Singapore ministerial pay debate: Paying top talent competitive salaries is in the ‘soul of the PAP’

Natasha Ann Zachariah (0:07)

Everyone wants higher pay, but why does it become an extra thorny issue when it comes to ministers' salaries? Hi guys, I'm Natasha, and welcome to a special episode of the podcast, although we're not at The Usual Place.

But we're still going to have a real conversation about the headlines, which were dominated this week by news of the upcoming rise in ministerial salaries and MPs' allowances. Now, to walk us through the announcement and the debate that followed in parliament yesterday, I'm joined by two people who are no strangers to The Usual Place. I have Straits Times Senior Columnist, Bhavan Jaipragas, who wrote an opinion piece about why the debate over ministerial salaries can never be settled. And I also welcome back Rebecca Grace Tan, Senior Lecturer in Political Science at the National University of Singapore. So first time you're together, the usual way.

In a different setting, yes. But of course, we're still going to have an intense conversation. I think it's a very, it's a topic that many Singaporeans have spoken about. And they had a four hour, about almost a four hour debate in parliament yesterday. But I want to start with the issue itself. So all four of Singapore's prime ministers have had to defend ministerial salaries throughout their terms. How do you think Prime Minister Lawrence Wong did in explaining this round of raises in parliament? And I'm going to start with you, Bhavan.

Bhavan Jaipragas (1:24)

I guess if the objective was to set out clearly in Ernest, the government position, right? Just being upfront with the people, why they are doing it, even though they accept that it is frankly a very unpopular thing to do, and that it will cost you political capital. If that is indeed the objective, being transparent and upfront with the people, I think he did a good job.

It was in his typical way, not so over-exuberant, just being matter of fact, a little bit understated, and not, there's no triumphalism. One could easily be triumphalist in saying that, oh look, our outcomes as a ruling party compared to the rest of the world is immense. Hence, naturally flows that we should pay ourselves very well. I don't think that was a tact taken at all.

So, it was measured, and even on accepting the committee's recommendations, they did not go all the way. It's kind of a more sobering approach, going up to 9%, and then in the medium term, saying that it's likely that the top performers will go up to 1.35 million, rather than the new MR4 benchmark of 1.8 million.

Natasha Ann Zachariah (2:45)

Rebecca, was there anything that you felt was missing, that you thought he covered all bases?

Rebecca Grace Tan (2:50)

I think he covered all bases, I think, in terms of explaining, the kind of setting up the context, which I think for many Singaporeans is, it's been a while, I think, since we've had a proper, like full debate on ministerial salaries.

Natasha Ann Zachariah (3:02)

Yeah, I actually don't remember, actually in 2017 and 2023, what happened, because it was, it just flew by, right? It was just a very like touch and go kind of thing, right?

Rebecca Grace Tan (3:10)

And of course the whole thing was that there were recommendations, but they were chosen not to be adopted, right? So I think that's also why it flew under the radar, because there was no meaningful change, so people just didn't pay attention, right? So the last big debate that captured people's attention was 2012 And for most people, it's not, that's so far after what's going on in the world from COVID to Trump and everything, there's so many other things that occupy our attention. So I think he's, it was good that he kind of set out the context. And I found, I personally found that helpful.

I was saying to Bhavan earlier, I mean, when I was 2012, I can't remember what I was doing, like finishing my undergrad and like, they are not paying attention to the world at that point. And so I think it was, it was helpful to do that and to explain the context. And I did think that he took the bull by the horns in, by saying that, you know, with this, we know this is unpopular.

And I mean, maybe we'll talk about this later, but obviously the kind of context, especially in the global economy and the domestic economy right now. And of, you know, salaries not going up as much and your concerns about greater unemployment due to things like AN, all that uncertainty, it's difficult. I don't know if there's ever a good time for this sort of discussion. It's always going to be difficult, but I think especially now. And I think he set that up. That being said, I think it was still a little bit, I think there were parts that perhaps didn't necessarily address immediately. That was kind of implied, oh, you know, we know it's always a difficult topic, but not the timing precisely right now of 2026 It came up in the debate by MPs like Yiu Wanling, who said, you know, right now it's a really bad time, 2026 is particularly a bad time. And I think that was something that was missing a little bit, kind of the recognition of what the economy is like now. There's a lot of discussion of it's always a difficult topic.