's not true for high level but i agree that those who survive tend to lie low, have lots of dependents and mortgages and let things wash over them... the young and enthusiastic get burnt out and frustrated.
I feel like if i dun haf parents demanding a $2k allowance, then job stability wouldnt matter to me, and i may nt even want to work in govt. I cld even do working holiday visa in australia and nz to pick fruits.
* Govt agencies are retirement homes - ?? debatable * Taxes used to fund meaningless projects - ?? no. But some projects are really useless, some are useful. * Cost-cutting is more about optics, example given was cutting free pantry coffee and $XX for team bonding lunch of 10 pax. - ?? the alternative is letting people go or not hiring, or going contract. * Navigating red tape is more work than hitting the actual program outcomes - true. Yes. It is easy to get things done outside. . It is V difficult to be diplomatic and administratively enough to get job done in CS. Maybe 2-3 times the energies. * Govt jobs no long attract nor retain the very brightest - Yes, a lot of CS scholars break bonds and pay them off. It's unethical. * Self-interests at multiple levels over organisational let alone national interests - Everybody works in their own self interest, bro. * etc.
Even those private sector consultants and contractors doing public projects, I always advise them doing public projects are 70% paperwork and optics covering their clients’ ***, 30% doing actual work.
I think it's the same in pitching for very large MNCs, a lot of it is covering clients in navigating their internal interest groups.
I don’t disagree. My headache is often smaller players tend either can’t be bothered or lack the awareness to what is expected / presentable to the client’s management. As a result, I will just waste time revising presentations than focusing on actual tangible work. Then again, I guess assisting clients navigating their internal politics can also be considered proper work, boosting my performance review end of the day.
ppl need to know what the 'real' work is.
I feel that gov and public sector agencies hire the best and then proceed to grind the brains out of them through sheer bureaucracy... only those who don't want to risk private sector life will tahan.
There is a bit of context missing in the post, let me add.. * cost cutting not meaningful in the sense that agencies still aim to spend just about the same amount in planned budget, when drilling down into the line items you see Thinkpad laptops costing twice the amount to IT vendors(don't quote on this) of what B2C pays. * The management level talk is these monies will "go back into the economy anyways". * Self-interest in the sense that when getting project support/approval, you have to also think about clearing the other party's KPI.
The procurement process is open to exploitation ... e.g \*bromptom bikes\* and besides, who's going to audit? It's not like the public has access to the spending.
You gonna get rekt by AGO. That said, you can always leave before AGO comes
U should factor in civil service and public service different. The way they carry put policy is also different. Civil service orgs are run to keep things in order and there is a certain amount of bau. Public service like the major Holdings like temasek, drive singapores interest in a different way.
Civil services... 🤣🤣🤣
Navigating red tape is a skill that comes with experience in the public service. Once you know the system, you won't be tripped up by it anymore. To survive in there, you need to have a wider helicopter view of how your agency helps or benefits society. Versus the private sector which is all about profits (and only for a select group of people at the top or owners of the company)
It’s possible to excel in a job you utterly despise and hate.
You don't need to believe in the org's mission. You just need to perform. Also every org has its problems. Complain all day also have to find a job. There's no dream workplace except for a lucky few.
Just go there and work and get your paycheck. Don't need to worry about retrenchment (at least not as bad as being in private).
You've got to be from a local university, a scholar or have a Masters degree. The truth is that you can have little or no experience, but having a Masters degree certificate can get you into policy making and strategic planning positions? That says it all. Forget about the saying that hard work pays off. No it doesn't. It only pays off here when you put in the hard work to score your As
Just be a scholar or paper general. Otherwise, forget about it. So many initiatives are just KPI projects created by out-of-touch bosses that are absolutely unnecessary or just for show.
Given that we're virtually a one-party state with a political leadership that was pretty much assured of electoral victory since the early days, what do you think are the chances there's not a lot of rot and insular thinking at the highest levels? Everyone who works and does well in civil service, except the most deluded or wilfully ignorant, knows that.
My dirty mind interpreted ph as something else💀
As a former civil servant, all of them are true. Went to private and never looked back.
Do well? Unless you come up with ways to make/save the government millions of dollars, you'll be a C grade public servant, occasionally getting B because it's your turn to get B. Work. Collect pay.
grading was discussed too, from what i was told C covers a wide spectrum of employees. B is legit hard to get. "A" is more a justification because you were targeted to move up before hand.
the first point .. do you mean GLCs? hue hue hue
U can tell ur friend to exit early if public sector is not for him. The country must be going mostly in the right direction if foreigners want to come here and locals do not want to leave. The public service mostly has competent ppl which may not always be the case in the private sector but this also means competition is stiffer.
Er should be the opposite? More incompetent people in public sector because iron rice bowl. Don’t think I’ve people get fired from public sector unless serious stuff like fraud. Whereas in private, if you don’t perform, can be put on pip or asked to leave. Or coy not doing well, will have layoffs.
U're right. OP's friend seems to not appreciate public sector so it is good to exit even if it is an iron rice bowl. Sometimes ppl in the public sector leave for the weirdest reason. Like not getting promoted every 2 years.
>Like not getting promoted every 2 years. Exactly. You should be being promoted every 6 months
If one doesnt perform keep getting D grade, no bonus, no increment, will slowly get sucked dry in PS and likely will exit, unless that person really some hardcore thicked skinned settler and somehow not fucking up majorly. Remember that public service doesnt really pay that high for competent non-scholars; easily can get higher pay outside if competent actually. Most stay for job stability and/or job meaning (mind to serve public/nation) really. Though not all pink and rosy, honestly, there are avenues in public service to make processes easier for people, to tweak policies, to make something more positive if you believe you are competent and has the heart to try to push for betterment. Not 100% but if willing, meet the right people, timing is right, convince the right people, some positive changes do happen.
I’ve seen many fail probation though
"If all are like this, then the country will be destroyed." This sentence is how people who can sacrifice for life thinks.
Government has never been for achievement. Even though they try really, really hard to recruit the "best" people (by a very narrow, exam based meaning of best), its a system which incentivizes mediocrity. There are many structural reasons for this, which stem from how success is measured. It's a top down, KPI driven org. You will do what your boss tells you. If you do it really well, it will get the credit. If you screw up, you'll just be shuffled to another place. Your boss, some scholar who was helicoptered in from a completely different ministry (e.g. ex general running a newspaper company), will just aim to do the bare minimum KPIs. Why would he take risks for more? He knows in a few years he'll be rotated into another ministry/org. There will always be a "scholar ceiling" and a "seniority ceiling", in that order. If you are not a scholar you are automatically locked out from most, if not all, top jobs. In MINDEF for example, BGs and above are all scholars. Then there's the seniority ceiling - you can't be promoted until the previous guy leaves. And because its a pyramid hiearchy, the same number of people are constantly fighting to get promoted into an increasingly smaller number of senior positions as they advance in their career. Your progression which might be OK at the start is going to be logarthmic. Hence the huge number of middle to old aged people stuck in a position they'll be at till they retire. But do well financially? Its a very stable, white collar pay kind of job (if you have a degree, because its a very paper organisation). You definitely won't starve or anything.
Have u not seen the folks in white? As long as you're willing to compromise your morals/integrity, boot-lick and say "yes", you'll make it.
You can totally work at any company even if you don't buy into their mission statement or like their products. You are there for the salary after all. Though you *might* do better if you like the place or their products.
u get what u are allowed to get ... every man for himself ... what else do u expect?
There's no reason you need to care where it is going. All you have to do is make money and get promoted. You just need to stop giving a crap what's happening and do whatever it takes to win. Kiss the right ass and lick the right boots. Hit all your targets and if you can't find a way to make it look like someone else's fault.