[Opinion] Debunking the myth that high salaries ensure clean government

In early September this year, the Government announced that it had accepted the report submitted by the eight-member independent committee reviewing political salaries, with the recommendations taking effect from 15 October this year. The report affirmed that the political salary framework established in 2012 remains broadly applicable. Under the framework, the benchmark for an MR4 minister's salary is based on the median annual income of the 1,000 highest-earning Singapore citizens, less 40% to reflect the ethos of public service.

Based on the latest data, the new benchmark is S$1.8 million, up from the current S$1.1 million. The framework's three core principles remain unchanged: salaries must be competitive enough to attract capable people into politics; they must reflect the spirit of public service; and they must follow a “clean wage” system, with no hidden allowances or benefits.

MR4 refers to the entry-level salary grade for ministers. There are four ministerial salary grades, of which MR4 is the lowest. It can be regarded as the minimum starting salary for a newly appointed minister. How is this starting salary determined? It is based on the median annual income of the 1,000 highest-earning Singapore citizens – around S$3 million – less 40%, which gives the S$1.8 million figure.

Why deduct 40% – or S$1.2 million? It is to “reflect the spirit of public service”. Conventional thinking holds that those entering politics to serve the people must be willing to make sacrifices and put aside personal gain and loss.

Yet even with the 40% deduction, not everyone is satisfied.

Some people still cannot shed the old notion that politicians must not receive what they regard as “high salaries”. As a result, discussing salaries for ministers that are reasonable and in line with market standards has long been taboo. It was only in the 1990s that founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew raised the matter for public discussion, eventually leading to the current political salary framework. This is an objectively grounded mechanism that rises and falls with the market, and is reviewed periodically by an independent committee. Initially, the Government was concerned that as private enterprise flourished, the public service would face greater competition from private companies for talent. It therefore proposed competitive salaries for civil servants. The concept was later extended to political office holders.

It must be said that no matter how salaries are compared or determined, it is impossible to satisfy everyone. In other countries, few seem willing to touch this politically sensitive issue. In the name of political correctness, everyone avoids discussing it. Politicians can therefore only quietly accept “low pay”, and over time, capable people are discouraged from entering politics.

This is the phenomenon of bad money driving out good. Singapore stands apart in linking political office holders' salaries to market rates, making them appear particularly high compared with countries that dare not address the issue. Yet they still lag far behind the remuneration of senior private-sector executives.

Back to the committee's recommendations: although it proposed adjusting the figures, this does not mean ministers' starting salaries will immediately leap from the current S$1.1 million to S$1.8 million. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong noted that S$1.8 million is not the salary level that all ministers will ultimately reach. Following a one-off salary increase of up to 9%, the salaries of incumbent ministers will still be adjusted according to individual performance and responsibilities. He expects that by the end of this Government's term, most ministers still at the MR4 grade will earn around S$1.35 million. The expanded MR4 salary range will be between S$1.35 million and S$2.25 million.

Few people are likely to have carefully worked through the sums behind this first adjustment to ministers' salaries in 15 years. Some who do not understand the details see only the headlines and instinctively react: “Wow! Such a huge increase all at once!” It is hardly surprising that some online trolls seize the opportunity to hurl abuse.

This is also a rather peculiar phenomenon in Singapore. The annual salaries, bonuses and other rewards of chief executives at the three major banks, government-linked companies and listed firms can easily run into tens of millions of dollars, yet this seems to be taken for granted and attracts little attention.

But any salary adjustment for political office holders immediately draws a chorus of online critics. The contrast is truly baffling. After all, the heavy responsibilities borne by the Prime Minister and ministers are far greater than those shouldered by corporate chief executives.

News reports a few days ago said that Singapore Exchange chief executive Loh Boon Chye's total remuneration rose 7% to S$8.37 million in the last financial year, from S$7.82 million in the preceding year. By comparison, under the new framework to be implemented from 15 October, Prime Minister Wong's annual salary – for overseeing the entire Government, managing countless affairs and looking after the welfare of the nation – will rise from S$2.2 million to S$3.6 million. He has also decided to donate the full S$1.4 million annual increase over the next five years, amounting to about S$7 million. Yet without making such a “sacrifice”, people would accuse him of enriching himself. Would parents with exceptionally capable children still encourage them to enter politics?

It may also be necessary to clarify what a “clean wage” means. It means that there are no hidden benefits beyond salary. Many may not know that ministers and other political office holders have all been placed under the Central Provident Fund system since the 1990s, replacing the previous pension scheme. Ministers also receive no special medical benefits.

Parliament has debated political office holders' salaries several times since the 1990s. What was different about this latest parliamentary debate was that the opposition did not object. In particular, both the Government and opposition unanimously accepted increases in MPs' allowances in line with inflation, and no one said the additional allowances should be donated to charity. This illustrates a fact: dedication and sacrifice are not absolute when confronted with reality. Reasonable remuneration should be recognised as such. One should not cling blindly to political correctness, which would be deeply unfair to those holding political office.

This brings to mind the claim that “high salaries ensure clean government”. Frankly, this is a highly misleading summary of Singapore's model of clean government. Integrity certainly cannot be “cultivated” simply through high pay. Singapore itself does not in fact use this expression. It was likely coined by some academics or media outlets in Chinese-language circles outside Singapore, but over time it has become a catchphrase: mention the Singapore model and people say it relies on “high salaries to ensure clean government”. The reality is far more complex. Some accomplished professionals who were persuaded to enter politics have had to accept a loss of income.

It is easy to say that Singapore ensures clean government through “high salaries”, and over time this has become a myth. Many people have consequently formed preconceived notions, which are indeed more harmful than helpful to understanding the facts. We must therefore find a way to dispel this myth.

First, we must understand how Singapore has achieved what it has today. The key has been an outstanding governing team. Its members have worked hard and made major contributions, and should reasonably receive appropriate remuneration that is competitive with other professions. What the Government seeks to provide political office holders is reasonable pay, not simply “high salaries to ensure clean government”.

Second, we must understand that this is no longer the “revolutionary era”. In peacetime, with economic development and industries thriving, the job market offers abundant opportunities. Outstanding men and women can distinguish themselves in corporate and professional fields, climb to the peak of their careers and earn genuinely high salaries. How many, then, would be willing to leave their comfort zones, take on immense political risks – including electoral defeat – put themselves in the public eye by entering politics, and accept a pay cut? The opportunity cost is simply too high. Those with the political courage to step forward and serve the country and its people should therefore receive reasonable remuneration, rather than being held back by outdated ideas. Otherwise, clean government will inevitably deteriorate into mediocre government. Singapore needs not only clean government, but an efficient one. Beyond integrity, it must also ensure that it can attract enough politically capable people to join the governing team.

Third, it must be fully understood that Singapore's clean government was certainly not bought with high salaries. The phrase “high salaries ensure clean government” gives the impression that corruption can be eradicated simply by paying people well. The fact is that human greed knows no bounds. The key is to ensure that capable and incorruptible people govern, and that they are paid reasonably – not to expect the horse to run without feeding it. It is also necessary to ensure a healthy political environment and prevent populist politics from poisoning public discourse.

Fourth, besides having a system for selecting capable people, the most important feature of Singapore's clean government is its zero-tolerance stance towards corruption and its uncompromising anti-corruption mechanism: the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. This department reports directly to the Prime Minister, but if the Prime Minister is implicated in corruption, it may refer the matter to the Elected President.

In summary, Singapore's model of clean government comprises several crucial elements: first, reasonable remuneration; second, a mechanism for selecting capable people; third, an independent anti-corruption agency and stringent laws; and fourth, a social and political culture of zero tolerance for political corruption. It is a combination of measures, not a single formula. Overall, the combined annual salaries of all Singapore political office holders account for less than 0.05% of the Government's recurrent expenditure. As a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), they amount to less than 0.01%. Government expenditure for financial year 2025/2026 exceeds S$100 billion, while GDP is more than S$700 billion. Many countries would no doubt wish to have such a clean and capable government, but frankly, this model is difficult to replicate in places with different national conditions. To assume simply that high salaries can ensure integrity would be a grave mistake.

The author is a former journalist and former People's Action Party Member of Parliament