Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Committee reviewing the salaries of political office holders.
But as a Labour MP, I want to begin with what I have been hearing from workers. The reaction on the ground is not a comfortable one. Before this debate, I asked our union leaders to speak candidly to workers in the land transport sector — our taxi and PHV drivers, bus and rail workers — and ask them what they thought.
One worker put it to us very simply in Mandarin: “不是要同⽢共苦吗？怎么选这个时机？” Aren’t we supposed to share the good times and the difficult times together? Why choose this time?
I thought that question captured something important. It was not simply a question about salary adjustments. It was a question about timing, and about whether workers feel that we are sharing the same realities they are experiencing.
Some workers told us that while Singapore’s economic numbers may look healthy, that is not necessarily how the economy feels to them on the ground. Their wages have gone up, but so have their everyday expenses. Some told us that after accounting for the higher cost of living, they do not feel substantially better off, even with the support that Government has provided. Workers worry about jobs, about business conditions, and about what restructuring and AI may mean for their livelihoods. And against that backdrop, they ask: why now?
Others told us that public service should fundamentally be motivated by a desire to serve, and asked why further increases were necessary when political salaries are already at levels they consider substantial. Some could understand salaries being reviewed and adjusted, but felt that 9 per cent was too high, instinctively comparing it with their own annual increments, which are considerably lower.
And some asked another interesting question: why wait so many years between adjustments? Would it not be better to review salaries more regularly, rather than wait 10 or 15 years and have a much larger headline number?
These are sentiments we must take seriously. I understand them not only because workers tell me so. I understand them because I sit at the tables where their wages are negotiated. Mr Speaker, as a unionist, I have sat across the table from employers negotiating Collective Agreements, Annual Increments and Bonuses. In many of the Collective Agreements I have worked on, annual increments are lower than 9 per cent.
I see the same realities in our Progressive Wage negotiations. I chair the Tripartite PWM Clusters for Food Services and Retail. Every increase has to be carefully worked through among unions, employers and Government — balancing our ambition to uplift workers with productivity, sector conditions and what businesses can sustain.
So I know how hard-won wage progression can be, and how closely workers watch their wages because every improvement matters to them and their families. That is why I understand the immediate reaction when workers see “up to 9 per cent”. And I do not dismiss it. But there is something else that my experience negotiating wages has taught me. When we negotiate wages, we never look only at the headline number. We ask what sits behind that number.
What is the benchmark? How does pay move? What are the economic and manpower conditions? What can be sustained, and what outcomes are we rewarding? These are questions we ask when negotiating a Collective Agreement for our transport workers or working through Progressive Wages for our lower-wage workers.
So these are also the questions I asked when I looked at this review. First, what does the 9 per cent actually represent? I understand why workers instinctively compare it with their own annual increment. But they are not quite the same comparison.
Workers’ annual increments are part of regular wage progression and accumulate year after year. Political salaries, by contrast, have not been adjusted for 15 years. And importantly, that period began not with an increase, but with a substantial downward restructuring in 2011. The annual salary of an entry-level MR4 Minister was reduced by 37 per cent. That does not by itself justify any particular adjustments today, nor does it tell us that 9 per cent is the right number. But it tells us that we should look at the whole period, rather than one number in isolation.
The Committee has now recommended that the MR4 reference benchmark be updated from $1.1 million to $1.8 million. That is a significant movement in the benchmark. I understand why workers will look at that number and ask questions. But here too, the time period matters. Spread over the 15 years since 2011, the movement in the benchmark works out to about 3.6 per cent a year. Over the same period, wages grew by about 4.3 per cent a year for the median worker, or P50, and 4.6 per cent a year at P20, which represents workers at the lower end of the wage distribution.
Put another way, since the 2012 review, incomes of Singapore Citizen earners have risen by about 80 per cent at the median and 87 per cent at P20. And that progress has not simply been a story of annual increments. Over these years, through sustained tripartite effort, unions, employers and Government have worked to reshape wages and work — through Progressive Wages, skills and career ladders, stronger links between wages, productivity, responsibilities and outcomes, and better employability for our senior and vulnerable workers.
We have strengthened support for lower-wage workers through Workfare, given platform workers formal recognition and stronger protections, and strengthened workplace fairness through legislation. These changes did not happen by accident. They reflect years of tripartite work to help our workers earn better wages, stay employable, be better protected and share in Singapore’s progress.
Of course, these percentages translate into very different dollars at different salary levels. But taken over the same period, they give us a more meaningful context for understanding how wages have moved over time.
Mr Speaker, the 9 per cent is only one number workers are looking at. There is also the benchmark itself. Here again, our experience in the Labour Movement is useful. In wage-setting, a benchmark is not the same as a pay cheque. It is a reference point within a salary structure — and under the revised framework, Ministers can be paid within a range of 75 to 125 per cent of the reference salary for their grade.
So I think it is important to explain plainly what the benchmark means. It does not mean that every MR4 Minister will now be paid that amount, nor is it a target salary that every Minister will eventually receive. Government has decided not to move existing Ministers immediately to the new benchmark. The immediate adjustment is up to 9 per cent, and there will not be further special adjustments simply to close the gap. Subsequent salary movements will depend on performance and responsibilities.
And, Mr Speaker, that distinction matters. But a benchmark must still have a credible basis, and Singaporeans are entitled to scrutinise it. Mr Speaker, this brings me to what, for me as a unionist, is the heart of the matter. A wage framework does not make a number right simply because a formula exists. What matters is whether there is a credible basis behind it.
We know this from our work in the Labour Movement. Sometimes we bargain hard over what may look like a small difference, because behind every percentage point is somebody's livelihood.
Political service is not the same as an ordinary job, and Government is not a business. So the considerations cannot be identical. But I believe the same discipline should apply: the basis should be clear, the framework transparent, and movements in actual pay should be explainable.
There is also something we should learn from the long gap between reviews. Regular review does not mean regular increase. Depending on circumstances, a review can result in an increase, no increase, or restraint. But reviewing the framework regularly means that when salaries move — or do not move — Singaporeans can understand why.
There is one other part of the framework that matters to me from a Labour perspective. Part of political remuneration is linked to how Singapore and Singaporeans are doing — whether people have jobs, and whether their real incomes are growing. Whether Singaporean’s lives are improving and that Singaporeans are able to realise their dreams and aspirations. I think that is important. If political remuneration is tied to Singapore's progress, then our workers' progress must be part of that picture.
Mr Speaker, PM and Minister Chan have set out the Government's basis for the review earlier. I do not intend to repeat their explanations. My responsibility as a Labour MP is to consider those explanations through the same lens I bring to wage negotiations, and ask myself a simple question: can I explain the basis for this outcome clearly to our workers?
I also agree with workers on one fundamental point. Political service must ultimately be motivated by a desire to serve. No salary framework can create that motivation, and no salary level can substitute for it. But service and a proper remuneration framework are not contradictory.
Mr Speaker, I began with the worker who asked: “不是要同⽢共苦吗？” For our workers, 同⽢共苦 is something they must be able to experience and feel — in their wages, their jobs and their prospects, and in knowing that we are all moving forward together, through good times and bad.
It is right that we scrutinise the numbers, the benchmarks and the wage framework. And we should not lose sight of why we have this framework in the first place: to enable capable people to step forward to serve, and together with every Singaporean, build a better tomorrow.
And that work continues long after this debate has concluded. As a Labour MP and unionist, I go back to the negotiating table tomorrow — pushing for better wages, better jobs and better livelihoods for our workers. And like every Member of this House, I go back to my community and my constituents this evening — to listen, to serve, and to continue building that future together. Because ultimately, that is what 同⽢共苦 means to me: through good times and bad, we remain in this together.
Mr Speaker, it is with that responsibility in mind that I support the Government’s response to the review.
