Singapore’s Coordinating Minister for Public Services, Chan Chun Sing, clarified in Parliament on September 10 that the recently proposed $1.8 million salary benchmark for an MR4 (entry-level) minister serves as a reference point rather than a guaranteed entitlement. He emphasized that ministers at this grade would not immediately see their salaries increase from the current $1.1 million to $1.8 million, with most expected to earn approximately $1.35 million by the end of the current parliamentary term.
Chan outlined that a one-time salary adjustment scheduled for October will be capped at nine percent and contingent on individual factors, including performance and prior salary revisions. For example, a minister currently earning $1.1 million could receive an increase up to about $1.2 million, with further raises dependent on ongoing assessments of contribution and responsibilities. He noted that the projected average growth of 0.6 percent per annum over 15 years places the adjustment in historical context.
Speaking after debates on the Government’s response to the 2026 review of political appointment holders’ and MPs’ remuneration, Chan reiterated that the issue extends beyond salary figures. He framed the salary review as part of a broader mission to cultivate a diverse, effective leadership team for Singapore’s future, encompassing younger members with fresh perspectives, experienced colleagues assuming greater duties, and well-established individuals who can immediately contribute.
The revised salary ranges address three archetypes of political appointees: new entrants, experienced contributors, and established figures with unique capabilities. Newly appointed officeholders are likely to start near the lower end of the pay scale, while those with considerable expertise may be positioned higher. Chan highlighted that about 65 percent of ministers’ annual salary is fixed, with the remaining 35 percent variable and linked to personal and national performance metrics. Bonuses can range from zero in weaker years to higher amounts when national targets are surpassed; since 2011, these have varied between 0.75 and 5.6 months of salary.
Beyond remuneration, Chan announced that the Government will consider recommendations from the committee’s review and parliamentary feedback, including exploring the incorporation of quality-of-life indicators—both quantitative and qualitative—to evaluate national performance more holistically. He acknowledged challenges in measuring some important aspects of life and tasked the Public Service Division to study feasible options.
The Government also plans to reassess the allowances framework for MPs and mayors. Chan noted the current MP allowance, typically a fraction of the MR4 benchmark, functions as an allowance rather than a salary, enabling MPs to maintain full-time employment and thus represent diverse societal perspectives. He pledged to engage stakeholders in refining this benchmark. Additionally, the pay and allowances for legislative and secretariat assistants will be reviewed by relevant agencies, although no immediate changes were made as these fell outside the current review’s remit.
In addressing performance assessment, Chan agreed that a multi-year evaluation is conceptually fairer than an annual review. However, he pointed out practical difficulties such as determining the appropriate multi-year timeframe and accounting for possible changes in government leadership. He cited examples from the Ministry of Defence where projects can take decades to materialize, underscoring the complexity of assigning meaningfully timed performance benchmarks.
On the fiscal implications, Chan estimated that even with a maximum nine percent salary adjustment, expenditure on political appointment holders’ salaries would remain below 0.05 percent of total government spending and under 0.01 percent of GDP. This proportion is expected to stay lower than the level observed in 2011 once the new benchmarks are fully implemented.
Concluding his remarks, Chan stressed that financial compensation should not be the primary motivator for political service. Individuals considering such roles must weigh the demands of public scrutiny, loss of privacy, electoral risks, and immense responsibility. He underscored the gravity of public service, contrasting it with business ventures: failure in government affects the nation’s well-being and future, not just an enterprise’s bottom line.