MPs suggest tweaking benchmarks, adjusting variable component of ministers’ salaries

Published Sep 10, 2026, 09:10 PM

Updated Sep 10, 2026, 09:10 PM

SINGAPORE – The debate on changes to political salaries saw broad agreement on the importance of competitive remuneration, although some MPs suggested tweaks to the salary framework.

These included adjustments to how the benchmark for ministers’ salaries is calculated , or changes to the proportion of fixed and variable components in a minister’s pay.

Currently, ministerial salaries are benchmarked to the median income of the top 1,000 earners who are Singapore citizens, with a 40 per cent discount to reflect the ethos of public service.

Nominated MP Kenneth Goh suggested that salaries should instead be benchmarked to jobs that reflect the “skills, judgment, complexity, and weight of responsibility” expected of political office-holders.

Referring to figures in the 2026 Salary Review Committee’s report, Goh noted that just over half the top 1,000 earners are in senior management positions, another third are in financial services, and the remainder are professionals such as lawyers, accountants, doctors, and engineers.

“How comparable are these roles to that of a minister?” Goh asked.

While a corporate executive may run a large and complex organisation, their mandate is still bounded by organisational performance with economic outcomes as a central priority, he said.

“For a minister, economic performance is also critically important, but it is only one part of the mandate,” he added. “A minister must reconcile economic performance with distributional consequences, social cohesion, land constraints, national security, resilience, and intergenerational trade-offs.”

Goh also questioned the time horizon used to calculate the National Bonus – a component of ministerial salaries that is paid out based on four indicators: unemployment rate, real income growth for the 20th-percentile Singaporean earner and for the median Singapore citizen, as well as real gross domestic product (GDP) growth.

He noted that the four indicators reflect how Singapore is performing now, but some of the “most difficult challenges” – such as demographic sustainability, social mobility, climate adaptation, social cohesion – unfold over much longer horizons.

Goh suggested that the Government consider assessing progress on indicators that reflect Singapore’s capacity to thrive over the medium and long term.

Fellow Nominated MP Azhar Othman, who said there was a widening distance between the lived reality of ordinary Singaporeans and the remuneration of those who govern them, suggested changing the proportions of the salary structure.

This currently has a fixed component of about 65 per cent that includes 13 months’ pay, while the remainder includes an annual variable component, performance bonus and the National Bonus.

“If we accept the premise of a clean wage, we must also accept the premise of a shared risk,” said Azhar.

“I propose that we adjust the structure to a fixed salary of 45 per cent and a variable component of 55 per cent,” he said, adding that the fixed component “represents a substantial, dignified, and generous sum that no officeholder will struggle to live on”.

The remainder, he said, could be weighted towards metrics that directly affect the median citizen, such as real median income growth, unemployment rates, and housing affordability.

Responding to Goh, Coordinating Minister for Public Services Chan Chun Sing said the top 1,000 earners benchmark was never intended to identify jobs comparable to the ministers, but serves as a broad proxy.

He agreed that salaries should be benchmarked against jobs that are more comparable, rather than just from a financial perspective, but cautioned that identifying such roles could result in narrow a pool for comparison.

On measuring performance over a multi-year basis, rather than year by year, Chan said this has been considered, but there are practical difficulties in doing 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. And we will have to find that balance,” Chan said.

As for Azhar’s call to increase the variable component, Chan said there have been calls for both a larger or smaller variable component.

“The committee has considered all this, and on balance, they felt that the current two-third, one-third split is about right,” said Chan. “But we will continue to look at this as we gain more experience running this framework.”

He said regardless of the benchmark and formula chosen, these have to allow any Prime Minister to have the flexibility to recruit or retain three types of politicians – new entrants with potential, experienced ministers, and established individuals who are prepared to give up their careers to join politics.

Quality of Life indicator

Some of the 12 MPs who spoke also supported the inclusion of a Quality of Life measure in the National Bonus – a suggestion made by the review committee.

Nominated MP Kenneth Poon said the Government can take the opportunity to develop a broader framework for understanding social progress as the measure is developed.

He suggested four dimensions through which social progress can be assessed – material adequacy, access to essential services such as healthcare and public housing, social connectedness, and subjective wellbeing, or whether Singaporeans feel their lives are going well.

Poon said objective indicators can tell us about the circumstances in which a person live, while a subjective measure allows Singaporeans themselves to tell us how they experience their lives.

If measured well, he said, the National Bonus can continue to recognise the importance of a strong economy, jobs, and raising incomes, while also recognising the reason why these matter – “ to enable Singaporeans, their families, and our communities to flourish”.

In response, Chan said the Quality of Life indicators should be ones where data can be collected, with a stable series of data to inform targets.

“It is not so easy to set such indicators because some of the things are qualitative rather than quantitative,” he said, adding that some of the factors are multi-year rather than single-year results.

Yet, he acknowledged that “some important things in life cannot be measured and we must be careful not to make important only what we can measure”.

“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,” said Chan.

MPs on how salary changes could be received by S’poreans

Several of the six PAP MPs who spoke noted that increasing ministerial salaries could be difficult for everyday Singaporeans to accept .

Labour MP Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol GRC) questioned the timing of the adjustments and said the reaction from workers “has not been a comfortable one”.

She said a wage framework does not make a number right “simply because a formula exists”.

What matters is that there is a credible basis behind salary adjustments, she said, adding that the “basis must be clear, the framework transparent, and movements in actual pay must be explainable”.

Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang GRC) said she understands why someone’s reaction to seven-figure salaries might be: “Why so much?”

Acknowledging that the figure can feel abstract for many Singaporeans, she said she would not tell Singaporeans who are squeezed by challenges such as the cost of living that a seven-figure sum should not make them feel uncomfortable.

But the discomfort over such salaries should also be considered against other questions – such as whether a gap between political salaries and other career options might affect the willingness of capable people to enter politics, she said.

Five-term MP Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang), who joined politics in 2006, said in a Mandarin speech that in 2007, he did not take part in a debate on a motion to adjust the salaries of political appointment holders as he was not entirely convinced that ministerial salaries should be pegged to the market.

Two decades on, he said, he believes it is the right system, especially after witnessing firsthand the sacrifices made by political appointment holders.

“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,” he said.

On the timing of the adjustments, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said there is never a politically convenient time to adjust political salaries.

While he acknowledged ground sentiments, he said the Government had already deferred its consideration of the review committee’s recommendations after the conflict in Iran erupted, as its immediate priority was managing the conflict’s immediate consequences for Singapore.

While the Middle East conflict has not ended, he said the domestic economic situation has stabilised.

“We could always hope that next year will bring a better moment. But the world may just as easily become more difficult next year,” he said.

“And if every difficult circumstance becomes a reason not to act, then we will keep putting the issue off. And there will come a point when restraint ceases to be prudence and becomes neglect,” said PM Wong, who added that the need for leadership renewal is pressing and urgent.

Singapore Parliament

Members of Parliament

发布于2026年9月10日晚上9:10

更新于2026年9月10日晚上9:10

新加坡——关于政治薪酬改革的辩论中，各方普遍认同具有竞争力的薪酬的重要性，尽管一些议员建议对薪酬框架进行调整。

这些措施包括调整部长薪酬基准的计算方法，或改变部长薪酬中固定部分和可变部分的比例。

目前，部长级官员的薪酬以新加坡公民收入最高的 1000 人的收入中位数为基准，并打 40% 的折扣，以体现公共服务的精神。

委任议员吴庆炎建议，薪酬应该以能够反映政治官员所需“技能、判断力、复杂性和责任重大”的工作为基准。

吴先生援引 2026 年薪酬审查委员会报告中的数据指出，收入最高的 1000 人中，超过一半担任高级管理职位，另有三分之一从事金融服务业，其余的则是律师、会计师、医生和工程师等专业人士。

“这些职位与部长职位有多大可比性？”吴问道。

他表示，虽然企业高管可能管理着一个庞大而复杂的组织，但他们的职责仍然受到组织绩效的限制，而经济成果是其中的核心优先事项。

“对部长而言，经济表现固然至关重要，但这只是其职责的一部分，”他补充道。“部长必须兼顾经济表现与分配后果、社会凝聚力、土地限制、国家安全、韧性以及代际权衡等因素。”

吴作栋还质疑了计算国家奖金所采用的时间范围——国家奖金是部长薪酬的一部分，根据四个指标发放：失业率、新加坡收入处于第 20 百分位的人和新加坡公民收入中位数的实际收入增长，以及实际国内生产总值 (GDP) 增长。

他指出，这四项指标反映了新加坡目前的表现，但一些“最艰难的挑战”——例如人口可持续性、社会流动性、气候适应、社会凝聚力——需要在更长的时间跨度内才能逐步显现。

吴先生建议政府考虑评估能够反映新加坡在中长期发展能力的指标的进展情况。

另一位官委议员阿兹哈尔·奥斯曼表示，新加坡普通民众的真实生活与执政者的薪酬之间的差距越来越大，他建议改变薪酬结构的比例。

目前，该薪酬方案包含约 65% 的固定部分（包括 13 个月的工资），其余部分包括年度浮动部分、绩效奖金和国家奖金。

阿扎尔说：“如果我们接受干净工资的前提，我们也必须接受风险共担的前提。”

“我建议将薪酬结构调整为固定工资占 45%，浮动部分占 55%。”他说道，并补充说，固定部分“是一笔可观、体面且慷慨的款项，任何官员都不会难以维持生计”。

他表示，其余部分可以侧重于直接影响普通民众的指标，例如实际收入中位数增长、失业率和住房负担能力。

针对吴作栋的提问，公共服务统筹部长陈振声表示，收入最高的 1000 名人群的基准并非旨在确定与部长们的工作类似的职位，而只是作为一种广泛的参考指标。

他同意应该以更具可比性的工作为基准来衡量薪资，而不仅仅是从财务角度来看，但他警告说，确定这样的职位可能会导致可供比较的范围缩小。

陈先生表示，他们考虑过以多年为单位而不是逐年来衡量业绩，但这样做存在实际困难。

“我们充分意识到使用单年度指标的挑战，但我们也意识到使用多年评估指标的挑战。我们必须找到这两者之间的平衡，”陈说。

至于阿兹哈尔呼吁增加可变部分，陈表示，有人呼吁增加可变部分，也有人呼吁减少可变部分。

陈先生表示：“委员会已经考虑了所有这些因素，综合来看，他们认为目前三分之二和三分之一的比例比较合适。但随着我们在这个框架下积累更多经验，我们将继续对此进行研究。”

他表示，无论选择何种基准和公式，都必须允许任何一位总理灵活地招募或留住三种类型的政治家——有潜力的新人、经验丰富的部长，以及愿意放弃现有事业投身政界的成熟人士。

生活质量指标

发言的 12 位议员中，有些人也支持在国家奖金中加入生活质量指标——这是审查委员会提出的建议。

委任议员潘建国表示，政府可以借此机会，在制定该措施的同时，建立一个更广泛的框架来理解社会进步。

他提出了四个可以用来评估社会进步的维度——物质充足性、获得医疗保健和公共住房等基本服务的机会、社会联系以及主观幸福感，或者说新加坡人是否觉得自己的生活过得很好。

潘表示，客观指标可以告诉我们一个人的生活环境，而主观衡量标准则可以让新加坡人自己告诉我们他们的生活体验。

他表示，如果衡量得当，国民奖金可以继续认可强劲的经济、就业和收入增长的重要性，同时也能认可这些因素之所以重要的原因——“使新加坡人、他们的家庭和我们的社区蓬勃发展”。

对此，陈表示，生活质量指标应该是可以收集数据的指标，并且需要一系列稳定的数据来指导目标的制定。

“设定这类指标并不容易，因为有些事情是定性的而不是定量的，”他说道，并补充说，有些因素是多年结果而不是单年结果。

然而，他也承认“生活中有些重要的事情是无法衡量的，我们必须小心，不要只重视那些我们可以衡量的东西”。

陈先生说：“因此，公共服务部门将认真研究所有这些问题，然后再提出一项关于哪些方案可行​​、哪些方案可能实现的建议，同时兼顾各成员提出的所有考虑因素。”

国会议员们讨论新加坡人可能如何看待薪资变化

发言的六位人民行动党议员中，有几位指出，提高部长薪酬可能难以被新加坡普通民众接受。

工党议员杨婉玲（榜鹅集选区）质疑调整的时机，并表示工人的反应“并不令人感到舒服”。

她说，工资框架并不能使某个数字变得正确，“仅仅因为存在一个公式”。

她表示，重要的是薪资调整背后要有可信的依据，并补充说，“依据必须明确，框架必须透明，实际薪资的变动必须能够解释”。

玛丽亚姆·贾法尔（三巴旺集选区）表示，她理解为什么有人会对七位数的薪水感到疑惑：“为什么这么多？”

她承认这个数字对许多新加坡人来说可能比较抽象，但她表示不会告诉那些正面临生活成本等挑战的新加坡人，七位数的金额不应该让他们感到不舒服。

但她表示，对这种薪酬的不满也应该结合其他问题来考虑——例如，政治薪酬与其他职业选择之间的差距是否会影响有能力的人进入政界的意愿。

曾五次当选国会议员（武吉班让选区）的梁荣华于2006年步入政坛，他在一次华语演讲中表示，2007年，他没有参加一项关于调整政治任命官员薪酬的动议辩论，因为他并不完全相信部长级薪酬应该与市场挂钩。

二十年后，他表示，他仍然认为这是一个正确的制度，尤其是在亲眼目睹了政治任命官员所做出的牺牲之后。

他说：“如果我们希望新加坡在未来几十年继续拥有一支杰出的政治领导团队，我们就必须建立一个合理且可持续的制度，鼓励有能力、有诚信、有使命感的人站出来为国家服务。”

关于调整时机，总理黄循财表示，调整政治人物薪酬从来没有政治上合适的时机。

他承认民众的情绪，但表示在伊朗冲突爆发后，政府已经推迟考虑审查委员会的建议，因为其当务之急是应对冲突对新加坡的直接影响。

他表示，虽然中东冲突尚未结束，但国内经济形势已经趋于稳定。

“我们当然可以寄希望于明年情况会好转。但明年世界也很有可能变得更加艰难，”他说。

黄循财总理表示：“如果每一个困难情况都成为不采取行动的理由，那么我们就会一直拖延下去。总有一天，克制不再是审慎，而是疏忽。”他还补充说，领导层更新换代的需求迫在眉睫。

新加坡国会

国会议员