The framework for determining ministerial salaries in Singapore is under renewed scrutiny, with several Members of Parliament (MPs) proposing adjustments to better reflect the responsibilities and performance of political office-holders.

Currently, ministerial pay is benchmarked against the median income of the top 1,000 Singaporean earners, with a 40% reduction intended to signify the ethos of public service. However, some MPs suggest this approach may not adequately capture the complexity and demands of ministerial roles.

Nominated MP Kenneth Goh called for a revised benchmark tied to positions that mirror the “skills, judgment, complexity and weight of responsibility” ministers face. Citing the latest salary review committee’s report, Goh highlighted that the top earners primarily include senior managers, financial services professionals, and other professionals such as lawyers and doctors. He questioned the extent to which these roles truly parallel ministerial duties, which involve balancing multiple national priorities including economic performance, social cohesion, national security, and long-term sustainability.

Goh also suggested extending the time horizon for measuring the National Bonus—a variable component of ministerial pay linked to indicators such as unemployment rate, real income growth, and GDP growth. He argued that many critical challenges Singapore faces, such as demographic sustainability and climate adaptation, evolve over longer periods and should be factored into performance assessments accordingly.

Nominated MP Azharithoman proposed recalibrating the salary mix by reducing the fixed component from about 65% to 45%, increasing the variable component to 55%, which would be tied more closely to metrics impacting the median citizen, such as real median income growth, unemployment, and housing affordability. He emphasized that the fixed portion would remain a dignified and adequate sum for officeholders.

In response, Coordinating Minister for Public Services Chan Chun Sing acknowledged that the top 1,000 earners benchmark serves as a broad proxy rather than an exact comparison, cautioning that narrowing benchmarks could limit the pool unfairly. Addressing calls to measure ministerial performance over multiple years rather than annually, Chan noted that while the idea has been considered, practical challenges remain. Regarding salary structure adjustments, he stated that the current two-thirds fixed and one-third variable split has been reviewed carefully and remains appropriate for now, though the framework will continue to be evaluated over time.

Several MPs from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) also discussed the public perception challenges surrounding ministerial pay hikes. Labour MP Yeo Wan Ling from Punggol GRC highlighted concerns over timing and the discomfort among workers, emphasizing the need for transparent and credible justifications for salary changes. Mariam Jaafar of Sembawang GRC acknowledged that seven-figure salaries could appear high to many Singaporeans, particularly amid cost-of-living pressures, but stressed that this must be balanced against the importance of attracting capable leaders to public service.

Five-term MP Liang Eng Hwa of Bukit Panjang shared his evolving perspective, noting that while he was previously skeptical of benchmarking ministerial pay to the market, he now supports the system after witnessing the demands placed on political office-holders. He emphasized the necessity of a sustainable compensation model to encourage individuals with integrity and a strong sense of mission to serve Singapore in the long run.

The ongoing discussion reflects a careful balancing act between maintaining competitive remuneration to attract talent and addressing public sensitivities about income inequality and transparency in governance. The government has indicated it will continue to refine the salary framework as Singapore navigates these considerations.