Tighter National Bonus targets would better capture what matters to S’poreans: Analysts

The Government has agreed to explore the inclusion of a robust quality of life measure in the National Bonus framework, when such a measure becomes available.

Published Sep 09, 2026, 03:31 PM

Updated Sep 09, 2026, 03:31 PM

SINGAPORE — The tightened targets for the National Bonus – which forms part of ministers’ variable pay – will raise the performance bar for them in areas that matter to Singaporeans, analysts said.

Coordinating Minister for Public Services Chan Chun Sing had announced on Sept 8 that the Government will raise the target ranges for real income growth for both the median and lower-income earners in the 20th percentile, with the latter seeing the higher increase.

Analysts said the differentiated targets under the updated framework reflect a keener focus in ensuring that economic growth translates into gains for those at the lower end of the income distribution.

The unemployment target has also been tightened, while the GDP growth target has been lowered to reflect the expectation that Singapore’s economy will grow more slowly as it matures.

These four indicators will determine the amount of the National Bonus, which ranges from zero to six months in total. Fully meeting the target level for all indicators results in a total National Bonus of three months.

Aaron Maniam, a Professor in Practice at the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, said the tightened indicators strengthen the performance bar, holding ministers to high standards “not just on macro indicators but specifically to indicators linked to the welfare of lower-earning Singaporeans”.

The raised income-growth target for lower-income Singaporeans is one of the more significant changes to the National Bonus framework, analysts noted.

Under the updated framework, the real income growth target for lower-income earners in the 20th percentile will be raised from the current 2 per cent to below 3 per cent, to 3 per cent to below 4 per cent.

This is compared with an increase from 2 per cent to below 3 per cent to 2.5 per cent to below 3.5 per cent for earners at the median.

Aslam Sardar, chief executive of the Institute for Human Resource Professionals, said from a reward and performance perspective, tightening the indicators is a positive step if it creates a clearer link between remuneration and outcomes that matter to Singapore.

“The National Bonus reflects more than economic performance alone,” he added. “Ministers hold responsibility for decisions that affect Singapore’s longer-term economic resilience, social outcomes and quality of life.”

Singapore Management University law professor Eugene Tan suggested that the National Bonus could incorporate some “stretch targets” at higher bands of the bonus range to make the indicators even more relevant.

This is as the tightened targets were for indicators that have generally been met in recent years, he pointed out.

How to measure quality of life

The Government has also agreed to explore the inclusion of a robust quality of life measure in the National Bonus framework, when such a measure becomes available.

If this measure is eventually included, analysts said it could ultimately change the question the National Bonus is asking, from whether Singapore is doing well economically to whether Singaporeans are doing well more broadly.

The difficulty is that the latter is a much less straightforward thing to measure – and to attribute to the Government, they said.

Analysts imagined the quality of life measure as a basket of indicators covering outcomes such as health and wellbeing, housing affordability, social mobility, equality, access to essential services, leisure time and social cohesion.

“It may be more useful to look at a basket of indicators rather than trying to reduce quality of life to one number,” said Aslam.

The measures should also be objective, transparent and consistent enough to track over time, capturing whether economic progress is actually translating into better outcomes for Singaporeans, he added.

The breadth of the possible measures also raises questions about how such a concept could be incorporated into a performance-linked pay framework.

On this, Aslam said the indicators should be challenging, credible and measurable, while avoiding incentives for ministers to focus too narrowly on outcomes that may be outside the Government’s control.

Maniam said this is a complicated, multi-faceted issue that will benefit from further study.

“Countries often end up using composite indices, since no single indicator can capture all the nuances and details involved,” he said.

The OECD’s Better Life Index is one example that captures how multifarious this issue can be, Maniam added.

The interactive tool shows how different combinations of multiple indicators – including housing, job quality, subjective well-being and work-life balance – can be combined in many different ways, he pointed out.

Norshahril Saat, a principal fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, said social scientists can work on some of the common matrices to measure a slew of indicators.

Indicators he suggested include life expectancy, educational attainment, crime rates, leisure time, the degree of religious diversity and social cohesion, and efficiency of public services.

Tan said the committee is right to highlight that non-material indicators of how Singapore is performing should be part of the matrix of indicators for the National Bonus.

“As society evolves, post-material concerns such as quality of life, fairness and justice take on greater importance and these indicators can make for a more even-handed and balanced assessment of how well the Government is doing its job,” he said.

Singapore Parliament

政府已同意，一旦有合适的衡量标准，将探讨把一项健全的生活质量衡量标准纳入国家奖金框架。

发布于 2026 年 9 月 9 日下午 3:31

更新于2026年9月9日下午3:31

新加坡——分析人士表示，收紧国家奖金（部长浮动薪酬的一部分）的目标，将提高部长们在新加坡人关心的领域的绩效标准。

公共服务统筹部长陈振声于9月8日宣布，政府将提高中低收入人群（收入处于第20百分位）的实际收入增长目标范围，其中低收入人群的增长幅度更高。

分析人士表示，更新后的框架下差异化的目标反映出更加注重确保经济增长转化为收入分配底层人群的利益。

失业率目标也已收紧，而国内生产总值增长目标也已下调，以反映新加坡经济随着成熟而增长速度放缓的预期。

这四项指标将决定国家奖金的数额，总额从零个月到六个月不等。如果所有指标都完全达到目标水平，则可获得三个月的国家奖金。

新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院实践教授亚伦·马尼亚姆表示，收紧的指标提高了绩效标准，要求部长们“不仅在宏观指标上，而且在与低收入新加坡人福利相关的指标上”达到高标准。

分析人士指出，提高低收入新加坡人的收入增长目标是国家奖金框架中较为重大的变化之一。

根据更新后的框架，收入处于第 20 个百分位的低收入人群的实际收入增长目标将从目前的 2% 到 3% 以下提高到 3% 到 4% 以下。

相比之下，收入中位数人群的增幅从 2% 到 3% 以下，再到 2.5% 到 3.5% 以下。

新加坡人力资源专业人士协会首席执行官阿斯拉姆·萨达尔表示，从奖励和绩效的角度来看，如果收紧指标能够更清晰地将薪酬与对新加坡重要的结果联系起来，那么这是一个积极的举措。

他补充说：“国家奖金不仅仅反映经济表现。部长们对影响新加坡长期经济韧性、社会成果和生活质量的决策负有责任。”

新加坡管理大学法学教授陈永健建议，国家奖金可以在奖金范围的较高区间加入一些“挑战目标”，以使这些指标更具相关性。

他指出，这是因为收紧的目标所针对的指标，近年来总体上都已达到。

如何衡量生活质量

政府也已同意，一旦有合适的衡量标准，将探讨在国家奖金框架中纳入一项健全的生活质量衡量标准。

分析人士表示，如果这项措施最终被纳入考量，最终可能会改变国民奖金所提出的问题，从新加坡经济是否良好转变为新加坡人整体生活是否良好。

他们说，难点在于后者很难衡量，也很难将其归咎于政府。

分析人士将生活质量指标设想为涵盖健康和福祉、住房负担能力、社会流动性、平等、获得基本服务、休闲时间和社群凝聚力等结果的一系列指标。

阿斯拉姆说：“与其试图用一个数字来衡量生活质量，不如考察一系列指标，这可能更有意义。”

他还补充说，这些措施也应该客观、透明且具有足够的连贯性，以便随着时间的推移进行跟踪，从而了解经济发展是否真正转化为新加坡人更好的生活。

可能采取的措施范围之广也引发了人们的疑问，即如何将这种概念纳入绩效工资框架中。

对此，阿斯拉姆表示，这些指标应该具有挑战性、可信度和可衡量性，同时避免激励部长们过于关注政府无法控制的结果。

马尼亚姆表示，这是一个复杂的多方面问题，需要进一步研究。

他说：“各国最终往往使用综合指数，因为没有单一指标能够捕捉到所有细微差别和细节。”

马尼亚姆补充说，经合组织的“美好生活指数”就是一个例子，它反映了这个问题的复杂性。

他指出，该互动工具展示了如何以多种不同的方式将多个指标（包括住房、工作质量、主观幸福感和工作与生活平衡）进行不同的组合。

ISEAS-尤索夫伊萨克研究所首席研究员诺沙里尔·萨特表示，社会科学家可以利用一些通用矩阵来衡量一系列指标。

他建议的指标包括预期寿命、教育程度、犯罪率、休闲时间、宗教多样性和社会凝聚力程度以及公共服务的效率。

谭表示，委员会强调新加坡表现的非物质指标应该纳入国家奖金的指标体系，这是正确的。

他说：“随着社会的发展，生活质量、公平正义等后物质层面的问题变得越来越重要，这些指标可以对政府的工作表现进行更加公正和平衡的评估。”

新加坡国会