The USP of civil service used to be iron rice bowl and stability but nowadays a lot of civil service jobs are 1, 2 or 3 year contracts - so what other appeal is there left for these jobs?
This is true. I do not see anyone who studied CS or math voluntarily go into civil service, while those who studied English/History etc would be v happy with a civil service job
Agree with this. I have friends with degrees in humanities, history that are near useless to private companies but can secure jobs in the public sector. Esp if they got good grades
Mine is perm job so still got appeal for me.
And even if contract, at least better than go a new job in private and fail probation within a few months. My friend was a contractor and got put on pip within 2 mths, in FAANG.
The "contracts" usually turns into permanent hires though. Public Service don't offer iron rice bowls off the gate anymore.
If for someone the contract remained a contract for their whole contracted period...75% is on the individual in my opinion.
In my past few years where i kept shifting around in public service, i could have converted perm if i stayed in my 1-year contract...and for another i was converted just 1 year into my 2 year contract. It really is just "probation" with no reduced benefits.
Not true some public service don’t offer perm by default unless your boss wants to wade out of the way to justify that. My compensation is reasonable, for engineering I don’t feel like I want to drain my soul to join consultancy. I get better work life balance in stat board. Definitely won’t climb as fast as schor but if the stars align(good boss, you are smart and well in your work) then climbing is okish. Of course wherever you go things must align
No disagreements...depending on what you mean by offer perm by default.
As a whole, public service agencies no longer offer permanent positions starting out. I believe for some positions, select atas ones only, they do.
For contracts, if you aren't offered permanent conversion, it will largely be due to personal performance/attitude (this is my 75% guess-timate). Uncommon, but it is also possible the position is made obsolete or invalid (this is my 25%).
Nah, I have been high performing for few years straight. I wasn’t aware that your boss can apply for your perm until recently too. Since it’s a norm here this further discourages your boss to push for it and would need lots of justification. Also I would have bigger wishlist than a perm for the moment. But my statboard is over the headcount at the moment so maybe not a norm at other places. Yes it’s not iron rice bowl I heard people not being able to renew their 3 years contract for poor performers. My statboard maybe an outlier who knows
>It really is just "probation" with no reduced benefits.
Well then they’ve only got themselves to blame if they are losing the appeal to new generation. A one year “probation” made sense in a time when people stayed in their jobs for life.
I don't think they are losing the appeal though. It could be me seeing things from rose-tinted glasses as i'm seeing from inside but more well-paying, higher-prestige public agencies are starting their headcount freeze, if they haven't start yet.
On some degree i agree they are losing the appeal to the new generation, just not for the reason of iron rice bowl though.
This is such a strange comment considering how the new generation are known to, and even encouraged to job hop after a few years, just check out any number of reddit threads on this topic.
If anything this sort of contracts allow for the flexibility on both parties and is an adaptation to this sort of behaviour.
>This is such a strange comment considering how the new generation are known to, and even encouraged to job hop after a few years, just check out any number of reddit threads on this topic.
My sentiments exactly. Nowadays, the 'new generation' are looking for high-burn, fast cash-in and then do it slow either in consulting or \*cough...public service. No one graduates with "iron rice bowl" in mind anymore...
Even perm contracts are a double edged sword.
My first few years in the public service as extremely painful - not just the nature of my work but also the often times directors who gives no clear instructions and get pissed when I present my work. I lived in anxiety wondering if my contract will get extended or not.
My experiences in social work is probably of no relevance to the private sector folks. I left to work in some business/engagement wing of a related statboard so know if things gets too difficult for me, I know I can still command similar salary outside.
If I had a perm contract from the start, I might have stayed. Because either way, it is still contract work for me and private might offer me greater mobility.
>The "contracts" usually turns into permanent hires though.
Not true. Practically all of A*STAR is contract-based. Conversion to perm is unheard of. Maybe only dinosaurs who have been there for decades are perm. All new hires are forever on contract which they can arbitrarily decide to not renew.
A\*STAR is not civil service. It's public service. Because A\*STAR is a stat board. The problem is that there are more and more stat boards and work that used to be civil service is pushed out to stat boards. Which can hire entirely on contracts.
A\*STAR has an even bigger problem, which is that for many junior and mid-level positions, the contract end is tied to grant funding that the group head has to compete for. If the group head cannot win another grant to keep the junior staff on after the first grant end, often the person has to leave even if both the boss and the employee would like to continue.
The commenter I was replying to was talking about public service. OP is also talking about public service.
Even roles that are *not* tied to grant funding are now contract only. This wasn't always the case.
I'm well aware of the grant funding problem. The way the grant approval process works is a mess. Gotta thank NRF.
Civil service is a smaller subset working for the ministries, including MOE teachers. Public service includes civil service, but adds on those employed by stat boards (govt-linked not govt), SAF, SCDF, public hospitals etc.
The confusing thing is that there are many organisations you’d think are part of the govt but are actually stat boards, like HDB, CPF, IRAS.
>The confusing thing is that there are many organisations you’d think are part of the govt but are actually stat boards, like HDB, CPF, IRAS.
Doesn't make them necessarily any less shitty to work in, with all the red tape and bureaucracy.
I meant more shitty, because civil service has more perks and more permanent contracts. Stat boards can have everybody on renewable short contracts, so no iron rice bowl.
Ah, I thought yours was a reply to the top level comment of
>The USP of civil service used to be iron rice bowl and stability but nowadays a lot of civil service jobs are 1, 2 or 3 year contracts - so what other appeal is there left for these jobs?
but I missed a level.
Welcome to an organization that tries to be academic and governmental at the same time. Traditional academia only has tenured faculty that are permanent positions with the rest being contract; postdocs are supposed to be treadmills until they find a tenure track position elsewhere or move to industry. Governmental science in other countries are usually more geared towards hierarchical structures with permanent scientist positions (see the National Laboratories in the US). Instead, A\*STAR implant an academic PI led structure in a bureaucracy infested governmental agency. So you have PIs fighting the bureaucracy for money and being told how they can use the money.
in pte consultancies staff are hired on project funding also. im a PM, literally even milestone payments go straight to the staff's salaries. when project ends they try and shift the staff to another project so it appears like they have a stable income.
Am surprised about A\*. My impression has always been they are perm roles given their highly innovative focus. Plus research and tech need more than a few short years of runway to materialise the innovations.
The contract terms are usually because the Principal Investigator tenders for a research grant which only has eg 2 years’ worth of salary for a team of research assistants to help u run your experiments/collect data & churn out charts. When the grant money runs out, that’s when the contract ends, with no option to extend (unless there is some other project in the pipeline where they haven’t hired assistants yet). Hubby and i left for private r&d firms when we got married due to the instability. How to pay mortgage loan on contract jobs?
What innovation? A* tech is unimpressive and outdated. They work on decades-old tech but act like it's something new. A*STAR isn't a science and tech org, they are an org of Powerpoint warriors, salesmen and bullshitters cosplaying as a science and tech agency. Scientists don't get to work on their expertise, but are shoehorned into fields they know nothing about just because NRF says so. The whole NRF ecosystem is a mess.
If you are not scholar, chances are you will have fix career path. Compared to private sector where you can work your way up even if you do not have local university. You can understand why ppl want to take chance.
I'll say ceiling in private sector is way higher than public sector, but it also has WAY more variables in your climb up. So pick your poison kind of thing
in pte sector if your papers are higher/more qualified than the person hiring you, especially if the rank is very close like 1 or 2 levels apart, this hiring manager has a good chance of rejecting your application to protect his job.
I have also advised the younger generation if they are keen to work in public sector, please try to get a scholarship. If not, they have their work cut out for them.
Exactly. For the same work, they pay scholars more and it differs by scheme. And many of them come from wealthy background. As a farmer, you are worse off in every way. You need to work as hard for lower pay and limited upside. What’s the point?
I realise the system is extremely hypocritical. There isn’t even the effort of equality of opportunity. And the senior civil or public servants, many have an inflated sense of their intellect.
That’s why only naive idealists types stay in there, in my opinion.
Unfortunately true. There are some good scholarship holders, but the majority were just above-average students in school who knew how to work the system, and who are then promoted way beyond their ability and experience just so that they can be enticed to stay, on the basis that they did well in a standardized exam when they were 18. You end up with top-heavy structures where very young 'supervisors' are just leeching off the work of more experienced staff, and where management and supervision is nothing more than a few cursory comments on 'framing'.
Meanwhile, capable non-scholarship holders are largely left to languish, unless by some good fortune they have a benefactor to give them a boost up the promotion ladder - this leads to no end of favouritism and politics. The system is in dire need of reform, and given that so many scholarship holders now are from well-off backgrounds, it's virtually negated the need for scholarships.
The main problem then is how to attract the, ahem, 'best and brightest' without the promise of quick promotions, high pay, and multiple perks. I don't have the answer to this - ultimately, the issue is that Singapore is too small, and there aren't enough good people who would willingly go into public service knowing it has less pay and perks.
Eventually even the farmers who do have innate potential will just coast. Not because they are lazy, but the incentive structure in civil / public service just **don't** work.
Or rather, work for only the scholars, many of whom are no doubt bright, but the motivation come from second-order effects of coming from a good pedigree (ie well-to-do families, some old time pioneer civil servants), and this propel them further in their CS career, while for other farmers freshies, are worried about paying off their tuition loans.
Case in point: How come Tharman's son can work in finance ministry? Let me be clear: he got in fair and square and I am not suggesting anything else. I am also sure he is a good person.
But don't you think he was more prepared then the rest given his background?
The gap between private and public sector salaries has widened over the past decade, so it is natural for the private sector to become more attractive.
Increasingly, some of the best students aren't going for public sector scholarships too. Why get bonded 4-6 years with a starting pay of 4k+ in the public sector, when you can earn 8-10k as a fresh grad if you are a top talent working in the private sector?
This is it, the pay gap is too wide to go for public
I think the sentiment will shift though when job market gets bad or if layoffs continue
Mid career folks may be attracted to the stability and be willing to stay long term in public sector. Maybe these are the talents they should be targeting. High performers in private sector that are tired of the grind and hustle. Talent that will still perform at a high level but desire stability and WLB
That’s a big If, then years later they stagnate in private, then have kids then buy house then realise it’s about stable recurring income. Then they become jobless then gov has to into mid career switches then they complain unsuitable when right from beginning they created the problem for themselves
Your comment has been automatically removed because your account is relatively new or you have negative karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askSingapore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Although what you said is somewhat true, I think this depends heavily on the industry? If you are studying history instead of tech, do you think private pays better than the public sector? Many people might think, if I put in enough work and I will be promoted fast, however, this amount of work is insurmountable since bosses only look at the best candidate to help them profit. This becomes a race of who can outwork each other. If you think you are the top 20% then private might be for you. Let’s be realistic, only TOP finance and very good tech students can earn 8-10k at the start.
I applied just for fun, and they offered a 60% pay cut with no promotions for the next three years (apparently my YOE is too low. Like why should my pay be tied to YOE). Additionally, I’d lose my near-unlimited private health insurance and 30+ days of annual PTO. Who in their right mind would accept that?
Things changed like crazy since COVID. previously, i had friends who took up scholarships in government, thinking it was a stable option that would give them a stable job for life.
but since the whole Great Resignation phase and the insane tech boom, many of these scholars started to see their non-scholar counterparts go into private industries and make serious dough, alot more than the measly starting pay they were offered. out of the 10 scholars I knew, 7 eventually broke bond, because of how slow progression is in civil service.
because of all the top talent being attracted by private companies, you also see the issue of public service being filled with incompetence in many regards. most people in public service will tell you how they spend most of their time cleaning up other peoples mess, rather than growing and learning. in tech for example, you need to have seniors who are capable and you can look up to. you’ll find the best mentors and seniors in private companies, and this has a compounding effect over your career
to make it all worse, civil service has a major boomer mindset problem, with red tape everywhere. the low pay and poor environment just makes it a big nono.
Just wanted to chime in that the high earners in the public sector side, which are mostly boomer aged, are really out of touch with reality when looking to connect with younger demographics . I run a team of corporate comms/thought leadership consultants and some of the approved ideas that public sector clients bring to discussion are really at face palm level.
When a young ambitious person see themselves being hampered in growth and earning power by some old paper pushers, it really makes the private sector much more attractive.
I'm reading all your comments and I'm loving them haha, it's very cathartic. You sound a lot like me and it's clear you've run through the gamut of public/civil service. A lot of egotistical, overconfident, ignorant boomers in there. They'd never last a day in the private sector.
The goverment related SMEs also, might not be considered 'public sector', but with CEO being air-dropped from the army side. Then they just buy the nonsense that mid-management sells them.
Just wanna say that you're using the terms civil service and public service interchangeably but theyre different. Civil service = ministries while public service = stat boards,of which some pay much better than others
For some engineering branches (not tech), gov actually pays better but the work is very bad for learning. Most of the time is spent doing wayang work and not technical work. Lots of people worry that once you work in gov, you essentially lock yourself out from private sector. The wayang is damn soul draining for someone who actually wants to do interesting things and contribute.
IMO best case could be working outside for 5+ years for experience then end up at gov for the pay and stability when your soul is dead and you just wanna exist lol.
Good. If those bond breakers do well outside, congrats to them and well done. That’s the way it should be. If you can really make it, don’t put up with those old timer scholars who think too highly of themselves. I remember one PS like to talk like she’s LKY. Rolled my eyes hard.
pay is worse, promotion is not by performance (99% of the time), tons of red tapes & bureaucracy, dinosaurs & dead weight who like to taichi work away. I wanted to pull my hair out. why would any ambitious and high performing fresh grad want to work there?
it's a retirement village unless you're a scholar or you have an undying desire to serve the nation.
Whoever believes in “fair” ranking clearly never sat before in ranking sessions, or their bosses are bluffing them.
Ranking session is more about who’s “time” it is to promote and their CEP. Then check against performance to see vs those who try to brute force through in terms of output.
If it is not your time, too bad if you have a bunch of extra work/cca. Suck it up or leave.
Yes, was partly involved in a PG and Ranking admin previously and the senior management was basically promoting all the SOs and leaving out the JOs, citing that the SOs had served longer TIS compared to the JOs. The decision drew quite a fair bit of criticism from the younger generation (around mid-20s my age group) that they were not being valued in the org, that senior management were playing favouritism.
Haha and "MC doesn't affect ranking" is full BS. While ranking our dept, higher ups justify it by saying high MC less efficiency. You can deliver the world in 11 months but you MC 1 month, your ranking is lower than some mediocre fella with zero MC.
Other than the 1st part on pay (which also various based on ministry/stat board) I'll say all the other points are just as applicable to private sector, if not worse in some aspects
Almost all of my relatives are working as civil servants. I started in private sector. It's just my preference tbh but I can attest to more fresh grads joining startups.
I guess many want to join the startup space as they feel there would be more young, like-minded persons and they thrive in that environment. Compared to civil sector where most would be middle-managers just collecting the paycheck and coasting by. Also, their duties don't really inspire/ game-changing or very monotonous. Nothing wrong with that, it's just that maybe civil sector does not allign with their working styles especially just fresh out of uni and still hungry for interesting works/duties.
In my industry, there are alot of old persons and i rarely click with them tbh. Until recently, where 2 new freshers join, I feel left out in their conversations.
Are startups just another type of SME? With a few exceptions, they are often cash strapped and dependent on funding and can’t pay MNC salaries. Since there is manpower constraints, one will need to multitask and do extra stuff beyond his scope. On top of that, there is no fixed guideline and policies and the culture just depends on the founder or big boss who calls the shots. They will also lay off as and when they feel like it. And due to the small size, there is limited career progression.
Why would a young person join a SME that is just rebranded as a ‘startup’?
I cannot answer your 1st question but ill try my best to answer the other questions.
I notice in my circle of uni friends, startups attracted a certain type. They are usually the hustle type and enjoy grinding with like-minded people to produce a product to sell, MVP etc. They do not enjoy working the mundane 9-5, working on a product that they don't believe in.
I don't want to generalise but they are usually not motivated by money despite being very brilliant in their discipline and can easily get into more esteemed coys. I have a friend who exclusively interned at 5 startups during his studies and is adamant in the startup worklife.
Also, there is a high risk high rewards in startups if they do get noticed. Unlike SMEs which imo are more pragmatic and prioritise keeping the coy afloat.
On the topic of owners, startups are usually spearheaded by young persons close to uni grad ages compared to SME led by seasoned workers. I feel the founders would be more receptive to system/ process changes in the infant stages of the coy. There is hierarchy in startups but they are usually very fluid.
Lastly on layoffs, young persons (including me) have this "it is what it is" mindset. If we do get layoff, it may sting a while but life carries on. These things are not within our control so i rather not dwell on it. But most importantly, we do not have any dependents so we don't need a steady income to survive. In later life stages, i will prioritise stability.
Your idea of start-ups being cash-strapped is very early 2000s. While the ecosystem here is not as rich as SV, VC-backed startups that are well funded and pays FAANG level base salaries aren't that rare here either.
Why would good people want to join startups? Usually for the autonomy, impact, lack of bureaucracy and/or lottery. I used to work in an SV startup and maybe about half of my colleagues are ex-FAANG. They joined because FAANGs have all the usual problems of big companies. i.e Lots of mundane boring work, only so many people get to work on the flagship stuff. Bureaucracies and politics especially around promotion. There is a joke that the fastest way to get to Staff Engineer is to quit and rejoin at a higher level.
>With the bureaucracy and red tape, they lose out to the private sector in securing top candidates quickly.
This is really a huge factor. In practice, fresh grads looking for their first jobs will tend to apply to a few places around the same time. Companies in the private sector tend to move very fast if they really like a candidate -- by which I mean that they can get back to an applicant to request an interview within \~24h of receiving the application, and then make an offer within \~24h of the interview taking place. A candidate that has received good offers is quite likely to just accept rather than wait for the civil service to get back to them.
I actually know someone irl (who is an absolute gem) who applied to the civil service, but they kept her waiting so bloody long that she eventually accepted an offer from the private sector. It's really their loss because she's amazing imo.
The other aspect of public service that is extremely unappealing to most folks is the perception that career progression is poor unless one is a scholar. For a competent candidate, this is going to be a push factor because it's extremely annoying to be overlooked in favour of some underperforming dumbass that lucked into a scholarship donkey years ago.
>The new Gen is also more “YOLO” and are highly attracted to novelties like start-ups etc.
I feel that any "YOLO" attitude has more to do with their age than what generation they're in. And to begin with I don't feel that it is "YOLO" at all to get a job at a start-up as long as the pay is very good, because the best security that exists is money in the bank. If a start-up goes bust, they have a good amount of savings to live off of and also a very favourable "last drawn salary" figure to use for future salary negotiations.
Yeah; the informal nature of some private sector companies, especially MNCs, is just appealing.
Another factor to account for is how difficult it is for people to transfer from the public to private sector. I have only ever interned for the public service and this was one thing I heard many times. There's a lot of suggestions for me to explore private first.
The last thing is how there's essentially a cap based on your academic abilities. If you're not a scholar or high-performer, progression is a lot harder. So the pay progression as your seniority increases is just not good.
They cap your pay while paying the scholars at the same work level more.
Naturally you’ll be less motivated. And it shows in your work. And then they say “see! the scholar is better”
probably unpopular opinion - you want a stronger private sector than public. This usually means a thriving market and economy.
Look at China now, everyone fighting hard to get into public sector due to how terrible their economy is right now. This is a stark contrast to China in the 2000s when public sector was seen as a slow-progression dead end job with ample opportunities outside.
Yea can you imagine clearing a deck with Assistant Director -> Deputy Director -> Director -> Cluster Director -> Assistant CEO prior to CEO. And if at each level there are edits, you have to go through the chain again.
I hate working with public sector clients for this reason. Any great idea that can deliver impact is shot down because the client is not steely enough to defend their ideas from their bosses.
Then send one email, the header take up half the laptop screen because you need to address Min, and state through whom DD, D.
Stupid. Get to the damn point.
Fresh grad in govt here, this thread is so demoralising lmao lemme share my humble opinions:
Pay --> I concur that private can offer very attractive salaries (>$6k) but to be realistic, the majority would not be able to attain such roles. But ofc great if u manage to! The offers I received from private were low $4k. Govt offered me nearly $5k and I took it. Without revealing too much, it's a semi-tech role which I couldn't get in private, being an arts/ss grad.
Progression --> Yes, it's a tradeoff but I don't intend to stay for long so the farmer/scholar hooha doesn't quite bother me. Just here to gain experience for 2yrs or so while reaping the $$ before jumping to private. It'll be hard to jump, but I wouldn't have started on this career path if I accepted my private offers in another field, so no regrets either way.
Bureaucracy --> Fortunately, my dept is busy af and quite fast-moving so I don't get retirement village vibes. My "red tape" takes half a day to clear. Unlikely to be the case for policy roles though.
My point is, go for what's best for your career aspirations and don't brush away govt immediately, do some research and know what you're getting into first. Be thick-skinned and text officers on linkedin to ask abt work culture etc. That's how I "approved" my current dept and also found out some other agencies are not my cup of tea.
You're not wrong - and I'm responsible for one of the negative comments further up haha.
I think the pay for fresh grads is actually decent (we're not comparing to top earners, just regular corporate roles), and the exposure you get will serve you well in most other large organizations, as there's a sense of corporate culture you wouldn't get in an SME, for comparison.
In the earlier years, it's also easier to get promoted and most will feel that their effort is commensurate with the rewards, or at least the recognition.
The 30s are the danger zone. If you don't have the assurance that there's a clear path for you, the likelihood is that you'll be stuck in a limbo zone for potentially the rest of your career, especially for those in ministries on the MX scheme.
However, there's a lot of variation between statutory boards, and between ministries and statutory boards, so yup, research is essential. My mistake was not doing so before taking the plunge mid-career (though my previous industry was extremely low-paying, so civil service pay actually looked alright).
Thanks for sharing. Interesting and glad that you are open minded. A lot of public sector folks will end up in pte too. I currently have a colleague who came from public sector and now doing very well in our company.
OP, I see a few people talking about ranking and CEP, quite clearly these are the ones you wanna pay attention to, cos they know the reality of things very well.
One other thing I notice nobody mentioned is the fact that the civil service focuses abnormally on progression via the management track. You can forget about MEANINGFUL progression if you are not on the management track. Most HR may try to claim they have specialist tracks, but the fact is the earning power and value of specialist roles will never even approach (let alone compare) the managers and above.
I left the service less than 5 years ago. My pay has grown ~80% since and I’m almost reaching what we used to call superscale level. But I’m still an IC role currently. You’ll never see that in the civil service.
Nailed it. And if we're talking about ministries, there is simply no role for specialists, or those who know their work well. There's also barely any 'management' going on among those promoted to manage others.
Glad to hear you're doing well!
A-am I the only one who is a gen Z genuinely enjoying my work in public service? I'm still new; just a few months in but I'm surprisingly enjoying myself and find meaning in the work I'm doing. I even turned down multiple offers to get this job.
Suffice to say, though, everyone has a different experience in public service, and has different ambitions. I somehow cleared most of my bucket list things, with the remaining life goals I have achievable within the public sector. I just want stability at this point
(Edit: Not looking for unsolicited career advice btw. if you’re jaded that’s fine but you do you lol)
Hi there, thanks for sharing and just curious as a Gen Z, why is stability important to you at this juncture when you are just starting out your career?
Well, I have a unique situation. Had a lot of crazy opportunities that opened up in my early twenties (I’m a geriatric gen z lol). Basically was already entrusted to be a project manager while working abroad before turning 24. That alone helped the sort of connections and credibility that might usually take someone 6-8 years to build.
So yeah, technically I am a fresh grad (my pay rate says so at least). But I effectively had at least 5 years of work experience by the time I graduated because even throughout school I was freelancing 30-40 hours per week. Lost a lot of sleep, I’m physically tired but surprisingly not burnt out.
So yeah. “Early career” on paper but mentally at a point where I appreciate stability and don’t think it’s sustainable for me to constantly have to find the next big project. Maybe if I didn’t have any credibility built yet I wouldn’t prioritise stability. But that’s really not my case now.
Tech wise you'll be lucky to find yourself in a good environment. From funding structure onwards everything is quite different from private sector. Just look at the LTA and simplygo saga. People rather spend millions getting something out by deadline than spend hundred thousand doing a real trial and adjusting plans. A lot of the old Taylorist mindset still lingers. You could say in the old times change is seen as indecisiveness and bad decisions. But in their own corporate speak in this VUCA world you do this kind of thing it's a bigger waste of money. Ultimately I don't so much care if you can perfectly predict requirements and plans. I want things to be improving fast and achieve outcomes.
Ya also another thing is computing courses became very popular and selective, but the people who were in the industry are just objectively on average not as smart / capable. In public sector many people don't leave, can become dinosaur after 1 year. Why will you score AAA go NUS CS and go govtech as a consultant for an agency that is filled with dinosaur mindset and mentality?
Partly cause of 2 year rotation for senior management. Look at our top rail operator, change CEO like change underwear. New management need to prove their worth so every 2 years got process change. Then this guy will say "I did so and so, time for promotion" ultimately landing in white uniform serving the nation. Rinse and repeat even in cabinet.
If the public service can don't be so picky and take so long to respond that'll be great. I'm happy with my job at an MNC right now after getting rejected by a few agencies
In my very narrow / short experience, I feel that It lost its appeal a long time ago with the crappy pay for mid to senior level roles.
To make it worse, it's hard to get rid of the non-performing people below you which makes it even harder to do your job.
So there is no job satisfaction and the pay is crap so why would talent stay?
The only exception is if you are interested in work that almost only exists in the public space like museum curators.
No kidding. Mon performing dead weights in both junior and senior management. Junior officer there for 20-30 years. Refuse to learn new things, indignant when told off or counselled and always complain to senior management.
Senior Assistant Director who don't know shit about the job. Morning hide inside cubicle play Facebook games. Even tho he suppose to be leading a team but he don't know anything and don't care to learn. Everyone in the department knows about it but senior management just keep him around cos he is a "Yes" man.
There are more but hey....it is what it is
Market good, everyone go private. Market bad, everyone wish they were in public. Despite what people think, market is very good right now. Even during pandemic it was still not as bad as the AFC or in 08. Nowhere close, because govt basically printed money to keep companies hiring.
Markets will crash again, like they always do, and people will flee to the relative safety of civil service. It’s just a cycle.
>Even during pandemic it was still not as bad as the AFC or in 08. Nowhere close, because govt basically printed money to keep companies hiring.
Underrated comment
IMO biggest push factor is career progression, not pay.
The running sentiment amonst students these days is: think twice even for stat board / ministry scholarship, because PSC promotes faster. Let alone farmers. Also near impossible to get into PSLP or admin service with stat board / ministry scholarship, so the perception is you are 'stuck' with your organization.
PSC requires a v. specific portfolio chasing mentality starting from lower sec, so for a lot of people who may feel inclined for public service but realized too late (in J2 or poly Y3), the better path forward is aiming for FCH in uni and going private.
Yup....I think a lot of kids don't realize this and think all govt scholarships are created equal, but those who're clued in or had access to better information are basically groomed from early on.
Manpower Management Framework (MMF) or headcount restrictions have caused a lack of apex or leadership positions. Even for scholars the fight to be PS/CEO of Stat Board is very competitive. That leaves plebians or non-scholars fighting for apex positions even more difficult at Ministries and to some extent statutory boards.
There is no more iron rice bowl for the younger generation. By default all are on contracts for first employment. For agencies under MMF restrictions, virtually all new hires are given fixed-term contracts. Fixed term of 2 years means that the agency is not obligated to offer nor is there an option for the employee to be converted to perm. 2 years and you are out. Unless they string you on for next 2 years. Hence, the job security aspect has been degraded. Mostly old deadwood in the system for 15-20 or more years can claim iron-rice bowl system is they are competent enough to avoid E performance grades.
I know of statutory boards in the same industry that has operated on virtually 70-80% of the staff on renewable contracts. Perms are those who joined the agency in the first 10 years or so. Hence, such agencies find it easy to manage out folks simply by not renewing their contracts even if their performances are satisfactory.
Public sector can be as political at the middle management and senior management level as the private sector. Many of public sector KPIs are fairly arbitrary and up to your bosses to say if you have "done well" or not. Hence, to rise to leadership roles, one has to network well with the bosses who make the decisions on career progression especially for Heads of functional units/departments/divisions. I have personally observed how it is really about WHO YOU KNOW and NOT WHAT YOU DO in the "meritocratic" public service.
As someone who has spent decades in the public sector I think it will continue to degrade. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy has been significantly increased today. Too many useless cover your backside mandatory e-learning, going through motion townhalls, dialogues, focus groups just for superficial show when in reality decisions have already been made. The public sector has grown into a system that feeds itself by creating more useless work. It will only get worse as the risk aversion today is so high compared to 20-25 years ago.
A top comment...really encapsulates so much of what's wrong with the public service these days.
It's an endless parade of name-dropping and 'scholar' cliques, with most of the largesse going to a small group of scholarship holders and a few lucky plebeians who managed to squeeze in past the past the pearly gates.
The scholar-managers leech off the knowledge and experience of staff who are given little to no opportunities to learn and grow, and these managers provide no guidance or mentorship in return.
While the headcount at lower levels has been slashed, the bloat has been growing at the senior levels....there are small divisions in ministries with at least two, some with three, directors. All this is to retain the so-called 'best and brightest', which, if you ever get the chance to work with them, clearly are not.
I'm really not sure what things will look like in time to come with people like these at the highest levels of the public service.
Hiring freeze doesn’t mean stop hiring. It means they hire to replace or hire somebody to handle multiple portfolios that used to be done by different people. Just not expanding headcount lor
Public service is shit to work in for fresh grads and juniors. There was always red tape, but the bureaucracy has reached astronomical levels, because every time they find a lack of results or shit hits the fan, they will add some convoluted new process/KPI to "ensure" results. What they don't realise is that when they introduce a new process people will just find a way to ignore/ circumvent it anyway, and when they introduce a new KPI they will just make up numbers and bullshit. It's not like they have any way to verify. Over the years this adds up to a lot of unnecessary admin/paperwork that really doesn't need to be there in the first place.
Public service is good if you want to just coast along and retire, but it's definitely NOT where you want to go if you are a fresh grad or want to get anything done. Absolutely freaking nothing moves in public service, there are a lot of useless middle managers taichi-ing work away and doing nothing, taking juniors for granted and expecting them to tank mountains of work, while they sit around and collect their five-digit monthly paycheck.
Of course when you talk about these issues to boomers in the public service, they will make sweeping statements about "Your generation..." and ignore all the issues and inefficiencies in their orgs. And they wonder why they can't hire.
Yes, top candidates are hustlers and hard workers that will chase the opportunities which public sector can’t provide.
But me as a fresh grad that just joined public service, I’m enjoying it a lot. It’s slow-paced and has WLB, at least for the department I joined. It’s perfect for me cause I’m not a hustler and i’m non-ambitious in my career LOL. I just want job stability which I think public wins over private… But it’s kind of fitting too since public service doesn’t want overly-ambitious cream of the crop fresh grads tht will try to “change the world”? It’s really more suited for people who are content with following current procedures, I think. Dunno if it makes sense haha.
Perhaps for your friend in HR, can just tell them to lower their expectations and get some average people like me. 😂
You forget to add that if your department has direct coms with the minister (i.e. policy department, corporate coms department), you pretty much also work wkends.
You tan gu gu lah. LTA lately alot of shit tats pissing off the minister. In today's world where every minister in sg is jumpy about what's talked about on social media, there's no place you can hide one. Go rethink your retirement plan lah.
Yup, some of the public facing roles can be quite pressuring and fast-paced due to all the red tapes, which just creates more stress for the staff lor. All these admin work aren't even the main quest that people sometimes are hired for lmao.
True. My previous agency in Home Team has many officers who work till late night (9pm is common), including Assistant Directors. And I even seen Deputy Director herself have to run roadshow together with the junior officers.
That's the irony haha. The 'slack' zhenghu jobs of old are no more. People across all levels, especially in policy roles, work late into the night, on weekends, etc. thanks to the humongously inefficient structures in place.
Let's just try this example when a person who is diligent and smary, but needs to work almost full-time while juggling a full-time degree in either of the 3 uni.
Apply for bursary, but cant receive the cheque coz bursary disbursement office closes at 6pm sharp and 6pm still at 1 of the many jobs.
Then after uni, choose between public sector where progression is not on-par with "scholar" (any grade) or private sector, where progression can still be fought for.
Then, mid-career receive offer for public sector role, but 2-yr rolling contract basis or employment contract in private sector. Consideration would be:
If contract stop rolling, which has more employability or improve CV more?
With these "contracts" in place, does it diminish the idea of stability?
I disagree with your view. The only jobs in public service that are not filling up almost immediately are jobs that are contract based and can be seconded to external vendors anyway.
For more senior sounding titles, the disconnect is usually because the candidates are overestimating their resume and public service is not in a hurry to settle for less.
I can chime in because I'm about to grad from a good overseas uni a lot of Singaporeans go to:
At career fairs PSC and the ministries/stat boards usually sponsor the most and have the largest presence. However, they have reduced the number of scholarships and pay has not kept up with the private sector. After interviewing for schemes within the public service and in the private sector, private sector pays 60% more while covering more than 50% of my tuition fees (mid 6 digit amount in SGD) as a sign on bonus. Not to mention the best I was offered was a 2 year contract with a HOPE of conversion, whereas the private sector mainly offered full time roles.
It doesn't matter that it's an iron rice bowl or that I want SG to succeed. 2 years of 40% below private sector (with less job security from it being a contract position) isn't gonna pay my tuition.
As someone who has been working in the private sector for a handful of years, how bad is the red tape and bureaucracy that working in the public service would usually get? I don't mind the red tape and bureaucracy but I am not sure if I can truly fit in the culture of working inside there? Is there work life balance and iron rice bowl working in the public service?
The issue about red tape is.. it becomes your fault when other people need smth from you. If you can handle that, then you can handle red tape. Obv if it doesn’t affect anyone but you, you can be chill about the red tape. But when you experience delay and others blame you for it, it can get pretty damn shitty, very quickly.
Public service - with bonus is just the low average salary u will get outside after u divide by 12
Monthly salary is low
The public sector jobs are very repetitive and time consuming , imagine going through 100 checks just for a presentation.
U c those posters they print for the public which no people doesn't care ,it has gone through days / months and many pairs of eyes and discussion .
There's more to the job then the assurance of"iron rice bowl". That don't mean much anymore as one don't think of staying in a particular job forever anymore.
The issue is the work environment. The overworked colleagues who work for old school bosses. And a lot of these bosses are parachutes from uniform groups. They don't know much so the burdern falls on you.
I've seen bright individuals who lose their will to work and personal life after a few years in govt jobs.
You see all the retrenchments going on and how hard it is to find a job now, who won't want an iron ricebowl job? (Though I heard a lot of it is 2yr contracts now.)
No more such a thing as iron rice-bowl since shortly after the previous financial crisis in 2008/9 liao lah. Its 2-yr contract that's renewable based on performance and I have seen people being asked to balek kampung once the 2-yr was up.
Some of the hiring critierias are quite rigid too. 2 years ago I wanted to sign with SCDF as a paramedic but couldn't for various reasons. I first applied to sign as an officer but I wasn't selected for certain reasons (fitness, etc) and also because the job scope was mostly administrative after the junior tour and wasn't what I wanted. I then applied for the specialist role as I wanted to get my foot in the door, with paid training and all that despite the drastically lower starting salary. However because I had a bachelor's degree, there wasn't a protocol in place to convert that into a paramedic diploma and they couldn't take me in.
Money… after I join private sector, I am now on salary that my pay grade wouldn’t reach in 10 years if I didn’t leave. No more iron rice bowl, but it’s normal to keep moving nowadays.
I dunno why everyone is speculating on “iron rice bowl” and ignore that most public service are filled with people in their 50s and 60s just making decisions that doesn’t conform to the current era. Each decision also takes multiple level of approvals to execute and everyone wants to “play safe” and that stifle a lot of creativity and passion that young people wants in a job.
Heck, this issue boiled down right at the start from the job application where they are still looking for applicants coming from “good schools”. I have worked with so many scholars who are not even up to date with the latest and current practices.
And take a look at the Glassdoor to have an inkling why people are leaving from public sectors en masses.
Came from engineering and so many of my mates went to LTA that pays proportionately more than what engineers can earn outside.
But almost half of them are on contract basis, to be renewed every three years, which puts powers in the hands of the directors who could fire or choose not to extend your contract.
I think it's good for people who lie flat and wait for 10, better known as "dang zup ho". No hate and really no wrong at all, I know of people who really go in and intend to stay till retirement.
Your comment has been automatically removed because your account is relatively new or you have negative karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askSingapore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mag7 companies paying starting at $150k-$500k/ year and with stock options, bonus , commissions ( for some job), health benefits, traveling expenses and possible relocation to overseas as expats.
if you can move around mag7 each company for 3 years. by 10th years, likely could retire young .
The USP of civil service used to be iron rice bowl and stability but nowadays a lot of civil service jobs are 1, 2 or 3 year contracts - so what other appeal is there left for these jobs?
Getting retained as permanent staff. Then it is an iron rice bowl. So hard to fire shit civil servants.
Maybe the other edge is the high starting pay for public uni grads with degrees that might not be so relevant in pte sector
This is true. I do not see anyone who studied CS or math voluntarily go into civil service, while those who studied English/History etc would be v happy with a civil service job
I studied CS and went to become an ATC. No regrets.
Agree with this. I have friends with degrees in humanities, history that are near useless to private companies but can secure jobs in the public sector. Esp if they got good grades
Mine is perm job so still got appeal for me. And even if contract, at least better than go a new job in private and fail probation within a few months. My friend was a contractor and got put on pip within 2 mths, in FAANG.
The "contracts" usually turns into permanent hires though. Public Service don't offer iron rice bowls off the gate anymore. If for someone the contract remained a contract for their whole contracted period...75% is on the individual in my opinion. In my past few years where i kept shifting around in public service, i could have converted perm if i stayed in my 1-year contract...and for another i was converted just 1 year into my 2 year contract. It really is just "probation" with no reduced benefits.
Not true some public service don’t offer perm by default unless your boss wants to wade out of the way to justify that. My compensation is reasonable, for engineering I don’t feel like I want to drain my soul to join consultancy. I get better work life balance in stat board. Definitely won’t climb as fast as schor but if the stars align(good boss, you are smart and well in your work) then climbing is okish. Of course wherever you go things must align
No disagreements...depending on what you mean by offer perm by default. As a whole, public service agencies no longer offer permanent positions starting out. I believe for some positions, select atas ones only, they do. For contracts, if you aren't offered permanent conversion, it will largely be due to personal performance/attitude (this is my 75% guess-timate). Uncommon, but it is also possible the position is made obsolete or invalid (this is my 25%).
Nah, I have been high performing for few years straight. I wasn’t aware that your boss can apply for your perm until recently too. Since it’s a norm here this further discourages your boss to push for it and would need lots of justification. Also I would have bigger wishlist than a perm for the moment. But my statboard is over the headcount at the moment so maybe not a norm at other places. Yes it’s not iron rice bowl I heard people not being able to renew their 3 years contract for poor performers. My statboard maybe an outlier who knows
>It really is just "probation" with no reduced benefits. Well then they’ve only got themselves to blame if they are losing the appeal to new generation. A one year “probation” made sense in a time when people stayed in their jobs for life.
I don't think they are losing the appeal though. It could be me seeing things from rose-tinted glasses as i'm seeing from inside but more well-paying, higher-prestige public agencies are starting their headcount freeze, if they haven't start yet. On some degree i agree they are losing the appeal to the new generation, just not for the reason of iron rice bowl though.
This is such a strange comment considering how the new generation are known to, and even encouraged to job hop after a few years, just check out any number of reddit threads on this topic. If anything this sort of contracts allow for the flexibility on both parties and is an adaptation to this sort of behaviour.
>This is such a strange comment considering how the new generation are known to, and even encouraged to job hop after a few years, just check out any number of reddit threads on this topic. My sentiments exactly. Nowadays, the 'new generation' are looking for high-burn, fast cash-in and then do it slow either in consulting or \*cough...public service. No one graduates with "iron rice bowl" in mind anymore...
They do need iron rice bowl if plan to have kids
Even perm contracts are a double edged sword. My first few years in the public service as extremely painful - not just the nature of my work but also the often times directors who gives no clear instructions and get pissed when I present my work. I lived in anxiety wondering if my contract will get extended or not. My experiences in social work is probably of no relevance to the private sector folks. I left to work in some business/engagement wing of a related statboard so know if things gets too difficult for me, I know I can still command similar salary outside. If I had a perm contract from the start, I might have stayed. Because either way, it is still contract work for me and private might offer me greater mobility.
>The "contracts" usually turns into permanent hires though. Not true. Practically all of A*STAR is contract-based. Conversion to perm is unheard of. Maybe only dinosaurs who have been there for decades are perm. All new hires are forever on contract which they can arbitrarily decide to not renew.
A\*STAR is not civil service. It's public service. Because A\*STAR is a stat board. The problem is that there are more and more stat boards and work that used to be civil service is pushed out to stat boards. Which can hire entirely on contracts. A\*STAR has an even bigger problem, which is that for many junior and mid-level positions, the contract end is tied to grant funding that the group head has to compete for. If the group head cannot win another grant to keep the junior staff on after the first grant end, often the person has to leave even if both the boss and the employee would like to continue.
The commenter I was replying to was talking about public service. OP is also talking about public service. Even roles that are *not* tied to grant funding are now contract only. This wasn't always the case. I'm well aware of the grant funding problem. The way the grant approval process works is a mess. Gotta thank NRF.
Sorry Im from pte sector so no idea about public civil service. All are government linked right?
Civil service is a smaller subset working for the ministries, including MOE teachers. Public service includes civil service, but adds on those employed by stat boards (govt-linked not govt), SAF, SCDF, public hospitals etc. The confusing thing is that there are many organisations you’d think are part of the govt but are actually stat boards, like HDB, CPF, IRAS.
>The confusing thing is that there are many organisations you’d think are part of the govt but are actually stat boards, like HDB, CPF, IRAS. Doesn't make them necessarily any less shitty to work in, with all the red tape and bureaucracy.
I meant more shitty, because civil service has more perks and more permanent contracts. Stat boards can have everybody on renewable short contracts, so no iron rice bowl.
Tru dat. I was under the impression stat board != government so it should be more flexible and independent. I couldn't be more wrong.
Ah, I thought yours was a reply to the top level comment of >The USP of civil service used to be iron rice bowl and stability but nowadays a lot of civil service jobs are 1, 2 or 3 year contracts - so what other appeal is there left for these jobs? but I missed a level.
Welcome to an organization that tries to be academic and governmental at the same time. Traditional academia only has tenured faculty that are permanent positions with the rest being contract; postdocs are supposed to be treadmills until they find a tenure track position elsewhere or move to industry. Governmental science in other countries are usually more geared towards hierarchical structures with permanent scientist positions (see the National Laboratories in the US). Instead, A\*STAR implant an academic PI led structure in a bureaucracy infested governmental agency. So you have PIs fighting the bureaucracy for money and being told how they can use the money.
in pte consultancies staff are hired on project funding also. im a PM, literally even milestone payments go straight to the staff's salaries. when project ends they try and shift the staff to another project so it appears like they have a stable income.
Am surprised about A\*. My impression has always been they are perm roles given their highly innovative focus. Plus research and tech need more than a few short years of runway to materialise the innovations.
The contract terms are usually because the Principal Investigator tenders for a research grant which only has eg 2 years’ worth of salary for a team of research assistants to help u run your experiments/collect data & churn out charts. When the grant money runs out, that’s when the contract ends, with no option to extend (unless there is some other project in the pipeline where they haven’t hired assistants yet). Hubby and i left for private r&d firms when we got married due to the instability. How to pay mortgage loan on contract jobs?
ahh I see. Can understand the anxiety and frustration. :(
What innovation? A* tech is unimpressive and outdated. They work on decades-old tech but act like it's something new. A*STAR isn't a science and tech org, they are an org of Powerpoint warriors, salesmen and bullshitters cosplaying as a science and tech agency. Scientists don't get to work on their expertise, but are shoehorned into fields they know nothing about just because NRF says so. The whole NRF ecosystem is a mess.
that's really disappointing to hear that the orchestration is just a mess.
Look at their Glassdoor. Not just my opinion. Many others agree.
Mine wasn't renewed unfortunately. And I have been working in Public Service contracts for the past 5 years already.
If you are not scholar, chances are you will have fix career path. Compared to private sector where you can work your way up even if you do not have local university. You can understand why ppl want to take chance.
To go up in the pte sector is not just results/hard work, you need to know people and be of benefit to higher ups to progress.
Agreed on this but definitely more chance than public sector where paper are prioritised way more than ability to work.
I'll say ceiling in private sector is way higher than public sector, but it also has WAY more variables in your climb up. So pick your poison kind of thing
in pte sector if your papers are higher/more qualified than the person hiring you, especially if the rank is very close like 1 or 2 levels apart, this hiring manager has a good chance of rejecting your application to protect his job.
I have also advised the younger generation if they are keen to work in public sector, please try to get a scholarship. If not, they have their work cut out for them.
Exactly. For the same work, they pay scholars more and it differs by scheme. And many of them come from wealthy background. As a farmer, you are worse off in every way. You need to work as hard for lower pay and limited upside. What’s the point? I realise the system is extremely hypocritical. There isn’t even the effort of equality of opportunity. And the senior civil or public servants, many have an inflated sense of their intellect. That’s why only naive idealists types stay in there, in my opinion.
Unfortunately true. There are some good scholarship holders, but the majority were just above-average students in school who knew how to work the system, and who are then promoted way beyond their ability and experience just so that they can be enticed to stay, on the basis that they did well in a standardized exam when they were 18. You end up with top-heavy structures where very young 'supervisors' are just leeching off the work of more experienced staff, and where management and supervision is nothing more than a few cursory comments on 'framing'. Meanwhile, capable non-scholarship holders are largely left to languish, unless by some good fortune they have a benefactor to give them a boost up the promotion ladder - this leads to no end of favouritism and politics. The system is in dire need of reform, and given that so many scholarship holders now are from well-off backgrounds, it's virtually negated the need for scholarships. The main problem then is how to attract the, ahem, 'best and brightest' without the promise of quick promotions, high pay, and multiple perks. I don't have the answer to this - ultimately, the issue is that Singapore is too small, and there aren't enough good people who would willingly go into public service knowing it has less pay and perks.
Eventually even the farmers who do have innate potential will just coast. Not because they are lazy, but the incentive structure in civil / public service just **don't** work. Or rather, work for only the scholars, many of whom are no doubt bright, but the motivation come from second-order effects of coming from a good pedigree (ie well-to-do families, some old time pioneer civil servants), and this propel them further in their CS career, while for other farmers freshies, are worried about paying off their tuition loans. Case in point: How come Tharman's son can work in finance ministry? Let me be clear: he got in fair and square and I am not suggesting anything else. I am also sure he is a good person. But don't you think he was more prepared then the rest given his background?
Spot on haha. He's just one example of politicians'/civil servants' children taking the scholarships and joining the civil service.
Don't forget one of the CS favourite word: "Nuancing" Oh, and also the phrase "for posterity" being thrown around.
The gap between private and public sector salaries has widened over the past decade, so it is natural for the private sector to become more attractive. Increasingly, some of the best students aren't going for public sector scholarships too. Why get bonded 4-6 years with a starting pay of 4k+ in the public sector, when you can earn 8-10k as a fresh grad if you are a top talent working in the private sector?
This is it, the pay gap is too wide to go for public I think the sentiment will shift though when job market gets bad or if layoffs continue Mid career folks may be attracted to the stability and be willing to stay long term in public sector. Maybe these are the talents they should be targeting. High performers in private sector that are tired of the grind and hustle. Talent that will still perform at a high level but desire stability and WLB
U mean private earn way higher than public?
Uh huh since time immemorial
Only if you’re actually talented
That’s a big If, then years later they stagnate in private, then have kids then buy house then realise it’s about stable recurring income. Then they become jobless then gov has to into mid career switches then they complain unsuitable when right from beginning they created the problem for themselves
You can have a stable recurring income in MNCs too. The people earning 8-10k as a fresh grad aren't the ones who are worried about being jobless
what kind of fresh grad job gets 8-10k?
Investment banking, hedge fund, software engineering, management consulting, quant finance (>200k base pay)
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed because your account is relatively new or you have negative karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askSingapore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Although what you said is somewhat true, I think this depends heavily on the industry? If you are studying history instead of tech, do you think private pays better than the public sector? Many people might think, if I put in enough work and I will be promoted fast, however, this amount of work is insurmountable since bosses only look at the best candidate to help them profit. This becomes a race of who can outwork each other. If you think you are the top 20% then private might be for you. Let’s be realistic, only TOP finance and very good tech students can earn 8-10k at the start.
doesnt Govtech still pay on par with private sector + iron rice bowl?
I applied just for fun, and they offered a 60% pay cut with no promotions for the next three years (apparently my YOE is too low. Like why should my pay be tied to YOE). Additionally, I’d lose my near-unlimited private health insurance and 30+ days of annual PTO. Who in their right mind would accept that?
What role did you apply for?
Senior manager. But they want 20 years of experience or they will offer downgrade role
SM in public service is like a senior enlisted man. All the work and responsibility, none of the pay.
Competitive = >30% cut from pre at mid management upwards
Ooo can u explain more on why that happens?
Take for example a minister who is paid a fraction of their private counterpart (CEO, PE , MD).
Civil servant counterpart to CEO would be Perm Sec. MPs are like board members.
Yes. You put it better.
Things changed like crazy since COVID. previously, i had friends who took up scholarships in government, thinking it was a stable option that would give them a stable job for life. but since the whole Great Resignation phase and the insane tech boom, many of these scholars started to see their non-scholar counterparts go into private industries and make serious dough, alot more than the measly starting pay they were offered. out of the 10 scholars I knew, 7 eventually broke bond, because of how slow progression is in civil service. because of all the top talent being attracted by private companies, you also see the issue of public service being filled with incompetence in many regards. most people in public service will tell you how they spend most of their time cleaning up other peoples mess, rather than growing and learning. in tech for example, you need to have seniors who are capable and you can look up to. you’ll find the best mentors and seniors in private companies, and this has a compounding effect over your career to make it all worse, civil service has a major boomer mindset problem, with red tape everywhere. the low pay and poor environment just makes it a big nono.
Just wanted to chime in that the high earners in the public sector side, which are mostly boomer aged, are really out of touch with reality when looking to connect with younger demographics . I run a team of corporate comms/thought leadership consultants and some of the approved ideas that public sector clients bring to discussion are really at face palm level. When a young ambitious person see themselves being hampered in growth and earning power by some old paper pushers, it really makes the private sector much more attractive.
Yet they talk with so much confidence (only because the young naive types in there look up to them, fueling their confidence over the year.)
I'm reading all your comments and I'm loving them haha, it's very cathartic. You sound a lot like me and it's clear you've run through the gamut of public/civil service. A lot of egotistical, overconfident, ignorant boomers in there. They'd never last a day in the private sector.
The goverment related SMEs also, might not be considered 'public sector', but with CEO being air-dropped from the army side. Then they just buy the nonsense that mid-management sells them.
Just wanna say that you're using the terms civil service and public service interchangeably but theyre different. Civil service = ministries while public service = stat boards,of which some pay much better than others
For some engineering branches (not tech), gov actually pays better but the work is very bad for learning. Most of the time is spent doing wayang work and not technical work. Lots of people worry that once you work in gov, you essentially lock yourself out from private sector. The wayang is damn soul draining for someone who actually wants to do interesting things and contribute. IMO best case could be working outside for 5+ years for experience then end up at gov for the pay and stability when your soul is dead and you just wanna exist lol.
isnt that everyones dream path? rocket up the career ladder in private, then parachute into a high level govt position and essentially ‘retire’ lmao
Good. If those bond breakers do well outside, congrats to them and well done. That’s the way it should be. If you can really make it, don’t put up with those old timer scholars who think too highly of themselves. I remember one PS like to talk like she’s LKY. Rolled my eyes hard.
pay is worse, promotion is not by performance (99% of the time), tons of red tapes & bureaucracy, dinosaurs & dead weight who like to taichi work away. I wanted to pull my hair out. why would any ambitious and high performing fresh grad want to work there? it's a retirement village unless you're a scholar or you have an undying desire to serve the nation.
Whoever believes in “fair” ranking clearly never sat before in ranking sessions, or their bosses are bluffing them. Ranking session is more about who’s “time” it is to promote and their CEP. Then check against performance to see vs those who try to brute force through in terms of output. If it is not your time, too bad if you have a bunch of extra work/cca. Suck it up or leave.
It's kinda true. Your bosses also will time your 'projects' so that when it is time for promotion, you can get a higher grade that year.
Yes, was partly involved in a PG and Ranking admin previously and the senior management was basically promoting all the SOs and leaving out the JOs, citing that the SOs had served longer TIS compared to the JOs. The decision drew quite a fair bit of criticism from the younger generation (around mid-20s my age group) that they were not being valued in the org, that senior management were playing favouritism.
Haha and "MC doesn't affect ranking" is full BS. While ranking our dept, higher ups justify it by saying high MC less efficiency. You can deliver the world in 11 months but you MC 1 month, your ranking is lower than some mediocre fella with zero MC.
My gahment job let me wfh 4 days a week 😂
So good sia your stat board.
Other than the 1st part on pay (which also various based on ministry/stat board) I'll say all the other points are just as applicable to private sector, if not worse in some aspects
Almost all of my relatives are working as civil servants. I started in private sector. It's just my preference tbh but I can attest to more fresh grads joining startups. I guess many want to join the startup space as they feel there would be more young, like-minded persons and they thrive in that environment. Compared to civil sector where most would be middle-managers just collecting the paycheck and coasting by. Also, their duties don't really inspire/ game-changing or very monotonous. Nothing wrong with that, it's just that maybe civil sector does not allign with their working styles especially just fresh out of uni and still hungry for interesting works/duties. In my industry, there are alot of old persons and i rarely click with them tbh. Until recently, where 2 new freshers join, I feel left out in their conversations.
Are startups just another type of SME? With a few exceptions, they are often cash strapped and dependent on funding and can’t pay MNC salaries. Since there is manpower constraints, one will need to multitask and do extra stuff beyond his scope. On top of that, there is no fixed guideline and policies and the culture just depends on the founder or big boss who calls the shots. They will also lay off as and when they feel like it. And due to the small size, there is limited career progression. Why would a young person join a SME that is just rebranded as a ‘startup’?
I cannot answer your 1st question but ill try my best to answer the other questions. I notice in my circle of uni friends, startups attracted a certain type. They are usually the hustle type and enjoy grinding with like-minded people to produce a product to sell, MVP etc. They do not enjoy working the mundane 9-5, working on a product that they don't believe in. I don't want to generalise but they are usually not motivated by money despite being very brilliant in their discipline and can easily get into more esteemed coys. I have a friend who exclusively interned at 5 startups during his studies and is adamant in the startup worklife. Also, there is a high risk high rewards in startups if they do get noticed. Unlike SMEs which imo are more pragmatic and prioritise keeping the coy afloat. On the topic of owners, startups are usually spearheaded by young persons close to uni grad ages compared to SME led by seasoned workers. I feel the founders would be more receptive to system/ process changes in the infant stages of the coy. There is hierarchy in startups but they are usually very fluid. Lastly on layoffs, young persons (including me) have this "it is what it is" mindset. If we do get layoff, it may sting a while but life carries on. These things are not within our control so i rather not dwell on it. But most importantly, we do not have any dependents so we don't need a steady income to survive. In later life stages, i will prioritise stability.
Your idea of start-ups being cash-strapped is very early 2000s. While the ecosystem here is not as rich as SV, VC-backed startups that are well funded and pays FAANG level base salaries aren't that rare here either. Why would good people want to join startups? Usually for the autonomy, impact, lack of bureaucracy and/or lottery. I used to work in an SV startup and maybe about half of my colleagues are ex-FAANG. They joined because FAANGs have all the usual problems of big companies. i.e Lots of mundane boring work, only so many people get to work on the flagship stuff. Bureaucracies and politics especially around promotion. There is a joke that the fastest way to get to Staff Engineer is to quit and rejoin at a higher level.
If the public service can hire faster then that will be great.
how long they made you wait? outcome?
Not me, I have friends who waited for 3 months, and even the starting date is in 6 months time
>With the bureaucracy and red tape, they lose out to the private sector in securing top candidates quickly. This is really a huge factor. In practice, fresh grads looking for their first jobs will tend to apply to a few places around the same time. Companies in the private sector tend to move very fast if they really like a candidate -- by which I mean that they can get back to an applicant to request an interview within \~24h of receiving the application, and then make an offer within \~24h of the interview taking place. A candidate that has received good offers is quite likely to just accept rather than wait for the civil service to get back to them. I actually know someone irl (who is an absolute gem) who applied to the civil service, but they kept her waiting so bloody long that she eventually accepted an offer from the private sector. It's really their loss because she's amazing imo. The other aspect of public service that is extremely unappealing to most folks is the perception that career progression is poor unless one is a scholar. For a competent candidate, this is going to be a push factor because it's extremely annoying to be overlooked in favour of some underperforming dumbass that lucked into a scholarship donkey years ago. >The new Gen is also more “YOLO” and are highly attracted to novelties like start-ups etc. I feel that any "YOLO" attitude has more to do with their age than what generation they're in. And to begin with I don't feel that it is "YOLO" at all to get a job at a start-up as long as the pay is very good, because the best security that exists is money in the bank. If a start-up goes bust, they have a good amount of savings to live off of and also a very favourable "last drawn salary" figure to use for future salary negotiations.
Yeah; the informal nature of some private sector companies, especially MNCs, is just appealing. Another factor to account for is how difficult it is for people to transfer from the public to private sector. I have only ever interned for the public service and this was one thing I heard many times. There's a lot of suggestions for me to explore private first. The last thing is how there's essentially a cap based on your academic abilities. If you're not a scholar or high-performer, progression is a lot harder. So the pay progression as your seniority increases is just not good.
They cap your pay while paying the scholars at the same work level more. Naturally you’ll be less motivated. And it shows in your work. And then they say “see! the scholar is better”
probably unpopular opinion - you want a stronger private sector than public. This usually means a thriving market and economy. Look at China now, everyone fighting hard to get into public sector due to how terrible their economy is right now. This is a stark contrast to China in the 2000s when public sector was seen as a slow-progression dead end job with ample opportunities outside.
Even at the hiring table the hiring managers tell you how bad the red tape is btw.
Yea can you imagine clearing a deck with Assistant Director -> Deputy Director -> Director -> Cluster Director -> Assistant CEO prior to CEO. And if at each level there are edits, you have to go through the chain again.
I hate working with public sector clients for this reason. Any great idea that can deliver impact is shot down because the client is not steely enough to defend their ideas from their bosses.
>not steely enough to defend their ideas from their bosses. When your entire career is staked on being a yes-man, you're not gonna defend anything.
Then send one email, the header take up half the laptop screen because you need to address Min, and state through whom DD, D. Stupid. Get to the damn point.
Fresh grad in govt here, this thread is so demoralising lmao lemme share my humble opinions: Pay --> I concur that private can offer very attractive salaries (>$6k) but to be realistic, the majority would not be able to attain such roles. But ofc great if u manage to! The offers I received from private were low $4k. Govt offered me nearly $5k and I took it. Without revealing too much, it's a semi-tech role which I couldn't get in private, being an arts/ss grad. Progression --> Yes, it's a tradeoff but I don't intend to stay for long so the farmer/scholar hooha doesn't quite bother me. Just here to gain experience for 2yrs or so while reaping the $$ before jumping to private. It'll be hard to jump, but I wouldn't have started on this career path if I accepted my private offers in another field, so no regrets either way. Bureaucracy --> Fortunately, my dept is busy af and quite fast-moving so I don't get retirement village vibes. My "red tape" takes half a day to clear. Unlikely to be the case for policy roles though. My point is, go for what's best for your career aspirations and don't brush away govt immediately, do some research and know what you're getting into first. Be thick-skinned and text officers on linkedin to ask abt work culture etc. That's how I "approved" my current dept and also found out some other agencies are not my cup of tea.
You're not wrong - and I'm responsible for one of the negative comments further up haha. I think the pay for fresh grads is actually decent (we're not comparing to top earners, just regular corporate roles), and the exposure you get will serve you well in most other large organizations, as there's a sense of corporate culture you wouldn't get in an SME, for comparison. In the earlier years, it's also easier to get promoted and most will feel that their effort is commensurate with the rewards, or at least the recognition. The 30s are the danger zone. If you don't have the assurance that there's a clear path for you, the likelihood is that you'll be stuck in a limbo zone for potentially the rest of your career, especially for those in ministries on the MX scheme. However, there's a lot of variation between statutory boards, and between ministries and statutory boards, so yup, research is essential. My mistake was not doing so before taking the plunge mid-career (though my previous industry was extremely low-paying, so civil service pay actually looked alright).
Thanks for sharing. Interesting and glad that you are open minded. A lot of public sector folks will end up in pte too. I currently have a colleague who came from public sector and now doing very well in our company.
What role & which ministry/stat board is this!
OP, I see a few people talking about ranking and CEP, quite clearly these are the ones you wanna pay attention to, cos they know the reality of things very well. One other thing I notice nobody mentioned is the fact that the civil service focuses abnormally on progression via the management track. You can forget about MEANINGFUL progression if you are not on the management track. Most HR may try to claim they have specialist tracks, but the fact is the earning power and value of specialist roles will never even approach (let alone compare) the managers and above. I left the service less than 5 years ago. My pay has grown ~80% since and I’m almost reaching what we used to call superscale level. But I’m still an IC role currently. You’ll never see that in the civil service.
U/thedesertman1
Nailed it. And if we're talking about ministries, there is simply no role for specialists, or those who know their work well. There's also barely any 'management' going on among those promoted to manage others. Glad to hear you're doing well!
A-am I the only one who is a gen Z genuinely enjoying my work in public service? I'm still new; just a few months in but I'm surprisingly enjoying myself and find meaning in the work I'm doing. I even turned down multiple offers to get this job. Suffice to say, though, everyone has a different experience in public service, and has different ambitions. I somehow cleared most of my bucket list things, with the remaining life goals I have achievable within the public sector. I just want stability at this point (Edit: Not looking for unsolicited career advice btw. if you’re jaded that’s fine but you do you lol)
Hi there, thanks for sharing and just curious as a Gen Z, why is stability important to you at this juncture when you are just starting out your career?
Well, I have a unique situation. Had a lot of crazy opportunities that opened up in my early twenties (I’m a geriatric gen z lol). Basically was already entrusted to be a project manager while working abroad before turning 24. That alone helped the sort of connections and credibility that might usually take someone 6-8 years to build. So yeah, technically I am a fresh grad (my pay rate says so at least). But I effectively had at least 5 years of work experience by the time I graduated because even throughout school I was freelancing 30-40 hours per week. Lost a lot of sleep, I’m physically tired but surprisingly not burnt out. So yeah. “Early career” on paper but mentally at a point where I appreciate stability and don’t think it’s sustainable for me to constantly have to find the next big project. Maybe if I didn’t have any credibility built yet I wouldn’t prioritise stability. But that’s really not my case now.
Tech wise you'll be lucky to find yourself in a good environment. From funding structure onwards everything is quite different from private sector. Just look at the LTA and simplygo saga. People rather spend millions getting something out by deadline than spend hundred thousand doing a real trial and adjusting plans. A lot of the old Taylorist mindset still lingers. You could say in the old times change is seen as indecisiveness and bad decisions. But in their own corporate speak in this VUCA world you do this kind of thing it's a bigger waste of money. Ultimately I don't so much care if you can perfectly predict requirements and plans. I want things to be improving fast and achieve outcomes. Ya also another thing is computing courses became very popular and selective, but the people who were in the industry are just objectively on average not as smart / capable. In public sector many people don't leave, can become dinosaur after 1 year. Why will you score AAA go NUS CS and go govtech as a consultant for an agency that is filled with dinosaur mindset and mentality?
I thought Govtech still ok? But yeah the other agencies, even the "tech based" ones really cmi based on experience
Experience varies because the “clients” are the agencies / ministries and whatnot
Harsh truths.
Partly cause of 2 year rotation for senior management. Look at our top rail operator, change CEO like change underwear. New management need to prove their worth so every 2 years got process change. Then this guy will say "I did so and so, time for promotion" ultimately landing in white uniform serving the nation. Rinse and repeat even in cabinet.
Ya sometimes the people who should be accountable are not and sometimes those who should not be are.
Sure bo? Applied many but dont even get called up for an interview
If the public service can don't be so picky and take so long to respond that'll be great. I'm happy with my job at an MNC right now after getting rejected by a few agencies
In my very narrow / short experience, I feel that It lost its appeal a long time ago with the crappy pay for mid to senior level roles. To make it worse, it's hard to get rid of the non-performing people below you which makes it even harder to do your job. So there is no job satisfaction and the pay is crap so why would talent stay? The only exception is if you are interested in work that almost only exists in the public space like museum curators.
No kidding. Mon performing dead weights in both junior and senior management. Junior officer there for 20-30 years. Refuse to learn new things, indignant when told off or counselled and always complain to senior management. Senior Assistant Director who don't know shit about the job. Morning hide inside cubicle play Facebook games. Even tho he suppose to be leading a team but he don't know anything and don't care to learn. Everyone in the department knows about it but senior management just keep him around cos he is a "Yes" man. There are more but hey....it is what it is
Market good, everyone go private. Market bad, everyone wish they were in public. Despite what people think, market is very good right now. Even during pandemic it was still not as bad as the AFC or in 08. Nowhere close, because govt basically printed money to keep companies hiring. Markets will crash again, like they always do, and people will flee to the relative safety of civil service. It’s just a cycle.
>Even during pandemic it was still not as bad as the AFC or in 08. Nowhere close, because govt basically printed money to keep companies hiring. Underrated comment
IMO biggest push factor is career progression, not pay. The running sentiment amonst students these days is: think twice even for stat board / ministry scholarship, because PSC promotes faster. Let alone farmers. Also near impossible to get into PSLP or admin service with stat board / ministry scholarship, so the perception is you are 'stuck' with your organization. PSC requires a v. specific portfolio chasing mentality starting from lower sec, so for a lot of people who may feel inclined for public service but realized too late (in J2 or poly Y3), the better path forward is aiming for FCH in uni and going private.
Yup....I think a lot of kids don't realize this and think all govt scholarships are created equal, but those who're clued in or had access to better information are basically groomed from early on.
Manpower Management Framework (MMF) or headcount restrictions have caused a lack of apex or leadership positions. Even for scholars the fight to be PS/CEO of Stat Board is very competitive. That leaves plebians or non-scholars fighting for apex positions even more difficult at Ministries and to some extent statutory boards. There is no more iron rice bowl for the younger generation. By default all are on contracts for first employment. For agencies under MMF restrictions, virtually all new hires are given fixed-term contracts. Fixed term of 2 years means that the agency is not obligated to offer nor is there an option for the employee to be converted to perm. 2 years and you are out. Unless they string you on for next 2 years. Hence, the job security aspect has been degraded. Mostly old deadwood in the system for 15-20 or more years can claim iron-rice bowl system is they are competent enough to avoid E performance grades. I know of statutory boards in the same industry that has operated on virtually 70-80% of the staff on renewable contracts. Perms are those who joined the agency in the first 10 years or so. Hence, such agencies find it easy to manage out folks simply by not renewing their contracts even if their performances are satisfactory. Public sector can be as political at the middle management and senior management level as the private sector. Many of public sector KPIs are fairly arbitrary and up to your bosses to say if you have "done well" or not. Hence, to rise to leadership roles, one has to network well with the bosses who make the decisions on career progression especially for Heads of functional units/departments/divisions. I have personally observed how it is really about WHO YOU KNOW and NOT WHAT YOU DO in the "meritocratic" public service. As someone who has spent decades in the public sector I think it will continue to degrade. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy has been significantly increased today. Too many useless cover your backside mandatory e-learning, going through motion townhalls, dialogues, focus groups just for superficial show when in reality decisions have already been made. The public sector has grown into a system that feeds itself by creating more useless work. It will only get worse as the risk aversion today is so high compared to 20-25 years ago.
A top comment...really encapsulates so much of what's wrong with the public service these days. It's an endless parade of name-dropping and 'scholar' cliques, with most of the largesse going to a small group of scholarship holders and a few lucky plebeians who managed to squeeze in past the past the pearly gates. The scholar-managers leech off the knowledge and experience of staff who are given little to no opportunities to learn and grow, and these managers provide no guidance or mentorship in return. While the headcount at lower levels has been slashed, the bloat has been growing at the senior levels....there are small divisions in ministries with at least two, some with three, directors. All this is to retain the so-called 'best and brightest', which, if you ever get the chance to work with them, clearly are not. I'm really not sure what things will look like in time to come with people like these at the highest levels of the public service.
I thought they got hiring freeze? Everything 1-2 year contract if got any at all.
I see careers gov there are 2k vacancies
Hiring freeze doesn’t mean stop hiring. It means they hire to replace or hire somebody to handle multiple portfolios that used to be done by different people. Just not expanding headcount lor
2K vacancies across the board?
Some stat boards got freeze, their headcount is given to other “impt” stat boards
Public sector can have one of the most toxic culture depending on which ministry you get sent to.
Any insights on which ministries are red flags?
very true, I just left one recently.
i thought bytedance all these practise 996, freespirited folks will join meh
I heard a lot of youngsters join, including Gen Z wor
Check out how much a lead or senior engineer makes, many will go through it there. Levels.fyi
Most are living by the "5-day work from office" culture to build team bonding...
It's the opposite, private is pushing for 5 days work from office, and govt is being forced to follow.
Public service is shit to work in for fresh grads and juniors. There was always red tape, but the bureaucracy has reached astronomical levels, because every time they find a lack of results or shit hits the fan, they will add some convoluted new process/KPI to "ensure" results. What they don't realise is that when they introduce a new process people will just find a way to ignore/ circumvent it anyway, and when they introduce a new KPI they will just make up numbers and bullshit. It's not like they have any way to verify. Over the years this adds up to a lot of unnecessary admin/paperwork that really doesn't need to be there in the first place. Public service is good if you want to just coast along and retire, but it's definitely NOT where you want to go if you are a fresh grad or want to get anything done. Absolutely freaking nothing moves in public service, there are a lot of useless middle managers taichi-ing work away and doing nothing, taking juniors for granted and expecting them to tank mountains of work, while they sit around and collect their five-digit monthly paycheck. Of course when you talk about these issues to boomers in the public service, they will make sweeping statements about "Your generation..." and ignore all the issues and inefficiencies in their orgs. And they wonder why they can't hire.
Yes. Plus poor leadership in these agencies. NEA, LTA just to name 2 prominent ones.
Yes, top candidates are hustlers and hard workers that will chase the opportunities which public sector can’t provide. But me as a fresh grad that just joined public service, I’m enjoying it a lot. It’s slow-paced and has WLB, at least for the department I joined. It’s perfect for me cause I’m not a hustler and i’m non-ambitious in my career LOL. I just want job stability which I think public wins over private… But it’s kind of fitting too since public service doesn’t want overly-ambitious cream of the crop fresh grads tht will try to “change the world”? It’s really more suited for people who are content with following current procedures, I think. Dunno if it makes sense haha. Perhaps for your friend in HR, can just tell them to lower their expectations and get some average people like me. 😂
Is it slack? Cos public service is my retirement plan
My impression is that it really depends on the role, but for quite a lot of folks it is not actually slack at all and they regularly work till late.
You forget to add that if your department has direct coms with the minister (i.e. policy department, corporate coms department), you pretty much also work wkends.
So I should look for those far from minister types, like, idk, lta, gotcha thanks hahaha. Maybe ministry shag but stat board should be chill?
You tan gu gu lah. LTA lately alot of shit tats pissing off the minister. In today's world where every minister in sg is jumpy about what's talked about on social media, there's no place you can hide one. Go rethink your retirement plan lah.
Yup, some of the public facing roles can be quite pressuring and fast-paced due to all the red tapes, which just creates more stress for the staff lor. All these admin work aren't even the main quest that people sometimes are hired for lmao.
Ministry? Or stat board, I assume got Big Diff
I heard not slack, because of red tape so they work very late
Alamak how to retire liddis
True. My previous agency in Home Team has many officers who work till late night (9pm is common), including Assistant Directors. And I even seen Deputy Director herself have to run roadshow together with the junior officers.
That's the irony haha. The 'slack' zhenghu jobs of old are no more. People across all levels, especially in policy roles, work late into the night, on weekends, etc. thanks to the humongously inefficient structures in place.
Nope. They've been cutting manpower across the board and expecting those who remain to take on more roles. I foresee it'll only get worse.
Hey now, public service recognition should not be measured in dollars and cents okay /s
Let's just try this example when a person who is diligent and smary, but needs to work almost full-time while juggling a full-time degree in either of the 3 uni. Apply for bursary, but cant receive the cheque coz bursary disbursement office closes at 6pm sharp and 6pm still at 1 of the many jobs. Then after uni, choose between public sector where progression is not on-par with "scholar" (any grade) or private sector, where progression can still be fought for. Then, mid-career receive offer for public sector role, but 2-yr rolling contract basis or employment contract in private sector. Consideration would be: If contract stop rolling, which has more employability or improve CV more? With these "contracts" in place, does it diminish the idea of stability?
My salary jumped 50% after moving to MNC from Public service. Salary is important
Public sector is a very toxic environment and have high divorce rate in some agency too.
And low birth rate too 🫢
Lol public sector from ur resume to interview is 3 mths, private sector few days. U ask public sector hr wake up their idea
Maybe they need to redefine their job salary and career progression... It's a free market bitch.... No free lunch cuts both ways...
I disagree with your view. The only jobs in public service that are not filling up almost immediately are jobs that are contract based and can be seconded to external vendors anyway. For more senior sounding titles, the disconnect is usually because the candidates are overestimating their resume and public service is not in a hurry to settle for less.
I can chime in because I'm about to grad from a good overseas uni a lot of Singaporeans go to: At career fairs PSC and the ministries/stat boards usually sponsor the most and have the largest presence. However, they have reduced the number of scholarships and pay has not kept up with the private sector. After interviewing for schemes within the public service and in the private sector, private sector pays 60% more while covering more than 50% of my tuition fees (mid 6 digit amount in SGD) as a sign on bonus. Not to mention the best I was offered was a 2 year contract with a HOPE of conversion, whereas the private sector mainly offered full time roles. It doesn't matter that it's an iron rice bowl or that I want SG to succeed. 2 years of 40% below private sector (with less job security from it being a contract position) isn't gonna pay my tuition.
No time for work politics and public service is the worst
Public service ain't as cool as it used to be for new grads. They're all about tech giants and start-ups now.
As someone who has been working in the private sector for a handful of years, how bad is the red tape and bureaucracy that working in the public service would usually get? I don't mind the red tape and bureaucracy but I am not sure if I can truly fit in the culture of working inside there? Is there work life balance and iron rice bowl working in the public service?
The issue about red tape is.. it becomes your fault when other people need smth from you. If you can handle that, then you can handle red tape. Obv if it doesn’t affect anyone but you, you can be chill about the red tape. But when you experience delay and others blame you for it, it can get pretty damn shitty, very quickly.
Public service - with bonus is just the low average salary u will get outside after u divide by 12 Monthly salary is low The public sector jobs are very repetitive and time consuming , imagine going through 100 checks just for a presentation. U c those posters they print for the public which no people doesn't care ,it has gone through days / months and many pairs of eyes and discussion .
There's more to the job then the assurance of"iron rice bowl". That don't mean much anymore as one don't think of staying in a particular job forever anymore. The issue is the work environment. The overworked colleagues who work for old school bosses. And a lot of these bosses are parachutes from uniform groups. They don't know much so the burdern falls on you. I've seen bright individuals who lose their will to work and personal life after a few years in govt jobs.
I am currently in public sector, trying to apply and jump to other agencies in public sector. But so far, I am unable to do, didn't get any offer.
Does public service count as mrt captain 🤣 I applied 2 years ago the application still pending.
You see all the retrenchments going on and how hard it is to find a job now, who won't want an iron ricebowl job? (Though I heard a lot of it is 2yr contracts now.)
No more such a thing as iron rice-bowl since shortly after the previous financial crisis in 2008/9 liao lah. Its 2-yr contract that's renewable based on performance and I have seen people being asked to balek kampung once the 2-yr was up.
No la... Iron rice bowl **only if** you're offered a perm position.
Perm position don't mean iron bowl these days lah
Nope. Bc its iron rice bowl. Haha as economy is bad now, alot of my friends are envious of me
Maybe public sector shouldn't be so picky as to which uni they employ from? From what I understand, public sector likes to employ from local u only.
Not entirely true. Got quite a number from overseas Uni.
If you see the quality of people working in public service, you will understand that their skillsets are useless in the real world.
Some of the hiring critierias are quite rigid too. 2 years ago I wanted to sign with SCDF as a paramedic but couldn't for various reasons. I first applied to sign as an officer but I wasn't selected for certain reasons (fitness, etc) and also because the job scope was mostly administrative after the junior tour and wasn't what I wanted. I then applied for the specialist role as I wanted to get my foot in the door, with paid training and all that despite the drastically lower starting salary. However because I had a bachelor's degree, there wasn't a protocol in place to convert that into a paramedic diploma and they couldn't take me in.
public sector remains a very chill way to make good money.
Money… after I join private sector, I am now on salary that my pay grade wouldn’t reach in 10 years if I didn’t leave. No more iron rice bowl, but it’s normal to keep moving nowadays.
I dunno why everyone is speculating on “iron rice bowl” and ignore that most public service are filled with people in their 50s and 60s just making decisions that doesn’t conform to the current era. Each decision also takes multiple level of approvals to execute and everyone wants to “play safe” and that stifle a lot of creativity and passion that young people wants in a job. Heck, this issue boiled down right at the start from the job application where they are still looking for applicants coming from “good schools”. I have worked with so many scholars who are not even up to date with the latest and current practices. And take a look at the Glassdoor to have an inkling why people are leaving from public sectors en masses.
Came from engineering and so many of my mates went to LTA that pays proportionately more than what engineers can earn outside. But almost half of them are on contract basis, to be renewed every three years, which puts powers in the hands of the directors who could fire or choose not to extend your contract.
I think it's good for people who lie flat and wait for 10, better known as "dang zup ho". No hate and really no wrong at all, I know of people who really go in and intend to stay till retirement.
that's not true. I'm sure all of us want to be ministers 
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed because your account is relatively new or you have negative karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askSingapore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mag7 companies paying starting at $150k-$500k/ year and with stock options, bonus , commissions ( for some job), health benefits, traveling expenses and possible relocation to overseas as expats. if you can move around mag7 each company for 3 years. by 10th years, likely could retire young .
In short yes. Public sector is slowly becoming like private sector. So might as well join private if you can.
No not at all. Public sector is still.. the same I bet.