After a 15-year freeze, the salaries of Singapore's political officeholders will be adjusted after the government accepted the recommendations of an independent review committee.

The benchmark salary of a minister at entry-level grade MR4 will increase from S$1.1 million to S$1.8 million.

The news caught international media attention, and all sorts of numbers have been thrown out — S$1 million increase, 64 per cent rise.

But how much are Singapore's political officeholders actually getting paid now?

Why raise salaries?

Before anything, the context.

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong emphasised the reason for the increase: good government depends on good leadership, and good leadership requires good talent.

There are many impediments when it comes to convincing individuals to switch to political life. A pay cut might not be the main reason — but it's still an opportunity cost that should not be ignored.

In his speech, PM Wong mentioned potential pipelines of talent for public office. Such an individual might be a senior civil servant, or the CEO of a major listed company in Singapore (or on track to be one).

"At those levels, remuneration can run into several million dollars a year — well even above the revised MR4 benchmark," PM Wong said.

The government is not, and will not, try to match that. But adjusted salaries could help make sure that the financial hurdle is not "unnecessarily high".

So, what's the pay package?

To understand a minister's salary, we first have to understand how their pay structures work.

In short, the pay is based on a few key components: the framework, the ratios, the salary range, and the pay composition.

The framework

First, the framework.

It was established by the 2012 review committee, which was also when salaries were last adjusted. In fact, at the time, salary benchmarks were cut.

The salary point of an entry-level grade MR4 minister takes reference from the median income of the top 1,000 Singapore citizen earners.

This was chosen as the 2012 committee found that these earners represented the calibre of individuals needed in government.

A 40 per cent discount was then applied to this median figure to reflect the spirit of public service.

40 per cent is more art than science. As the 2012 committee wrote, "There is no scientific method for striking a balance between paying competitive salaries and taking a discount to signify the political service ethos. It is a judgment call."

So, the 2026 committee found that the median income of the top 1,000 was S$3.1 million. After applying the 40 per cent discount, you get around S$1.8 million.

So that S$1.8 million is now the benchmark salary for an entry-level grade minister.

The ratios

Now, the MR4 salary — that S$1.8 million figure — is important. Remember it, because it's the reference point for the salaries of all other political appointment holders.

How, you may ask. Well, all other salaries of political appointment holders, from the PM to the Deputy PM and President, are calculated based on ratios, pegged to the MR4.

For example, the PM's ratio compared to MR4 is two. This means the PM will earn twice the MR4 minister benchmark salary.

Here's the full table of ratios following the 2026 review.

For the sake of simplicity, the table doesn't include the President, Speaker of Parliament, Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Members of Parliament, Nominated Members of Parliament, and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

But the salaries of all these appointments are also pegged, indirectly, to the MR4 benchmark salary.

For example, the President's salary is pegged to 70 per cent of the PM's, the Speaker's at 50 per cent of an MR4 minister's, and the Deputy Speaker's at 15 per cent of the Speaker's.

The salary range

Does this mean a newly-appointed MR4 minister will get S$1.8 million? Not quite.

S$1.8 million is the reference salary point, but each ministerial grade also has a salary range, based on this reference point.

This range is meant to give the PM flexibility in deciding how much to pay ministers within the same grade. And where an individual places in this range can be based on factors such as performance, experience, and so on.

Let's say you and a friend are both up to become newly appointed ministers. You have a long and illustrious career behind you, and a pay package to match; your friend, on the other hand, is less experienced, though super promising.

This salary range will give your boss the room to pay you more, based on your experience and career stage, than your younger colleague.

So what does this mean for the pay package? Following the 2026 report, this range is between +/- 25 per cent from the reference salary point, for most ministerial grades.

That means a new MR4 minister can be remunerated anywhere between S$1.35 million to S$2.25 million.

Here are the salary ranges for the various ministerial grades and appointment.

The pay composition

PM Wong has said that 10 out of 16 ministers are currently at the MR4 grade.

He expects most of them to be at the lower end of the MR4 grade salary point — which means S$1.35 million — by the end of this term of government.

Does this mean an average MR4 minister will receive exactly S$1.35 million?

Not quite either.

Ministerial salaries are made up of two components: fixed and variable pay.

Fixed pay comes in at 65 per cent. Variable pay comes in at 35 per cent.

The fixed pay consists of the monthly pay and a 13th-month bonus. In other words, 13 months of pay annually.

The variable pay component comprises an annual variable component (AVC), individual performance bonus, and the National Bonus.

AVC typically ranges zero to 1.5 months, depending on Singapore's economic performance.

Individual performance bonus is decided by the PM, and ranges from zero to six months.

The National Bonus depends on whether the four key indicators meet their target levels, and ranges from zero to six months.

For PM Wong, because nobody grades his individual performance, his pay packet does not include an individual performance bonus component.

Instead, his National Bonus is double that of a minister, ranging from zero to 12 months.

In short, here's the formula for a minister/appointment holder:

One more thing

We are almost ready to make a calculated guess as to how much ministers will get paid, following the adjustments.

But first, there is one more detail to take note of.

The new benchmark salaries will kick in immediately for the President, PM, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and MPs. (It's worth mentioning that PM Wong has committed to donating his entire increment to suitable good causes for the next five years.)

But for other existing officeholders — current ministers included — salaries will not immediately shift to the new benchmarks.

Instead, they will instead receive a one-off adjustment of up to 9 per cent by Oct. 15, 2026, subject to performance.

So, how much are the ministers getting paid?

It is impossible to know the specific adjusted salary without knowing the specific pre-adjustment figure, which is not public information.

So, we'll have to make use of the example given by PM Wong.

Let's assume you are an MR4 minister earning S$1.1 million at the moment. You've done well, and PM Wong gives you the full 9 per cent increment.

You get about S$1.2 million. That's about 33 per cent shy of the benchmark salary of S$1.8 million.

Let's break this figure down.

In a good year

For starters, your 65 per cent fixed pay will be S$780,000. That's about S$60,000 a month (remember, it's inclusive of a 13th-month bonus).

You performed well, so PM Wong decided that you are deserving of a three-month performance bonus.

At the same time, Singapore fared well and hit the National Bonus indicator targets, but did not exceed them. This grants you an additional three-month bonus.

Together with an AVC of one month, your bonus comes in at seven months.

So, you get an additional S$420,000. This is how you'll earn the full S$1.2 million. Inclusive of bonuses, this comes up to 20 months of pay.

In an exceedingly good year

Let's say both you and Singapore do exceedingly well. You get the maximum six months of performance bonus and six months of National Bonus.

Together with a maximum 1.5-month AVC, your bonuses will come in at 13.5 months.

With the fixed pay component, your take home in an exceedingly good year will go beyond S$1.2 million, reaching S$1.59 million.

In a bad year

But take the converse. Let's say both you and Singapore underperform, for whatever reason. Your bonuses will clock in at zero months.

That leaves you with just your fixed pay of 13 months, and your pay that year will be S$780,000.

So taking everything together, if we consider bonuses and assume that you're getting S$1.2 million after the 9 per cent adjustment, you stand to make between S$780,000 and S$1.59 million in a year.

Of course, this is just for entry-level ministers.

For a more senior figure — say DPM Gan — let's assume his original remuneration was S$1.87 million (the previous salary reference point for DPMs).

With the full 9 per cent applied, his adjusted remuneration will be around S$2,040,000 in a good year.

In an exceedingly good year, his remuneration may reach S$2,703,000, after including 13.5 months worth of bonuses.

In a bad year with no bonuses, S$1,326,000.

However, because the salaries of each minister are assigned within a range, it is impossible to know the exact remuneration of each individual minister without making assumptions, unless the particular figures are explicitly disclosed. Which they're not, for now.

Clean wages

Even in a bad year, an MR4 minister stands to earn more than most political leaders around the world. The U.S. president earns US$400,000 (S$505,636); the UK prime minister, £172,153 (S$294,787).

But one running argument in support of the high wages is that these high wages are also clean wages, which is one the core principles of the current ministerial salary framework.

That means the ministerial salaries do not contain hidden perks. No pensions, no housing, no flashy vehicles, no tax exemptions.

Only the President, Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament are accorded the use of an official car, which is taxable.

Ministerial salaries are also CPF-eligible and taxable.

Compare this with the U.S. and UK examples mentioned earlier. The British prime minister gets access to extensive property, including various country houses across the UK. The U.S. president gets a US$246,000 per year pension from the time they leave office until their death.

(Donald Trump also famously flies around in a luxury private jet gifted by the royal family of Qatar. But that's another story.)

In PM Wong's words:

"The full remuneration is transparent. There are no hidden salary components or perks outside the published framework. This is what we mean by a clean wage.

In return, Singaporeans rightly expect a great deal from their political leaders. High standards of integrity and conduct. Competence. Responsibility for the decisions we make. And ultimately, accountability to voters at the ballot box."

Debate on Thursday

While the government’s decision on the salary adjustments does not need to pass a vote in parliament, parliament is nonetheless set to debate the government’s position on the ministerial salary review on Thursday (Sep. 10).

The debate will be on PM Wong's and Chan's ministerial statements.

The Workers' Party has raised objections to the ministerial salary framework in the past.

Its manifesto also calls for the abolishing of the office of the mayor.

In 2012, when debating ministerial salaries, the Workers’ Party proposed an alternate framework to peg a minister’s salary to that of a senior management grade in the civil service instead.

Back then, chief among their criticisms of the 2012 framework was that the proposal to peg a minister’s salary to the top 1,000 income earners has “created a flawed formula”.

These income earners make up a small percentage of the workforce and are unrepresentative of the general population, the WP said in a 2012 statement.

They also proposed for any review or change of the salary structure for political office to be subjected to parliamentary approval.

Earlier this year during his Budget 2026 speech, WP chief Pritam Singh questioned if some of the National Bonus indicators, such as GDP and income growth, were still relevant in the age of AI.

"If GDP growth will no longer reliably create good jobs for Singaporeans, should it remain in the ministerial bonus formula at all?" he asked.

In his speech on Sep. 8, Chan Chun Sing said that the government will be tightening the targets for the National Bonus and studying indicators to reflect the quality of life as experienced by Singaporeans.

Related stories

Singapore ranks 17th globally in estimated OnlyFans spending per 10,000 adults in 2026.

In terms of total estimated spending on the subscription-based online content platform, Singapore ranks 35th globally.

The "per 10,000 adults" method of calculation is a way to measure and compare data fairly across countries with very different population sizes.

For example, two countries might spend the same amount in total, but the country with a smaller population will have a higher per 10,000 adults spending.

Total spending

According to the OnlyFans Wrapped 2026 report, people in Singapore spent an estimated US$18.8 million (S$23.8 million) on OnlyFans in 2026.

This is a 12.44 per cent increase from the US$16.7 million (S$21.1 million) in the previous year.

In the Asia-Pacific region, Singapore ranks sixth in total spending on OnlyFans, falling behind Japan in fifth place, with a total estimated spending of US$22.4 million (S$28.3 million).

Australia is ranked highest in the Asia-Pacific region at US$120.2 million (S$151.9 million).

Per 10,000 people

In Singapore, an estimated US$36,955 (S$46,714) is spent on OnlyFans per 10,000 adults in 2026.

This is a 12.43 per cent increase from the US$32,868 (S$41,537) spent per 10,000 adults in the previous year.

Singapore ranks third in estimated OnlyFans spending per 10,000 adults in the Asia-Pacific region, falling behind New Zealand in second place, with estimated spending of US$45,191 (S$57,112) per 10,000 people.

Australia ranks highest in the Asia-Pacific region at US$56,383 (S$71,255) per 10,000 people.

Global ranking

Globally, the United States dominates the rankings with a whopping estimated total of US$4.8 billion (S$6.07 billion) spent on OnlyFans in 2026.

OnlyFans made an estimated US$7.8 billion (S$9.9 billion) in revenue, and its creators kept an estimated US$6.8 billion (S$8.6 billion) of it.

A man, 32, was arrested on Sep. 7 at Tiong Bahru Plaza during a routine police patrol.

While the police carried out their arrest, the man put up a struggle and had to be subdued by force.

In a video shared by Xiaohongshu user Chic Ken, the man is seen cornered against the wall by two police officers while attempting to wrestle himself free.

In response to queries from Mothership, the Singapore Police Force stated that the incident took place around 8:30pm when officers approached the man while on patrol for a routine check.

He was found to be wanted for drug-related offences.

In addition, he was also discovered to have a vaporiser in his possession.

The man put up a struggle and necessary force had to be used to restrain him.

The vaporiser-related offence has been referred to the Health Sciences Authority for further investigation, while the drug-related offences have been referred to the Central Narcotics Bureau.

Investigations are still ongoing.

A property agent raised concerns after some people not related to a public housing flat under renovation allegedly entered the premises repeatedly.

On Sep. 3, property agent Qidah Fuad posted a TikTok showing the alleged trespassing incidents and noted that the clips were shot on two separate occasions.

In her caption, Qidah wrote: "Is entering someone's house during renovation a norm now? Isn’t this trespassing?"

"What happens if items go missing? What if you get injured while you’re inside? Just because you are so kaypoh."

The video has garnered over 119,000 views, 2,600 likes, and 200 comments.

2 different occasions

In the video, individuals presumed to be residents in another unit, entered the flat and immediately started snapping photographs.

Despite seeing surveillance cameras, the individuals wandered into the flat's kitchen and rooms, said Qidah.

In her caption, the property agent said she could not tell if the individuals entering on both occasions were the same people.

She added: "This shouldn’t be a norm. You should never enter someone’s house without permission."

"Workers have told them off but refuse to listen and continue... But still..."

Confusion and concern over behaviour

Most commenters in the comments section expressed confusion at the trespassing behaviour, with some noting that they had experienced the same before.

Another commenter noted that this seemed to be the "new normal".

One commenter, who sided with the individuals who entered the unit without the homeowner's consent, was quickly shut down by Qidah.

@qidahfuad Is entering someone house during renovation a norm now? Isn’t this trespassing? What happens if items go missing, what if you get injured while you’re inside? Just because you are so kpo. This was two different occasions. Can’t tell if it’s the same person. This shouldn’t be a norm. You should NEVER enter someone’s house without permission. Workers have told them off but refuse to listen and continue... But still… #trespassing #renonvationsg @Mothership @CNA @Stomp Singapore @SG Daily 🇸🇬 ♬ Saxophones getting louder - Sped Up - AntonioVivald

Today, Singapore has fewer than 200 farms and produces less than 10 per cent of the food consumed by its population of about six million people, according to Member of Parliament (MP) Poh Li San.

Speaking in Parliament on Sep. 9, she questioned if Singapore is "cutting ourselves too thin" with this low rate of food self-sufficiency.

Along with three other MPs, Poh put forward a motion on food security, calling on the government to support efforts to reduce food waste, and ensure Singaporeans have access to affordable food supply amid geopolitical uncertainties and climate-related risks.

Food waste contributes to higher prices

Poh said that Singapore has been importing food excessively and throwing away too much edible food.

Over the past five years, an average of 790,000 tonnes (or 128kg per capita) of food was thrown away each year. The food recycling rate hovers at around 18 per cent.

This contributes to higher food prices, she pointed out, because further resources get wasted in the process, for transportation and incineration.

Singaporeans are becoming anxious about rising food costs, and she believes Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers will not be sufficient to offset the higher costs in the long run.

"We would be better off producing more food locally, wasting less, and keeping food prices more affordable," she said.

"I ask not for caviar and artichokes, but for fresh fruit, fish, and eggs. Not for air-flown or imports from exotic places, but that all be nutritious and safe to eat."

Food production as national defence

Poh called for the government to review increasing support to boost local food production and raise the self-sufficiency rate to at least 30 per cent.

To reach that target, she asked the government to consider local food production capability as a strategic buffer and part of Singapore's total defence security.

"Just as we have spent billions of dollars over the past decades to build up our military defence capabilities, the government may consider increasing our national budget into building up our local food production capabilities."

The government should also help local farmers mitigate high production costs in terms of land, manpower, and utilities, and help aggregate demand for local farm produce, she added.

Reducing food waste

Poh also put forth a few proposals for how the government can help to reduce food waste.

The first is to collect more data on the amount of food imported and disposed.

The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) should connect existing sets of such data already collected across different agencies to improve tracking and insights, she said.

SFA should also track donation volumes by major food suppliers and incentivise them to donate the food items before expiry date.

Additionally, she said Singapore needs to create a more circular food ecosystem.

Poh brought up several local start-ups that offer innovative solutions by selling unconsumed cooked food at discounted prices, and turning food scraps into fish feed supplied to fish farms, contributing back to food production.

She called for the government to support such start-ups with more seed funding, grants, and tax rebates to help them defray business costs.

This support can also incentivise them to scale up faster and make a bigger social impact.

Finally, she urged the government to give grants to support food charity groups such as Food Bank, Food Rescue Sengkang, and Fridge Restock Community.

These three food charities rescue about 2,400 tonnes of food annually, which frees up capacity at incineration plants, she said.

Nothing screams holiday season like the mandatory haul reels on TikTok and Instagram. But before you start filming yours, here is what Singapore Customs wants you to know.

During a week-long sweep in May 2026, 43 travellers were caught for failing to declare and pay taxes on their goods.

The total duty and GST evaded came to about S$5,354, with S$9,740 in composition sums imposed.

So, what do you need to do to ensure you do not end up being one of them?

What counts as taxable?

All goods brought into Singapore are subject to GST, and that includes everything from souvenirs and gifts to food, regardless of whether you already paid tax on them overseas.

Returning residents are not exempt either.

Why does it matter?

Simply put, it keeps things fair for local businesses that have been paying GST on the same goods all along.

The GST you pay also goes towards ensuring Singapore stays running. It goes into the national treasury, the same pot that pays for the MRT line you take home from the airport, the schools down the road, and the hospitals that you hopefully will not need to use.

How much can you bring in before you need to pay GST?

Well, it all boils down to how long you have been away and why you are bringing the goods in.

That said, there is one part people often get wrong. You declare the full value of your goods, not just the amount above your relief.

The relief is applied when Customs works out how much GST is payable.

These reliefs apply only to goods intended for personal use or consumption. Items brought in for commercial purposes or on behalf of others are not eligible.

A note on liquor and tobacco:

Planning to stock up on drinks duty-free?

You can bring in up to two litres of liquor (depending on type) for personal consumption if you meet the conditions below.

As for cigarettes and tobacco products, there is zero duty-free concession. Every stick is subject to duty and GST, no exceptions.

To make things clearer, here are some scenarios to help you figure out what you need to declare.

Scenario 1: Quick day trip to Johor Bahru (less than 48 hrs)

You zipped across the Causeway for a day and came back with groceries, a bag and a new top, totalling S$280.

Since you were away for less than 48 hours, your GST import relief is up to S$100. You will need to declare the full S$280, and GST will be charged on S$180, which is the amount above your relief.

The easiest way to do it? Declare via the Customs@SG Web Application before you even cross back, get your e-receipt, and walk through the Green Channel.

Scenario 2: Short holiday to Bangkok (48 hrs or more)

Four days in Bangkok, and you did some damage: clothes, skincare, a new bag and a pile of souvenirs, totalling S$1,200.

Since you were away for 48 hours or more, your GST import relief goes up to S$500. You will need to declare the full S$1,200, and GST will be charged on S$700.

Declare via the Customs@SG Web Application up to three days before you fly home, pay, and waltz through the Green Channel when you land.

Still, there are a few assumptions worth clearing up:

How to declare and pay — without the queue

Good news: declaring your goods does not have to mean joining a long queue at the checkpoint.

When you arrive in Singapore, you will need to use either the Red or Green Channel at customs.

If you have dutiable or taxable goods to declare, head to the Red Channel.

If you have nothing to declare, use the Green Channel.

The easiest way to pay taxes is via the Customs@SG Web Application, which lets you declare and pay your GST up to three days before you even land, anytime and anywhere.

Once you have paid, you will get an e-receipt. Flash it to officers if you are stopped, and waltz through the Green Channel like the law-abiding traveller you are.

Prefer to sort it out on arrival instead?

Look for the Customs Declaration Kiosks at the checkpoints or terminals.

Payment is cashless and fuss-free. The Customs@SG Web Application accepts Visa, Mastercard, American Express, UnionPay, JCB, PayNow, Apple Pay and Google Pay.

What happens if you do not declare?

Don't even think about sneaking that newly acquired bag past customs.

Those who fraudulently evade customs or excise duties can be fined up to 20 times the amount evaded, jailed for up to two years, or both.

That bag suddenly does not seem like such a bargain.

Failing to declare goods is an offence under Singapore law. Minor cases may be settled with a composition sum, but more serious offences go straight to court.

For cases where the penalty exceeds S$5,000, offenders may be charged in court without any offer of composition.

Use the Customs@SG Web Application to declare and pay in advance.

For more information, visit Singapore Customs' website.

This sponsored article made this writer double-check her own declaration habits before her next trip.

The government has accepted the recommendations put forth by the 2026 ministerial salary review committee, which means that the salaries of Singapore's political appointment holders will be adjusted for the first time in 15 years.

The move has attracted international news coverage, which described Singapore's ministers as the highest paid in the world.

A minister at grade MR4 will earn up to S$1.8 million in the distant future, up from S$1.1 million.

The salary points of all other ministerial grades and PAHs will similarly adjust upwards, since the MR4 salary is the benchmark salary.

The new salaries will take effect from Oct. 15, 2026, with existing ministers and PAHs getting a one-off adjustment of up to 9 per cent, subject to their performance.

This means that an existing MR4 minister receiving $1.1 million will see an increase of his or her annual salary to $1.2 million if they receive the maximum 9 per cent adjustment. 

Announcing the adjustment, PM Wong emphasised the importance of being able to attract the best talent and build a strong political team for Singapore, and explained how a competitive remuneration will help in that.

However, he also acknowledged that money cannot be the be-all end-all for those looking to join political office.

Coordinating Minister for Public Services Chan Chun Sing reiterated this in his ministerial statement.

He commented, "As the Prime Minister has said, some CEOs of major Singapore companies earn six or seven million dollars a year, sometimes more. We are not trying to match that. Nor should we. But we cannot pretend that such opportunity costs do not exist."

If public office salary can never match private sector dollars, and if money ought not to be the primary motivation for seeking the job, then how does raising salaries ease the challenge of assembling the best team for Singapore?

There are many challenges to convincing someone to take the leap into the life of politics. Raising salaries and making it as competitive as political appetite allows for is perhaps the easiest hurdle to lower.

Is now a better time?

Before getting into the weeds of the money conundrum, one question to ponder about is timing.

Back in May, Chan said that consideration of the salary review committee's recommendations will be deferred until the impact of the Middle East crisis is clearer.

It's been five months since, and the conflict between the U.S., Israel and Iran is nowhere near any form of conclusion.

Oil prices have eased from its peak, but remains elevated compared to pre-conflict levels.

In the interim, Singapore was again hit with 12.5% tariffs by the U.S.

Singapore's GDP forecast has, however, been raised.

Have the storm clouds cleared?

Eugene Tan, political analyst and Professor of Law at Singapore Management University (SMU), told Mothership that PM Wong may have decided to "bite the bullet" and move on the matter as the conflict appears to have the makings of a "forever war".

The ministerial salary issue is sensitive, emotive and "not a vote winner", Tan remarked.

"Parliament has completed the first year of its term, so time is of the essence in moving on unpopular or sensitive issues," he added.

The current term of government and 15th parliament officially took office on Sep. 5, 2025.

The next general election is due to be called by 2030. Election issue or not, the clock is ticking on growing the talent pool.

"It is also likely that the challenge of recruitment has grown and there is the imperative and urgency to ensure that matter is addressed," Tan continued.

Nonetheless, Tan said that there is never a good time for ministerial salary increments.

Aaron Maniam, Deputy Director at the Institute of Policy Studies, said the same.

Maniam pointed out that the latest move increases the government's flexibility to recruit, while the "very careful phasing of the implementation" reflects the "continued recognition of the prevailing economic uncertainties".

Can money overcome the recruitment challenge?

On the conundrum of money as incentive, both PM Wong and Chan emphasised in their statements that the salary increase is to give the current and future governments the best chance of bringing in the best people for the top jobs.

In PM Wong's words, "It’s not simply about what we pay ministers today. It’s about whether future Prime Ministers will continue to have a realistic chance of persuading capable Singaporeans... to step forward and build a first-rate team for Singapore."

At the same time, money cannot be the primary motivating factor, and it will not be more than private sector salaries.

To derive the MR4 salary benchmark, a 40 per cent discount is applied to the median income of top 1,000 Singapore citizen earners as a reflection of the spirit of public service.

This framework was established by the 2012 ministerial salary review committee.

Tan opined that it is unlikely that the increments will lead to a "beeline of private sector candidates".

"I would look at the salary adjustments as an attempt to ensure salaries do not become a bigger hindrance than they are to capable individuals considering whether to enter politics," he shared.

"The salary adjustments are not meant to act alone in attracting suitable candidates, but are meant to reduce any deterrence to public office and provide the government with flexibility in their recruitment efforts," Maniam said.

Maniam also pointed out that salaries are part of the "practical realities of a political career" to ensure that financial burdens do not add to natural pressures of political work, which might in turn deter individuals from stepping forward.

In recent times, the most notable private sector individual who made the switch to public life is Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) Tan See Leng.

Tan received a shout-out from PM Wong, who said that he would like to bring in more people like Tan.

Most of the other recent new cabinet appointees were senior civil servants, however.

Jeffrey Siow, who is now Minister for Transport, was the highest-ranking civil servant to leave civil service and enter the political arena in the 2025 general elections.

The other GE2025 debutant to enter PM Wong's cabinet was David Neo, who was the Chief of Army. Neo is now Minister for Culture, Community and Youth.

Non-monetary considerations

To SMU's Tan, it is "more likely the case" that non-monetary considerations are decisive.

Such "non-monetary considerations" were acknowledged by both PM Wong and Chan.

Apart from pay cuts and the uncertainty of electoral outcomes, political life places "real demand on families", PM Wong said.

"Money will never be able to suitably address these concerns," Tan commented.

More can be done, Tan said. "I think it is imperative for society to be instilled and inculcated with the ethos of public service."

"Even if pay is not an issue, the lack of such an ethos will mean the pipeline of political leaders will not be healthy. Are we losing the public service ethos as a society?" He asked.

The law professor also said that it is noteworthy for PM Wong to address the point that potential candidates assesses whether the team they are joining are people they want to serve alongside.

"In other words, is how the government governing, a deterrent in itself?" Tan mused, adding that it remains to be seen what is being done on this front.

Ministerial salaries was a difficult issue which Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong would have preferred not to leave to his successor, if not prohibited by circumstances.

PM Wong recognised the delicateness of the issue, describing political salaries as "difficult and emotive".

In electing to settle ministerial salaries, PM Wong also signaled a willingness to confront politically unsavoury issues.

"It would have been easier politically for me to leave things as they are. But that would not be the right thing to do," he said in Parliament.

"Restraint cannot become neglect. That's why I have decided we must act now," he continued.

Finding the right benchmark

In 2012, when debating ministerial salaries, the Workers' Party proposed an alternate framework to peg a minister's salary to that of a senior management grade in the civil service instead.

Back then, chief among their criticisms of the 2012 framework was that the proposal to peg a minister's salary to the top 1,000 income earners has "created a flawed formula".

These income earners make up a small percentage of the workforce and are unrepresentative of the general population, the WP said in a 2012 statement.

They also proposed for any review or change of the salary structure for political office to be subjected to Parliamentary approval.

In establishing the benchmark for the MR4 salary, the 2012 report committee explained that the median income of the top 1,000 earners was chosen to "send a strong signal to prospective political appointment holders on the type of talent being sought".

The 2026 committee affirmed the continued relevance of this benchmark.

"Top 1,000 earners strike me as being highly selective and perhaps leaning on being elitist," Tan remarked.

He continued, "While the committee took the view that the figure better reflects the talent pool who are up to the job, a legitimate question is whether there is any empirical basis for this."

Tan opined that the number of income earners should be much larger, at 10,000 for example.

"Otherwise, it would make the pool much elitist and, more importantly, engender concerns that the pay formula is skewed towards higher salaries for which the top 1,000 earners may well be outliers," he explained.

Maniam described politics as "one of the most exacting careers around", one that is "cognitively and emotionally demanding".

"These are jobs with similar scope, complexity, budgets, decision-making demands and executive functions to a Minister's roles," Maniam said of the top 1,000 earners.

Maniam further noted that the number of income earners accounted for in the benchmark has risen through the years — from 24 to 48, and now 1,000.

This is to reflect reality that Singapore needs to draw its leaders from a wide range of roles and functions, he commented.

The previous benchmark prior to 2011 drew on the principal earned income of the top eight earners across six professions, meaning that the benchmark pool was 48 individuals.

Parliament set to debate government's position

While the government's decision on the salary adjustments do not need to pass a vote in parliament, parliament is nonetheless set to debate the government's position on the ministerial salary review on Thursday (Sep. 10).

Earlier this year during his Budget 2026 speech, WP chief Pritam Singh questioned if some of the National Bonus indicators, such as GDP and income growth, were still relevant in the age of AI.

The government has previously stated that GDP growth may longer entail as much job growth.

The government will be tightening the targets for the National Bonus and studying indicators to reflect the quality of life as experienced by Singaporeans.

The WP manifesto also calls for the abolishing of the office of the mayor.

Under the new salary adjustments, mayors' salaries will go up from S$660,000 annually to S$810,000 annually.

The government accepted the committee's recommendation to study the delinking of the mayor's salary from the MR4 benchmark.

The committee highlighted that considerations for the salary of community-related roles like mayors and Members of Parliament may differ from those of ministers.

On the framework, Chan said:

"Let me be upfront. No formula will be perfect or be able to satisfy everyone. There is no universally ideal benchmark. The key question is this – what is a workable framework and range of figures that allow the PM, any PM, to reasonably assemble a team that Singapore deserves?"

PM Wong concluded by saying:

"I ask for your understanding and support as we make this adjustment.

This is not about the PAP government of today. We cannot predict what the political landscape will look like years from now. But whichever party is in government, Singapore will need strong and effective political leadership to serve our people and take our country forward."

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is appealing the sentence of British national Oruche Morgan Fidelis, 22, who was found guilty of assaulting Low Ek Yong, 66, a private-hire vehicle driver in Singapore.

AGC described the sentence imposed on the accused as "manifestly inadequate".

Another appeal pertains to the decision of the District Judge to amend the charge to one of assault.

The charge before that was voluntarily causing hurt where grievous hurt is actually caused.

AGC said it has filed two notices of appeal to the High Court against the decisions of the State Courts.

Sentenced to short detention order

On Sep. 7, 2026, Morgan was sentenced to five days short detention order (SDO) and 100 hours of community service.

A SDO requires the offender to be detained in prison for a period not exceeding 14 days.

It acts as a deterrent by allowing the offender to experience prison life.

It is a type of community based sentence, which means that if he successfully complete the sentence, the offence of which he was convicted will be removed from his criminal record.

Judged explained decision of SDO

In deciding the sentence, the judge cited an "unfortunate coincidence of a few things", including Morgan's intoxicated state, which prevented him from providing a clear account of what had happened leading to Low’s injury.

The judge also took into account Morgan's clean record, his young age and the fact that he had pleaded guilty after the charge was amended.

However, if Morgan fails to comply with or complete the sentence, he may be brought back to court to be sentenced in accordance with the law.

He was subsequently released on bail.

The assault

On Jun. 12, 2024, Low had picked Morgan up at around 10:30pm.

Upon reaching the destination, Low attempted to wake Morgan, who was asleep, but Morgan reportedly became unhappy, whereupon he lunged at and pushed Low.

As a result, Low fell and hit his head on the ground.

Low was later found to have suffered a skull fracture.

He was taken to the National University Hospital for emergency treatment and subsequently died from natural causes about a year after the incident.

Original charge amended

Morgan had initially claimed trial to a charge under Section 323A of the Penal Code 1871 for voluntarily causing hurt where grievous hurt was caused.

Following the trial, the District Judge exercised his powers under Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 on Jul. 15, 2026, to amend the charge to one of assault under Section 352 of the Penal Code 1871.

As the driver had passed away from natural causes in June 2025, the judge had said the only objective evidence available was surveillance footage from a private residence opposite Morgan's residence.

The driver never came to again after going into a coma and could not provide an account of what happened that night.

Could not establish how fracture occurred

The footage showed Morgan waking up, calmly removing his headphones and moving towards Low in a single swift movement.

However, the judge noted that medical evidence only established that Low had sustained a skull fracture.

It could not establish whether the fracture was caused by the fall after being pushed, a punch, or Low tripping.

Could not prove beyond reasonable doubt

Given the uncertainty over how the injury was sustained, the court found that the circumstances were highly speculative.

The prosecution was therefore unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Morgan has voluntarily caused hurt, and the court could not convict the accused on the original charge of voluntarily causing hurt which causes grievous hurt.

The charge was consequently amended to one of assault under Section 352.

Under the amended charge, Morgan was found to have committed an aggressive act by raising his left arm towards Low.

Morgan pleaded guilty to the amended charge on Jul. 17, 2026.

AGC filed two Notices of Appeal

In a media statement on Sep. 9, 2026, AGC said it had filed two notices of appeal with the High Court against the State Courts’ decisions in the case.

It filed a first notice of appeal on Jul. 27, 2026, against the District Judge’s decision to amend the charge.

It subsequently filed a second notice of appeal on Sep. 8, 2026, against the sentence, on the ground that it was "manifestly inadequate".

Three complaints were lodged alleging workplace discrimination due to National Service (NS) obligations between 2024 and 2025, Minister of State for Manpower Foo Cexiang said in Parliament on Sep. 9.

He added that NSmen who believe that they have been unfairly treated because of their NS obligations may seek assistance from the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), Ministry of Manpower (MOM), or the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP).

Have not needed enforcement action

Under the Enlistment Act, employers have specific statutory duties in relation to their employees’ NS obligations.

They include reinstating employees after NS, granting leave of absence for NS obligations, and not dismissing employees on account of their NS obligations.

"To date, MINDEF has not had to pursue formal enforcement action under these provisions," Foo said.

Where concerns have been raised, MINDEF would engage employers directly to clarify their obligations.

This approach has been effective in resolving issues, Foo assured.

Legal protections

Foo was responding to a Parliamentary question from Workers' Party Member of Parliament (MP) Kenneth Tiong about the figures for such complaints.

Tiong also asked why NS liability is not protected under the Workplace Fairness Act (WFA), and what protection a serviceman has against being passed over for promotion because of in-camp training.

Foo explained that the WFA, which will come into force at the end of 2027, takes a "calibrated approach".

The protected characteristics included in the Act account for about 95 per cent of discrimination complaints received by TAFEP and MOM.

MOM will also consider expanding the WFA's scope if other forms of discrimination complaints persist or increase significantly in number, Foo said.

NSmen are further protected under the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), which prohibits all forms of workplace discrimination including those based on NS obligations.

Employers found breaching the guidelines will be required to correct their practices, and in egregious cases, even get their work pass privileges suspended by MOM.

A bankrupt property agent duped his fellow agents into co-broking falsified sales, using them to receive advance commissions and leaving them to deal with the aftermath.

CNA reported that Cheong En Kiong, 51, pleaded guilty on Sep. 8, 2026 to four charges including forgery, cheating and receiving benefits from criminal conduct.

Other outstanding charges will be considered during sentencing.

According to court documents seen by Mothership, Cheong has been an undischarged bankrupt since 2019, meaning that he is obligated to make monthly payments to his creditors and is placed under certain financial restrictions.

Cheong was an agent under ERA Real Estate Singapore when he committed the offences.

According to CNA, he is no longer listed on the Council for Estate Agencies' public register.

The scheme

Cheong exploited the payment system of LytePay, a Monetary Authority of Singapore-licensed payment institution. It disburses advance commissions to real estate salespersons in exchange for a processing fee.

To do so, a real estate agent would first have to submit documents of the property sale to LytePay, which then delivers the advance commission to the agent.

After the seller of the property pays the commission due to the real estate company, the company would deduct the advance commission already received by the agent and pay the remainder to LytePay.

Cheong falsified property sale documents and used other agents' LytePay accounts to receive advance commissions with no actual sale taking place.

The Prudential unit

In June 2022, Cheong asked a fellow property agent, named only in court documents as A1, to be the co-broker for the sale of a unit at Prudential Towers.

The unit was worth about S$11 million.

A1, who is 38 years old, had known Cheong for a decade at the time. She had no prior experience with a sale of this magnitude.

Cheong told her that he was unable to submit an advance commission request to LytePay himself, and asked her to submit the sale documents to LytePay instead. He promised her a S$5,000 cut as well as the Medisave and income tax for the sale.

At the time, she was recovering from injuries sustained in an accident.

A1 believed that Cheong was offering her a legitimate opportunity. Unbeknownst to her, Cheong had forged the signatures in the documents, using the signature and personal details of a former client to falsify the sale.

While the unit was left unsold, A1 submitted the documents to LytePay, who disbursed S$91,653.39 to her.

After deducting her share and the processing fee, she transferred S$83,554 to Cheong.

He used the money to repay his debts.

Around six months later, ERA discovered that the purported buyer of the property had not sent them the commission owed. The company's internal investigations revealed Cheong's fraudulent actions, and he was issued with a warning.

ERA asked both Cheong and A1 to repay the advance commission of S$91,653.39 that they received from LytePay.

To date, Cheong has only paid back S$10,000 to S$12,000 of the owed sum, leaving A1 to bear the remaining amount.

LytePay issued a statutory demand to A1 to claw back the money, and has deducted A1's commissions from her other sales to offset the balance.

A1 has asked Cheong to pay her multiple times, but he has not done so.

The Lucky Plaza unit

This was not the only time that Cheong pulled off the scheme.

In October 2025, Cheong approached a client, named only as B1 in court documents, who was the owner of a commercial property in Lucky Plaza.

He lied to B1 that there was a buyer for the property, and asked him for his signature to exercise the purchase.

B1 signed on some blank documents that he provided.

Cheong then approached his friend and fellow real estate agent, known as B4 in court documents, to be the unwitting co-broker in the sale.

B4, a 63-year-old agent with OrangeTee & Tie, was suffering from prostate cancer at the time.

Nevertheless, he agreed to help Cheong after being told about his financial woes.

As before, Cheong deceived him into thinking that the sale of the Lucky Plaza unit was legitimate, forging the signatures of some of his other separate clients in the documents.

According to court documents, this was actually not the first time that Cheong had deceived B4.

Earlier in July 2025, Cheong had in fact roped B4 into being a co-broker for the false sale of yet another unit at Prudential Tower, on the eleventh floor.

B4 submitted the documents for the Lucky Plaza property sale to OrangeTee, requesting an advance commission via LytePay.

LytePay delivered S$7,955 to him. He then transferred S$4,700 to Cheong.

A few months later on October 2025, OrangeTee sent a letter to the purported buyer of the eleventh floor unit at Prudential Tower, reminding them that they still had about S$135,000 outstanding in agency fees.

The buyer informed OrangeTee that no such deal occurred.

After conducting internal investigations, OrangeTee discovered the fraudulent transactions of both the Prudential Tower and Lucky Plaza unit sales, and fired B4.

B4 was made to bear the full amount from the advance commissions doled out through LytePay, totalling S$86,014.

Until now, Cheong has made no restitution to OrangeTee, B4, or LytePay.

Aftermath

Those involved made police reports in October 2025.

Cheong has been remanded since April 2026.

The deputy public prosecutor sought 24.5 to 28 months' imprisonment, noting that he made use of his friends for his personal gain, reported CNA.

She said he had not just omitted information but actively deceived the victims, leaving them with "substantial financial obligations to LytePay".

Furthermore, he displayed a pattern of repeated offending, having defrauded those involved via the same means on separate occasions.

CNA reported that the Cheong's lawyer asked for 18.5 to 21.5 months' jail instead, citing his immediate guilty plea and full cooperation with the authorities.

The case was subsequently adjourned to October 2026 for sentencing.

For cheating or forgery to commit cheating, he could be jailed for up to 10 years and fined.

For acquiring property that are the benefits of criminal conduct, he could be jailed for up to 10 years, fined up to S$500,000, or both.