Government’s Response to the “2026 Review of Salaries for Political Appointment Holders and Members of Parliament”

Coordinating Minister for Public Services.

Mr Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No 44, I move, "That the two Ministerial Statements on the Government's Response to the '2026 Review of Salaries for Political Appointment Holders and Members of Parliament' delivered on 8 September 2026 be considered by Parliament."

*Question proposed. (proc text)]

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on the Government's response to the recommendations of the Committee reviewing the salaries of political office holders. But as a labour Member of Parliament (MP), I want to begin with what I have been hearing from our workers. The reaction on the ground is not a comfortable one.

Before this debate, I ask our union leaders to speak candidly to workers in the land transport sector, our taxi and Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) drivers, bus and rail workers, and ask them what they thought. One worker put it very simply to us in Mandarin: "不是要同甘共苦吗，怎么选这个时机？" Are we not supposed to share the good times and the difficult times together? Why choose this time?

I thought that question captured something very important. It was not simply a question about salary adjustments. It was a question about timing and about whether workers feel that we are sharing the same realities that they are experiencing. Some workers told us that while Singapore's economic numbers may look healthy, that is not necessarily how the economy feels to them on the ground.

Workers' wages have gone up but so have their everyday expenses. Some told us that after accounting for the higher cost of living, they do not feel substantially better off, even with the support that the Government has provided. Workers worry about jobs, about business conditions, and about what restructuring and artificial intelligence (AI) may mean for their livelihoods, and against that backdrop they ask, why now?

Others told us that public service should fundamentally be motivated by a desire to serve and ask why further increases were necessary when political salaries are already at levels they consider substantive. Some could understand salaries being reviewed and adjusted, but felt that 9% was too high, instinctively comparing it with their own annual increments, which are considerably lower.

And some ask another interesting question: why wait so long so many years between the adjustments? Would it not be better to review salaries more regularly rather than wait ten or fifteen years and have a much larger headline number? These are sentiments we must take seriously.

I understand them not only because workers tell me so. I understand them because I sit at the tables where their wages are negotiated.

Mr Speaker, as a unionist, I have sat across the table from employers negotiating collective agreements, annual increments and bonuses. In many of the collective agreements I have worked on, annual increments are lower than 9%.

I see the same realities in our progressive wage negotiations. I chair the tripartite Progressive Wage Model (PWM) clusters for food services and retail. Every increase has to be carefully worked through among unions, employers and Government, balancing our ambition to uplift workers with productivity, sector conditions and what businesses can sustain. So, I know how hard-won wage progression can be and how closely workers watch their wages, because every improvement matters to them and their families. That is why I understand the immediate reaction when workers see up to 9% – and I do not dismiss it.

But there is something else that my experience negotiating wages have taught me. When we negotiate wages, we never look only at the headline number. We ask what sits behind that number. What is the benchmark? How does the pay move? What are the economic and manpower conditions? What can be sustained and what outcomes are we rewarding? These are questions we ask when negotiating a collective agreement for our transport workers or working through progressive wages for our lower-wage workers.

So, these are also the questions I asked when I looked at the review.

First, what does the 9% actually represent? I understand why workers instinctively compare it with their own annual increment, but they are not quite the same comparison. Workers' annual increments are part of regular wage progression and accumulate year after year. Political salaries, by contrast, have not been adjusted for 15 years and importantly, that period begin not with an increase, but with a substantial downward restructuring in 2011.

The annual salary of an entry level MR4 Minister was reduced by 37%, but that does not by itself justify any particular adjustments today, nor does it tell us that 9% is the right number, but it does tell us that we should look at the whole period than just one number in isolation.

The Committee has now recommended that the MR4 reference benchmark be updated from $1.1 million to $1.8 million. That is a significant movement in the benchmark. I also understand why workers will look at that number and ask questions. But here too, the time period matters. Spread over the 15 years since 2011, the movement in the benchmark works out to be about 3.6% a year. Over the same period, wages grew about 4.3% a year for the median worker pegged at P50, and 4.6% a year at P20 which represents workers at the lower-end of the wage distribution.

Put it another way, since the 2012 review, incomes of Singapore Citizen earners have risen by about 80% at the median and 87% at P20. And that progress has not simply been a story of annual increments. Over these years, to sustain tripartite efforts, unions, employers and Government have worked to reshape wages and work through progressive wages, skills and career ladders, stronger links between wages, productivity, responsibilities and outcomes, and better employability for our senior and vulnerable workers. We have strengthened support for lower-wage workers through Workfare, given platform workers, formal recognition and stronger protections, and strengthened workplace fairness through legislation.

These changes did not happen by accident. They reflect years of tripartite work to help our workers earn better wages, stay employable, be better protected and have a share in Singapore's progress.

Of course, these percentages translate into very different dollars at different salary levels, but taken over the same period, they give us a more meaningful context for understanding how wages have moved over time.

Mr Speaker, the 9% is only one number workers are looking at. That is also the benchmark itself. Here again, our experience in the Labour Movement is useful. In wage-setting, a benchmark is not the same as your paycheck. It is a reference point within a salary structure, and under the revised framework, Ministers can be paid within a range of 75% to 125% of the reference salary for their grade.

So, I think it is important to explain plainly what the benchmark means. It does not mean that every MR4 Minister will now be paid that amount, nor is it a target salary that every Minister will eventually receive. The Government has decided not to move existing Ministers immediately to the new benchmark. The immediate adjustment is up to 9% and there will not be further special adjustments simply to close the gap. Subsequent salary movements will depend on, rightfully, performance and responsibilities.

Mr Speaker, that distinction matters. But the benchmark must still have a credible basis and Singaporeans are entitled to scrutinise it.

Mr Speaker, this brings me to what, for me, as a unionist is the heart of the matter. A wage framework does not make a number right simply because a formula exists. What matters is that there is a credible basis behind it.

We know this from our work in the Labour Movement. Sometimes, we bargain hard over what may look like a small difference, because behind every percentage point is somebody's livelihood.

Political service, of course, is not the same as an ordinary job. And government is not a business. So, the considerations cannot be identical, but I believe that the same discipline must apply: the basis must be clear; the framework transparent and movements in actual pay must be explainable.

There is also something we should learn from the long gap between reviews. Regular review does not mean regular increase. Depending on circumstances, a review can result in an increase, no increase, or even restraint. But reviewing the framework regularly means that when salaries move or do not move, Singaporeans can understand why.

There is also one other part of the framework that matters to me from a labour perspective. Part of the political remuneration is linked to how Singapore and Singaporeans are doing: whether people have jobs and whether their real incomes are growing, whether Singaporeans lives are improving, and that Singaporeans are able to realise their dreams and aspirations. I think that that is important. If political remuneration is tied to Singapore's progress, then our workers' progress must be part of that picture.

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister and Minister Chan have set out the Government's basis for the review earlier. I do not intend to repeat their explanations. My responsibility is to consider those explanations through the same lens I bring to wage negotiations and I ask myself a simple question, "Can I explain the basis for this outcome clearly to our workers?"

I also agree with workers on one fundamental point. Political service must ultimately be motivated by a desire to serve. No salary framework can create that motivation and no salary level can substitute for it, but service and a proper remuneration framework are not contradictory.

Mr Speaker, I begin with the worker who asked, "不是要同甘共苦吗？" For our workers, "同甘共苦" is something they must be able to experience and feel in their wages, their jobs, their prospects and in knowing that we are all moving forward together, through bad times and good.

It is right that we scrutinise the numbers, the benchmarks and the wage framework. We should not lose sight of why we have this framework in the first place – to enable capable people to step forward to serve, and together with every Singaporean to build a better tomorrow.

And that work continues long after this debate has concluded. As a labour MP and unionist, I will go back to the negotiating table tomorrow, pushing for better wages, better jobs, better livelihoods, better protection for our workers. And like every Member in this House, I will go back to my community and my constituents this evening to listen to serve and to continue building that future together. Because ultimately that is what "同甘共苦" means to me – through good times and bad, we will remain in this together.

Mr Speaker, it is with this responsibility in mind that I support the Government's response to the review. [Applause.]

Mr Pritam Singh.

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 and Members of Parliament. I will make a few points.

First, I will reflect on the 2026 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 renumeration actually received by Ministers in practice. Third, I will speak about the reality of being a Workers' Party (WP) candidate and how this intersects with 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 the inclusion in the Committee's report. And finally, I will ask why the renumeration for legislative assistants and secretarial assistants to Members of Parliament have not been reviewed.

At the outset and as established by the WP in 2012, our position on political salaries is aligned with the three broad principles affirmed by the committee: (a) that political salaries should be competitive enough to attract people of the necessary calibre; (b) that political service is a calling, with its own ethos; and (c) that political renumeration should be transparent.

Like in 2012, the point of divergence is on the formula that the Committee has adopted in its report. The WP favours the one it laid out in Parliament in 2012, which, in our view, went further to address the overly emotive elements 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's salary, is preferred to one that bases Ministerial salaries from a discount to the median salary of the top 1,000 earners in Singapore. Under our 2012 proposal and with the passage of time, the increases to a Minister's total salary 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 Members of Parliament were reviewed. To that end, the Prime Minister's response to the Committee's recommendations reveals that the Government accepts the salary increases in full for all political appointment holders, including Members of Parliament. 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.

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 renumeration to attract high quality private sector individuals to join political leadership as Ministers. From the evidence so far however, only a small handful have taken the plunge.

The majority of Ministers continue to be sourced from the public sector. 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 the rough and tumble of politics, since all Ministers must first be elected as MPs.

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 a 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. But employing the same reasoning to adjust the MR4 Minister's total annual salary norm produces a much more significant absolute quantum of increase.

This increase has not gone unnoticed by members of the public, and it is an increase 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 largely by inflation. For comparison, the 2012 framework set the annual MP allowance at 17.5% of the MR4 Minister 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 dollars under the Committee's proposal.

To be clear, a Minister also earns an MP's allowance. In percentage terms, the proposed in the MR4 Minister reference salary is about 64%, compared with about 35% for an 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 laid out in the committee's report is not a target. The WP agrees with this more sober approach to raising Ministerial salaries, compared to the Committee's recommendation and notwithstanding the WP's 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?

Onto 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 dollars 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 "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, or a total bonus of up to 13.5 months a year, with the actual amount depending on the annual variable component, performance bonus and the National Bonus.

We also know that the Government disclosed that from 2013 to 2017, actual variable payments of the bonus to Cabinet Ministers averaged 9.7 months a year, not seven months as assumed by the annual salary norm in the Committee's report.

In Parliament in February this year, WP's Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Eileen Chong asked for the ranges of performance bonus, National Bonus and annual variable component received by Ministers from 2018 to 2024. She did not receive a helpful reply from the Government, with only a range provided for the annual variable component at 0 to 1.5 months.

That being the case, would it not be useful for the 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 since the new formula was introduced in 2012? This would provide a more accurate picture of what Ministers have actually received in practice, as distinct from the annual total salary norm used by the Committee as a key point of reference.

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 People's Action Party (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 earned by Ministers.

Onto 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 the 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'etre of both the WP and the PAP is very different. Simply put, a sufficient MP allowance is not a reason Singaporeans choose to stand on the WP ticket and remuneration is not the device or platform through which the WP attracts candidates or can attract candidates.

The point I wish to make is not that the MP remuneration is unimportant, it is that remuneration is not what drives an individual Singaporean to become a WP candidate. The WP fields candidates who not only believe in a more democratic and balanced political system, but they 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, both personally and professionally.

For WP candidates, 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 elections on the basis of achieving some degree of parity insofar as his or her renumeration prospects are concerned.

We believe that our political system and our country is strengthened and not weakened by a strong and sensible Opposition in Parliament, where at least one third of the seats ought to 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, this also plays an important role in uniting our people, something that will become increasingly important for Singapore in the years to come.

On to my fourth point. It remains unclear to many Singaporeans what the job scope of Mayors is, requiring their renumeration which continues to be linked to the political salary framework, as laid out in the committee's report.

The WP raised this issue in our last General Election manifesto, which we put before Singaporeans at the polls. I have also previously questioned in this House the scope of a Mayor's responsibilities, given that many functions previously performed by Community Development Councils (CDCs) have gradually been devolved to other organisations, including Social Service Offices and other Government agencies.

The 2026 review Committee has itself recognised that such 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 these payments for these roles that is de-linked from the MR4 benchmark while remaining adequate for these roles to be carried out faithfully and effectively. The Government has accepted the recommendation and will undertake such a study.

Beyond confirming when the study is likely to be completed, I asked the Government to include in its study the office of the Mayor and to explain its scope, role and function. For clarity, the Minister for Public Services has confirmed that office holders receive one wage in addition to their MP's allowance. It would follow that two out of five Mayors today receive a full Mayor's 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.

Fifth and finally, I note that the remuneration and manpower support for Legislative Assistants and Secretarial Assistants to MPs 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 of the Committee's terms of reference. The Government also confirmed that these allowances were last updated in 2007 – almost 20 years ago.

It is appropriate to ask why the remuneration for these assistants should remain static. Their allowances should also increase to accommodate inflation, similar to how the Committee determined the rise in MP allowances.

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 MPs discharge their responsibilities to their constituents or this House. They do so regardless of party affiliation. It would be a travesty to overlook these individuals when considering the resources necessary for MPs 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 WP supports the increase in salaries to MPs in view of inflation, and agrees with the decision of the Prime Minister not to increase the salaries of Ministers beyond up to 9%. Even though the Committee has recommended to continue pegging Ministerial salaries to the median salary of the top 1,000 earners in Singapore with a discount, the WP takes the view that 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. [Applause.]

Prof Kenneth Poon.

Mr Speaker, I agree that we should continue to attract capable and committed Singaporeans from different backgrounds to public service. Remuneration should never be the principal motivation for entering political office. But neither should we create unnecessary barriers that make it difficult for capable Singaporeans, particularly those with families and financial commitments, to step forward to serve.

I would like to focus my comments on one of the recommendations, which is the proposal to explore the inclusion of a robust Quality of Life measure in the National Bonus framework. And as I speak, I declare my interest as a former Board Member of the National Council of Social Service (NCSS). I welcome this proposal.

Today, the National Bonus is determined by four economic and labour-market indicators: citizen unemployment, real income growth at the median, real income growth at the 20th percentile and real GDP growth. These are important measures. Together, they ask whether our economy is growing, whether Singaporeans have jobs and whether incomes are rising, including for those at the lower end of the income distribution.

The proposal to introduce Quality of Life presents us with an opportunity to ask a broader question: how should we measure whether Singaporeans are doing well?

Sir, I believe that a Quality of Life measure should be part of the answer. And we do not have to start from scratch. The NCSS has been measuring Quality of Life in Singapore for some years, using internationally established instruments, and so, we now have national reference data.

Could we use this opportunity to consider a broader framework of social progress? There are international precedents. New Zealand's Treasury, for example, uses a Living Standards Framework that considers multiple domains of individual and collective well-being. I am not suggesting that we import New Zealand's framework. Singapore has our own circumstances, priorities and social compact. But there is value in the underlying idea: economic performance and social progress are related, but they are not the same thing.

I would offer four dimensions of social progress for consideration.

First, material adequacy: do Singaporeans have enough to meet their essential needs?

The National Bonus already monitors real income growth at the 20th percentile. This tells us whether lower-income Singaporeans are making economic progress. But growth and adequacy answer different questions. A household's real income can rise and yet remain insufficient to meet its essential needs.

Could we therefore consider developing an Essential Household Expenditure Basket? Our Household Expenditure Survey published by the Department of Statistics already provides rich data about what households spend on housing, food, transport, healthcare, education and other needs. I am not proposing now what should go into the basket. Rather, could we establish a periodically updated measure of the resources required to meet a carefully defined set of essential household needs? We could then ask not only whether lower-income Singaporeans' incomes are rising, but whether fewer households lack the resources necessary for a basic but adequate standard of living.

Second, access: can Singaporeans obtain essential services when they need them?

One distinctive feature of Singapore's social compact is that wellbeing is not determined by household income alone. Singaporeans benefit from substantial public investment and support in areas such as housing, healthcare, education and social services. Social progress could therefore consider timely and effective access to essential services that I mentioned earlier, such as healthcare, public housing and preschool places, as well as early intervention and disability services.

The precise measures require careful consideration. But the principle is important. For a parent waiting for early intervention for a child, a patient waiting for a necessary operation, or a family waiting for suitable housing, a service being available technically is different from being able to access it when needed.

Third, social connectedness: do Singaporeans feel that they belong?

A successful society is more than a collection of economically successful individuals. We are members of families, neighbourhoods, communities and a nation. We could therefore consider people's sense of belonging, the strength of their social support networks, or whether they feel connected to their communities. This matters because material living standards can rise even as people become more isolated from one another. Our economic indicators would not tell us if this were happening.

Fourth, subjective wellbeing: do Singaporeans themselves feel that their lives are going well?

This brings me back to the Committee's proposal. I support the inclusion of a robust Quality of Life measure, but not all indicators need to be objective. Objective indicators tell us about the circumstances in which people live. A subjective measure allows Singaporeans themselves to tell us how they experience their lives.

Sir, I am not proposing today that these four dimensions be directly added to the National Bonus formula. I am suggesting that as the Government develops its Quality of Life measure, we take the opportunity to develop a broader framework for understanding social progress.

There are technical questions to resolve. And any measure used must be robust, consistent over time and resistant to gaming. We should also be careful about holding the Government accountable for outcomes over which they have limited influence. But these challenges should not prevent us from asking the larger question. Our existing National Bonus indicators provide a strong picture of economic progress. The Committee's Quality of Life recommendation gives us an opportunity to complement this with a clearer conception of social progress.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, economic indicators tell us whether Singapore is prospering. Social indicators can tell us whether Singaporeans are flourishing.

I have suggested four questions for consideration: do Singaporeans have enough to meet their essential needs? Can they access essential services when they need them? Do they feel that they belong? And do Singaporeans themselves judge their quality of life to be good?

So, as Government considers and develops the proposed Quality of Life measure, will it consider a broader social progress framework incorporating objective as well as subjective measures? If we can do this well, the National Bonus will continue to recognise the importance of a strong economy, jobs and rising incomes, whilst also recognising the reason these ultimately matter: to enable Singaporeans, their families and our communities to flourish.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in 2007, about a year after I entered Parliament, the Government moved a Motion to adjust the salaries of political appointment holders. At the time, I did not take part in that debate. At that time, I was not entirely convinced that ministerial salaries should be pegged to the market. Although I understood the reasoning behind it, one question remained in my mind: was this the best approach?

Twenty years have passed. I am older now, with more life and work experience and I hope, a little more wisdom. I know this remains an emotive issue, but I believe it is still necessary to share my views.

Mr Speaker, besides having the privilege of serving as a Member of Parliament, I have also worked in the financial sector for more than 30 years. My years of political service and corporate work have given me the opportunity to understand, from two different perspectives, the distinction between national leadership and corporate leadership.

As Members of Parliament, our responsibilities include holding the Government to account and reviewing policies. We also have the opportunity to work closely with Ministers and observe how they analyse issues, formulate policies, manage crises and make major decisions.

In my professional work in finance, I have also worked extensively with corporate management teams, giving me a deep understanding of the business acumen and judgement required of corporate leaders, as well as the responsibilities and pressures they bear.

My experience across these two fields has made me deeply aware that the duties and responsibilities borne by political and corporate leaders are fundamentally different in both nature and scale.

A corporate leader must run the company well, manage profits and costs, and be accountable to customers, employees and shareholders. A political leader, however, bears responsibility for the entire country. This encompasses economic development, national security, people’s livelihoods, social cohesion and more – ultimately ensuring that Singaporeans' lives and livelihoods are protected today and in the future.

We all know that Singapore has many inherent constraints. We are a tiny nation with no natural resources and a limited domestic market. Therefore, governing Singapore well is a formidable task.

The Prime Minister and Ministers must constantly confront structural constraints and external shocks, assess developments accurately, weigh the national interest, and make decisive and sound decisions at critical moments.

This is why our nation-building journey has never been smooth and why we have faced severe crises from time to time. How the Government’s leaders respond to crises is one of the most direct tests of leadership.

Over the past few decades, whether during the 2008–2009 Global Financial Crisis or, more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, I witnessed how the Government’s leadership team responded in a steady, decisive and pragmatic manner, working at every turn to cushion the impact on Singaporeans’ lives and the economy.

The international environment and the rapid pace of technological change will become even more complex. The Government's leadership team will undoubtedly face many tests again. Beyond the Government's effective crisis management, I have also seen, over the years, its foresight and ability to execute long-term plans while preparing for adversity in times of stability.

More than 20 years ago, before energy security became a major issue, we had already begun planning and building a liquefied natural gas terminal, giving Singapore more diversified sources of natural gas. Before biomedicine became a major industry, the Government had already committed substantial resources to building Biopolis and nurturing a research, talent and industry ecosystem.

Today, Singapore has built an internationally competitive ecosystem in biomedicine and scientific research.

To strengthen Singapore's position as an international financial centre and business hub, we began planning and developing Marina Bay decades ago, laying the foundations for the vibrant global city we see today.

Before water security became a widely recognised global concern, Singapore had already begun developing NEWater. At the same time, we have pursued long-term urban planning and preserved important green spaces and nature reserves. Behind these decisions lies a steadfast conviction: that this Little Red Dot must continue to survive, continue to develop, and continue to shine on the world stage.

This requires Government leaders who are prepared to look further ahead, invest resources today, shoulder responsibility and act with the long term in mind.

By the same token, the substantial national reserves we have today did not materialise out of thin air. They are the result of successive Governments maintaining fiscal discipline and prudent financial management over the long term, building them up bit by bit. Today, managing and safeguarding this vast national asset is an exceptionally weighty responsibility.

This requires not only sound institutions and system, but also capable Ministers with good judgement and a deep understanding of the economy, finance and markets to provide stewardship and oversight, and to make the right decisions in the country's long-term interests. These many experiences have strengthened my conviction that: Singapore needs a political leadership team of the highest calibre and capability. This is one of our key advantages. However, high-quality and capable political leadership can never be taken for granted.

How do we ensure that the best people are willing to enter public service and shoulder the responsibility of leading the country?

First, they must of course possess a spirit of service, as well as integrity, honesty and the right values. A spirit of service and integrity are non-negotiable prerequisites. I believe no one would disagree with this. The next consideration is talent and ability. Ministers bear the weighty responsibility of governing the country and safeguarding the people. We need leaders with ability, resolve and perseverance.

But we also know that outstanding people often have a corresponding market value. They are sought not only by the Government, but also by companies and other organisations eager to recruit and retain them. Therefore, if the salaries of political appointment holders remain disconnected from the market over the long term and the gap continues to widen, I fear that it will become increasingly difficult for future Governments to attract outstanding people into politics to lead the country.

Mr Speaker, I believe most people would agree that, in the workplace, a person’s ability, experience and judgement, as well as the responsibilities he bears, should command a reasonable market value.

We must then ask if that person chooses to enter politics, does his or her existing market value suddenly disappear? Should his and her abilities, experience and professional value, as well as the opportunities he gives up, be disregarded entirely? This is a question that deserves serious pondering.

Of course, I fully agree that entering politics is, first and foremost, a public service. Holding public office also entails a degree of personal sacrifice. I have no disagreement with that. However, I believe that a spirit of service and reasonable remuneration are not mutually contradictory concepts. The two can certainly coexist.

In my view, the existing ministerial salary framework is the balance that we are seeking. The current framework uses market pay as a reference point and applies a 40% discount to reflect the dedication and sacrifice inherent in public service. In this round of adjustments, the Prime Minister has gone further by moderating the increase, such that serving Ministers will initially receive only a one-off salary adjustment capped at 9%.

Mr Speaker, over the years, Singapore has been fortunate to have successive generations of outstanding and capable leaders who have taken the country forward. Through working with the Prime Minister and Ministers, I have come to appreciate deeply that they are willing to take on this responsibility because of their sense of mission and dedication to Singapore.

Let me cite Minister Vivian as an example. I have worked with Minister Vivian for more than 20 years. He is the anchor Minister for Holland–Bukit Timah GRC and Bukit Panjang Single Member Constituency (SMC). Since becoming Minister for Foreign Affairs in 2015, I have seen him represent Singapore with distinction on the international stage. He possesses keen strategic insight, thinks clearly, communicates forcefully, and consistently demonstrates a clear understanding of Singapore's strategic interests.

As Minister for Foreign Affairs, he also keeps an extremely demanding schedule, travelling around the world throughout the year to protect Singapore's interests, expand our international space and strengthen partnerships.

A few weeks ago, I asked Minister Vivian how he coped with such a packed and gruelling travel schedule year after year. He smiled and told me that, on some mornings, the first thing he had to ask himself upon waking in a hotel was: Which country am I in? What time zone is this? What engagements and agenda do I have today? This also shows that ministerial responsibilities demand not only intellectual capacity, but also energy and stamina.

Let me give another example.

During his 20 years as Prime Minister, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong led Singapore through several major crises, while driving economic transformation, strengthening social protection and further consolidating Singapore's position as an international financial and business centre. In my interactions with Senior Minister Lee, I have keenly felt his profound sense of mission and responsibility towards Singapore. Let us also consider Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's journey in politics.

More than a decade ago, before Prime Minister Wong entered politics, when he was the Chief Executive of the Energy Market Authority, I had the opportunity to meet him in my capacity as a banker. Even then, he left a deep impression on me. He had not only a deep understanding of how the energy market operated, but also a firm grasp of the technical issues underlying power generation and energy systems.

He later played a direct role in bringing Singapore's liquefied natural gas terminal project to fruition, giving us multiple sources of natural gas and further strengthening our energy security.

Since taking office in 2024, Prime Minister Wong has led Singapore with calmness and steadiness through an increasingly turbulent global environment. At the same time, he has refreshed our economic strategies, strengthened pro-family policies and continued to enhance social protection, laying the foundations for Singapore’s competitiveness and resilience in the next phase.

He has said that when he was invited to enter politics, his original intention was simply to serve diligently and give back to the country; he never imagined that he would one day become Prime Minister. Later, when the fourth-generation leadership team chose him as successor, he ultimately put the country first and took on this immense responsibility. These examples reinforce my belief that those who genuinely choose to enter politics must first possess a sense of mission to serve the country.

At the same time, we should not therefore assume that the personal opportunity costs they bear do not exist. If we compare the salaries of the Prime Minister and Ministers with those of corporate executives, and then consider the responsibilities and pressures borne by each, I believe many would agree that: the sacrifices made by political appointment holders in fact far exceed the 40% discount reflected in the current salary framework.

Mr Speaker, as a small country, our margin for error in national governance is far smaller than that of many larger countries. We must therefore do all we can to avoid taking a meaningless pathway or paying needless costs. Particularly in major national strategies and public policies, an error of judgement or a wrong turn could carry an enormous cost and might even set the country on a path of non-return. For this very reason, when selecting and bringing in national leaders, we cannot compromise on the quality of leadership.

Mr Speaker, ministerial salaries have remained unchanged for 15 years. I agree that it is time for an adjustment. I understand that many people still face a psychological hurdle in accepting that the salaries of political appointment holders should be linked to the market.

Twenty years ago, I faced the same hurdle. Twenty years on, I believe this is the right decision. If we want Singapore to continue to have an outstanding political leadership team in the decades ahead, we must establish a reasonable and sustainable system that encourages capable people of integrity and a strong sense of mission to step forward and serve the country. I support the Ministerial Statement.

Mr Azhar Othman.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today to address this House on a matter that touches the very heart of our social compact – the remuneration of our political office holders. I acknowledge that the Prime Minister has rightly framed that this is an emotive issue and indeed, it is.

Let me begin by affirming what we all agree upon. I do not stand here to suggest that our leaders should toil for paltry sums. I fully accept the Government's three foundational pillars: first, that competitive pay is essential to prevent a debilitating talent drain to the private sector; second, that the "clean wage" principle, with its full transparency and absence of hidden perks, is a gold standard of integrity that we must defend; and third, that a performance-linked component ensures our Ministers remain relentlessly focused on the economic vitality of our nation.

These are not trivial points. They are the architecture of a professional, corruption-free governance system that has served us well. However, Mr Speaker, the question before this House is not whether we should pay our office holders well. The question is: what is the appropriate, defensible and principled basis for determining "how much is enough"?

Let me begin with the benchmark itself. I wish to scrutinize the MR4 benchmark, which ties Ministerial salaries to the median income of the top 1,000 Singaporean earners, with a 40% discount. So, I ask this House: why do we anchor national leadership compensation to the very apex of the private sector?

The private sector exists to maximize shareholder value. It is a realm where cost-cutting, including the difficult decision to retrench workers, is often a necessary strategy for survival. But the Government, Mr Speaker, is not a corporation. The Government's mandate is fundamentally different from that of a private equity firm. Our leaders have a duty to protect jobs, not to eliminate them; to strengthen the social fabric, not merely to rationalize it; and to think in decades, not in quarterly earnings.

If we are to look for comparators, should we not look across the globe to successful, stable democracies? The data is instructive. The heads of government in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany and Belgium – nations with comparable standards of living and governance standards – receive remuneration that is, at most, four to seven times their nation's median worker salary.

Mr Speaker, international news agencies have reported that Singapore already stands apart at the top of this list, paying our political leaders more than any other country. We are told that this adjustment is necessary to account for the opportunity costs of attracting top CEOs who earn between $6 million and $7 million.

We must be clear. Public service is a calling, not a market transaction. The skillsets required to shepherd a nation through existential threats – pandemics, geopolitical fragmentation and climate change – are fundamentally distinct from those required to maximise a company's bottom line. One manages capital, the other manages the hopes and aspirations of millions of citizens. To equate the two is to misunderstand the moral weight of public office.

We are also told that salaries have been frozen for 15 years and that an adjustment is simply overdue. But Mr Speaker, a delay in a review does not automatically justify a massive, uncompromising catch-up adjustment. A more gradual and modest path, particularly given the 9% phased increase is already in motion, would have demonstrated fiscal prudence and social sensitivity.

Because, Mr Speaker, we must look at the ground we walk on. Today, we are witnessing the profound and disruptive rise of AI. Singaporeans are deeply anxious about housing costs, the trajectory of healthcare inflation, retirement adequacy and the relentless creep of the cost of living. In this climate, the Government must be exquisitely sensitive to the widening distance between the lived reality of the ordinary Singaporean and the remuneration of those who govern them. Perception matters as much as policy.

That is why I now turn to my constructive proposal. If we accept the premise of a clean wage, we must also accept the premise of shared risk. I propose that we adjust the structure to a fixed salary of 45% and a variable component of 55%.

Why this ratio? Because the fixed 45% already represents a substantial, dignified and generous sum that no office holder would struggle to live on. The remaining 55% should be explicitly, transparently and heavily weighted toward national performance metrics that directly affect the median citizen – real median income growth, unemployment rates and housing affordability.

Under such a model, if the nation thrives, our leaders thrive with it, justly so. But if the nation faces headwinds, our leaders share in the national sacrifice. That is solidarity. And it ensures that the variable component is not a mere bonus, but a genuine reflection of the social contract between the governed and those who govern.

Let me speak in Malay in my next speech.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, allow me to share a brief reflection from my travels. In the course of my work, I had the chance to witness many forms of governance across many nations. I have seen countries led by extraordinarily able individuals who lifted their people from despair into prosperity. I have also seen nations where poor leadership – driven by entitlement, corruption, or incompetence – squandered generational wealth and eventually left their people in dire situations. I have witnessed a country collapse into chaos, rise again with a change of government and then slide backward once more when complacency set in.

The lesson, Mr Speaker, is this: good governance is critical. Singapore has been profoundly blessed because we have been led by great men and guided by leaders who are visionaries.

(In English): Mr Speaker, allow me to share a brief reflection from my travels.

In the course of my work, I have had the privilege of witnessing governance across many nations. I have seen countries led by extraordinarily able individuals who lifted their people from despair into prosperity. I have also seen nations where poor leadership, driven by entitlement, corruption or incompetence, squandered generational wealth and left entire populations destitute. I have witnessed a country collapse into chaos, rise again with a change of government and then slide backward once more when complacency sets in.

The lesson, Mr Speaker, is this: good governance is critical. We have been profoundly blessed in Singapore. We have been managed by giants and navigated by visionaries. Singapore has been fortunate to have been served by Prime Ministers who led with conviction, empathy and resilience.

The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, together with his pioneering team, transformed Singapore from a developing nation into a first world country within a single generation. Mr Goh Chok Tong and Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in their respective terms of leadership, continued to build on that foundation and helped raise the living standards of Singaporeans.

As the Prime Minister has noted, Singapore has also benefited from the capable and steady leadership of Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, Senior Minister K Shanmugam and Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, whose contributions to our national resilience and international standing deserve recognition. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has likewise demonstrated calm and purposeful leadership in guiding Singapore forward, with a clear commitment to ensuring that no Singaporean will be left behind.

This is a principle this House can recognise and commend. We should guard carefully against allowing the achievements of the past to create any sense of entitlement in the present. The responsibility before us is a serious one. If our system rewards only status or if those who govern become too distant from the economic realities of the average citizen, we may weaken the very trust and stability that have long defined Singapore.

Let me conclude, Mr Speaker, on this note. My position is not that our Ministers should be paid poorly. Far from it. They should be remunerated fairly and with dignity – they sacrificed a lot, their families sacrificed a lot – so that pay is never a barrier to capable and public-spirited Singaporeans entering public service. At the same time, let us ensure that the rewards of leadership remain meaningfully connected to the well-being of the median Singaporean. Let us recognise excellence, but let us preserve humility, solidarity and a closer understanding of the lives of the people we serve. [Applause.]

Ms Mariam Jaafar.

Mr Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): Yesterday, I had a chat with a makcik (auntie) who runs a stall in a coffeeshop in my constituency, Woodlands. When I mentioned this debate, she laughed and said, "nak (child), that kind of money, cik won't even come close to smelling that much money in twenty years, let alone one". She was not angry. She was just stating the distance, honestly, the way she states the price of her nasi campur (mixed rice).

I told her I would carry that honesty into this House. So, let me start there, before I explain why I support what the Government has put forth. To me, public service and especially political leadership, is three things held together at once: a responsibility, a privilege and a sacrifice. A responsibility – because the decisions our political leaders make affect the lives of every Singaporean.

A privilege, because very few Singaporeans will ever be entrusted with the opportunity to shape the future of our country. And a sacrifice – not only of income and career opportunities, but of privacy, family life, time. I ask us to hold all three at once, because much of the unease comes from holding only one.

When Singaporeans hear a seven-figure salary, I understand why the first reaction might be: that is a lot of money. The revised benchmark is roughly 26 times the median gross income of around $69,000 a year.

For many Singaporeans, it is a number that feels like it belongs to a different universe. That feeling is not envy. It is a reasonable instinct about fairness.

I would never tell my makcik or any Singaporean feeling squeezed by the cost of living: housing, healthcare, school fees, or our mature workers and youths worried about job security and the impact of AI, that the number should not make them uncomfortable. But discomfort with the number cannot be the end of the conversation. We must also ask the harder questions.

If not this, then what? If not now, then when? If we allow the gap between political leadership and every serious alternative to widen year after year, until it begins to affect the willingness of capable people to serve – who do we think will step forward? Somebody will. The question is who, why, and how many.

At its core, this is a question about the kind of political leadership Singapore needs going forward, and whether our compensation structure gets in the way of building it. The Government has accepted the review committee's recommendations, reaffirmed the core principles of the framework and updated the benchmark. I support that. But I want to be precise about what a benchmark is.

(In English): A benchmark is a reference point, not an entitlement.

(In Malay): A benchmark is a reference point, not an entitlement. It tells us where the market has moved. It does not tell us what we must pay. A framework should provide discipline. But applying it still requires judgement.

(In English): A framework should provide discipline, but applying it still requires judgement.

(In Malay): The Prime Minister has looked at that benchmark and exercised restraint: a one-off adjustment of up to 9%, not an immediate leap to the new figure. I support that judgement precisely because he did not simply follow a formula.

We should not want a Prime Minister who pays Ministers because a spreadsheet says so. We should want a Prime Minister who has the room, and takes the room, to decide what is appropriate and takes into account all factors including the lived realities of ordinary Singaporeans. And I might add, who holds himself to no lower a standard than he is asking this House to accept.

At this juncture, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. Will the Prime Minister claim tax relief on his donations? In my view, the Prime Minister should not be financially worse off as a result of his decision to personally donate his salary increase to suitable charities. There is a second change that I think matters just as much: widening the salary ranges. This is especially timely as we renew our political leadership.

When someone first steps into political office, we know the weight of the job they are taking on – but we do not yet know how they will carry it. A system should not treat appointment as proof of performance. A wider range gives the Prime Minister room to bring in people with deep experience and substantial expertise, and to recognise people who prove themselves exceptional.

It also means we do not have to assume, on day one, that every new office holder is already a fully proven performer. Equally we should not assume that excellence in one sector – whether public, private, the labour movement, academia or civil society – automatically translates into excellence in political leadership. People enter political leadership from very different sectors, with very different pay structures and very different trade-offs. Some may be coming with decades of experience and a substantial pay package behind them. Others may come with less experience or from sectors where remuneration is much lower.

They should all have a fair opportunity to serve. But we do not want entry into politics to feel like striking the lottery. Public office is not a prize. It is a responsibility. At the same time, we should not allow the financial structure to exclude capable Singaporeans simply because they come from sectors or backgrounds that pay less.

A wider range allows us to recognise the responsibility when someone takes office and then lets performance speak for itself. Appointment should open the door. Performance should determine how far someone progresses through it. I think that is a healthier principle for a system that is renewing its leadership.

Mr Speaker, I have spent my entire career in the private sector, and I have seen what senior compensation can and cannot do. Compensation matters – it can draw someone to consider a role. But it has not, in my experience, usually been the only reason someone chooses to actually take it or not.

Even in the private sector, people weigh purpose. They weigh the calibre of the people and the culture of organisation they will work with. They weigh their parents' needs, their spouse's feelings, their children's parent teacher meetings, and what little personal time they have left over. They ask whether what they might contribute is worth what they would give up.

What more in politics? Political leadership asks for an unusually large sacrifice of privacy and family time in exchange for an unusually large share of responsibility. So, I will not stand here and argue that Ministers should be paid what the market pays top chief executive officers (CEOs). Government is not a company and political leadership is not simply another executive role. The framework recognises the ethos of public service through a 40% discount to the benchmark, and I am glad it does.

But I will say this plainly: money should never be the reason someone enters public service. And it should never be the unnecessary reason someone does not.

(In English): Money should never be the reason someone enters public service, and it should never be the unnecessary reason someone does not. I hear a version of the same sentence quite often from capable people across many fields. I am sure everyone in this House has heard something similar. It goes something like this, "I'm glad you are doing it because I wouldn't."

(In Malay): I am glad you are doing it, because I would not.

(In English): It is usually meant as a compliment and take it as one, but I also listen to what sits underneath it. These are people who respect the work, people who could possibly contribute as MPs, as political office holders and people who have looked honestly at what public life would ask of them and decided they cannot make that choice. That "no" never makes the news.

Nobody writes a headline about the leader who never comes forward, but every time I hear that sentence, I ask myself what exactly made the answer no, and whether money was an unnecessary part of it. I do not know how many of those decisions a potential 9% adjustment would change, but I do know that we should not make the choice harder than it already is or needs to be.

(In Malay): There is a Malay proverb: "melentur buluh biarlah dari rebungnya" – you shape the bamboo while it is still a shoot.

We cannot wait until we are short of leaders to start thinking about whether the kind of Singaporeans we need, to take our country forward are willing and able to come forward.

As we confront a more complex and challenging future, Singapore needs political leaderships that draws on the most capable people from different backgrounds – from the public service, private sector, business, law, medicine, academia, technology, civil society and other fields.

In my work and interactions with global companies and their leadership teams, global chief executive officers (CEOs) repeatedly point to Singapore as the case study – the place where governance just works. But it does not happen by accident, and it is not built by the civil service alone, or by political leadership alone. It works because of both together.

Our public service gives us enormous institutional capability. But there are decisions only political leaders can make – decisions involving difficult trade-offs, where the consequences may not become clear for years, and where someone must ultimately be willing to take responsibility for the choice. We should want the best people we can find to take on that responsibility.

(In English): Mr Speaker, if we ask this House and our fellow Singaporeans to recognise the sacrifice, we must also be honest about performance, because the two cannot be separated. Our system already ties part of remuneration – 35% – to performance, and I support that principle. The National Bonus is built on objective indicators, median income growth, income growth for our lowest earners, unemployment and gross domestic product (GDP), and I welcome that the targets behind them are being tightened further.

I also welcome the introduction of a quality-of-life measure, and I hope the Minister will share more on the thinking of how this will be developed. What is perhaps somewhat less understood is the individual performance bonus and how individual performance of our political office holders is assessed. This is quite relevant, as under the revised arrangement, the Prime Minister will now also have the discretion to make subsequent salary adjustments tied to individual performance and responsibilities.

But I would resist the temptation to think of performance only in numbers that fit neatly on a scorecard. The truest test of political leadership are harder to tabulate. Did they make the difficult call before it became the obvious one? Did they prepare Singapore for a crisis before it had a name and prove their mettle in a crisis? Did ordinary lives actually get better because of what they did? Did they leave our institutions stronger than they found them? And when something went wrong on their watch, did they stand up and take responsibility?

These things are harder to measure than profit or share price than GDP, unemployment rate or income growth, but difficult to measure does not mean impossible or optional to assess. I am not asking for individual assessments to be made public. Confidentiality serves a legitimate purpose, but confidentiality should never become vagueness about principle.

Singaporeans are entitled to know that the bar for our political leaders is exceptionally high and they should have confidence that exceptional performance is generally recognised, and that poor performance has consequences. Can the Minister confirm that a robust structure exists to assess and recognise performance? Can the Minister provide clarity on the principles used to assess Ministerial performance?

Mr Speaker, I began this speech with how public service is about responsibility, privilege and sacrifice, but I want to correct myself. It goes beyond responsibility. There is a Malay word "amanah", something entrusted to you that you did not create and do not own, but which you are responsible for protecting and must one day account for. An amanah is not a gift and is not simply a wage. It is something valuable placed in your hands by people who trust you to safeguard it, and an amanah that is never accounted for is not really an amanah at all.

The same instinct that tells us to trust our leaders with real responsibility must also require us to hold them to real account; you cannot have the first without demanding the second.

Sir, I reach for a Malay word because it is the one I grew up with at home in the mosque from my parents and grandparents, but the concept is not uniquely Malay. Every community has its own way of describing a trust that is bigger than the person who holds it and that must be handed on in better condition than it was received. That is what public service is supposed to mean in any language.

Mr Speaker, this is where I land. We should recognise the sacrifice because it is real and it falls not only on those who serve, but on the families who stand beside them. We should honour the privilege because very few people will ever be entrusted with it, and we should demand the amanah – the accountability, the standard, the humility that must come with it. Updating the benchmark does not lighten that demand. It sharpens it. And widening the range does not weaken accountability, it strengthens the principle that appointment is not the end of the test, it is the beginning of it.

The purpose of a credible system is not to tell those that are already in office that they are owed more. It is to make sure that when the Prime Minister looks for the next generation of Singaporeans willing to serve, including the ones who right now are telling a friend, I am glad you are doing it because I would not. Money is not the unnecessary reason they quietly closed the door, and it is to ensure that those who prove themselves exceptionally have room to be recognised.

I will go back and tell my nasi campur makcik in Woodlands the same thing I have told this House. Her instinct to question the number is fair and always will be. But the question is really about the kind of political leadership Singapore needs, and whether we have a system that can continue to attract capable Singaporeans, judge them fairly, recognise performance and hold them to the trust we place in them. And whether we get the balance right will ultimately be judged not by what we debate today, but by whether the people we entrust with leadership continue to live up to that trust.

Recognise the sacrifice, honour the privilege, demand the amanah. (In Malay): Iktiraf pengorbanan. Hargai penghormatan. Tuntut amanah.

That is what I came into this House believing public service means it is what I still believe and hold today. [Applause.]

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.

Mr Speaker, political salaries will inevitably stir strong reaction. It is never entirely comfortable for any Parliament to debate how political office holders should be paid. Singapore has chosen a clean wage approach. Political remuneration is published. There are no hidden perks, and the framework is independently reviewed and debated in this house.

We may disagree about the benchmark, the discount or how performance should be rewarded, but that transparency is itself a strength we should not take for granted. I also acknowledge the Prime Minister's decision to donate the full increase in his salary for the next five years or during his term. That is a personal decision, but the gesture should be recognised and it sends a clear message about his intentions that the salary increases are not about personal financial gain, but about ensuring that Singapore can continue to draw from and recognise capable people willing to serve.

But today, we are discussing a compensation system with implications well beyond any one individual's intentions and potentially beyond a single term. So, my questions are not simply whether political office holders are paid too much or too little, they are whether we are valuing the right skills, rewarding the right outcomes and enabling capable people with the motivation to serve to step forward.

I have three areas for the Government to consider.

First, are we using the right reference group to benchmark Ministerial compensation? I accept the principle that Ministers should be compensated adequately. We should not design a system in which only those who are independently wealthy or willing to make very large financial sacrifices can afford to serve. The question is therefore how we determine what fair compensation should look like.

There are two questions here that should be this that should be kept distinct. The first is what constitutes fair compensation for the role of a Minister and the second is a recruitment question – how broad a pool of potential candidates should compensation seek to keep open?

What someone could earn elsewhere is relevant to the recruitment question, but it does not by itself tell us what the role of a Minister is fairly worth. These questions are related, but they are not the same today.

The MR4 benchmark is based on the median income of the top 1,000 Singapore Citizen earners, before applying the 40% discount for political service. The occupational breakdown is quite concentrated: 54.1% are in senior management positions; another 35.3% are in financial services; and the remaining 10.6% are professionals, such as lawyers, accountants, doctors and engineers.

How comparable are these roles to that of a Minister? A corporate executive may run a large and complex organisation, but the mandate is still bounded by organisational performance with economic outcomes as a central priority. For a Minister, economic performance is also critically important, but it is only one part of the mandate. A Minister must reconcile economic performance with distributional consequences, social cohesion, land constraints, national security resilience and inter-generational trade-offs.

A financial trader may also earn very large sums by taking a leveraged position or exploiting arbitrage opportunities. That may require exceptional judgement, but it is very different from leading institutions, designing national policy and reconciling competing interests over long horizons. The fact that the role is highly paid does not by itself make it comparable to that of a Minister.

My point, Sir, is not that people from these professions should not be recruited into political office. Some may make excellent political leaders. My question is why income should determine membership in the comparative group in the first place. The primary benchmark starts with those who earn the most and uses their earnings as its reference point.

I suggest testing a different approach. Start with roles that reflect the skills, judgement, complexity and weight of responsibility we expect of political office holders, and that includes responsibility for decisions affecting Singaporeans, both today and far into the future. Then, examine what people in those roles actually earn.

I am not suggesting we abandon the current approach, but perhaps future reviews should test the top 1,000 benchmark against a role-based comparator constructed on this basis.

Whichever comparator group we use, there is a related question: how representative is a single year's income of what those individuals typically earn over time? If somebody earns $3 million today, do they typically command that income for three years, five years or 10 years? Or do earnings fluctuate because of bonus cycles, equity, realisation, business profits, or particularly good years?

Persistence may also differ across occupations. Some partnerships in professional services have retirement or tenure limits. Professionals whose earnings depend heavily on personal practice, such as surgeons, may also face a finite period of peak earning capacity.

So, annual realised income is not necessarily representative of long-term compensation. And because Ministerial service typically unfolds over several years, we should also ask whether a one-year snapshot gives a representative picture of what people in that comparative group earn over a similar period.

That is why I suggest examining three- or five-year average earnings, rather than relying only on a single year's realised income. If the same people consistently command similar incomes over several years, then a one-year snapshot may be reasonable. But if there is substantial turnover of volatility, it tells us what someone earned in that year is not necessarily what people in comparable roles typically earn over a longer period.

On the second question, Sir, how wide the talent pool we should keep open. Minister Chan has said that pay should ensure capable people are not deterred, but also that financial reward should not be their primary attraction. I agree wholeheartedly. Hence, if political office is already fairly compensated and someone is still unwilling to serve unless we come close to matching an exceptional private sector income, then that may tell us something about the importance of financial return in that person's decision.

Political compensation need not be designed to closely match every opportunity a potential candidate might have outside government, but neither should lower pay become a test of commitment – which brings me to the second area: the ethos of public service and what we reward.

The public may understandably worry that high salaries will attract people for the wrong reasons, or that financial incentives may crowd out the motivation to serve, but research on motivation and meaningful work suggest that the relationship is not so simple. Being fairly compensated need not diminish how deeply people care about the purpose of their work. Those who experience their work as deeply meaningful or as a calling are often willing to persist through difficulty and contribute beyond what is formally required. But their willingness to give more should not itself become a reason to pay them less. There is a difference between someone willingly accepting sacrifice because of a sense of service and designing a compensation system that requires financial sacrifice as evidence of that service.

And this leads me, Sir, to question the 40% discount, which the Committee's report describes as reflecting the ethos of political service.

But if we first establish an appropriate benchmark based on genuinely comparable roles, I am not convinced that the logic warrants a discount to begin with. Political office also imposes burdens many comparable leadership roles do not – intense public scrutiny, loss of privacy, reputational risk and the possibility that family members are drawn into unwanted public attention.

In labour markets, unusually demanding or unattractive features of a job can justify a compensating premium. So, why should political office automatically require a discount? The question here is what the work is, responsibilities and its distinctive burdens are fairly worth. But once we establish a credible role-based benchmark, these distinctive burdens should also be reflected in that adjustment. In my view, they support a compensating premium rather than an automatic discount.

That addresses the level of pay, but the separate question is how we assess performance and what we choose to reward through pay.

The current National Bonus uses four indicators covering economic growth, unemployment and income growth at the median and lower end. These are important measures, and I welcome the Committee's recognition that quality of life should be considered, and the Government's agreement to explore this. That is a useful step forward.

But Sir, the current measures largely tell us how Singapore is performing now. Some of our most difficult challenges unfold over much longer horizons: demographic sustainability, social mobility, climate adaptation, social cohesion. It is possible for a government to perform well on growth, employment and current incomes, while long-term capacities continue to decline.

So, I ask whether the Government would consider assessing our progress on indicators that reflect Singapore's capacity to thrive over the medium and long term. I am not suggesting that we simply add total fertility rate (TFR), climate outcomes or social mobility as annual targets for the National Bonus. Many of these outcomes move slowly, and they are affected by many factors and are only partly within Government's control. So, not everything that is important should become a key performance indicator (KPI), and not every KPI should become a bonus target.

Instead, I suggest that the Government develop a long-term national stewardship scorecard alongside the National Bonus framework, assessing three-to-five-year progress towards long horizon outcomes and milestones. The Government can then decide which measures belong in financial incentives and which are better used for public accountability. The broader question is whether our framework should assess not only how well Singapore performs today, but whether today's leaders leave Singapore stronger for tomorrow.

My third area, Sir, concerns MPs. I support the Committee's recommendation to study a basis for MP allowance that is delinked from the MR4 benchmark. There is obviously some overlap in roles because Ministers are also MPs. But an MP is not simply a fractional Minister. The parliamentary and representative role itself should be valued on its own terms.

So, as with Ministerial compensation, we should begin with the role itself, its responsibilities, its weight of decisions, the time commitment, constituency responsibilities, legislative work and public accountability. Then, identify an appropriate comparative group and develop a standalone MP benchmark.

But Sir, I think we should go one step further. We should also ask whether being an MP should be financially and professionally sustainable as one's primary commitment. I am not arguing that MP should be prohibited from holding another job. There is indeed value in members remaining connected to professions, businesses and communities outside politics, but neither should our system assume, that MP must maintain a substantial second career while carrying demanding parliamentary and constituency responsibilities.

This is partly about burnout. Public service is not strengthened if members are routinely stretched to the point where they cannot continue giving their best over many years, but it is also about who can realistically enter politics. A system that works best for people with unusually accommodating employers, flexible careers, or considerable financial resources may unintentionally narrow the political talent pool.

A sustainable MP role could make political service more realistic for mid-career Singaporeans, people with family responsibilities and those whose occupations cannot easily accommodate two demanding roles. This should matter regardless of political affiliation. If we want Singaporeans to have good choices at the ballot box, we should also ensure that capable Singaporeans have a realistic choice to put themselves forward.

Mr Speaker, my suggestions are therefore not principally about finding a higher or lower number. They are about improving the architecture of the system.

First, identify roles that fairly reflect the skills, judgement and the weight of responsibility expected of our political office holders, and test the top 1000 benchmark against a role-based comparator.

Second, examine the trajectory and persistence of earnings rather than relying only on a one-year snapshot when establishing the compensation benchmark.

Third, once we have a credible comparator, replace the application of a political service discount with an adjustment that reflects the distinctive burden of political office. In my view, those burdens support a compensating premium.

Fourth, complement measures of current national performance with longer horizon over with a longer horizon view of stewardship.

Fifth, develop a standalone role-based framework for MP remuneration.

And sixth, review whether the MP role itself is sustainable so that those who step forward can continue giving their best to Singaporeans over the long term.

Ultimately, the question is not simply about how much we pay. It is whether the system fairly recognises the skills required, the weight of responsibility and the distinctive burdens of political leadership, whether it rewards stewardship of both the present and the future, and whether it keeps the door open to capable Singaporeans who have both the ability and the motivation to serve.

Dr Tan See Leng.

Mr Speaker, allow me to begin with some personal reflections. For more than three decades before entering politics, I was in the private sector, practising first as a doctor. I later became involved in the business of healthcare as an entrepreneur, a founder of a healthcare enterprise, and subsequently as the head of a global private healthcare conglomerate

Medicine has a way of teaching you what truly matters. When I was a young student, my mother fell seriously ill, and this was the reason why I changed the course of my life and chose to study medicine instead. Medicine taught me a profound lesson. We always see, assess, we address the person holistically, before you diagnose, before you assess his problem. Before you even think about a diagnosis, you make efforts to listen and to comfort. Before you prescribe, you understand.

In those days in the 1980s, we were taught as students that we cure seldom, we relieve often, but we must always, always comfort our patients.

Over the years, my responsibilities grew beyond the consult room. I was privileged to lead healthcare organisations and businesses, with the opportunity to shape not just individual patient care, but healthcare systems that served hundreds of thousands of people. It was deeply meaningful and fulfilling work. It challenged me intellectually. It stretched me as a leader and yes, it also rewarded me handsomely.

Yet, with each new responsibility came the same enduring lesson. My career decisions are my own but they have far-ranging effects on the people that I care about. To begin with, my family, my loved ones, my patients as well as employees, my business partners, stakeholders and investors – and the list goes on.

My career trajectory was exciting. I was able to build, consolidate, reinforce a global platform to deliver more accessible and specialised care to patients around the world. I also had opportunities to do important deals, successfully acquire, integrate companies and put Singapore's healthcare industry onto the world map.

For someone who came from humble beginnings, I did not have an easy time filling these multiple roles. There were multiple twists and turns, and inevitable hard knocks. At times, the road ahead seemed daunting and the burdens I carried too heavy. But I was fortunate, blessed to meet many people along the way. Many of them became good friends, partners, mentors, supporters; all helpers in my travails.

People often ask me why I left all this behind. The truth is there was not a single defining moment that led me to leave my fulfilling career for the hurly-burly of politics. It was a gradual but a growing inner realisation that whatever experience I had accumulated over those years in the private sector could perhaps be put to good use in a different way, not just to change a few lives at a time or to build an organisation, but to give back to my country and my people. And so, when the opportunity came to serve, I stepped forward.

I have often wondered how things would have been like if I had the opportunity to serve earlier, come in into politics in my 40s and not in my 50s. I have never regretted my years as a practising family physician nor have I regretted as a healthcare entrepreneur, for those years when you struggled through, shaped me into who I am today.

But throughout my three decades in the private sector, I have also always viewed public service as a special calling; a special but tough calling. And true enough, that is what I found out when I came into the Government in 2020. The Government is unlike any organisation I have ever worked in. Every issue has multiple, many facets. No problem you encounter is a simple one. Each and every decision you make involves intense deliberation and consideration. And often you find yourself choosing between difficult trade-offs because each policy potentially affects millions of lives and far into the future.

For me, the learning curve was not just steep; it was humbling. And Members of the House, it still is today.

Even after decades of experience in leadership, I find myself having to learn something new every single day – learning how the Government really works, how policies intersect, learning to listen better, balancing competing interests and learning that good intentions alone are never enough. In fact, I still ask myself sometimes: did I make the right choice coming into politics? Have I given up too much? Am I really doing good to justify my choice of public service?

The reality is that political service demands significantly more from those who choose to serve. The hours are longer. The responsibilities are heavier. Every decision is scrutinised, and there is little separation between public duty and private life.

Running a Ministry is not a matter of chance or ruling of the dice, like "tikam tikam". You cannot make spur of the moment decisions: "Anyhow also can". It takes time, measured, calibrated deliberation to make the right policy calls. It takes careful consideration.

There are times I wish I could have been better equipped for public office. Perhaps, if I had a longer runway, I could, in time, have contributed more, been more useful to Singapore.

But Members of the House, therein lies the conundrum. For young professional executives, it is not easy to step away from careers that they have spent years, sometimes decades, building. Careers providing for loved ones, pursuing new opportunities, negotiating ambitious deals, climbing the corporate ladder. Give up all this and make a hard pivot into full-time public service just before you reach your peak in the private sector.

This reflection brings me to the issue before us today. Speaking only for myself, no realistic level of Ministerial salary could have matched what I was earning before I joined the Government. And I could have gone on earning, chasing, making exciting new deals, setting up new enterprises for many more years had I stayed in the private sector. The reality is, had money been my primary consideration, I would have never entered politics. But I just felt I had to give back to the country and the people who had given me so much.

I know that my own circumstances are unique. I cannot speak for everyone who is faced with the dilemma of either continuing to pursue their own careers or stepping into the uncertainties of public office. In my case, by the time I entered politics, I had already spent decades building many companies in the private sector. I had achieved more than what I have ever dared to dream of when I first started my business as a young 27-year-old. I had the financial security and independence to make decisions entirely based on my own political convictions with less regard for the personal financial consequences of my decision. I recognise that this is a privilege that most Singaporeans will not have.

Imagine then, I had a lot of brilliant surgeons who were my colleagues in the private sector and in the public sector. But someone like my colleague, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, when he entered politics, or my former colleague, Dr Ng Eng Hen, their Ministerial salaries could never have matched what they gave up financially. Or perhaps an entrepreneur whose company is just taking off or someone in finance who has burnt countless midnight candles over many years and is finally starting to see big rewards for his hard work. Or a rapidly rising mid-career executive supporting ageing parents while raising his own children. These are exactly the kinds of people whose experiences Singapore might benefit from if they chose public service. People who come into politics in their prime have enough runway to learn the ropes from their seniors and then make lasting contributions to Singapore.

I can assure the House, based on my own experience, that when we ask such talents to enter public service, we are also asking them to make considerable changes to their lives. And undoubtedly, for their spouses, their loved ones and their children, there would be some sacrifices as well. Yet, and yes, we hope many will still answer the call.

But please do not forget that at a personal level, there is much that they must be prepared to give up as well – time, future opportunities, personal goals, privacy. Financial remuneration then becomes one of the many opportunity costs on that list. And inevitably some will conclude that the sum total is just too high for them to walk away. If that happens too often, Singapore loses, not because these people whom we reach out to lack the heart to serve but because the personal price becomes too great.

And that is why this debate is not about whether public service should be motivated by money. There is no question – it must never be motivated by financial profit.

Nor is it about ensuring that Ministers can earn what they would have earned in the private sector. That is simply not possible, not only for someone like me but also younger professionals and corporate leaders, as that is the reality.

The question is more fundamental: can Singapore continue to have people of ability, integrity and experience from every walk of life in political service? Not only those who have already made their fortunes, but also those in the prime of their working lives, when they are freshest and perhaps more valuable over the long run. If we make entry into the public service come at too high a personal cost for too many capable Singaporeans, then over time, we will indeed narrow the pool from which our country can draw its leaders from. And Members of the House, that would be a far greater cost than any salary we debate in this House.

Ultimately, public service is a high calling. But even callings require deliberate choices. Our responsibility is to ensure that when good Singaporeans are given the privilege to serve, their answers will depend on their willingness and ability and less on whether their own families or their loved ones would also have to share steep financial costs.

Mr Speaker, I count myself fortunate that when I was asked to serve, I was in a position to say yes. It has been, it is, it will always be a privilege to serve our beloved country and our Singaporeans.

My hope is that when younger Singaporeans in the private sector are asked the same question in the future, we will not have made it unnecessarily harder or progressively more difficult for them. Because at the end of the day, the strength of our Government depends not on what we pay those who serve but on whether we can continue to recruit the best people to serve.

And that, Mr Speaker, hon Members of the House, that is an investment in Singapore's future that will always be worth making. [Applause.]

Dr Haresh Singaraju.

Mr Speaker, as a family physician myself, I echo Dr Tan's points on what medicine teaches, especially service and seeing one as a whole person. My speech will touch on the latter.

Sir, for 60 years, Singapore has been led by people able to act, one hard decision at a time. Two of the hardest have been who leads next and how they are paid. Pay is a private matter for most of us; in Government it cannot be. The leaders we need are not only the ablest, they are the ones with the character to take a hard decision and pay the price for it early. Pay does not make such people; it decides whether enough of them come forward.

The Committee has reported, the Government has responded. What I want to speak is what should come with that response. The Minister named three principles the framework rests on: calibre, commitment, clean. I add a fourth: clear. A clear Government says what it is set out to do and whether it did it.

Today, part of political pay is fixed, the rest moves. Part depends on four national numbers: how fast economy grows; how fast real incomes grow for the family, for the middle and for the lowest fifth; and how many citizens are out of work; part depends on the Prime Minister's view of each of them. Both are fair, but the plainest test of a Government is whether it reaches the outcomes it has set for itself.

The Government already reports those outcomes, every two years it publishes the Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review, how we have fared in health, housing, jobs and schools. It is a good report, but it tells us how we fared, it does not say what we set out to reach, so nothing in it can be missed.

My first ask is therefore for each outcome the Government already reports, say what it aimed for, what it reached and what it did not, on one page that anyone can read. Where an outcome takes 10 years or so, say so, and show the milestones. Where it cannot be shown for security or for talks still underway, say that too. Be open on what can be open.

The Minister said governing well means being upfront with our people. I agree. This is what upfront looks like on paper. It helps the Government more than it checks it. A promise made in public is more likely to be kept. A missed, explained with a plan to fix it is honesty; and honesty is how a country learns.

Singaporeans will be critical. We are. But we know the difference between a Government that tells them and one they had to find out about, and they will give credit for the first.

Yes, the ballot box holds the Government to account, but five years is a long time to wait to find out what is working.

My second ask is the one I care about most: measure whether Singaporeans are living well. The four numbers tell us whether Singapore is growing and whether Singaporeans are earning. They do not tell us whether Singaporeans are living well. I see the gap in the clinic every week, a patient with a job, a flat, children to raise and parents to care for, whose income is rising, and yet is not living well. The outcomes review tells us more, but it moves no one's pay.

The Committee saw this and suggested a quality-of-life measure. The Government agreed to explore a robust one. That is one of the most important sentences in the whole response, and it has had the least attention.

Sir, that robust measure has to be built, so I ask three things. Who will build it? When will this House see it? And whether it will be published, even if it never counts towards a bonus? Whether it moves a bonus matter to a few, whether it moves a Budget matters to everyone.

Sir, allow me to say a few words in Tamil, please.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Singapore doing well is not the same as Singaporeans living well. Political pay rests mostly on the first. I humbly ask the Government to start measuring the second as well.

(In English): Sir, in translation, Singapore doing well is not the same as Singaporeans living well. Political pay rests mostly on the first. I ask the Government to start measuring the second.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

Sir, every political system must answer one unavoidable question. How should those entrusted with the highest offices of government be remunerated? Every political system has to compensate its political office holders. Do we look at other countries? Sometimes, yes; sometimes, no; often, no.

Take the United Kingdom (UK), for example, once a byword for rectitude and probity among its public servants. Ministerial salaries there have been frozen for years, causing them to fall significantly in real terms over time. Britain has repeatedly found itself in difficult situations. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson became embroiled in controversy over a Conservative Party donor financing the refurbishment of his Downing Street flat.

Unfortunately, the questions do not end when politicians leave office. In other words and in other countries, many senior public officials routinely move between government and major corporations, investment banks, lobbying organisations and other private firms. To them, public office is often merely one chapter in a much longer professional career.

For example, former UK's Prime Minister Tony Blair went on to build an extensive portfolio of advisory appointments, consultancy work and speaking engagements after leaving 10 Downing Street. This phenomenon is not unique to the UK. In the United States, the Americans called it the revolving door. Even former Presidents have earned substantial sums through books, speaking engagements and corporate deals after leaving office.

Again, there is nothing inherently unlawful about any of thisthis, but ‒ and here is the nub ‒ it illustrates a very different model of politics from ours. Financial rewards may not come during public office, they come afterwards in some other countries. Such a system creates different incentives. If politicians know that their future careers may depend on relationships built while in office, the public will inevitably wonder whether today's decisions are made solely in the national interest or whether tomorrow's opportunities are also at the back of the minds of their leaders.

From the beginning with the founding Prime Minister, Singapore deliberately chose a different path. Rather than expecting Ministers to rely on gifts, outside interest or other lucrative opportunities after leaving office, Singapore compensates them transparently through a clean wage, one that is sufficient to ensure that they are not incentivised to look elsewhere to make up the difference.

It means every Singaporean knows exactly how Ministers are remunerated. There are also no hidden allowances, no need to spend one's time in office preparing for the next career. You try to cultivate outside interest for personal gain before you leave office, you could well be invited to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.

Our system preserves the independence of our Ministers as good government requires. Political courage to push for the right thing, to see it through for the long term has been critical to Singapore's success. Finding good people is paramount but keeping them in means setting up political careers for longevity.

We ask our Ministers to make difficult decisions that may not always be popular – building reserves instead of spending them, restructuring industries before crises emerge, investing for future generations, making choices whose benefits may only become apparent years later. They must be able to do so without worrying about planning or pleasing benefactors, cultivating future employers or positioning themselves for life after politics.

This is what our model of Ministerial salaries seeks to guarantee: that Ministers owe their loyalty, judgement and decisions to one group only ‒ Singaporeans.

I turn now to the load on Parliament. Everyone in this House – Speaker, staff, Members, the whole team – the increased load on Members. And here I speak as a backbencher and not in my capacity as Deputy Speaker.

Be it Government MPs, non-Government MPs, Non-Constituency MPs, Nominated MPs, one cannot disagree that the load has increased exponentially over the last 15 years. One need only look at the Motions, Adjournment Motions and Parliamentary Questions filed, the number of supplementary questions, the number of Committee of Supply cuts that traverse multiple multi-faceted areas of legislation. Across all facets, Members of this House must make increasingly difficult trade-offs and find more nuanced solutions.

Another aspect of this increased load is the accessibility of the MP. When I first had the privilege of joining this House in 2006, accessibility to MPs was by and large limited to personal interactions – physical interactions, market visits, home visits and community events. These are all still valuable, significant and important.

But the world has changed. Social media, email and messaging platforms have expanded the platforms and opportunities for access to MPs. And rightly so. MPs should be contactable, answerable and able to lend a listening ear and come up with joint solutions in partnering residents through difficulties.

So, this is not a complaint. It is an expression of the rightful duties we must all discharge in this House. We owe a duty to each and every resident we serve.

But the flip side of that is exponential increases in time and effort deployed in shepherding and tending to our people's aspirations and concerns. Put together, no one can seriously argue that the load on such Members has not increased significantly.

Thankfully, nobody takes up a legislative role in this House for monetary reasons. And this, I think I see convergence in Mr Pritam Singh's position and my position. One must be quite mistaken to be attracted to this work for the wage. It is a vocation, calling and duty, not merely a career. There is an ethos of public service which must undergird political service. Then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong put it well during the last major debate on this topic in 2012. I, too, was in this House. The ethos of public service, he said, is critical if you are coming into politics. I agree. I agreed then, and I still agree today.

So, on the question of MPs just going on inflation as the basis for the increase in remuneration for Members of this House is, in principle, the correct thing to do. I support that. I also agree that the increase should not be designed to compensate existing MPs for the exponential increase in the work by paying longer serving MPs more than first-term MPs.

We should all start on this footing together, no matter your vintage or number of years in this House. And equally, the allowance must never dilute the ethos of public service.

Sir, principle. Mr Speaker, if we can agree on the facts, we naturally then turn to the principle. I had spent some time speaking about the workload of Members of the House because for our political office holders, this is the foundation of their work. A political office holder is an MP first, before taking on leadership positions in the Executive or in Parliament. If we can all agree that Parliamentary responsibilities have increased, then by natural extension, what more those in leadership positions, in Parliament or in the Executive?

I have had the privilege of working with various Ministers over the last two decades. Their work is extremely demanding. If anything, policy-making today is even more multi-faceted, multi-jurisdictional and multi-dimensional than 10 or even 15 years ago. In fact, the increased load in legislative work in this House translates into corresponding greater loads outside the House, in the Executive, Cabinet and so on, in having to formulate, explain and enforce policies.

So, what do we do? The present framework arose from the review undertaken in 2011. The revision then was downward, not upward. Downward. Political salary norms have thereafter remained unchanged for 15 years. That is a long time.

A significant quote in Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's Statement in this House on Tuesday was this: "The idea that we can have less capable Ministers sitting above a first-rate civil service and everything will somehow continue to work, is a fantasy."

I completely agree.

Indeed, then-Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said during the 2012 Debate, and I listened to it first-hand here, "Ministers should be paid properly so that Singapore will have capable and committed leadership over the long term."

Marrying those two quotes, one in 2026, one 14 years ago; we have the premise for what we have to advance today.

One can look at remuneration from a purely numbers perspective or from a perspective of responsibility. When I was asked to come into Parliament, I had no idea what an MP's allowance was, so it was not a determining factor. I think I am in convergence with Mr Pritam Singh on saying that.

But having been in Parliament, I now better understand the full breadth and depth of our Executive and Legislature. I appreciate that the responsibility of the office must at least be somewhat commensurate to the remuneration of the office holder, with a substantial discount to reflect the ethos of public service.

Let me give some examples of men from previous Governments with whom I have had the privilege of working.

The first is Prof S Jayakumar. It is impossible to fully articulate in a form of words Prof Jaya's contributions to Singapore – in Law, in Home Affairs, in his analysis of Pedra Branca, his acumen and decision to storm SQ117 and take out the hijackers. Calm, collected, surgical. I have watched him when I had the privilege of overlapping with Prof Jaya in this House from 2006 to 2011.

Former Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, a man I deeply respect. He was Admiral, the first one-star Chief of Navy, then Minister, then Coordinating Minister for National Security. He had the responsibility to make tough decisions to keep Singapore safe as Minister for Defence and Minister for Home Affairs.

I have learnt first-hand from Senior Minister Teo. I travelled with him – North Africa, the Gulf, Europe – always looking over the horizon to ensure we are safe in Singapore. Intelligence networks, defence networks.

On a flight from Cairo to Paris, we are at 33,000 feet in the air, both dog tired from multiple meetings in North Africa. What was Senior Minister Teo doing? He took out Jane's Defence Weekly and other defence journals. He was reading up on next generation weapon systems for Singapore.

His focus was to go to the ends of the earth to keep Singapore safe and secure.

How do we quantify that? You cannot. That is why remuneration is not an attempt to put a dollar value on a person's contribution. It is, in my view, rather, an attempt to have a sensible framework where responsibility is recognised and the ethos of public service remains firmly embedded.

Facts, principle, I have dealt with both, Sir. I now turn to conviction.

Everyone in this House serves with conviction. Not only the political office holders. Backbenchers too serve with conviction.

Look, for example, at Mr Liang Eng Hwa. We have been teammates, comrades for 21 years. First as Holland-Bukit Timah GRC teammates, then he fought for Bukit Panjang in 2020. He won. Tough fight. Worked his guts out. Contracted nose cancer, concentrated on his recovery, went back to work, fought in 2025 and won with an even better margin. [Applause.] He continues to serve religiously and diligently.

This is conviction. That is what binds all Members of this House together.

There is a Member in this House who has had to fight cancer twice and faithfully continued to keep Singapore as his precious cause. He is still here in this House today, fighting for Singapore alongside a newer team. Conviction.

At this juncture, Sir, allow me to say something about our Legislative and Secretarial Assistants. It is a matter that, in fact, I brought up to head of Public Service, Minister Chan Chun Sing this week. While they were not mentioned in the report, it should be emphasised that demands on them have correspondingly increased, along with increased demands on every Member of this House. I do hope their allowances will be re-assessed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I conclude. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said on Tuesday, "It is ultimately about whether Singapore will continue to have the quality of political leadership we need to take our country forward." That, to me, is the essence and soul of this debate.

I have been an MP for 20 years. Ours is a vocation, a calling, a duty. Let us remember – no amount could ever recompense leaders, like Prof Jayakumar, Senior Minister Teo and so many others like them. We need giants like these going forward.

Looking around at this House today – do we have the equivalent ability, dedication and conviction now? Yes. We certainly have them – in individuals and as a team together. And we will need to also look for the next generation of leaders.

The report plus the two Statements on Tuesday display how in Singapore, courage, conviction and principle are put ahead of political expediency. I am willing to put myself behind this initiative and I enjoin the whole House to support it. [Applause.]

Assoc Prof Terence Ho.

Mr Speaker, it has been 15 years since the salary of political appointment holders and MPs were last revised. In the meantime, prices and wages in Singapore have risen considerably. A revision of salaries is therefore timely. However, the argument to raise salaries, particularly those of Ministers and political office holders, is not an easy or straightforward one to make. There are at least two reasons for this.

First, because we want leaders who serve out of sense of duty and passion for the country rather than pecuniary considerations; and second, because political talent and capability cannot simply be measured by the market wage that one commands. The argument for higher pay must be framed sensitively in a way that the public can understand and accept.

The Government must be particularly careful to avoid giving the impression that the only talent who are valued are those who command high salaries or that would be impossible to attract capable, competent people to political office without high wages. Otherwise, the argument for raising Ministerial wages will not land.

Broadly speaking, potential recruits to political office could fall into one of three groups.

The first are those for whom salary matters little. Among them are some who have already accumulated considerable wealth so that pay is no longer a key consideration for them. The second group may come from sectors and occupations that do not pay premium wages, or they may have yet to reach the senior, high-paying position within the organisations. For them, taking up political office may not entail a financial sacrifice and could in some cases mean an increase in income. But for the third group, compensation may be a deciding factor in whether they try for political office. These could be senior permanent secretaries in the public sector or successful professionals or executives in the private sector for whom any significant drop in pay could affect their financial commitments.

While I do not know the size of the third group, appropriate compensation can help ensure that we do not unnecessarily narrow the pool of senior professionals from whom political leaders might be recruited. This matters to Singapore for the reasons the Prime Minister highlighted in his Ministerial Statement – that Singapore needs capable leadership and the best mix of talent to steer the country forward.

I see a parallel between this issue and another that has been recently discussed, which is whether greater financial support for parenthood will be effective in raising Singapore's fertility rate,

To address the birth rate, many Singaporeans have expressed the view that money alone cannot move the needle. For people to start and grow families, they must want children and see parenthood as meaningful. Yet for many couples, the cost of raising children is an issue and more generous financial support could, for some, tilt the balance in favour of starting a family or having another child.

Likewise, pay cannot and should not be the principal motivation for someone to seek political office. Yet for some, the financial sacrifice, on top of other sacrifices, may be what tilts the balance one way or the other. We have to hold in our minds two concepts – the idealism of service and the pragmatism of pay. Both may be pertinent to someone weighing up an entry into politics.

Let me now turn to the larger issue of how to expand the pool of talent for political office, which is so critical to Singapore's continued success. Just like the fertility challenge, there is a need to factor in both financial and broader considerations.

Many of us would like to see more leaders and senior professionals from the private sector step forward to serve. But for those new to political or public service, it would usually be appropriate for them to start in junior political appointments rather than lead a Ministry in the first instance. The salary scales of junior political office holders must therefore be sufficiently flexible to accommodate them.

One possibility that could be considered as a transitional arrangement for those taking especially large pay cuts – for instance, giving them 60% of their last drawn pay, subject to an appropriate cap and limited to the first two or three years before their pay reverts to the normal benchmark for their substantive appointment.

Promising private sector candidates should be encouraged to step forward to contest elections and serve in political office without the assumption or expectation that all or even a majority must remain in office for the long haul. Some may wish to serve for a limited period while others may find that political office is not a good fit after all. There should be no stigma attached to going back to the private sector after a term as an office holder.

Nor should we look only to the private sector. As my fellow Nominated Member of Parliament Mark Lee reminded me, our political leadership can be further strengthened by perspectives from the non-profit sector. I am glad that we have Parliamentary colleagues from this sector and I hope to see more people with non-profit backgrounds serve in political office in future.

The overall aim is to lower the barriers to entry for individuals while giving Singapore a wider pool of potential political talent, from which future Cabinet Ministers may be drawn. The Government will also benefit from the diversity of ideas and experiences that those from the private and non-profit sectors bring during their time in office.

It is certainly not my place to advise any political party on how it should go about its recruitment, but I hope that public discourse will go beyond the question of how much political office holders should be paid to the broader question of how Singapore can continue to attract people of ability, integrity and commitment from diverse backgrounds to step forward and serve. Ultimately, the objective is not high pay in itself, but a wider and stronger pool of people willing and able to take on the responsibilities of political leadership.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.20 pm. Order. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.00 pm until 3.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, I thank all Members who have spoken in this debate. I will respond to the broader issues that have been raised and Minister Chan will address the specific issues relating to the salary framework.

I have listened to all the speeches earlier and I am glad there is considerable common ground across this House. This was also the case when the Parliament debated political salaries in 2012. Then, there was broad agreement that salaries should be competitive enough to enable us to recruit people of the necessary calibre while incorporating a substantial discount to reflect the ethos of service.

We have heard essentially the same principles affirmed in this debate, by People Action's Party (PAP) MPs, by Mr Pritam Singh of the WP and also the Nominated MPs who spoke up. That common ground is important. It means that the central question before us is not whether political service should be competitively remunerated, or whether there should be a discount for public service.

We agree on both. The differences are over how the framework should be calibrated and how the revised framework should be implemented. So, there are two distinct issues: first, what should be the structure for political salaries, which was the focus of the review Committee; and second, given the Committee's recommendations, how should the Government implement them.

Let me first deal with the structure. Some Members asked whether the benchmark should continue. To refer to the top 1,000 Singaporean earners, and whether the resulting reference salary is too high.

The review Committee did not simply take the existing formula as given. It examined the framework afresh. It considered whether the reference group remain relevant, whether it contain a sufficiently broad range of occupations and professions, and whether the resulting salary levels were fair and reasonable.

And there is an important point here. The benchmark does not mean that we intend to recruit our political leaders only from these 1,000 individuals. Plainly, we do not.

The benchmark is a reference point. It seeks to capture in a broad and objective way the opportunity cost faced by the sort of people we hope will step forward for political service: people with the ability and experience to take on very demanding national responsibilities whether they come from the private sector, the public service, the professions or elsewhere.

After reviewing the evidence, the Committee concluded the basic formula remains sound while recommending several refinements. And this is not the conclusion of one committee alone. This is now the third time we have convened an independent review committee on political salaries. The first Committee in 2012 proposed the formula. The Committee in 2017 affirmed the formula. The present Committee has examined it again and reached the same broad conclusion.

Under the formula which has not changed, the MR4 reference salary rises from $1.1 million to $1.8 million. Seen on it on its own, that is a substantial increase, but we should also understand why the gap has opened up, because the benchmark has effectively remained unchanged for 15 years, while salaries elsewhere in the economy have continued to move.

And it is not just the private sector. Consider senior Permanent Secretaries and Appellate Judges. Their remuneration is determined under different frameworks for different roles, but their reference salaries are now higher than the MR4 benchmark. Not just the current MR4 benchmark but also the revised MR4 benchmark of $1.8 million.

I am not suggesting that these other salaries should be lower. Quite the opposite. We need first rate people in the Civil Service and Judiciary, just as we need them in political leadership. Nor am I saying that ministerial salaries should just match theirs.

The point is that different remuneration frameworks constructed for different senior public responsibilities have arrived at broadly comparable orders of magnitude and the Ministerial benchmark continues to be lower than what we pay for other positions carrying the highest levels of public responsibilities, because political service incorporates a more substantial discount.

There is a perception that civil servants joining politics enjoy a pay increase. I want to dispel that myth. That does not happen. There is no increase when civil servants join politics. Sometimes, it is even a pay cut, and when you look at the earnings over subsequent years for civil servants, if they had stayed on and done well, they would very likely have earned more in the Civil Service, as I have explained just now.

Some Members have noted that there are countries which pay their ministers less but nevertheless achieve good governance outcomes. So, they ask why should political salaries go up further? It is a fair question, but as several Members have also noted, international comparisons of political salaries have to be treated with care.

First, headline salaries alone do not tell the full story. We have to look at each system in its entirety. In many countries, the overall remuneration of office holders extend beyond the official salary. There may be pensions allowances, housing, or other benefits, as well as arrangements that provide support after political office. These do not appear in the headline salary, so comparisons based simply on the published annual salary can be misleading.

More importantly, different countries organise political leadership and government in very different ways, reflecting their own traditions and institutions. For example, in some countries, responsibilities are distributed across national, regional and local governments.

In Singapore, we are a city state with a single national government, where a very wide range of responsibilities, economic, social security and municipal all come together at the centre.

There are also differences in how political leadership is developed. In many countries, governments and ministers change more frequently. Some ministers may come in from the private sector, serve for a few years, and then return to their previous careers. Others spend much of their time and energy managing politics and the immediate electoral cycle. The ministers then rely more heavily on the civil service or teams of advisors to develop and carry the policy agenda. We see this when we exchange notes with our overseas counterparts.

Singapore has developed a different model. Yes, our Ministers are politicians. They must contest elections and win the confidence of voters, but once elected and in office, they are expected to govern, to master their briefs, lead their Ministries, and do so with a longer-term perspective.

So, they cannot just preside over the Ministry as a non-executive chairman. They have to set the tone and direction, make the big decisions. They direct the work of their teams, and that means empowering their officers, bringing out the best in them, helping to clear roadblocks and obstacles, and working together to get things done. And when major reforms are needed, our Ministers have to lead from the front. They develop the case for change, bring the public along, work through the implementation and see the reforms through.

In Singapore, we expect our Ministers to be effective politicians, effective executives and effective leaders. That is how we have operated our system and that is how we have achieved exceptional results.

I am not saying that our model is better or that others should follow us. Every country must develop arrangements that work in its own circumstances. The relevant question for us is not, can another country make a different model work? Clearly, some can. The relevant question is, what arrangements will enable Singapore to sustain high-quality political leadership over the long term.

If we fail to attract enough good people into political leadership, there will be consequences.

The problems will not appear overnight. Government does not stop functioning because good people choose not to enter politics. But the effects accumulate gradually, through successive rounds of recruitment and leadership renewal. Over 15, 20, 25 years, the difference will be visible – in the quality of political leadership, in the decisions the Government makes and eventually, in the quality and effectiveness of the Civil Service as well.

By the time such deterioration becomes obvious, rebuilding the system will be much harder. Perhaps, even impossible.

We do not claim that the present formula is perfect. That is why there will continue to be regular independent reviews. The Committee itself has identified areas for study, which we accept as a Government – like a quality-of-life indicator for the National Bonus and different benchmarks for the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Mayors and MPs.

The WP had proposed a different formula earlier and continues to prefer their formula. Members, especially the Nominated MPs in this Debate, have raised many useful suggestions. There may well be further ideas beyond this debate as we reflect on the framework and gain more experience over time.

The Government remains open to suggestions. We will study all of them carefully. When the next review Committee is convened in five years' time, it can consider these issues afresh, together with how the framework has operated in practice.

Today's discussion will not be the end of the discussion we have on political salaries. The framework can and should continue to evolve, where there are good reasons to improve it. But while we do so, while we continue to evolve and improve the framework, we still need one that can operate today. The structure before us, tested through two previous independent reviews and refined by the latest Committee, is principled and transparent and it provides a sound basis for us to proceed.

Aside from the structure, I want to focus on the Government's response – what we have decided to do in this term of Government. Because this is what will matter over the next few years and where the changes will actually be felt. There are several ways the Government could have responded to the Committee's recommendations.

One option was to defer. But we have already held back from making the recommended adjustment in 2017. We have deferred the review in 2023. So, if we defer once more, the gap will only widen. The larger it becomes, the harder it will be to correct later on.

Several Members have said this is not a good time to make an adjustment, reflecting also the sentiments we have heard from workers and their constituents. I understand the concerns. But there is never going to be a politically convenient time to adjust political salaries.

We convened the review Committee in December 2025. We initially expected its work to conclude around March or April this year. Of course, the conflict in Iran erupted earlier in February. So, we decided then that our immediate priority had to be managing the immediate consequences for Singapore arising from that conflict. Since then, we have rolled out two support packages to help businesses, households and families.

The conflict in the Middle East has not ended. It may not end any time soon. But our domestic economic situation has stabilised. That is why I decided we should now deal with this issue rather than defer it yet again.

We could always hope that next year will bring a better moment. But the world may just as easily become more difficult next year. And if every difficult circumstance becomes a reason not to act, then we will keep putting the issue off. There will come a point where restraint ceases to be prudence and becomes neglect.

Furthermore, as I have mentioned, the need for leadership renewal is already pressing and urgent. We have to tackle the issue head on. So, we decided not to go with this first option.

A second option was to move all serving office holders immediately to the new benchmarks. No one in this House suggested that, but I read a CNA commentary saying, why should the Government not just bite the bullet and make a clean move right away?

I do not think that would be right either.

The present office holders are at a range of different salary points and grades. There is no need to automatically and immediately move everyone up to the new benchmark just because the framework has been updated. But neither is it reasonable to leave their salaries unchanged indefinitely.

That is why I decided on a one-off adjustment of up to 9%. That takes into account the fact that the salary structure has been frozen for 15 years. After that, we return to the normal process of salary adjustments based on individual performance and responsibilities.

I say "normal" because these are adjustments a Prime Minister already does each year and I will continue to do so. These sorts of adjustments are tied to individual performance. To Mr Pritam Singh's question, they are not general, they are not across the board. So, over a period of time. For the office holders who do well, they will eventually reach the salary ranges based on the new benchmarks. But it is going to be performance-based.

I can determine this approach for Ministers and other office holders. But under the framework, the Prime Minister's salary is pegged at two times the MR4 benchmark. Once the MR4 reference salary is updated, the Prime Minister's reference salary moves accordingly.

That is why for the next five years, I have decided to donate the full increase in my salary to good causes. Let me clarify that when I said donate the full increase, that includes any tax benefit arising from the donations. I will not benefit financially from this salary change. As I said in my speech, after five years, I will continue to donate to good causes, quietly and without publicity, because I do not want to make an open-ended commitment that creates an expectation that my successor should do the same. That deals with the second option.

A third possibility was to ignore the formula and choose a lower benchmark, just because $1.8 million appears too high. Again, I do not think that would be the right way to proceed. If we appoint an independent committee to determine the appropriate benchmark, we should not then arbitrarily change its conclusion because the number is politically awkward. Instead, we have dealt with their concern through implementation. We are accepting the framework, but moving towards it gradually.

As I explained on Tuesday, based on this approach, I expect most office holders to move to the lower-end of the new salary range by the end of this term of Government. For an MR4 Minister who continues to be an MR4, that would be around $1.35 million. If we were to make an inflation adjustment, like we are doing for MPs, the MR4 reference salary would be $1.5 million, just on inflation adjustment alone. So, we are not giving Ministers a larger immediate adjustment than MPs. In fact, we are taking longer to catch up.

Let me also put the expenditure involved in perspective.

Minister Chan explained in his speech that even if every office holder received the full one-off adjustment of 9%, the additional expenditure would be $5 million. The actual amount will be lower because the adjustment will be differentiated. That is for the up to 9% adjustment. Thereafter, the expenditure will of course depend on the subsequent salary adjustments to be made every year.

Currently, the salaries for all political office holders cost around $55 million. The expenditure varies from year-to-year, depending on the number of office holders appointed, promoted and the National Bonus paid out. As a share of GDP, that salary expenditure is lower today than it was 10 years ago. In recent years, the overall salary bill as a share of GDP has been stable, and I intend to keep it broadly at this level going forward.

To sum up, our response to the Committee's recommendations is a measured one. The new benchmark sets a framework for the longer term, but we are not moving Ministers straight to the new figure. We are making a one-off adjustment now and then allowing salaries to move gradually in line with individual performance and responsibilities.

I believe this strikes the right balance. We keep the framework relevant for the future without overcorrecting for the present. We address a gap that has been built up over many years, but we do so progressively and with restraint. This is fair, this is responsible, both to the office holders serving today and to Singapore's need to continue recruiting capable people to serve in the years ahead.

Some Members have noted that the wider salary ranges recommended by the Committee gives the Prime Minister greater discretion to adjust salaries. That is so there will be more room to differentiate salaries according to performance and roles and responsibilities, and also more room when recruiting someone with substantial experience from outside the Government. I value that flexibility as Prime Minister, but I also recognise that greater discretion means greater responsibility on my part to exercise judgement carefully and fairly.

Ministers are not all the same. They have different strengths and experiences. They perform at different levels and take different amounts of time to grow into their roles. Some are particularly strong at policy work. Some are better at execution and delivery. Others have the ability to bring people together, explain difficult issues or build trust with stakeholders and the public.

Part of my responsibility as Prime Minister is to understand these strengths, develop every individual and put people in roles where they can contribute most effectively, bring out the best in each and every one of them and ensure that we work effectively together as a team.

Singaporeans will naturally formed their own views about how Ministers are doing. Some of this is visible from their public work. I receive direct feedback too, sometimes from MPs, occasionally even from members of the public.

I listened carefully to every view and feedback, but I should add, not everything a Minister does is visible from the outside. Some of their most important contributions are made quietly, resolving difficult issues within Government, working through disagreements between agencies, helping their fellow colleagues or handling sensitive matters that cannot be discussed publicly.

As Prime Minister, I see more of this overall picture. When I assess Ministers, I do not do so based on one speech, one controversy or one set of headlines. I look at their overall performance over time and I discussed the assessments with my senior colleagues, the Deputy Prime Minister, the two Senior Ministers and the Coordinate Ministers.

Speaking from my own experience, I recognise that leadership takes time to develop. People can learn, grow and become more effective with experience, guidance and mentoring. My approach has been to give new office holders time and support to grow into their roles and develop their strengths. But if there is sustained underperformance, at some point, I will have to make a change.

Up to now, I have not had to do that. But it has happened before and it can happen again. If so, I will deal with it firmly, but also sensitively and with respect for the individual concerned.

Sometimes, it is also a matter of fit. A person may perform much better when given responsibilities that play to his or her strengths. Part of leading and managing the team is getting the roles and the combinations right. Of course, if there is a serious issue of conflict or conduct or integrity, then the standard is very clear. Ministers are held to the highest standards and where those standards are breached, they will have to leave.

In my speech on Tuesday, I explained in some detail how Ministers are assessed and disclosed the broad distribution of grades and the range of individual bonuses paid last year. I fully appreciate that there will be greater interest in the distribution of salaries and performance bonuses. Beyond what we have already shared, I will consider whether more information can be disclosed.

But we should also be careful not to turn Ministerial assessment into a public popularity contest and then start comparing and ranking individuals year by year. That is not going to be productive, and that is not how I want the Cabinet to operate. I do not want Ministers working in silos, focusing narrowly on their own issues or building up their own profiles. Even the most capable Minister cannot succeed alone. No one can.

I want Ministers to work as a team, to look beyond their own portfolio, support one another and to solve problems together. And some of the most important decisions may take years to bear fruit, or they may be difficult and unpopular today but absolutely necessary for Singapore's longer-term interest. If the Ministers are judged mainly by what is visible and popular now, we risk encouraging the wrong behaviour and that would not produce better Government.

When I speak about the team, it is not only the Ministers in Cabinet. I mean the wider team of office holders as well, including our Mayors. WP has proposed to abolish the office of Mayor. But look at the value that the CDCs and Mayors have brought to our communities and to Singapore, mobilising a wider network of volunteers, responding to local needs and contributing to initiatives, like the CDC Vouchers and the Jobs Nearby scheme.

I would not want to give up any of these contributions. I am proud of all our Mayors and what they do for Singapore. [Applause.]

I want our Mayors to keep strengthening our communities and build a more cohesive and caring Singapore. So, everyone in this team has a role to play. I value the contribution each of them makes and the different ways in which they serve Singapore and Singaporeans.

In the end, as Prime Minister, I have to exercise judgement. I decide whom to appoint and promote, what responsibilities to entrust to them and how their performance should be recognised. And I take responsibility for these decisions.

But again, it is important to emphasise we serve Singapore as a team. And ultimately, that is how Singaporeans should judge us – how the Government as a whole performs. They should assess whether we have made the right decisions, tackle the difficult issues, improve their lives and have taken Singapore forward. If we fall short, Singaporeans can choose another team to govern. That is the final accountability in our system.

Many Members in this debate have emphasised that politics must be a calling and that people should not enter public life for the money. I agree fully. Politics is not just another career. It is a choice to take responsibility for our country and for the lives of our fellow citizens. And ultimately, it means putting the interest of Singapore ahead of your own.

Of course, there are many honourable ways to serve Singapore. I respect those who decide that politics is not for them.

Our challenge is that Singapore still needs enough good people who are prepared to take this path of political leadership at the national level. We want people with the character to be entrusted with public authority, with the competence and ability to lead, who are prepared to put themselves before voters and accept public scrutiny, and who are willing to make difficult decisions for the longer-term good of Singapore.

If too many capable people conclude that political service asks for sacrifices which are just too great, then over time, we will have fewer people prepared to step forward. Eventually, the quality of our leadership will suffer and Singapore will suffer the consequences.

Because we are adjusting political salary, some have suggested that the PAP Government somehow operates on this basis that higher pay will attract people into politics. Or someone messaged me right after my speech; a friend said, even with the revised benchmark, the people I talk to and whom you are trying to bring in, they are not going to come forward. So, why adjust salaries at all?

I am sure Members have heard such an argument. But these arguments start from the same mistaken premise that the purpose of the salary framework is to entice people into politics with money. It is not the case. Mr Pritam Singh said, for WP, the MP's allowance is not the key to recruiting candidates. This is not unique to the WP and no one has a monopoly on virtue.

All PAP candidates, too, step forward because they want to serve Singapore and their fellow Singaporeans. That is my key pre-requisite when I identify candidates to be fielded in any election. [Applause.]

So, to be very clear, for the PAP and the PAP Government, we do not believe in using higher pay as an incentive to draw people into politics. Both Minister Chan Chun Sing and I made that quite clear in our speeches. In fact, no one should enter politics for the money.

Competitive salaries do not create the motivation to serve. But they can make it possible for someone who already has that motivation in the first place to step forward. In other words, motivation to serve, responding to the call must come first. We have to persuade good people that Singapore needs them; that the work matters; that they can make a difference. Then, if someone is prepared to step forward, remuneration becomes a practical consideration.

Consider the people whom we hope to bring into political leadership who are in their 40s. They may be civil servants, business leaders or professionals who have already built successful careers. They would also have built their lives around that career, mortgages to service, children to provide for, parents to support and other commitments based on the incomes that they have been earning. Entering politics would already involve considerable disruption and sacrifice. We should not require them to completely upend the financial responsibilities that they have legitimately taken up for their families.

So, the purpose of the salary framework is to ensure that on top of all the other sacrifices involved, we do not make the financial costs unnecessarily high for them. That is what this is about.

I think about my own experience when I entered politics in 2011. I agreed to step forward and that meant resigning from the Civil Service. At that point, I did not know where I would contest, whether I would be elected, what responsibilities I might be asked to take on or what I would be paid. No one told me, "If you win, this is the position you will get. This is the remuneration package." No one. It was a complete leap of faith.

Only when I resigned did I fully appreciate one consequence. I was just short of 15 years in the Civil Service. You need 15 years to keep your pension. I was just short. I lost my pension. So, some well-meaning friends have since asked me if you had stayed on, today, you might well have become a Permanent Secretary, maybe even earlier. You could have kept your pension, earned more and faced far less public scrutiny, all while still serving Singapore. Do you regret your decision?

My answer is no. I valued my years in the Civil Service greatly and I continue to have the highest regard for those who serve Singapore in that way.

But political service is a different kind of responsibility. You are not just helping to carry out decisions or implement decisions. You have to make the difficult choices, set the strategic direction, bring people along and ultimately, take responsibility for the outcomes. That is why I chose this path. The same is true of my colleagues. We step forward to do what we can for Singapore and to serve our fellow citizens.

When the PAP considers prospective candidates, we have our tea sessions. You have all heard about drinking tea with the PAP. What may be less well-known is that we also ask candidates to write something about themselves. It is an old practice and one we have kept till today. And I think it is a good practice.

I went back to look at what I had written back in 2011. I wrote that having worked as a civil servant, I knew that for Singapore to succeed, every generation must throw up its own leaders; people prepared to take ownership of our country and to serve their fellow citizens. And I wrote that I would like to be part of that team, to make a difference where it counted and to contribute to Singapore's development. That is how I felt then. It is still how I feel today. [Applause.]

I know there will be fellow Singaporeans who feel the same way. People who see a need for our country, who are prepared to answer the call to serve and who will take responsibility for Singapore. These are people who will say, "Yes, I know this path is not easy but someone has to do it, and I am prepared to be that person."

There are Singaporeans like that. I believe so. Our task is to find such people, persuade them to step forward and sustain a political system that enables them to serve with commitment and purpose.

Mr Speaker, I deliberated long and hard over this decision to adjust political salaries. I understand the circumstances Singaporeans are facing. The cost of living has risen. Many worry about jobs, livelihoods and what the future may bring. These concerns are real, and the Government will continue to do all we can to support Singaporeans, especially those who need more help. But governing is not only about dealing with the pressures of today. It is also about taking responsibility for the future, and one of our most important responsibilities is to ensure that Singapore continues to have capable political leadership in the years ahead.

Let me summarise some of the key points that have been exchanged in this debate.

First, we agree on the key principles, as I have said earlier, that salaries must be competitive while incorporating a substantial discount for public service. Second, we broadly agree on the moves to be made in this term of Government. Where we differ is mainly on the formula, and therefore the appropriate MR4 reference salary for the longer term.

But in this term of Government, there is no practical difference because the Government is taking a gradual and restrained approach in implementation, moving ministerial MR4 salaries initially to $1.2 million and even by the end of this term to $1.35 million. If we were to use WP's formula, we would arrive at a similar figure. If we were to update the MR4 benchmark by inflation, we will get a higher figure of $1.5 million.

For all intents and purposes, within this term of Government, we agree on the implementation approach. Beyond that we will have to consider the circumstances then. And five years from now there will be another independent review. The committee then will look at the framework afresh, taking into account developments at that time.

In politics, there is always a tendency to highlight differences and exaggerate them. But I want to come back to these areas of common ground because they are important. Because as I have emphasised, this issue is ultimately not about me, the present Cabinet or even the PAP Government of today.

We cannot know which party will form the Government many years from now. But whoever governs Singapore will face the same challenge – to persuade good people to step forward and to assemble the strongest possible team for our country. Whatever our differences, all of us have an interest in ensuring that Singapore continues to be well-governed.

Singapore has been fortunate to have capable and committed political leaders across successive generations. Mr Azhar Othman said it very well. He said we are profoundly blessed and I am sure everyone in this House agrees with that.

We inherited a system built by those who came before us. Our responsibility is not merely to benefit from it, but to keep it strong for the generations that follow. And that means putting in place a framework that gives future Governments and future Prime Minister's, whoever they may be, the ability to sustain the quality of political leadership that Singapore will continue to need.

Sir, I believe this is the responsible course to take. And I ask Members for your support to make the right decision for Singapore. [Applause.]

Minister Chan Chun Sing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me thank all Members from all sides of the House, including the WP, for your support and suggestions. We also thank fellow Singaporeans who have given us their feedback before and after Tuesday's Ministerial Statements on how we should manage and communicate this issue sensitively as we are talking about sums that are unfamiliar to many. More importantly, we are talking about public trust, fairness, transparency and accountability to Singaporeans.

Let me now build on what the Prime Minister has laid out and respond to Members' specific comments, bearing in mind what this framework is ultimately about, why it matters to fellow Singaporeans and our duty to leave behind a better system for the next generation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us start with what this debate is fundamentally about. Beyond all the numbers, beyond all the formulas, it is about building a system to give future generations a better chance to assemble a strong team to take Singapore forward, come what may. Our world is going to be more uncertain, more volatile, messier. Our people will have many more options, many more challenges to overcome. The fundamental question is: what will be the system that gives us the best chance to assemble a team of people willing and able to take Singapore forward?

Sir, many have pointed out and we agree – financial compensation cannot be the number one consideration for political service. We agree with that. For someone who wants to step forward, he or she must first ask if he or she, his or her family, will want to undergo the public scrutiny, the loss of privacy, the uncertainties of being elected, the demands of public expectations, the potential of failure and the stigma that may come with it, especially for someone with a clearer and more certain career path.

But for anyone considering this, the most important factor is this: that is the burden of responsibility to get it right for Singapore and Singaporeans. This is not a business venture; it is about the lives and livelihoods of Singaporeans. If a business fails, we can start a new one. But if Singapore fails, we are finished. Then perhaps, after all of these considerations, that person may ask about his practical concerns about his financial remuneration, such that it will not be too prohibitive for his or her family.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I share these because these are the realities and the difficult decisions that people who come for our tea sessions must answer themselves frankly before they even step forward.

So, it is a tall order to get someone to step forward. Money should not be the primary consideration, but even if it is one of the many practical considerations, we should still discuss this openly, honestly, and frankly – to ask ourselves not just how to get the individual to step forward, but how to build a system that maximises our chances of getting enough people of the right commitment and caliber to step forward.

Sir, so the fundamental question is what are we doing to build a strong team for the future? And we cannot build a strong team simply by hoping that people we need can afford to step forward. We must have people with different strengths and experiences to be able to tackle different challenges. And there will be many more of them in the coming years.

We need a diverse team, comprising younger Members who bring fresh energy and ideas and perspectives, and who can develop over time to build the trust and bond with fellow Singaporeans; experienced colleagues who bring judgement and can take on more significant responsibilities, and have room to grow. But we also must not exclude established individuals with deep experience, who can contribute substantially from day one.

Finding that combination is hard enough. We should not make it harder, not just for this Government but for any government, by narrowing the field even before the selection begins. The wider the pool, the more choices we have, the greater our chances of finding and composing the team that Singapore deserves.

So, the point is not simply about finding enough people willing to take on that responsibility. It is about finding enough good people to choose from so that we can build a strong team for the challenges ahead. That is what market-benchmarked remuneration is meant to support. It cannot guarantee a strong team or certainty in results, but it can widen the field from which we can choose from to maximise our chances of success.

Likewise, the goal of the political salary framework is to give us the range and flexibility to choose and secure a strong and diverse team.

As many Members have said, pay will never be the be-all and end-all. But we also cannot pretend that it is not irrelevant. Members Liang Eng Hwa and Terrence Ho have rightly noted, capable Singaporeans will have options.

Sir, today, capable Singaporeans can and have built successful careers not just in Singapore but also overseas. They can serve in the private sector, the public sector, the people sector, academia, social sector, or run thriving businesses. Many of them are doing meaningful and exciting work, earning good incomes and contributing without having to enter politics.

But we all agree that political service asks something more from all of us, and this is the sentiment that was echoed by many Members including Minister Tan See Leng, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Mr Christopher de Souza.

And as I shared on Tuesday, higher pay will never adequately compensate for what they have to give up. Nor should it. And we have to be frank – actually, the more political appointment holders are paid, the greater the scrutiny they will be under, the higher the expectations and demands.

Our objective, as the Prime Minister has stated, is not to enrich anyone. It is to give ourselves the means to keep the field broad enough to form a strong team, rather than be constrained to choose from those who can afford to step forward.

So, in this regard, the fundamental point is: Singapore does not just need enough people to fill the positions. We need enough good people to fill the positions and to choose from.

Let me now explain and elaborate on how this framework works.

Sir, having set out what the framework is, let me go into the details.

Over the past few days, there has been considerable discussions of the headline figure and many other numbers. Let me try to clarify some misconceptions.

Sir, $1.8 million is not what every Minister will be paid. As Members Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms Yeo Wan Ling have noted, the new MR4 benchmark is a reference point and not an entitlement. It is not the actual salary of every Minister.

Let me elaborate on two points.

First, for serving MR4 Ministers, there is no immediate move from $1.1 million to $1.8 million. The one-off adjustment now is capped at up to 9%, differentiated by individual circumstances, including performance and when the person's salary was last adjusted. A Minister currently at $1.1 million will receive no more than about $1.2 million, with subsequent adjustments depending on performance and responsibilities. To put into context, this is equivalent to an average of 0.6% per annum over the last 15 years.

Second, beyond the immediate adjustment this October, there is no intention to move all Ministers to $1.8 million in the near term. As the Prime Minister has stated, we expect most MR4 Ministers to be at the lower end of the new salary range by the end of the term. This means $1.35 million, and not $1.8 million.

So, for an MR4 Minister receiving the reference salary of $1.1 million today, these are the three figures to remember. They are: $1.1 million today; up to $1.2 million after the one-off adjustment in October; and maybe, around $1.35 million for most MR4 Ministers by the end of the term, subject to performance.

These widened salary ranges cater to three archetypes: the new entrant, the experienced contributor and the established individual with unique qualities to add to our team.

A new appointment holder would typically enter nearer the lower end of the range and not the mid-point. Only those with substantially more experience may be appointed at a higher point within this range.

This need for flexibility has been echoed by Member Assoc Prof Terrence Ho, who gave suggestions to further mitigate the pay cuts and to facilitate porosity with the private sector after a political stint. Member Ms Mariam Jaafar also rightly pointed out that a wider range allows us to recognise the responsibility when someone takes office and then to subsequently let performance speak for itself.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me also clarify that the $1.1 million, $1.2 million and $1.35 million annual salaries benchmarks that we have been discussing are not guaranteed sums. Only about 65% of the annual salary is fixed, with about 35% being variable. So, take for example a Minister at the $1.2 million reference salary benchmark. What this means is that he or she will receive about $780,000 as a fixed sum; the remainder will be variable. Depending on performance, both his and the national, he may receive a variable bonus of up to $420,000 if he performs well and if the targets for the National Bonus indicators are met.

Mr Pritam Singh asked for transparency about the bonus paid to political appointment holders as it may vary from the norm. Indeed, in strong years, when Singapore performs well and National Bonus targets are far exceeded, actual bonus may then exceed this norm. In weaker years, the Minister could get zero bonus as well. That variability is by design. It is what makes the framework accountable and not misleading.

So, if we look at the last few years, the National Bonus has ranged from less than one to more than five. On average, it is about three.

And the basis on which the bonus varies is clear. The four indicators, their target thresholds and the payout matrix are publicly available, as I had shown on the slides on Tuesday, 8 September.

This basis for this assessment is also open and verifiable. The National Bonus not only looks at whether the economy grows, it looks at whether Singaporeans have jobs, it looks at whether real incomes are improving, after factoring in inflation. And since 2011, the National Bonus payout has ranged from 0.75 months in low years to 5.63 months in better years.

From next year, the targets for all three socio-economic indicators on jobs and incomes will be tightened. I asked my staff to do a back-testing. If we have applied these tighter targets over the past 10 years, the National Bonus would be about one month lower each year, on average.

This is an important shift. It means the National Bonus will weigh even more heavily on the socio-economic progress of Singaporeans than the more abstract GDP numbers.

As stated on Tuesday, the Government will also accept the Committee’s recommendation to study a Quality of Life indicator. Both Members Dr Haresh Singaraju and Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh have expressed support for such a measure, and Member Prof Kenneth Poon has also given suggestions on the broader aspects of social progress. I thank all Members for your suggestions.

We agree with the many things that the Members have said. We want to see how we can broaden the indicators but yet at the same time, the indicators must be something from which we can collect data and have a stable series for us to set the targets. But as many Members have also pointed out, it is not so easy to set such indicators because some of the things are qualitative rather than quantitative. Some of the factors are multi-year results rather than single year results. And we certainly do not want to set the wrong KPIs to encourage or drive the wrong behaviour.

I have always learnt since young that some important things in life cannot be measured and we must be careful not to make important only what we can measure. I think we can agree on that.

So, the Public Service Division will look into all this seriously before we come back with a proposal on what is feasible and what is possible, balancing all the considerations that the various Members have set out.

I want to touch on Member Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh talked about in terms of the bonus structure of the two horizons. And indeed, as the Prime Minister has said and I will reiterate: the job of the Cabinet, the job of the leadership team is not just about meeting the KPIs on a yearly basis, the here and now. In fact, in my years in public service, I have learnt one very important thing. Sometimes, when we have pre-empted the problem and the public does not even need to deal with it or get to know of it, that to us is the mark of success. The mark of success is not how well we do the firefighting. The mark of success, very often, more often than not, is how we have prevented the fire in the first place.

All this takes a longer-term horizon. All this takes a beyond the here and now perspective. And all these are not easy to manage or to quantify. But I think all of us can agree that perhaps all these are even more important than all those factors that we can quantify here and now. So, this requires a sense of balance and care.

We also thank Member Mr Azhar Othman for his suggestions to vary the variable component in the salary package. We have heard two different perspectives. There is one perspective that calls for a higher variable component, perhaps a bit more like the private sector. There is also another perspective that calls for a smaller variable component or a higher fixed component, given the nature of the job.

The Committee has considered all this and on balance, they felt that the current two third, one third split is about right. We will continue to look at this as we gain more experience running this framework.

Member Dr Haresh Singaraju also suggested to have clearer targets published to ascertain the effectiveness of political leadership. We understand and we can share with him this sentiment. But as I have mentioned, governance is not just about a series of KPIs, and certainly not a series of KPIs for this year alone.

So, we will have to be careful how and what we publish, but I think he has raised a very important point. There are many things that we may not be able to publish. How do we account for the tough negotiations that the Ministry of Trade and Industry has to undertake behind the scenes to secure our trade agreements? How do we share with the public the sensitive things that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry of Home Affairs has to work behind the scenes to keep the threats at bay? And hopefully, we never have to tell Singaporeans one day that the threat has emerged without us knowing.

So, we will try and we will continue to keep our minds open on what are the KPIs that we can share and how to share with fellow Singaporeans in such a way that you will not distort our perspective of thinking long-term and managing issues, preempting issues before they catch fire.

Sir, some Members may understandably also be concerned about the financial impact arising from the updates to the framework. As the Prime Minister has shared, the impact is expected to remain stable. Assuming the maximum 9% adjustment, overall spending on political appointment holder salaries is expected to remain below 0.05% of government expenditure and below 0.01% of GDP.

I have asked my staff to check. Even if with the new benchmark fully implemented, we will still spend less as a percentage of government expenditure and GDP than what we did in 2011. So, the 0.05% of government expenditure and the 0.01% of GDP, we can take it from the perspective that this is our investment in the leadership team for Singapore for the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir let me now address some other specific points raised by various Members.

Member Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh raised several suggestions on the benchmark, including whether the discount was necessary and using the role-based comparators rather than the top 1,000 earners. As the Prime Minister said, the top 1,000 was never intended to identify jobs comparable to the Ministers. It served as a broad proxy. If we go back a bit in history, to when this framework was first started, actually, we chose a certain number from certain vocations. But that was deemed to be too narrow and that is why over time, we have expanded to this new framework.

While we agree with the Member that we would like to find job roles that are more comparable, rather than just from a financial perspective. Then, the question is, how do we identify those roles and will we get back to the same situation when we first started, where we were looking at, perhaps leadership positions in companies, senior doctors, lawyers, and so forth, and then we had fewer vocations, fewer people. But at the end of the day, regardless of which formula and which benchmark we choose, we still need to ask one basic question: will this benchmark, will this framework allow the Prime Minister, any Prime Minister, to have the range and the flexibility to bring in that three archetypes that I talked about? The new entrant with potential, the experienced colleague to continue to stay, the established individual who is prepared to come in and join us, having had a successful career somewhere else. So, we will continue to study this.

On the idea of doing, it on a multi-year basis, we have also considered that. It is a fair idea because as many have said, the performance of the Government cannot be measured year by year. Then, the question is, how many years and what to do if there is a change of government. So, those are practical difficulties as we consider these particular suggestions.

I have been to different Ministries, from the Ministry of Social and Family Development to the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Education, and now the Ministry of Defence. And I would say that in all the Ministries the time cycle for results are all very different. When I was in the Ministry of Social and Family Development, someone asked me, how do you define success? Is it how much ComCare you have given out? How many people you have helped? I said no. In fact, the more ComCare we have to give, it is not a mark of success. The mark of success is how little we need to give out ComCare. But that is a shorter-term goal. The real mark of success for the Ministry of Social and Family Development is when we help somebody, will that child one day grow up feeling confident, independent and say, "I can take care of myself and my family". That is a generational thing.

When I was in the Ministry of Education, what defines the success of the Ministry of Education? Surely, not the Primary School Leaving Exams (PSLE) scores or the GCE "A" Level scores. It is whether one generation later, our young people grow up and have the confidence, look at the world and say, "Whatever challenges there may be out there, I will be able to overcome them, either individually or with my Team Singapore". Success will be that even when the chips are down, our younger generation will say, "I will be here in spite of". These are long-term challenges that are hard to measure. In the Ministry of Defence, when I returned last year, some of the projects that I initiated and work on 20 years ago are now coming on stream.

So, we are fully cognisant of the challenges of using a single year measure, but we are also cognisant of the challenges of using a multi-year assessment metrics. We will have to find that balance.

Ultimately, as Member Ms Yeo Wan Ling has said deep inside each of us, every Singaporean will have to answer the question, "Has this team delivered? Has this team provided a better future for me and the next generation?" And that is our ultimate test.

On the standalone framework for the MPs and the Mayors, we agree with the Committee's recommendation that we should examine the benchmark. We agree that it is not so intuitive to say that the MP allowance – and it is not a pay, it is an allowance – is a fraction of the MR4 benchmark. So, we will study this and we will talk to various stakeholders to try and see what a better benchmark can be.

But I want to emphasise one thing. We did not say that it is a MP salary. We say it is a MP allowance, because the MP allowance is to help the MP to conduct his or her work in the constituency. Generally, in Singapore, in our system, we believe that it is important, it is useful for MPs to have a full-time job somewhere so that they can represent the diverse perspective from their different backgrounds, rather than be a full-time MP. The allowance is not so much as to make up for the sacrifices they have to put in from their job. The allowance is more to help them in their constituency work. But we accept – any MP who put in the hard work to take care of the constituency will very likely have to pay a certain price in terms of their own career progression. And I thank MPs from all sides of the House who have stepped forward to do this.

Members Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Christopher de Souza spoke on allowances for Legislative Assistants and Secretarial Assistants. We did not make any change in this exercise because it was not under the terms of reference for the political salaries. But we will certainly look at how we can update this. I will certainly task the relevant agencies to take a look at this, to update this as necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, maybe I should round up the discussion.

After we have settled all the technicalities, let us come back to why we are here in this Chamber, why we are discussing this.

We are all here, spending time, discussing this very serious issue, not because any one of us would want to benefit from this framework personally. As many Members have said, we have a responsibility to make sure that we have a framework that gives Singapore the best chance to succeed in the years to come. The best chance for any Prime Minister to assemble a team that is worthy of Singapore.

As the world becomes more complex, as our people have more challenges, more options, we have to ask ourselves the hard questions – how do we inspire the people to step forward and how do we try to lower the barriers when their commitment to serve is clear? That is what we are talking about.

All these adjustments do not guarantee success, but they will give us a better chance to assemble the team necessary. Ultimately, it is about leaving behind a better system to give ourselves maximum chance to find those leaders that Singaporeans deserve.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. This debate is ultimately not what MPs will get for their allowances, this is not about what Ministers will earn, it is about what Singapore can achieve and want to achieve. Whether our people have opportunities, whether our people can continue to look to the future with confidence and whether the next generation will inherit a better Singapore where we can continue to defy the odds of history for us to be a shining beacon in a turbulent world. We cannot promise any of these outcomes. No Government can. But we can give Singapore a better chance of achieving them. The leadership Singapore needs tomorrow must be built today. This is what we owe to the next generation and this is what we must do right by Singapore and for Singaporeans.

Thank you, Speaker, Sir. [Applause.]

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two clarifications and I direct them to Minister Chan.

I refer to the PAP's comparison of WP and the then-Committee's proposal in 2012. Assuming both models account for the fixed and maximum variable salary component, for the WP, it came up to about $1 million, and for the Committee's proposal that was accepted by this House, it came up to $1.4 million.

The first question is with regard to the time period 2018 to 2024. The Government had put on record what was the average performance bonus component, annual variable component and National Bonus for the years 2013 to 2017. That would allow members of the public to calculate what the variable component of the Ministerial salary was and how many months it came up to. I heard the Minister. I think he gave us some indication of the National Bonus. However, the other components are still unknown.

No Member in this House can now file a Parliamentary Question and ask for these numbers again because the Standing Orders do not allow us to ask the same question in the course of the same session of Parliament. Can the Minister then share this information with us for the years 2018 to 2024? Because that information was provided earlier on.

The second question is, assuming the maximum variable bonus under the current proposal of the 2026 Committee, what would be the salary at MR4?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will respond with three points.

First, on the calculations. We have done the calculations based on the formula that WP proposed in 2012 for the 2011 review. The range of the numbers, depending on what the Member assume to be the National Bonus, is about $1.5 million, compared to what the Committee has recommended, which is $1.8 million. If the Member takes the expanded range of what the Committee has proposed, plus or minus 25%, generally, we are in the same ballpark.

But it is not so much the numbers that are important, it is the philosophy behind them that is important. And the philosophy is not so very different. The Committee uses a certain pool of people to come up with a benchmark, plus a discount, to arrive at the number. It is market-based. The WP's formula is also market-based, because if we trace back the roots of where we get the MX salary, that is market-based. That is why when the two converge, the two numbers will easily converge to what it is; and it is all within the range, once we expand the range to give the Prime Minister the flexibility.

And as the Prime Minister has said, even if we just use the inflation indexing, we will come back to somewhere within the range. But those numbers are not important because, as the Prime Minister has said, there are only three relevant numbers for this term of Government.

First, we are at $1.1 million now. After 15 October 2026, those whose performance deserve it may get up to $1.2 million. And if performance warrants it, responsibility warrants it, by the end of the term, those who have fulfilled the criteria may get up to $1.35 million. These are way below whichever benchmark, whether from the WP's formula or from the Committee's formula. This is my first point.

The second point as to what the components of the bonus matrices are, as I have explained, I have shared with you, the National Bonus cannot be determined beforehand. The National Bonus is an outcome of the four indicators based on the chart that I have shown on Tuesday.

In a good year, if the National Bonus goes above three months, it means that Singapore has done well on those four indicators. In years where we did not do so well, it will be below the three-month average. That is why I gave Members the range – from less than one to five point something.

That is public knowledge because that framework is very clear. The 13th month is also clear – the Non-Pensionable Annual Allowance. The non-pensionable component, that is also public knowledge. The only thing within that component that the Member talked about is the individual performance bonus.

The Prime Minister has said that he will see how to make available more information on that individual. But speaking frankly, I think we have very strict Prime Ministers. I have worked with both of them. When they assess the Ministers' performance, they have been very fair. They have been very strict. I am not at liberty to reveal the exact number, but I have helped them and I can assure you that they have been strict and fair in how they assessed their people's performance, the Members' performance.

But most importantly, after all is said and done, how much do we budget as a Government? That, as the Prime Minister has said, has remained stable. If we compare it with 2011, we are not anywhere near the 2011 numbers as a percentage of Government expenditure or as a percentage of GDP. That is how we must be disciplined. That is how we have been transparent with fellow Singaporeans.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I refer to the 2018 reply. With regard to the performance bonus component, which is the component which Minister Chan was referring to about the Prime Minister looking at how this number would be shared with the public, it has already been shared in a certain format.

I referred to how The Straits Times reported it. For performance bonus, the range was from three to six months a year, with the average across all the political office holders over five years at 4.3 months. So, what one does is, you add 4.3, you add the National Bonus, you add the annual variable component, you get 9.7 months of the variable component for Ministerial salary.

Nine point seven months is above the seven months which is used as a salary norm. That leads me to the question that is unanswered. I will repeat it. Minister may have overlooked it. It was the second question, which is at its highest for variable bonuses, which I believe is still at 13.5 months, what would the MR4 number look like under the 2026 Committee's proposal?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have shared, the National Bonus ranges from 0.7 to 5.6. Within that range, depending on the year, you will just add that. That is the National Bonus. That one, we have no prerogative to change, because it is based on the framework.

What every Minister gets will be the National Bonus plus the individual. The individual bonus changes, based on the Prime Minister's assessment of the individual every year. I would not be able to tell you for that individual, what he will get in each year, because each year, he has two components. The 13th month and the non-pensionable component, that is relatively fixed. If there is a good year and we exceeded the target, the Minister will be able to get more than the three months' norm as a National Bonus, which is what I have shared with the Member.

The other thing, as I have shared, now we have tightened the targets for all the socio-economic indicators. If we have back-tested this, it would have tightened the National Bonus by a month. But the figures that I have given the Member is what it is, which is that there is a range depending on the performance of the socio-economic indicators and the national performance in terms of GDP. That is how we calculate the National Bonus component. We add that to the individual bonus components.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two clarifications to the Prime Minister and Minister Chan. It is related to two topics. One is in terms of the structure of the review and second is in terms of the assessment of the effectiveness of the review going forward.

The first question is, to ask the Prime Minister and Minister Chan, will there be a regular debate like this? Because I find that this is a very important and useful exercise for those in the Chamber and also, the public. Will there be a regular debate every five years on this review report, even if there is a deferment?

Second is in terms of the assessment of the effectiveness of the review, going forward, whether future independent reviews can draw on anonymised evidence about recruitment experience, the backgrounds of those stepping forward, and the financial and non-financial barriers they face. I think this would help Parliament and the public assess whether the framework is actually widening the pool of capable and committed people willing to serve, so, as more of an assessment going forward.

Sir, just as a Point of Order before I respond to Mr Saktiandi.

This is not to open up a new round of debate. Members can ask clarifications on our Statements. You are not asking new questions and having yet another round of debate. So, let us be clear on the Standing Orders and as a Point of Order for everyone.

To Mr Saktiandi's specific questions, yes, we will continue to debate this matter. As I have mentioned, this is not going to be the last word on salaries. There will be many opportunities to discuss further. And second, yes, we will continue through subsequent review committees to get as much feedback as possible.

Mr Azhar Othman.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Prime Minister, one of my primary concerns is about future leaderships. In my speech, I mentioned that, the government, if mismanaged, generations of wealth can be squandered within one government.

So, my point is this: in the Prime Minister's leadership in planning forward, what are the mechanisms to ensure that no Government can squander one time? That is the first question. The second question is this, and a recommendation as well, I attended the SME Conference, and Fandi Ahmad was there, and they made an avatar of him because he has 30 years of experience playing football. And the avatar will kind of guide the others to do so.

In that sense, can we have an avatar of Senior Minister Lee, Mr K Shanmugam, the Prime Minister and many of the established politicians. The whole idea is that they have so much experience and the young political office leaders need a lot of catching up to do. I do not think tea is enough. They have got so much tea to drink, in that sense. But I think that is the way to move forward using AI to help young political officers leaders even to learn faster, because the learning curve is getting shorter with the new challenges we face.

Sir, I thank Mr Azhar for the suggestion. Indeed, knowledge management is very important, and we will tap on all the senior colleagues, whether through avatars or other ways in which they can impart their experience and knowledge to the younger ones, and that is how we can continue to keep our system going strong.

On the first point about systems and processes and institutions to ensure that we do not squander our wealth, we do have that. It is enshrined in our Constitution through the Reserves principles, through our fiscal rules and more importantly, at the end of the day, through our entire system and our emphasis on incorruptibility and keeping our system clean and making sure that we never get into money politics. The PAP will continue to emphasise and uphold this system.

Before I call on the next Member, I again want to remind Members. The Prime Minister is right when he raised the earlier point that this is a time to clarify any of the speeches that are made by the Prime Minister and Minister Chan. So, clarifications to what they have spoken on and not to start a new debate on things which were not addressed in their Statements. Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.

Thank you, Speaker. I have a question for Minister Chan. Minister, since the Government will be studying a new basis for MP remuneration, will that study also look beyond the quantum of the allowance to the sustainability of the role itself, including workload, well-being and whether MPs can continue giving their best to their constituents and Parliamentary duties? I would also ask if he sees some urgency in this issue rather than waiting for another five years for that study to be done together with the remuneration, but given that these are quite the pertinent issues, whether he might consider or whether the Government would consider looking into this sooner rather than later?

Mr Speaker, the answer is yes, the Government will look at it.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh : Mr Speaker, I do not mean to take liberties with the Standing Orders, but my second question was pertaining to the Committee's report, which was the subject of the Prime Minister's Ministerial Statement. It is about the figure for the salary at MR4, provided the maximum variable bonus is applied of 13.5 months.

Which I believe Minister Chan has addressed?

But he did not give an answer to what that number was.

Minister Chan, do you want to — I think it is a summation of the numbers, the broad ranges that were given, but I will let Minister Chan give his response.

Mr Speaker, I think I have answered the question.

I just want to emphasise one point. Fixed plus variable equals the norm. Fixed plus variable equals norm. It is not total plus variable and then that becomes a new number. I just want to clarify that and I want to emphasise that. Fixed plus variable is the norm.

Will people get slightly or below the norm? Yes, depending on the National Bonus, depending on the individual performance as the Prime Minister will assess.

Mr Singh, one last one.

I will try again: 13.5 months is the variable bonus; the proposal from the Committee is based at seven months. So, if the Minister says seven months is the variable, and including the fixed component, it is equal to $1.8 million. I am asking if it is fixed plus 13.5 months, which is the maximum allowable under the framework, what would that number be?

Mr Speaker, there is no fixed plus 13.5 months.

Mr Darryl David.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In both their speeches, the Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister Chan reference a couple of elements in the reports, which stated one of which was that quality of index could be considered in any review moving forward, and also another element was how we could possibly review or delink other roles, such as Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Mayor and MPs from the Minister's role.

I have two clarifications, Sir, for Coordinating Minister Chan. First of which is, could Coordinating Minister Chan shed more light on how the Government would probably incorporate these two elements moving forward? And then more importantly, should the Government incorporate these elements, how can we ensure that we still have a framework that is grounded in realism that is robust and that is relevant to Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think when we convene the work for this review, all the comments by the Parliamentarians will be taken into account, and I am sure that the people doing this review will also talk to the relevant stakeholders so that we can come to a new consensus on what this new framework will be, and how do we benchmark the allowances to the MPs and also the other community-related roles. We will convey all this to the staff doing the work.

Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, perhaps a quick response to what Mr Singh had asked. Because as I understand it, he was asking about the fact that actual salary received by an office holder may differ from the norm because of the variable components, and there is data on the National Bonus, but not on the individual performance bonus in past years.

I do not have the data with me in terms of what exactly the minimum-maximum was in those years, but what I have said in my speech, and I reiterate again, I do intend to look at how, given the interest in where the salary bands are, where Ministers lie in terms of the salary ranges and how the variable payouts will be, to see how we can provide more information to the public where these payouts are concerned.

I will not be able to tell you this individual is at what grade, what performance bonus, obviously. But giving such information in broad ranges, I think that is reasonable. We will consider and study how we can provide such information in the future.

Alright, I think there are no more clarifications.

Pursuant to Standing Order 44(2), the Motion to consider the two Ministerial Statements delivered on 8 September 2026, on the Government's response to the "2026 Review of Salaries for Political Appointment Holders and Members of Parliament" lapses at the conclusion of debate.