09/09/2026
The Government has announced the first adjustment to ministerial salaries since 2011, with ministers receiving increases of up to 9%.
The usual justification is that Singapore needs to attract capable people into politics and that political salaries must remain competitive with the private sector. That is a reasonable consideration, but salary alone should never be seen as a measure of integrity or commitment to public service.
The S. Iswaran case is a clear reminder of this. He was a highly paid Cabinet minister, yet he was convicted after pleading guilty to receiving gifts and was sentenced to imprisonment.
The lesson is not that ministers should be poorly paid. Rather, a high salary can attract talent, but it cannot guarantee integrity. Integrity comes from character, accountability, strong institutions, and the willingness to accept consequences when public trust is breached.
We believe that Singapore should consider a different approach to the fixed salary component.
Instead of relying so heavily on benchmarks based on the median income of the top 1,000 earners, less 40%, ministerial salaries could be additionally linked to an independently calculated Singapore living wage benchmark.
This would create a stronger connection between political remuneration and the living standards of ordinary Singaporeans.
When Singaporeans prosper, political salaries can rise. When common folk are under greater financial pressure, political leaders should also experience some of that reality rather than remain financially insulated from it.
The recent salary review was also a missed opportunity to consider broader national indicators, such as Singapore’s Total Fertility Rate, as part of the framework for reviewing political remuneration.
Singapore’s declining fertility rate is one of the country’s most significant long-term challenges. It reflects broader concerns surrounding the cost of living, housing affordability, work-life balance, and the financial pressures faced by Singaporean families. Including such an indicator would create a stronger link between political remuneration and the long-term social outcomes that the Government seeks to achieve.
This is not to suggest that ministerial salaries should be determined solely by the Total Fertility Rate. Rather, it could be one of several objective indicators used to assess whether Singapore is progressing in areas that directly affect the lives and future of its citizens.
If the Government wants to demonstrate that it is truly united with the public, linking political remuneration more closely to the living standards and future wellbeing of Singaporeans would be a meaningful step in that direction.
Ultimately, Singapore needs leaders who are not only capable, but also accountable, ethical, and connected to the everyday realities of Singaporeans.
The Singapore People’s Party does not support this increase in ministerial salaries at this time.
We believe the priority should be to address the cost pressures faced by ordinary Singaporeans and strengthen public confidence in our institutions. Political leaders should lead by example, and any future adjustment to political remuneration should be tied to objective measures of Singaporeans’ living standards and national wellbeing.
High salary should never be confused with high integrity. Public office is a responsibility, not a privilege to be benchmarked without regard to the people we serve.
