Hiring Faster Than the Nation Shrinks

The full numbers

2025 recruitment: 2,318 new civil servants (1,416 regular + 902 contract). 2025 separations: 1,948 (1,180 voluntary resignations + 359 contract completions + 138 contract terminations on regularization + 143 superannuations + 44 deaths + 32 disciplinary terminations + 22 compulsory retirements + 24 cancellations). Net change: +370 civil servants in 2025. Education and Training Services hired the most: 750 new recruits (32% of all recruitment). Medical and Health: 529 (23%). Administration and Support: 195 (8%).

Imagine this

A senior policy debate. One side argues: “The civil service is too large for the country’s income. It must shrink.” Another side argues: “We’re losing people too fast in 2023; we need to hire to maintain capacity.” Both sides cite the same RCSC data. The truth is that the civil service is, this year, still growing — just slowly. The optical perception (“civil servants leaving in droves”) is shaped by paradox #20 (the 2023 mass exit). The mathematical reality (2025 net +370) is the opposite. Both can be true: there was a major exit shock in 2023, AND the institution has stabilised at modest net growth since.

Where this came from

The 2023 mass exit forced increased recruitment to backfill key positions. The 2024-25 backfill cycle has been substantial — 2,318 hires in 2025 alone, with Education and Health absorbing more than half. The Civil Service Reform Act of 2022 set new caps but allowed exceptions for critical service categories.

Why this matters now

The framing of “civil service is shrinking” or “civil service is growing” depends entirely on whether you’re comparing year-on-year change, decade-on-decade trend, or per-capita ratio. The civil service grew 11.76% over the past decade (2015-2025); year-on-year 2025 growth was 1.45%; net change excluding contract conversions was modest. All three statements are simultaneously true, and which one frames the public debate matters for policy.

What it should be

Civil service workforce planning should explicitly target a per-capita ratio appropriate for the country’s income level and fiscal capacity — not just net headcount. The 10.5% of-workforce share (paradox #18) is the relevant benchmark; the 1.45% YoY change is operational.

How others do it

• Singapore — explicit civil service workforce planning tied to GDP and demographic projections. Targeted recruitment per ministry.
• OECD countries — typically maintain civil service at relatively stable share of workforce; growth tracks population.
• Bhutan — civil service is growing modestly even as the overall workforce is being depleted by emigration. The relative share is rising even when absolute change is small.

The question we should be sitting with

Is the civil service growing or shrinking? The answer depends on what you measure — and that ambiguity is itself a policy problem.