The government’s announcement of the findings of its review of political office-holders’ salaries and proposed adjustments has once again sparked public debate. At its heart is the question of how resource-scarce Singapore can attract outstanding people into politics while maintaining a clean and efficient government.
Since the time of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore has taken a pragmatic approach: the government must compete with the private sector for talent. If the pay gap is too wide, capable people may be unwilling to give up their careers. Ministers shoulder enormous responsibilities, and a single misjudgement could affect the country’s development for decades. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has also acknowledged that finding suitable people to enter politics is not easy.
High salaries, however, do not necessarily translate into good governance. They can attract talent, but do not necessarily foster a sense of mission. Leadership requires not just ability, but also character, a sense of responsibility and empathy.
Internationally, the official salaries of ministerial-level office-holders in the US and Japan are generally lower than those in Singapore. Singapore is among the few countries that explicitly benchmark such salaries against private-sector pay. The country’s success or failure depends to a large extent on a clean and efficient leadership team, which is why it is prepared to pay higher salaries to attract and retain talent. But if society increasingly comes to believe that outstanding people will serve the country only if the pay is high enough, the spirit of public service could be eroded.
Politics cannot be governed entirely by market rates. A country is not a company. While corporate chief executives create value for shareholders, political leaders must balance the interests of different social groups and generations, and make long-term decisions. Companies can withdraw from less profitable markets, but governments cannot abandon vulnerable groups. What people really care about is not whether politicians can draw high salaries, but what the public gets in return. They will naturally demand stricter standards of integrity and stronger accountability mechanisms.
The high-pay system is therefore, in essence, a social contract: leaders must serve the people with exceptional ability, unimpeachable integrity and a strong sense of responsibility. Salary reviews should remain independent and transparent, with pay benchmarks and the reasons for adjustments fully disclosed. The government should also broaden its search for talent, identifying people with a strong sense of responsibility in communities, trade unions, academia and small and medium-sized enterprises. It should also appeal to a sense of honour and purpose to draw outstanding people from the private sector into public service.
High salaries can attract talent, but cannot guarantee a conscience; they can attract professionals, but cannot ensure that they stay true to their original purpose. Ministerial pay should not be a taboo subject. Regular reviews of the pay system also offer an opportunity to examine the social contract between the government and the people. Beyond comparing salaries, we must ensure that they deliver genuine value — through ability, integrity and accountability that honour the people’s trust.
