Government’s approach is to raise political salaries ‘progressively and with restraint’: PM Wong

SINGAPORE - The one-off adjustment to political pay addresses a gap that has built up over the years, but does so progressively and with restraint, said Prime Minister Lawrence Wong on Sept 10.

At the parliamentary debate on changes to political salaries, PM Wong noted that there was considerable common ground among MPs from both sides of the aisle and Nominated MPs that ministerial salaries should be competitive while reflecting the ethos of service.

The Government’s approach to raise ministerial salaries by up to 9 per cent in October thus strikes the balance between keeping the salary framework relevant for the future without over-correcting for the present, he said.

PM Wong noted that the 12 MPs and NMPs who spoke during the 4½-hour debate essentially affirmed the need for political service to be competitively remunerated, and that the differences were over how the framework should be calibrated and implemented.

He said there were several ways the Government could have responded to the recommendations by the review committee formed in December 2025 to look at political salaries.

A key recommendation by the committee was to update the benchmark salary of a minister at entry-level grade MR4 – which has been at $1.1 million since 2011 – to $1.8 million.

One way would have been to move all serving office-holders to the new benchmark immediately, but that would not be right as they were at different salary points and grades, said PM Wong.

But neither was it reasonable to leave their salaries unchanged indefinitely, he added, noting that the Government had held back from adjusting salaries in 2017 and had deferred the review in 2023.

PM Wong noted that MPs had said it was not a good time to adjust political salaries, reflecting sentiments from workers and their constituents. “I understand the concerns. But there is never going to be a politically convenient time to adjust political salaries,” he said.

A third option was to ignore the formula and choose a lower benchmark. But that would mean arbitrarily changing the conclusion of an independent committee because the $1.8 million number was politically awkward, he said.

Instead, the Government accepted the framework, but will move towards it gradually, with an MR4 minister expected to earn about $1.35 million by the end of this term of government.

During the debate, WP chief Pritam Singh said his party supported the increase in allowances for MPs in view of inflation, and agreed with the Prime Minister’s decision not to increase ministers’ salaries beyond 9 per cent.

While it agreed with the broad principles laid out by the committee on competitive and transparent ministerial pay while reflecting that political service is a calling, Singh said the WP’s view remains that the preferred formula is one that is a multiple of an MP’s salary pegged to that of a senior public servant’s wage.

He said that this approach, which the WP had proposed in 2012, would lead to more modest increases in ministers’ salaries over time.

PM Wong countered that despite the different formulas, the outcome was a similar salary figure for ministers in this term of government, given the Government’s gradual and restrained approach in implementing the updated salary benchmark.

He noted that an inflation adjustment approach, as used for MPs’ allowances, would have brought the average minister’s salary to $1.5 million. The Government’s decision was, in fact, to take longer to catch up to the benchmark.

“For all intent and purposes, within this term of government, we agree on the implementation approach,” he said. “Beyond that, we will have to consider the circumstances then. And five years from now, there will be another independent review.”

Noting that Singh had said money was not the key to recruiting MPs for the WP, PM Wong made clear that the PAP government does not believe in using higher pay as an incentive to draw people into politics.

“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,” he said.

He noted that if every office-holder received the full one-time adjustment of 9 per cent, the additional public expenditure would be $5 million. The actual amount will be lower as the adjustment will be differentiated.

Currently, the salaries for all political office-holders cost around $55 million. This figure varies from year to year depending on the number of office-holders appointed and promoted, and the national bonus paid out.

As a share of the gross domestic product (GDP), salary expenditure is lower today than it was 10 years ago, PM Wong said. “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.”

The debate saw a number of NMPs seek clarifications and propose tweaks to the salary framework.

Businessman Azhar Othman suggested having a larger variable component in the overall salary package so that it would be less a bonus but “a genuine reflection of the social contract between the governed and those who govern”.

While a minister’s salary currently has a 35 per cent variable that takes into account Singapore’s economic performance, national outcomes and individual performance, Azhar proposed that this component be increased to 55 per cent.

Academic Terence Ho suggested tweaks to encourage more private sector candidates to contest elections, such as a transitional arrangement for those taking especially large pay cuts.

Meanwhile, fellow academic Kenneth Poon asked for broader social progress to be considered in the proposed quality-of-life measure in the national bonus framework.

PM Wong said the MPs had raised many useful suggestions during the debate, and that the Government will study all of them carefully.

The Government does not claim that the present formula is perfect, which is why there will continue to be regular independent reviews in the coming years, he added.

“There may well be further ideas beyond this debate, as we reflect on the framework and gain more experience over time,” he said. “The Government remains open to suggestions.”

He further noted that some MPs had asked why political salaries should go up when other countries achieve good governance outcomes while paying their ministers less.

While this was a fair question, international comparisons of political salaries have to be treated with care. For instance, some countries distribute responsibilities across national, regional and local governments.

But Singapore, as a city-state, has a single national government that is responsible for economic, social, security and municipal issues.

Unlike in other countries, ministers in Singapore also cannot just preside over their ministries like a non-executive chairman, but have to set the tone and direction and make the big decisions, he added.

“In Singapore, we expect our ministers to be effective politicians, effective executives, and effective leaders. That’s how we have operated our system, and that is how we have achieved exceptional results,” he said.

“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 Prime Minister emphasised that the issue when it came to political pay was ultimately not about him or the present Cabinet, nor 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,” he said.

“So whatever our differences, all of us have an interest in ensuring that Singapore continues to be well governed.”