It's possible you might have missed it in the midst of a flurry of Lerine "S-hook zehzeh" Yeo updates:

and Rihanna showing up spontaneously at Sephora in ION Orchard:

But there was an interesting and polite exchange that took place on Monday in Parliament between two MPs, an NCMP and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean on the very important topic of ministerial salaries.

It started with this explanation from DPM Teo about the breakdown of how a minister's salary is derived —

but importantly, it also showed the specific range of bonus quantums (in terms of the number of months' bonus) that were earned by the ministers... between 2013 and 2017.

We thought we'd backtrack, though, and show you the questions that were asked of DPM Teo and his answers to them.

[related_story]

Q1: The one that started it all

On Sep. 10, Non-Constituency MP Leon Perera posed the following written question:

"...in each of the past five years, what has been the bonus paid to Cabinet Ministers in terms of (i) the average total number of bonus months (ii) the highest total number of bonus months paid to an individual Minister and (iii) the lowest total number of bonus months paid to an individual Minister."

He asked for the highest, the lowest and the average total number of bonus months paid to an individual minister in the past five years.

Answer: Performance bonuses over past 5 years

In response, PM Lee furnished the following table:

More details here:

Okay, well and good.

At this juncture, it's worth sharing that some misinformation started surfacing — claims that PM Lee earned S$4.5 million after factoring in bonuses, for instance — and this triggered a Factually article that attempted to debunk this:

Q2: Salaries resurfaced

MP Alex Yam then filed this oral question for the sitting on Monday, Oct. 1:

"To ask the Prime Minister whether he can

(i) list all the components of the salaries of the Ministers and Prime Minister

(ii) state the amounts, in months of salary, paid for each component for each year from 2013 to 2017 and

(iii) confirm that these components are fully included in the Ministerial salary benchmark established in the White Paper on "Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government" that was debated in Parliament in January 2012 and are not payments over and above the salary benchmark."

It's possible his question was in response to the misinformation that was spreading online, to allow the government the chance to clarify the facts.

Answer: detailed breakdown of formula decided upon in 2012

DPM Teo's answer is summarised in the breakdown story above.

Then came the follow-up questions:

Q3: Have ministerial salaries increased or decreased since 2012, & do any political office holders still get pension?

Yam got dibs on the first follow up, which precisely goes:

"Since the revision in 2012, in percentage terms, has the average income of our ministers increased or decreased? And secondly on the issue of pensions which has also appeared in public discourse, can the DPM clarify once and for all how many political office holders still qualify for pension?"

Answer: They go up and down, & no there are no more pensions

DPM Teo said:

"Mr Speaker sir, I can confirm that the pay for ministers currently remains the same in accordance with the 2012 white paper framework. Of course it can go up, or it can go down depending on whether the national outcomes were achieved and the individual performance of the ministers and that is essentially part of the structure of the framework that was put in place in 2012 and I can confirm to Mr Alex Yam that ministerial pensions were discontinued in 2012 as part of the revision of the framework, and the ministers will receive the same Medisave contribution percentages and numbers as civil servants do under the MSO scheme for medical benefits. So there are no hidden perks, there are no hidden medical benefits, there are no pensions."

Q4: Can please say how much bonus (in S$) was paid for each part for each year? Also, couldn't you have avoided online misinformation if you had shared a fuller response to Perera's question?

MP Pritam Singh stood up to ask the following follow-up:

"DPM, thank you for your reply to Mr Alex Yam's question. DPM stated that the three components of Mr Alex Yam's question had been answered.

The second part actually requests the Prime Minister to state the amounts in months of salary paid for each component of, for each year from 2013-2017; what we have in the first handout is a range in the number of months. Do we have details on the absolute dollar amount that was requested in the parliamentary question by Mr Alex Yam?

The second question I have is with regard to whether the Deputy Prime Minister agrees that in response to Mr Leon Perera's parliamentary question filed on the 10th of September whether the government could have pre-empted some of the misinformation that occurred online, had a fuller and more expansive reply been given to Mr Leon Perera in September?"

Answer: The most important thing is all of it fits in the S$1.1 million figure. Also, Perera filed a written question and it was fully answered in writing. But he and Pritam are welcome to ask more questions to expand on Perera's initial question.

Here's what DPM Teo said:

"Mr Speaker Sir, I think I have answered Mr Alex Yam's question as he has posed it and the most important aspect of that answer is that all the components are within the framework of S$1.1 million, that was put in place in 2012. That's the most important. I should point out that Mr Leon Perera asked the question for written answer and his question was fully answered in a written form. Now Mr Leon Perera chose not to ask an oral question, he could have expanded, he could have asked, but he chose not to, and I invite him to ask any questions for clarifications that he may have. And of course, Mr Pritam Singh as well, who was present during the debate."

Q5: Actually my original question asked for *total* bonus months, not just performance bonus — why didn't you include the national bonus in your answer? Also, can you start telling everyone what the national bonus & average, highest and lowest performance bonus is every year from now on please? Asking for a friend.

Okay, here's what Perera actually asked:

"DPM for his detailed reply. Just a few supplementary questions: firstly would the honourable DPM acknowledge that my original written PQ filed in September asked for total bonus months and not only performance bonus, and would that not have been an opportunity to at that point, when the written PQ was filed in September also disclose and publish the national bonus level in addition to the performance bonus level, which I think is the point that Mr Pritam Singh was making. So that's my first question.

My second question would be, would the government be publishing the quantums of national bonus and average highest and lowest performance bonus on an annual basis going forward? Thank you."

Answer: If you wanted the national bonus and AVC (the latter of which is known) you could have asked it as an oral question and we would have responded like we're doing today. No secrets here, and I'm answering everything. BUT do you agree with the WP position in 2012 about salaries being competitive & transparent & recognise public service ethos?

And here's what DPM Teo said:

"Mr Speaker Sir, he asked for what each minister gets. For the national bonus and the AVC, it's the same for all ministers. AVC is well-known. So if that was what Mr Leon Perera wanted, he could have filed an oral question and he could've followed up and we would have provided him the answer as we would have had, as we would today. So there's nothing secret about it, it's transparent, it's open, and I'm answering all the questions today.

But could I ask Mr Perera whether he agrees that ministerial salaries should be competitive, that the salaries should recognise the ethos of public service, and that salaries should be transparent, which is the Workers' Party's position in 2012?"

Q6: I didn't talk about that issue, but I agree with the broad principles you raised. However I *would* like to ask if the national bonus has been published before I asked my first written question, and also... couldn't you just have said what the national bonus was when I first asked instead of only releasing performance bonus figures?

Here's his ad verbatim reply:

"I thank the honourable Deputy Prime Minister for his reply. I, my parliamentary question did not raise a suggestion with relation to the salary, the formula for calculating or the total compensation of the salary and I have no disagreement with those broad principles in response to the DPM's question.

I would also like to pose a question in relation to my original written question filed in September. It was in relation to total bonus months, and I would like to ask the honourable DPM is the figure, had the figure for the national bonus, which I acknowledge is the same for all ministers, had that figure been previously published prior to when that written question was filed in September, and if not, would that not have been an opportunity to also release that figure in September together with the average performance bonus figure?

Thank you."

Answer: National bonus was published once in 2013. But the formula for calculating it is known, and people have tried doing so and they're not too far off the mark. However *I* now want to ask if Perera agrees that WP and PAP positions on ministerial salaries essentially lead to similar amounts earned, but WP's proposal has much more of it as fixed pay?

Here's DPM's ad verbatim response:

"Mr Speaker Sir, we did publish the information, the full information, once, the first year after the framework was announced. It's in the public record, and in fact the method of calculating the national bonus is well-known. All the components are there, all the factors are there, and it can be calculated, and I think people have made an attempt to do so, not very far off from where it actually was.

But I take it then that Mr Perera does affirm that he agrees that ministerial salaries should be competitive, that the salaries should recognise the ethos of public service and that salaries should be transparent. Can I ask Mr Perera whether he agrees that the salary proposals that the Workers' Party had put forward in 2012 would essentially result in the same total annual salaries for ministers as the white papers, except for the Workers' Party proposal having a much larger component as fixed pay?"

Then there was a brief exchange where DPM Teo accused Perera of evading his question.

Perera:

"DPM for his question, I was not present in the house and I did not participate in this debate and in my parliamentary question I did not make a suggestion, that is a new suggestion about how the total compensation or the monthly salaries should be calculated."

DPM Teo:

"Mr Perera should not evade the question. I have provided all the information there, it is there, does he agree or not?"

Perera:

"I think on the assumption that this information is descriptive in nature, then clearly there is no grounds for me to disagree that it is a description of what had been presented during the debate in 2012, which I did not participate in."

After this, Perera's boss Pritam jumps in.

Q7: Yes, WP agrees and what DPM Teo said is accurate BUT the distinction lies in the principle upon which the formula is derived. For WP, they calculate a multiple of an entry-level civil servant's pay, vs. the govt, which takes a % discount from the top 1,000 earners in S'pore. Then hor, can you respond to my question about whether stating the actual amounts given out in bonuses will help to stem misinformation, please? Since, you know, the select committee has recommended the govt be clear and understandable in communicating with the public.

"Thank you Mr Speaker. Sir, the answer is yes, we agree. The ministerial salaries 2012 White Paper vs Workers' Party formula are tabled as DPM has shared with the house is accurate. There is one point which I have to suggest which, not one point which I have to suggest, one point which I have to make, which is an important distinction even though the result is similar, is the basis upon which the monthly component is calculated. And that was a question of principle. And the principle that the Workers' Party took upon itself was to consider what would be a fair multiple.

What sort of message do you send to the public with regard to the total salary that ultimately is derived, and we chose MX9 as the point because we felt that an entry-level civil servant could aspire to that position and he did not have to be a scholar or anything of that sort. That was our political perspective at that time.

The government's perspective is to take the 1,000 top earners and then take a percentage of that total salary, and I believe that the number was 40 per cent or something of that nature. So that's the key difference. But the total amount as is accurately presented in the table is correct.

The second point I would like to suggest and this is not belabouring the issue, Mr Speaker, is the question again by Mr Alex Yam about the amount. I believe in the context of the select committee on deliberate online falsehoods that came out with a list of recommendations, it is actually more propitious for us to present all the information in an easy-to-understand manner for the public, and that would reduce the prospect of misinformation online.

I understand there is an issue with regard to performance bonus, a range would be sufficient, it doesn't need to specify what each minister gets, but I would like to read recommendation number 9, which could be a helpful way for the government to move forward. Recommendation 9 says public institutions should... I beg your pardon? Ah, recommendation 9, DPM, of the select committee's report. Recommendation 9 states that public institutions should wherever possible provide information to the public in response to online falsehoods in a timely manner. They should also seek to pre-empt vulnerabilities and put out information in advance where appropriate to inoculate the public. They should ensure that they communicate with the public in clear and comprehensible terms.

I do understand that Factually, the government website put out a response to certain misinformation that was generated by Leon Perera's question, his question came out on the 10th of September, on the 11th, certain websites got carried away with certain information or the way they interpreted that reply, and then on the 16th of September the Factually (website) presents the components as the DPM did. But I would suggest to the DPM that if we put out the dollar value, the prospect of more misinformation can be reduced."

Answer: Pritam is being disingenuous. Here are the facts: 1) all salary components including bonuses are part of the S$1.1 million for entry-level ministers. Nothing beyond that. 2) salary structure and benchmark has not changed since 2012 even though the benchmark has actually gone up. 3) WP and PAP agree on the amounts paid to ministers. Separately, this topic is emotional and easily politicised and even knowledgeable people can get confused.

And finally, here's DPM's ad verbatim answer:

"Mr Speaker sir, I think Mr Pritam Singh is being slightly disingenuous. I mean, Mr Perera asked for some data, and the next day that data was misinterpreted and became a widespread basis for false information. I am delighted that Mr Pritam Singh and the Workers' Party are all for transparency, and for debunking falsehoods. So perhaps, Mr Speaker Sir, allow me to clarify the position, and I hope that the Workers' Party will help us to clarify that position by putting it on your website also. Especially as Mr Pritam Singh has agreed. So the key facts are this:

First, all salary components including the variable pay are part of the salary structure bench-marked in 2012 at 1.1 million dollars for an entry-level minister at MR4. There are no components beyond that.

Second, the salary structure and benchmark have not changed since 2012. I reported earlier to parliament this year that the government decided not to adjust salaries even though the MR4 benchmark had increased by 9 per cent.

Third, in 2012, there was remarkable convergence in this House on the matter of ministerial salaries. Mr Pritam Singh has just said that the Workers' Party agrees with the principles underlying the current salary structure and that the Workers' Party's alternative formula yields a norm salary level that is also 1.1 million dollars. The proposals, Mr Speaker Sir, are really very close to each other in principle and in quantum. Indeed, Mr Speaker Sir, if, if, there were a Workers' Party government in power today, by their own formula the Workers' Party minister would be paid essentially the same as what a minister today is paid. Minister Mr Pritam Singh would have paid himself the same amount.

The subject of ministerial salaries, Mr Speaker sir, is a difficult one to talk about. It is an emotional one. There are misconceptions, sometimes deliberately propagated. It is easily politicised. Even knowledgeable well-meaning people who have a deep interest in politics can be susceptible to this."

It goes on, but the main discussion is captured here.

But if you're lazy to read all the above, you can spend about 16 minutes watching the video here:

Top photo: screenshots from Parliament video

 

Content that keeps Mothership.sg going

---

?

What was the last thing you used this place for? (Somebody said paktor, meet boys?) This is what you can do these days!

?

All the restaurants you ever wanted to try on a massive discount! Did somebody say 'Pince and Pints'?

?

Have a little money but can't help being kinda lazy? You can still invest using this.

?

This was not part of CIP.