Mr Speaker,
I refer to the Prime Minister’s Ministerial Statement of two days ago on the 2026 Review of Salaries for Political Appointment Holders. I will make a few points.
First, I will reflect on the Committee’s report and the Government’s response to it, including some observations on the challenge of attracting private sector leaders into politics.
Second, I will speak about the gap between the norm annual salary for Ministers, which is used as a key reference point in the committee’s report, and the total remuneration actually received by Ministers in practice.
Third, I will speak about the reality of being a Workers’ Party candidate and how this intersects with an MP’s allowance, in response to the Prime Minister’s point about attracting good candidates into politics.
Fourth, I will speak about the job scope of Mayors, in view of their inclusion in the Committee’s report.
Finally, I will ask why the remuneration and manpower support for Legislative Assistants and Secretarial Assistants to MPs have not been reviewed.
The Workers’ Party’s position
At the outset and as established by the Workers’ Party in 2012, our position on political salaries is aligned with the three broad principles reaffirmed by the Committee: that political salaries should be competitive enough to attract people of the necessary calibre; That political service is a calling with its own ethos; And that political remuneration should be transparent.
Like in 2012, the point of divergence is on the formula that the Committee has adopted in its report. The Workers’ Party favours the one it laid out in Parliament in 2012 which in our view went further to address the overly emotive element surrounding discussions on political salaries by pegging it to a more accessible reference point for the public. On this point, our view remains unchanged.
We take the view that pegging Ministerial salaries to a multiple of an MP’s salary which is in turn derived from a public sector appointee is preferred to one that bases Ministerial salaries from a discount to the median salary of the top 1000 earners in Singapore. Under our 2012 proposal, and with the passage of time, the increases to Minister’s total salaries would be more modest.
The government chose not to increase political salaries in both 2017 and 2023, aware of the public sensitivities of doing so. It has been about 15 years since salaries for Ministers and MPs were reviewed. To that end, the Prime Minister’s response to the 2026 Committee’s recommendations reveals that the Government accepts the salary increases in full for all political appointment holders, including MPs. However, in the case of Ministers, a more calibrated and measured approach has been taken by the Prime Minister in response to the Committee’s recommendations as laid out in his Ministerial Statement on this subject on Tuesday.
At its core, one of the perennial challenges in Singapore, as framed by the Prime Minister with regard to political salaries, is determining what would be the appropriate remuneration to attract high-quality private sector individuals to join the political leadership as Ministers.
From the evidence so far however, only a small handful have taken the plunge, and the majority of Ministers continue to be sourced from the public sector or civil service.
For some, it can be said that joining the Government as ministers from the public sector potentially opens the door to a wage increase from the salary they previously earned in the civil service — a reality that is often overlooked when the focus is on ensuring that individuals drawn from the private sector can receive a competitive salary as ministers.
Even so, the issue does beg the question of whether it is the salary, or the reality of political service today, that dissuades many high-earning private sector individuals from joining politics.
For some, it would not be out of order to suggest that no amount of money will persuade them to trade their suits and ties for grassroots activities and to immerse themselves in municipal concerns and in the rough and tumble of politics, since all Ministers must first be elected as Members of Parliament. By the same token, I believe this House would agree with me when I say that Singaporeans would not be well served by any individual who winces at undertaking political groundwork, even if he or she is a corporate titan or private-sector high-flyer.
For public service is indeed a calling with its own ethos, and with deep meaning and purpose for those who immerse themselves in it.
The Committee has referenced its recommendations to wage increases for Singaporeans at the 50th and 20th percentiles of incomes since 2012. This is arguably a plausible and useful comparison to consider when determining political salaries.
But employing the same reasoning to adjust the MR4 Minister benchmark total annual salary norm produces a much more significant absolute quantum of increase, an increase which has not gone unnoticed by members of the public and which the Committee itself considers significant.
Under the proposals in the Committee’s report, the annual MP allowance package will increase from $192,500 to $259,000, an increase explained by inflation. For comparison, the 2012 framework set the annual MP allowance at 17.5% of the MR4 benchmark, or $192,500 which was marginally less than what MPs used to be paid before 2011.
An entry-level Minister’s annual reference salary on the other hand will increase from $1.1 million to $1.8 million under the Committee’s proposal. To be clear, a Minister also earns an MP’s allowance. In percentage terms, the proposed increase in the MR4 reference salary is about 64%, compared with about 35% for a MP. In other words, the percentage increase for an MR4 Minister is roughly 1.8 times that of an MP.
That could explain why the Prime Minister has proposed a first-step increase of up to 9% and has committed, that paying a Minister $1.8 million, as proposed by the Committee, is not a target. The Workers’ Party agrees with this more sober approach to ministerial salaries, compared to the Committee’s recommendation and notwithstanding the Workers’ Party differing position on how the underlying figure is derived.
The Prime Minister has also said that by the end of this term of government, he expects most Ministers who remain at MR4 to be at the lower end of the new salary range, at about $1.35 million. I would like to clarify with the Prime Minister whether this means that, after the initial adjustment of up to 9%, there will be no further general or across-the-board adjustment, and that any subsequent increases will be based solely on individual performance and responsibilities.
Ministers’ actual bonus and the ‘Annual Salary Norm’
On to my second point.
There appears to be some public confusion about the variable component of the MR4 Minister’s total salary norm as expressed in the Committee’s report.
At $1.1 million today, the MR4 reference annual salary assumes 13 months of fixed pay and seven months of variable pay. The variable components comprise the Annual Variable Component, Performance Bonus and National Bonus.
The Government has clarified that the $1.1 million is an all-in reference figure comprising fixed and variable components.
A Mothership post on Tuesday reported that the bonus component was, and I quote, “up to” seven months in total a year, taking reference from the norm annual salary for Ministers. This is correct.
However, we know that the 2012 framework for political salaries contemplated variable components of up to 13.5 months in a year, with the actual amount depending on the Annual Variable Component, Performance Bonus and National Bonus.
We also know that the Government disclosed that, from 2013 to 2017, actual variable payments or the bonus to Cabinet Ministers averaged 9.7 months a year, not 7 months as assumed by the annual salary norm in the committee’s report. In Parliament in February this year, NCMP Eileen Chong asked for the ranges of Performance Bonus, National Bonus and Annual Variable Component (AVC) received by Ministers from 2018 to 2024. She did not receive a helpful reply from the government with only a range provided for the AVC at zero to 1.5 months.
If this is the case, would it not be useful, for purposes of transparency which is a principle this House agrees to with regard to political salaries, to disclose how actual total remuneration received by MR4 Ministers has compared with the annual salary norm?
This would provide a more accurate picture of what Ministers have actually received in practice, as distinct from the annual total salary norm.
In conjunction with this point, the Committee’s proposal calls for a wider range of salaries at each Ministerial grade to accommodate a greater diversity of talent.
While potentially giving the PAP more flexibility in recruiting political candidates from the private sector as alluded to by the Prime Minister, I would caution that this increased flexibility will also contribute to a concomitant increase in public scrutiny about the total annual salaries of individual Ministers, in concert with the principle that salaries ought to be transparent. It would follow that this information should be published accordingly in a practical format that promotes public understanding of the total salaries.
Political recruitment for The Workers’ Party
On to my third point.
The Prime Minister observed in his ministerial statement that a proper MP allowance would enable both the PAP and the WP to recruit and field strong candidates.
I note the Prime Minister’s view that the presence of the opposition has resulted in a higher quality of debate in this House.
This is good for Singapore, as Parliament is an important platform to ventilate different views and for any opposition to serve as an effective check and balance on the Government.
However, at this point in our nation’s political history, in my view, the raison d’être of both the WP and PAP is very different.
Simply put, a sufficient MP allowance is not a reason Singaporeans choose to stand on the Workers’ Party ticket, and remuneration is not the device or platform through which the Workers’ Party attracts candidates or can attract candidates.
The point I wish to make is not that MP remuneration is unimportant. It is that remuneration is not what drives an individual to become a Workers’ Party candidate.
The Workers’ Party fields candidates who not only believe in a more balanced political system but are prepared to stand behind their convictions against significant odds, while working for Singaporeans on the ground.
The reality is that winning an election for the opposition in a one-party dominant state, where the PAP remains electorally dominant, represents a gargantuan challenge for many, both personally and professionally.
For a WP candidate, there can be no assumption of electoral success, particularly given the structural advantages enjoyed by the incumbent governing party.
No WP candidate can reasonably take for granted that he or she will win and become an MP, let alone approach the decision to stand for election on the basis of achieving some degree of parity insofar as his or her remuneration prospects are concerned.
We believe our political system and our country is strengthened, and not weakened, by a strong and sensible opposition presence in Parliament, where at least one-third of the seats should be in opposition hands.
A good opposition plays a critical check and balance role and represents an important ballast in our political system.
In our view, it also plays an important role in uniting our people — something that will become increasingly important for Singapore in the years to come.
What does a mayor do?
On to my fourth point.
It remains unclear to many Singaporeans what the job scope of mayors is, requiring their remuneration continues to be linked to the political salary framework as laid out in the Committee’s report.
The Workers’ Party raised this issue in our last General Election manifesto, which we put before Singaporeans at the polls.
I have also previously raised in this House the scope of a mayor’s responsibilities, given that many functions previously performed by the CDCs have gradually been devolved to other organisations, including Social Service Offices and other Government agencies.
The 2026 Review Committee has itself now recognised that the considerations for community-related roles such as MPs and mayors may differ from those for full-time Political Appointment Holders.
The Committee has recommended that the Government study establishing a basis for sizing the payments for these roles that is delinked from the MR4 benchmark, while remaining adequate for these roles to be carried out faithfully and effectively.
The Government has accepted this recommendation and will undertake such a study. Beyond confirming when the study is likely to completed, I ask the Government to include in its study if it intends to keep the Office of the Mayor and to explain its scope, role and function.
For clarity, as the Minister for Public Services has confirmed that office holders receive one wage, in addition to their MPs allowances, it would be follow that two out of five mayors today receive a full mayor salary, since the other three mayors are office holders. Paradoxically, this treatment in the case of mayors who are also political office holders only amplifies the public interest on the real job scope of mayors.
Legislative assistants and secretarial assistants
Fifth and finally, I note that the remuneration and manpower support for Legislative Assistants and Secretarial Assistants to Members of Parliament have not been reviewed as part of this exercise.
In March this year, the Government expressly confirmed that the 2026 Committee would not review the allowances of Legislative Assistants and Secretarial Assistants because this fell outside the Committee’s terms of reference. The Government also confirmed that these allowances were last updated in 2007.
It is appropriate to ask why, after 19 years, the remuneration and manpower support for these assistants remains static. Their allowances should also increase to accommodate the inflation over close to two decades.
Mr Speaker, none of us are here by virtue of our own efforts.
While our families will always represent a bulwark of support, there are many, many other unseen contributors behind the scenes.
Legislative Assistants and Secretarial Assistants are in this category, and they help Members of Parliament discharge their responsibilities to their constituents or to this House. They do so regardless of party affiliation.
It would be a travesty to overlook these individuals when considering the resources necessary for Members of Parliament to discharge their responsibilities effectively.
I therefore urge the Government and Parliament to review the allowance provided to Legislative Assistants and Secretarial Assistants to MPs, and to do so without delay.
To summarise, my clarifications notwithstanding, the Workers’ Party supports the increase in salaries to MPs in view of inflation and agrees with the decision of the Prime Minister not to increase the salary of Ministers beyond 9%. Even though the committee has recommended to continue pegging Ministerial salaries to the median salary of the top 1000 earners in Singapore with a discount, the Workers’ Party takes the view a multiple of an MP’s salary pegged at that of a senior public servant combined with a more modest variable component would better serve Singapore and Singaporeans, and continue to attract good people to politics in this country we all call home.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
