While out on a joyride in town, a Singaporean man drove at 221 km/h and caused two collisions.

26-year-old Singaporean Jared-Kane Goh pleaded guilty on Sep. 8 to one count of dangerous driving.

His speed was over double the legal limit on three road stretches.

Goh will return to the courts on Sep. 14 for mitigation and sentencing.

Joyride

According to CNA, Goh was in a blue Mitsubishi Evo when he drove to the downtown area in the early hours of Oct. 27, 2024.

He was out on a joyride with five other men: Marcus Lau Yong Wei, 35; Damien Chia Hwa Chuan, 29; Gilviz Lee Jun En, 23; Sherman Quah Kok Rong, 21; and Kong Jia Quan, 23.

The group met at a Stadium Boulevard car park before embarking on the joyride, with the cars following each other at high speed.

They continued to the Pan Island Expressway and Central Expressway (CTE), before heading to Orchard Road.

2 collisions

Goh's car was captured on CCTV travelling at high speed along Stamford Road towards Fort Canning link, reported CNA.

Kong and Lee allegedly trailed close behind.

As Goh approached another vehicle, he braked to avoid a collision.

The sudden braking led to Kong rear-ending Goh's car, as Lee swerved away and mounted the grass verge.

His car ended up overturning.

As debris flew onto the road, Lau braked as well, causing the vehicle behind to rear-end his car.

This was the second collision.

After the collisions, Goh sought medical treatment, including for an acute neck sprain, a headache and an acute stress reaction.

His front passenger, a 22-year-old woman, was also injured, the court heard.

High speeds, damage done

Goh was found to have sped across seven locations from the CTE to Stamford Road.

Along the CTE towards AYE near the Balestier exit, he drove at speeds of up to 221km/h. The speed limit was 90km/h.

He also entered a lane at 89-109km/h at Stamford Road and Victoria Street, which was a 50km/h zone.

The prosecutor sought a three-and-a-half to five-month jail sentence for Goh, along with three to four years' disqualification from driving.

He added that Goh showed a "wholesale disregard for traffic rules" by speeding at nearly double the limit.

According to The Straits Times, the collisions also caused damage to roadside vegetation, a road sign, and a traffic light signal.

The total cost of repairing the damaged property was over S$2,900.

Potential for serious harm very high

Given the speeds and the injuries, the potential for serious harm to other road users was very high, the prosecution added.

According to CNA, Goh's lawyer, Foo Cheow Ming, asked for the case to be adjourned.

He apologised and said that he had prepared mitigation in response to an earlier version of the statement of facts.

Among the co-accused, all except Kong, whose case is pending, have been sentenced and received jail terms consisting of a few months each with three-year driving bans.

For dangerous driving, an individual may face up to 12 months' jail, a maximum fine of S$5,000, or both.

Minister of Transport and Second Minister for Finance Jeffrey Siow and Workers' Party MP Kenneth Tiong exchanged views in Parliament over Singapore Airlines' (SIA) investment in Air India, with Siow saying there was no reason to doubt SIA's ability to deliver air services here, and Tiong pressing for clarity on where the risk limits lie.

This comes after Tiong had posted on social media on Aug. 26, stating that he would not support nor expect any future use of Singapore's state investment company Temasek’s funds to prop up Air India via Singapore Airlines.

Tiong later clarified that his concerns were purely commercial and condemned racist comments surrounding the subject.

Parliament questions

At the Sep. 8 Parliament sitting, Tiong asked two questions on SIA.

Firstly, whether, since SIA became a designated operating entity under the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) Act 2009, losses incurred from and the carrying amounts of its foreign associates had been assessed against its capacity to provide essential transport services.

Secondly, whether such losses, or a continuing pattern of losses, would engage the notification duty under Section 67B, and, if so, based on what criteria.

Siow: No adverse impact on essential services

Siow noted that Tiong's question concerned the CAAS Act, but that he had spoken publicly about the Air India investment.

He said SIA became a designated operating entity under the CAAS Act in April 2025, and that CAAS assesses its ability to operate essential services safely and reliably, including its overall financial health.

Losses in a foreign associate do not necessarily meet the threshold for reporting on their own, he said. What matters is whether they reach the point of materially constraining the resources available for SIA's fleet maintenance or network operations here.

He said: "We are nowhere close to this scenario."

He added that SIA's core business had one of its strongest years, with record revenue and a record number of passengers carried.

Singaporeans are not footing the bill

Siow rejected the suggestion that Singaporeans were footing the bill, saying SIA is a listed company that funds its investments from its own balance sheet and earnings. It currently holds more than S$10 billion in cash reserves and over S$3 billion in undrawn credit facilities.

SIA had not sought further capital from shareholders, and if it did, that would be a commercial matter between the company and its shareholders.

On the rationale, he said much of SIA's traffic is transit passengers and there is a limit to how many will fly through Singapore. Air India gives it deeper access to one of the world's largest aviation markets and a base for onward connections to Europe and the Middle East.

Four facts

Tiong responded with what he called "four facts".

Tiong said SIA is in net debt, holding S$10.5 billion in cash against S$10.7 billion in debt as of Jun. 30, and posted a net loss for the quarter.

The undrawn facilities Siow cited are loans not yet taken, he said, meaning more debt rather than more capital.

Airline turnarounds that succeed tend to show results within three years, he said, citing Japan Airlines and Qantas.

Air India's own plan in 2022 said five years, but its losses doubled last year, and its chairman now says five to 10, he noted.

IndiGo carries two-thirds of India's domestic passengers against the Air India Group's 24 per cent. Air India's hubs at Delhi and Mumbai are run by GMR Group and Adani Group, and he said India is reportedly weighing lifting the rule preventing both from owning an airline, which he said would make the landlord at each hub a competitor able to steer prime slots.

And SIA holds 25.1 per cent without control. Its own filing says future injections will be considered based on Air India's requirements, which he called "open-ended by design".

"This cannot be a blank cheque": Tiong

Tiong noted that in 2020, Temasek, whose capital forms part of the past reserves, underwrote SIA's S$8.8 billion recapitalisation, and that the House was told the government would provide more direct support if necessary.

He asked whether the government would rule out doing so again if the Air India investment goes wrong.

He also asked whether the government had satisfied itself that there is a limit on further cash from SIA to Air India, a return threshold, a maximum exposure, or a point at which it stops.

He noted SIA is a designated entity under the Transport Sector Critical Firms Act precisely so its capacity to provide essential services is safeguarded.

He said:

"This cannot be a blank cheque, least of all on a minority stake. We ask because through the reserves, Singaporeans are SIA's stakeholder of last resort, and the stakeholder of last resort needs to know where the line is."

Siow: "Air India's finances are not SIA's finances"

In response, Siow said he would clarify a "basic misconception" in Tiong's argument.

He said that SIA owns 25.1 per cent of Air India, but Air India's finances are not SIA's finances.

Likewise, Air India's losses do not automatically become SIA's liabilities, and that a capital request does not oblige SIA to provide it.

He pointed out that SIA's board has said they would consider any capital request on "commercial merits".

"That is the right approach. SIA's board and management must decide whether any investment makes commercial sense for it and its shareholders," he said.

Siow also pointed out that Tiong may have misunderstood SIA's published financial statements, explaining that most of SIA's debt is in non-current, long-term borrowing, such as five or 10-year bonds.

These generally have low interest rates, he said, adding that SIA's current liabilities within the next 12 months are under 3 billion, which is well within SIA's cash reserves of over 10 billion.

He noted Tiong had opposed putting more money into Air India without saying what SIA should do instead.

He put to Tiong whether he thinks SIA should ever have invested in Air India, and whether he would suggest pulling out the investment now.

"It's easy to criticise, but I suspect it is much harder for the member to tell us what SIA should do."

Siow on building globally competitive companies

Siow further noted that Tiong himself had claimed that Singapore hosts many large companies but builds few of them during a parliamentary debate on growing local enterprises last month.

Siow noted that building globally competitive companies means entering potentially difficult markets against people who got there first and staying the course when there is turbulence.

"We cannot have it both ways. We cannot tell our companies to go out and compete, and then treat every tough year abroad as proof that they should stay home," he said, adding that this goes the same for SIA.

On Tiong's question on how Temasek, and by extension our reserves, will be affected, Siow said the government does not judge Temasek on any single holding.

Noting that Temasek has a portfolio of over 500 billion, Siow said a portfolio of that size will always contain investments with different risks and time horizons.

"Some will look worse than others on any given day, and that's what investing is. If SIA requests capital from Temasek for any reason, Temasek will have to assess this on a commercial basis," he said.

Siow also noted that SIA has not requested any funding from Temasek apart from during Covid-19 in over 50 years of operation, adding that it was a "fundamentally different" situation.

Racist and xenophobic comments

Noting that Tiong has stated online that he strongly rejects the racist and xenophobic comments that have arisen in the public discussion on Air India, Siow said he is glad Tiong agrees with the government that "no one should seek to exploit racial divisions for political purposes".

However, Siow said the member's public rhetoric goes beyond the question that he puts before this house.

He highlighted that Tiong has posed the "narrowly framed technical query" on SIA's capacity to provide essential transport services in Parliament.

Tiong has drawn an "imaginary link between an overseas investment from SIA and its ability to maintain air services in Singapore" by asking the question in this manner, Siow argued.

He further highlighted that Tiong has asked, "What happens if this deal goes bad? Will Temasek be their backstop, and what it means, and what will this mean for Singaporeans' taxes and their quality of life?" on social media.

"He has drawn these multiple tenuous linkages, dressed them up in emotive terms, insinuated that through SIA's investments, Singaporeans somehow owe Air India a living, and suggested that SIA is not making its investment decisions on a commercial basis, but for some other reason," Siow said.

There is no basis for this, he emphasised, adding that while Tiong is free to question whether it will ultimately be a good investment, it is another thing for him to take a commercial investment risk and extrapolate that into the financial failure of a national airline.

"But it's quite another thing for a former business analyst to take a commercial investment risk, extrapolate that into the financial failure of a national airline, and from there speculate and whip up alarm about a taxpayer bailout, to insinuate improper motives that any particular investment does not provide or contribute to a healthy climate for our companies to make commercial decisions, which serve the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans."

Tiong: "Puzzled as to why it is brought into a purely commercial matter"

In response, Tiong said he categorically rejected racism and xenophobia but was puzzled as to why it had been brought into what he called a purely commercial matter.

He rejected any suggestion that questioning the issue amounted to being racist, xenophobic or imputing improper motives, and said rather that Singaporeans need to understand what the risk limits are.

On Siow's question of what Tiong thinks SIA should do instead, he suggested that the minister seems to have misunderstood his point, adding that this is something that is very common in the private sector.

Using an analogy of a financial fund, Tiong said that Parliament functions as a "risk team" for the reserves while SIA's board is the "investment team".

"I'm not going to tell SIA what to do, what strategy [it] should be. I'm saying that this is quite risky. I'm not saying that it's constituted from improper motives," he said.

"But it is very, very risky, especially because it's constituted on a 25.1 per cent minority stake, so we need to understand because it could have implications for the reserves, and it could have implications for SIA as designated operator."

He went on to highlight how complicated the India market is, before reiterating that there is a need to evaluate the investment "very, very carefully".

Siow's closing

Siow agreed that India is a complicated market and added that by law no foreign airline in India can hold a majority stake.

He said Tiong was entitled to question whether it was a good investment, but had gone much further, "leaping without evidence" from Air India's losses to SIA's ability to provide essential air services, capital calls on Temasek, and consequences for Singapore's taxes and quality of life.

He said: "Members may ask difficult questions, but the claims we make must be grounded in facts, not exaggerated speculation that creates needless public alarm."

"Singaporeans deserve public debate that examines the risks honestly, explains them responsibly, and remains anchored on truth and logic."

A Singaporean doctor has been charged with molesting a 24-year-old woman at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH) in Yishun in 2023.

Yeo Teng Yao, 29, was charged in court on Sep. 3.

According to a report by The Straits Times (ST), Yeo was previously employed by MOH Holdings (MOHH), the holding company for Singapore’s public healthcare institutions.

In response to Mothership's queries, an MOHH spokesperson said Yeo was immediately suspended from all duties once the incident was brought to the company's attention.

He was subsequently dismissed.

The spokesperson added that MOHH expects its medical officers to maintain high standards of professional conduct.

Placed stethoscope on woman's chest

The alleged offence took place in a ward at KTPH at around 9pm on Jul. 17, 2023.

According to the charge sheet seen by Mothership, Yeo allegedly placed the diaphragm of a stethoscope on the woman's breasts.

The diaphragm is the flat, larger circular disk on the chestpiece which is used to listen to high-frequency body sounds, such as those from the heart.

The charge sheet did not state whether the woman was a patient at KTPH.

A search on the Singapore Medical Council’s website showed that Yeo is still a registered doctor.

His pre-trial conference is scheduled for Sep. 29.

If convicted of molestation, one can be jailed for up to three years, fined, caned, or face any combination of these punishments.

"The cost to the country of mediocre leadership would be vastly greater than the cost of paying political leaders properly," said Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

His remark came on the heels of the government's acceptance of the recommendations of an independent review committee to raise ministerial salaries in line with benchmarks.

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong mentioned earlier in parliament that the proposed adjustments will not be implemented immediately in one step.

Existing political appointment holders (PAHs) will receive a one-off adjustment of up to 9 per cent from Oct. 15, 2026, subject to performance.

Voicing his support on Sep. 8, SM Lee said the debate over political salaries is "never an easy one" and added that he fully understands why Singaporeans feel strongly about it.

He shared that the issue was "often top of mind" for him during his tenure as Prime Minister as it is "so crucial" to ensuring good political leadership and a good government in Singapore.

Passion cannot sustain systems

On questions about why the public service cannot just rely more on idealism and passion, SM Lee said possessing such passion is crucial but passion alone cannot sustain a system over generations.

"We also have to be practical. Singapore’s exceptional performance depends fundamentally on our having clean, honest and capable political leaders," he wrote.

Echoing PM Wong, he explained that the government need to get "very capable men and women" who are often at the prime of their careers, to make a drastic change of course and commit themselves to a "demanding calling with no certainty of success".

They also have to subject themselves and their families to intense public scrutiny, he noted.

"If in addition this commitment requires too heavy or unreasonable a financial sacrifice, many individuals capable of making major contributions to Singapore will decline to take this path," he said.

"Our recruitment pool will shrink, and the standard of political leadership will deteriorate. Over time, the quality of our government will inevitably go down."

Strategic move to field strongest possible leadership team

SM Lee reiterated that the salary adjustment is a "necessary strategic move" to enable Singapore to continue fielding the strongest possible leadership team.

He noted that the salary formula, which was settled in 2012, will not be changed and that it is still appropriate.

However, the government had held back from updating the calculation since then, SM Lee said, adding that they should not defer this any further.

SM Lee also noted that there will be a 40 per cent discount to the private sector benchmark, to reflect the ethos of public service.

"Good leadership is especially crucial in a troubled and turbulent world. The cost to the country of mediocre leadership would be vastly greater than the cost of paying political leaders properly. This salary revision will help keep our country in good hands for years to come. I ask all Singaporeans to support it."

A weight loss product sold online has been found to contain banned substances and prescription-only medicinal ingredients that may be harmful to health.

The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has warned the public about a product named "Dermcare weight (D30 & Sstrong Set) Daily Health Support Set”, sold on local e-commerce platforms Shopee and Lazada.

The product claimed to contain vitamins and natural ingredients, such as cinnamon, to help with appetite control, detoxification, fat-burning and boosting metabolism.

It was sold as a set of four packets containing loose tablets and capsules, with instructions on the dosage to be taken in the morning and at night, printed in Thai.

Notably, the packets were labelled as from “Dermcare clinic” with no product name or ingredients listed.

HSA's testing has revealed that the product contains a banned substance, sibutramine, and five potent medicinal ingredients: amiloride, hydrochlorothiazide, fluoxetine, orlistat and bisacodyl.

Most of these ingredients are found in prescription-only or pharmacy-only medicines, and are not allowed to be purchased over-the-counter.

HSA has advised those who have purchased or consumed the product to stop taking it immediately.

What are these substances?

Sibutramine, formerly a prescription-only weight loss medicine used in the treatment of obesity, has been disallowed for sale in Singapore since 2010 due to increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.

It has been associated with serious side effects, including high blood pressure, irregular heartbeats, hallucinations, and mood swings.

Amiloride and hydrochlorothiazide are potent diuretics, drugs which induce urination.

They can remove excess fluid from the body and should be used only under medical supervision.

The combination of these two diuretics can lead to an increased risk of adverse effects, including low blood pressure, nausea, dizziness, weakness, and electrolyte imbalances.

Fluoxetine is a prescription-only medicine to treat depression and psychiatric disorders, including eating disorders, and should only be used under medical supervision. Adverse effects of fluoxetine include insomnia, headache, fast or irregular heartbeat, diarrhoea and nausea.

Orlistat is a pharmacy-only medicine used in the management of obesity, which prevents the body from absorbing consumed fat.

It should be used under the supervision of a healthcare professional.

Inappropriate use can cause headaches, abdominal pain, oily discharge from rectum, liquid stools, flatulence and fatigue.

Bisacodyl, the only over-the-counter medication in the list, is a laxative which can cause abdominal discomfort and diarrhoea leading to fluid and electrolyte imbalances.

Its prolonged use can harm intestinal function, resulting in chronic constipation.

What next?

HSA urged consumers of the product to stop taking it immediately and see a doctor if they are unwell or concerned about their weight.

The public is advised to steer clear of products from unknown or unverified sources, only buy from trusted pharmacies or reputable retailers with an established presence in Singapore, as well as be cautious and wary of products that claim to deliver quick and miraculous results.

All sellers and suppliers are instructed to stop the sale of "Dermcare weight (D30 & Sstrong Set) Daily Health Support Set” immediately.

Those that sell health items with banned or potent ingredients are liable to prosecution and if convicted, may be imprisoned for up to five years and/ or fined up to S$50,000.

Members of the public who have any information on the sale and supply of illegal products may contact HSA at 6866 3485 during office hours (Monday to Friday), or write in to hsa_is@hsa.gov.sg or http://www.go.gov.sg/hprg-feedback-form.

The Digital Infrastructure Bill had its first reading in Parliament on Sep. 8.

Introduced by the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI), it sets up two new licensing regimes to be administered by the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA).

One covers the security and resilience of major data centres (DCs) and cloud services. The other covers the environmental sustainability of data centre operations.

Which operators are covered

The security and resilience regime applies to major co-location and cloud data centres with a critical IT load of at least 10 megawatts (MW). Data centres used solely for an operator's own internal purposes are not covered.

It also applies to major cloud service providers (CSPs) whose Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) and Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) offerings generate at least S$100 million in average annual revenue from users in Singapore over the preceding three years.

MDDI said these thresholds were calibrated to cover the data centres and cloud service providers whose disruption would have a significant impact on Singapore's economy and society.

Licensees will have to implement security risk management measures and business continuity and disaster recovery plans, and report specified incidents and disruptions to IMDA.

It covers more than cyberattacks

MDDI said the Bill complements the Cybersecurity Act by covering a broader range of operational resilience risks.

These include technical failures, power or cooling issues, fires and other physical or operational incidents that can disrupt the delivery of digital services.

Energy efficiency requirements

Under the sustainability regime, all operators of data centres with a critical IT load of at least 3MW will be licensed.

As a first step, they will need to meet facility-level energy efficiency requirements, including Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) requirements. These will apply to both existing and new data centres.

The framework also allows further requirements covering IT equipment and water efficiency to be introduced where necessary, following consultation with industry.

Commitments become licence conditions

The Bill also allows strategic, economic and green energy commitments, made in exchange for being awarded new data centre capacity, to be enforced as licence conditions.

MDDI said this ensures those commitments are accountable and create broader value for Singapore, given that capacity here depends on scarce national resources including land and power.

What industry said

MDDI and IMDA held a public consultation on the draft Bill from Jul. 1 to 22, and received responses from 25 respondents.

MDDI said respondents supported the Bill's policy objectives and gave feedback on implementation, which has been taken into account.

It added that it will streamline licensing and reporting processes, recognise existing industry standards where possible, and give existing data centres sufficient transition time.

MDDI said:

"Altogether, the Bill will strengthen the foundations on which Singapore's digital economy, and our AI ambitions, will be built."

A man has earned S$80 by returning bottles and cans to a Beverage Container Return Scheme (BCRS) machine in Tampines.

In a TikTok video on Sep. 5, the user, whose name is Arnel, shared a video of himself surrounded by trash bags full of recyclables, depositing the items into the machine.

At the time of writing, the video has garnered over 300,000 views, 5,000 likes and 900 comments.

He captioned the video, "Good morning, 10 cents".

"We may not earn much from collecting, but as long as we get the 10 cents, we’re happy."

Arnel told Mothership that he collects the cans at his dormitory at night.

Almost S$80 in returns

According to Arnel, he has received close to S$80 in refunds from the BCRS machine since he started collecting in July 2026.

The 40-year-old, who is from the Philippines, noted that his fellow foreign workers leave the cans behind after drinking beer or soft drinks.

He added that he decided to collect them "because I want to help [the] Government [keep] our environment clean".

There are multiple videos on his page showing him collecting and returning beverage containers.

An earlier video on Aug. 26 displayed a large trash bag full of recyclables next to the BCRS machine.

In a follow-up video on Sep. 6, Arnel could be seen attempting to return the beer cans and getting rejected despite the cans having the BCRS logo.

He gave the machine a thumbs down.

Netizens largely supportive

In the comments section, most netizens were supportive of Arnel's actions.

Related article

Three Singapore-registered cars were allegedly broken into at the car park of Adventure Waterpark Desaru Coast in Malaysia.

Photos were shared online by a Singaporean man who was parked close to the affected vehicles.

Syafiq Maselan wrote on Facebook: "Was incredibly lucky that mine was left untouched, especially since there were children’s devices on the back seat."

He told Mothership the photos were taken on Sep. 6 at 4:23pm.

Allegedly happened in broad daylight

The cars were allegedly broken into in broad daylight.

Syafiq shared the photos to the public group MY SG Road Trip - Your Malaysia Road Trip Guide! as a public service announcement.

Windows broken

The rear passenger seat windows of two cars were apparently broken, while the rear windscreen of one car was shattered.

One of the cars that had its rear passenger window broken had the Tribecar livery on it.

Syafiq wrote in his post that the thieves could have targeted bags left in the cars.

Commenters responded that leaving personal belongings behind in locked vehicles overseas might not be a good idea.

Syafiq said the passengers of the Mercedes that had its rear windscreen smashed told him that they made a police report.

Tribecar response

In response to Mothership's queries, Tribecar said: "We understand that one of our Tribecar vehicles was involved in the incident in Desaru. Most importantly, we are relieved that the hirer and his family are safe and unharmed."

Tribecar added that in the event of vehicle damage, customers should not arrange repairs themselves unless they have received prior approval.

"We try to remain flexible and consider each situation on a case-by-case basis, particularly when our customers encounter unexpected difficulties while travelling," Tribecar added.

Tribecar added that it gave the hirer specific approval to arrange for the damaged window and window tint to be replaced in Malaysia at the customer's own expense, without imposing additional fees.

This was a case-specific arrangement based on the circumstances, Tribecar said.

With regards to insurance coverage, Tribecar said: "Where there is significant damage to the vehicle, similar to damage arising from an accident, the vehicle's insurance may cover the repair costs, subject to the applicable excess/ deductible and policy terms."

Minister for Defence and Coordinating Minister for Public Services Chan Chun Sing set out the details of the government’s response to the 2026 Salary Review Committee’s report.

Chan, echoing PM Wong's earlier statement, said the review is fundamentally about giving them a better chance to build a "first-rate team" to serve Singapore and Singaporeans.

He noted the need for the salary framework to stay updated so that capable and committed people from different backgrounds, and at different stages of life, can step forward to serve.

He said this cannot just be the "financially independent" ones or those who have made "exceptional lifestyle" choices.

Chan said this pool should include younger Singaporeans, in their 30s and 40s, who may still be building their careers, or raising families, and taking on major financial commitments.

He said the government wants such people to be able to enter public office in their prime with the energy and runway to build up the relevant experience and judgment, to make tough decisions and also to bond and build up trust with Singaporeans to "take Singapore forward".

While he said the salary review was not meant to match the salaries of some CEOs of major Singapore companies, "nor should we", they could not pretend that such opportunity costs do not exist.

So we want to be able to say to capable Singaporeans, “Singapore needs you, and while political service involves sacrifice, it will not come at an unreasonable cost to you and your family”.

Chan, however, emphasised that money must not be the primary motivation for anyone who enters political service.

He said that if money is the main reason for wanting to be a Minister, "frankly, you are not the person we are looking for".

"We will never be able to match the pay of all the people we hope to get. On the other hand, no matter how much we pay, some will never join for various reasons."

Chan noted that due to various decisions, like the holding back of review in 2023, political salaries have been frozen for the past 15 years.

Chan also touched on the details of what these increases will entail, and how and when it will be implemented.

You can read more about the changes here.

Mr Speaker, in December last year, the government appointed an independent committee to review the political salary framework.

We are releasing the report today. At the same time, we are setting out the government’s response.

It is important that members and Singaporeans see the two together.

The committee has reviewed the framework and made its recommendations.

But how those recommendations are implemented is a judgment for the government to make and take responsibility for.

So rather than release the report on its own and leave people to speculate about what it means in practice, we are setting out our response at the same time.

Recommendations accepted

The salary framework itself is not new. It was debated extensively in this House previously in 2012.

Members are familiar with how it works. The committee has affirmed that the framework remains sound, while updating its parameters and recommending some refinements.

The government accepts the committee’s recommendations. But we do not intend to move immediately to the proposed salary levels in one step.

I will explain our approach and the considerations behind it in my statement. Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister-in-charge of the Public Service Chan Chun Sing will then elaborate on the details in another statement.

Following these statements, we will have a full debate on our response on Thursday. Members will have the opportunity to raise their views and questions, and Minister Chan and I will respond.

Thorny issue

Sir, political salaries are a difficult and emotive issue. The sums involved are more than what most citizens earn.

So I understand why Singaporeans scrutinise them closely, and why many feel strongly about the issue. It is certainly not an issue ministers themselves find easy to discuss.

But we run an open system and believe in being transparent about ministerial salaries. We cannot avoid this issue simply because it is politically difficult, and this not just a matter of pay.

It is ultimately about whether Singapore will continue to have the quality of political leadership we need to take our country forward and to serve Singaporeans well in the years ahead.

Last debate

In the last debate in 2012, there was considerable convergence between the PAP and the WP.

The WP proposed a different formula from ours. But the resulting salary levels were broadly in the same range.

More importantly, both sides of the House agreed on the following underlying principles:

That political salaries should be transparent with no hidden perks and privileges.

That they should be competitive enough to enable us to recruit people of the necessary calibre, while incorporating a substantial discount to reflect the ethos of public service.

Since then, the government has repeatedly exercised restraint in making any salary adjustments under the framework.

In 2017, the independent review committee recommended an upward adjustment. The government decided not to proceed.

A further review was scheduled for 2023, but this was deferred.

As a result, the salary norms for political officeholders have remained unchanged for 15 years.

Fallen behind

Over the same period, salaries elsewhere have moved. Private sector pay has risen. Civil service salaries have been adjusted. Judicial salaries have been updated.

Ministerial salaries have therefore fallen further behind. The gap is most obvious when compared with the private sector.

But even in the public service, some senior permanent secretaries earn more than ministers.

It’s not because the framework changed. But because successive governments have decided, at different points, to hold back.

And at each point, there were good reasons for doing so. SM Lee Hsien Loong had in fact hoped to settle this issue before he stepped down as PM.

He told me that he would have preferred not to leave a difficult issue like this to his successor. But circumstances then did not allow him to make an adjustment.

So the responsibility now falls to me.

It would have been easier politically for me to leave things as they are. But that would not be the right thing to do.

We cannot affirm a framework in principle but disregard it indefinitely in practice. Otherwise, over time, the framework loses its meaning.

Restraint cannot become neglect. And that’s why I have decided we must act now.

The best people at the top

Our starting point is this: good government depends on good leadership.

Institutions are only as effective as the people who lead them. Systems and processes matter.

But they do not run themselves.

Especially at the top, the quality of leadership makes a decisive difference.

Companies understand this very well. That is why boards spend so much time on succession planning.

They know that people at the top determine the quality of decisions, the calibre of their team, and ultimately what the organisation can achieve.

I learnt this lesson myself in the public service, how important it is to have the best person running an organisation.

I was chief executive of EMA when the government took over the LNG project. So the task of building the LNG terminal fell to EMA.

No one in EMA had experience doing this. So I searched widely for the best person to lead the project.

I eventually found someone. To bring him on board, I had to offer him a competitive package — far more than what I was earning as CE of EMA.

The HR people were concerned about whether we should pay him so much. But I decided to proceed.

And he proved his worth. He built up the LNG team from scratch, and delivered the LNG terminal safely — on time and within budget.

The importance of ministers

Some may say that ministers are different. After all, Singapore already has a first-rate civil service. Surely capable civil servants can keep the system running.

Sir, I've spent many years in the civil service, and I am very proud of our civil servants.

They analyse the issues, develop options and give ministers their best professional advice. And once decisions are made, they work hard to implement them well.

But there are decisions that civil servants cannot and should not make.

For example, how fast should we restructure an industry if jobs may be lost in the process?

How should the costs of stronger social safety nets be shared among individuals, the community, and the government?

How much should we tax today, and how much should we leave for future generations?

No substitute

These are not technical questions. They involve choices about priorities, interests, and values.

So, a strong civil service is no substitute for effective political leadership.

Ministers have to set the direction for their ministries, decide the priorities, and make the strategic calls.

If those calls are wrong, even the best civil servants will struggle to deliver good outcomes.

They may execute well — but they will be executing in the wrong direction.

Over time, the quality of political leadership also affects the quality of the civil service itself.

Capable officers want to work for leaders they respect and can learn from.

They want ministers who understand the issues, ask the right questions, make sound judgments, and take responsibility for decisions.

If ministers consistently fall short, good officers will become frustrated. Many will leave.

Some may stay on, but they will be less willing to contribute their best ideas, or take on the toughest assignments.

The risk of weak leadership

So the idea that we can have less capable ministers sitting above a first-rate civil service, and everything will somehow continue to work, is a fantasy.

Older members will remember watching the British sitcom "Yes Minister", where the civil servants always seem smarter than the minister.

But even that is a benign version of the story, because at least capable people remain in the system.

The more serious risk is that weak political leadership eventually weakens the civil service too.

And this is not a theoretical risk. We have seen it happen elsewhere.

Countries once known for highly capable governments have seen their civil services deteriorate when political leadership at the top weaken.

What's in a minister

What are we looking for in a minister?

First, character. That is a veto factor. If someone does not have the integrity, values and commitment to serve, then however capable he or she may be, that person should not be a minister.

But character alone is not enough. Ministers also need competence — the judgment, ability, and leadership to do the job well.

And this is where remuneration becomes relevant. It does not determine who is capable.

But it does affect whether enough capable people are prepared to step forward and take on the responsibility.

The ministerial job itself is demanding. Some may think it is straightforward — ministers can just go along with the popular view.

Indeed, there will always be politically convenient options.

We can postpone a difficult reform. We can promise more benefits without being clear about who will pay for them. We can avoid decisions that upset particular groups.

All that may be easier in the short-term. But eventually the consequences catch up with us.

Little room for error

And we see this happen in many countries.

Government leaders often know what needs to be done. But the political cost is immediate, while the benefits may come only years later.

So difficult decisions are deferred, sometimes repeatedly. And in the end, citizens bear a much higher cost.

Singapore has less room than most countries to govern this way. We are tiny. We have few natural advantages. And we cannot afford to let major problems fester for years before acting.

Take the reset of our family policies which I announced at the National Day Rally.

Civil servants can review each scheme and propose improvements. But it was Indranee and the other political officeholders in the workgroup who looked at the parenthood journey as a whole, and helped shape the overall package.

Deciding where support would make the greatest difference, how the costs would be shared between parents, employers and government, and how the different measures should fit together.

Fiscal space

And we can afford to do this now only because of decisions taken over many years.

Successive governments have been careful about how we spend, and disciplined about husbanding our resources. That meant making difficult decisions — including raising the GST when we knew our spending needs would rise.

And because we acted earlier, we have the fiscal space today to provide stronger support for families in a sustainable way.

Housing is another example. Over the years, there have been repeated pressures to slow down or postpone the building of more flats.

At one time, it was because of weak market conditions and falling property prices. On other occasions, it was because of difficult site constraints.

But successive MND ministers, including Desmond Lee and now Chee Hong Tat, have kept up the supply because Singaporeans will continue to need homes.

When Covid caused a major shortfall, they worked hard to ramp construction back up and recover lost ground. And that sustained effort is why we are now in a stronger position to make further moves on housing.

Difficult decisions

These examples illustrate what the job of a minister requires. It’s not simply to do what is popular today. It is to make judgments about what will leave Singapore in a stronger position tomorrow.

And that requires mastery of the issues, a clear sense of priorities, and the willingness to take difficult decisions.

We are fortunate to have ministers who have demonstrated these qualities in different ways.

For example, in the climate change arena, Grace Fu had co-chaired difficult negotiations on global carbon markets, and helped countries reach a final consensus.

Masagos recently took part in the St Gallen Symposium. A member of the UK House of Lords wrote afterwards to commend his contribution, describing him as a, quote, “brilliant ambassador for Singapore”.

I'm not suggesting that ministers will always get every decision right. Ministers do make mistakes.

Some will be stronger in certain areas than others. And when we fall short, we have to learn, improve, and be accountable.

But taken as a whole, I believe we have a strong team, as Singapore has had over successive generations.

Not easy to find

Our ministers are able to master their briefs, exercise judgement, hold their own, and earn the confidence and trust of Singaporeans. And where necessary, represent Singapore well on the international stage.

People who can do all these things are not easy to find.

They must have the character to serve. They must have the competence to carry the responsibility.

And enough of them must be willing to step forward.

That is why building and renewing a strong political team takes sustained effort — and why we must ensure that our system continues to give future Prime Ministers the best possible chance of assembling such a team.

This challenge is not unique to Singapore.

SM Lee once shared with me his conversation with a visiting Prime Minister.

This foreign leader had met some of our ministers and told SM how impressed he was with their quality.

He shared that his greatest challenge as prime minister was finding people of the right calibre to appoint to his Cabinet.

He himself had come from the private sector. So he knew the quality of people available outside politics, and how difficult it was to persuade the right people to step forward.

His experience illustrates the basic tension every political system has to manage.

Politics must remain a calling to serve your fellow citizens.

But if the personal and financial sacrifices become too large, many capable people will simply choose to do something else.

Managing the tension

Different countries have tried to manage this tension in different ways.

Because political salaries are highly sensitive, many systems keep the official salary low, but have other substantial benefits and privileges accumulate around the office.

In some other countries, politicians may supplement their incomes through outside interests. Or, more often, the larger financial rewards may come after they leave office.

So the headline salary may look modest. But the overall picture is much more complicated.

Yet even with these arrangements, many countries still struggle to attract the people they need.

Most countries have much larger populations, and far larger pools of talent to draw from.

Yet they still struggle to put together strong and stable governments.

Singapore has been an exception.

We consistently rank among the leading countries in the world for government effectiveness, integrity, and the quality of our public institutions.

I meet many people around the world who study governments and public policy. Again and again, they point to Singapore as a model of effective government, and an inspiration for others.

We have sustained these standards for so long that they can start to feel normal to Singaporeans.

But they are not normal elsewhere – and they are certainly not guaranteed here either.

We did not build this record of good government because Singaporeans are inherently better, or because good government somehow comes naturally to us.

We achieved it through deliberate choices made over many decades about how our political system should be designed and how it should work.

Transparency in remuneration

And one of those choices was to deal with political remuneration openly.

We recognise that highly able people have alternatives outside politics. So we pay political officeholders salaries that are competitive, but with a substantial discount to reflect political service.

The full remuneration is transparent. There are no hidden salary components or perks outside the published framework. And that's 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.

The same broad consideration applies to Members of Parliament.

We chose not to treat the MPs’ allowance as a token allowance. It is a substantial allowance, because MPs carry substantial responsibilities in parliament and in their constituencies.

Providing a proper allowance has enabled both PAP and WP to recruit and field strong candidates. And we can see the result in this House.

We have MPs with a wide range of backgrounds and experience, who bring different perspectives to our debates.

We may disagree strongly across the aisle, but the quality of debate is high, and Singapore is better for it.

Cannot rely on people who make 'inordinate sacrifices'

So, if we want our political system to remain effective, we cannot allow its basic terms of service to drift further and further away from reality.

That applies to MPs' allowances. It applies even more importantly to political officeholder salaries.

Because political renewal is not a one-off exercise. We have to keep bringing in capable Singaporeans from different backgrounds, election after election.

Enough of them must be prepared to step forward, contest elections, and take responsibility for the future of our country.

That has always been an important philosophy at the heart of the PAP’s approach to government: we must build not only for today, but for the next generation.

And this was perhaps Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s greatest legacy. He did not just build a successful government around himself.

He worked hard to leave behind a system that could keep Singapore going well after he was gone.

Central to that was leadership renewal — continually bringing in good people and preparing the next generation to take over.

Mr Lee himself had exceptional colleagues like Dr Goh Keng Swee and S Rajaratnam.

But he also brought in people from the private sector – like Lim Kim San and later Hon Sui Sen.

Later, in fact, when ministerial salaries were first raised in 1970, Mr Lee Kuan Yew explained in Parliament that one reason was to enable him to appoint Hon Sui Sen, who was then head of the Development Bank of Singapore, as finance minister.

He said that to attract capable people to serve as Ministers, Singapore cannot, and I quote, “rely on people who are willing to make inordinate sacrifices, particularly when it is at the expense of their families”.

Getting harder

That approach continued into the next generation, with key Ministers like ESM Goh Chok Tong, Tony Tan, Ong Teng Cheong, and S Dhanabalan. They were all from the private sector.

Over time, however, it became harder to bring people with substantial private sector experience into Cabinet.

And it was not for lack of trying. I've worked with SM Lee for many years, since 2004. First as a civil servant, and later in Cabinet.

I saw firsthand how much time and effort he devoted to identifying people persuading them to enter politics, and building up the next team.

It was one reason I agreed to enter politics when he approached me in 2011.

Anything but straightforward

Now it is my responsibility as Prime Minister, not just to lead the present Cabinet, but to build the team that will come after us.

I was 51 when I took over as Prime Minister. It's about the same age as SM Lee when he became PM.

From the outside, the transition may have looked smooth.

But those of us who went through it know that the path was anything but straightforward.

In fact, SM Lee had hoped to hand over earlier. But there were unexpected turns.

Heng Swee Keat suffered a stroke. Covid intervened. Swee Keat later decided to step aside.

The team had to regroup and work through succession again.

That experience taught me something important. Leadership succession cannot be planned like clockwork.

People and circumstances change. Unexpected events happen.

So we need strength across the team, and we need to begin renewal early.

A pressing task

That's why when I took over, I was very conscious that the renewal task was pressing.

I was then, when I took over, one of the youngest members of the Cabinet. Several of our most experienced ministers were advancing in age.

But we didn’t have enough younger ministers ready to take over the portfolios.

This was despite SM Lee’s sustained efforts to renew the team.

And the reduction in political salaries in 2012, followed by 15 years without any adjustment to the benchmark, did not make the task any easier.

That’s why leadership renewal became one of my highest priorities.

Ahead of the last General Election, I approached several senior permanent secretaries whom I thought had the temperament and potential for political leadership.

With their experience, they could potentially take on major portfolios more quickly.

In the end, none was prepared to make the move.

More succession plans

But I was able to bring in younger officers with strong potential and a longer runway ahead of them — like Jeffrey Siow, David Neo and Jasmin Lau.

Even so, there is still much more to do.

Aside from SM Lee, the three most senior members of my team are Gan Kim Yong, K Shanmugam, and Vivian Balakrishnan.

They helm key ministries – MTI, MHA and MFA.

By the next term of government, all three will be 70 and above.

We should not plan on the basis that they will continue helming these ministries then.

For the good of the team, and for the strength of our institutions, we need the next generation to take over.

All three understand this, and in fact they have been pressing me to put succession plans in place.

But they are not so easy to replace.

Kim Yong brings experience across both the private and public sectors. And he commands the confidence of investors and international partners.

Shan has decades of experience in law and government — and an unusual ability to get to the heart of complex issues, weigh competing considerations, and frame the choices clearly.

Few ministers have that combination of judgement and experience at the same level.

Vivian has been Foreign Minister for more than a decade and has built up deep knowledge of the issues and an extensive network of relationships.

That experience matters greatly, especially as the external environment becomes more complicated.

The search for replacements

It is very hard to find complete, ready-made replacements for ministers at this

level.

A senior person would have a shorter learning curve.

But the judgment, experience, political authority, and relationships needed for these roles still take time to build.

So we need to bring good people in early enough, give them progressively heavier responsibilities, and prepare them to take over.

We are doing that now.

But we also need depth in the pipeline, because not everyone we bring in will necessarily grow into these roles.

I face the same issue in finding a successor at MOF.

I was fortunate to have spent many years there as a civil servant. So I am familiar with the work.

That made it easier for me to take over from Swee Keat when he stepped down. For now, I can continue to double-hat as Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.

But ideally, I should have someone else take on the finance portfolio.

A growing challenge

So when I look at MOF, MTI, MHA, and MFA, the succession challenge is very real.

Recruiting from the public service is becoming harder.

Senior civil servants today have meaningful careers, substantial responsibilities, and competitive remuneration, as I mentioned just now.

Political service would mean giving up that career path, and taking on electoral and public scrutiny.

And if the gap between public service and political salaries continues to widen, that hurdle will become higher.

If this is already a challenge in the public service, it is greater still in the private sector.

That matters, because we cannot build our political leadership from the public service alone.

I also want people in Cabinet who have spent substantial parts of their careers in business or other professional fields — especially in running large organisations and overseeing complex systems.

They may not start with the same familiarity with government.

But they bring experience of making hard decisions, managing people and resources, operating under commercial pressure, and delivering results in a competitive environment.

These are valuable capabilities to have in Cabinet.

Tan See Leng is a good example. He joined us in 2020, after a long career in the private sector.

At the last parliament sitting, he spoke with authority about the challenges entrepreneurs face and what more we can do to support them.

He did so with conviction, drawing on years of experience running businesses and dealing with those pressures first-hand.

So that gave his speech a conviction that would have been difficult for others in the team to replicate.

He brings a different perspective and has made a real contribution to the team.

More private-sector hires

I would like to bring in more people like that.

Ideally, some should come in while they are in their 40s, so they have the runway to learn, grow and take on larger responsibilities over time.

Just consider the profile of such people in the private sector. Take the CEOs of major listed Singapore companies, in banking, telecommunications, aviation, engineering and other sectors, as well as people on track for such leadership roles.

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

We are not trying to match what they earn. We never will.

But when we approach people of that calibre, we cannot pretend that the opportunity cost does not exist.

Before the last General Election, I spoke to several CEOs and other senior business leaders whom I thought could make a real contribution in politics.

They were earning several times a minister's salary.

None said to me directly that pay was the reason they would not join. Nor would I want someone whose decision turned mainly on money.

But that does not mean remuneration is irrelevant.

Look at the decision from their point of view. They have spent years building a successful career.

We are asking them to walk away from that. To take a substantial reduction in income. To contest an election with no certainty of success, and to start again in a completely new environment.

In the end, none of those I approached was prepared to make the move.

But I have not given up. I am still looking and I hope to persuade a few to join us in the next election.

The sacrifice of politics

I recognise that the sacrifice is not only financial. Political life places real demands on families.

There is time, time we do not get back. There is scrutiny, scrutiny that spouses and children did not ask for, but nevertheless have to bear with us.

No salary adjustment can make up for these things. Nor was it ever meant to.

The purpose of remuneration is much more modest: to ensure that, on top of all these other sacrifices, we do not make the financial hurdle unnecessarily high.

I know too that people look at the team they may be joining – what it stands for, how its members lead and carry themselves, and whether these are people they want to serve alongside.

That is a responsibility I take seriously too.

Those of us already in political leadership must conduct ourselves in a way that earns respect, inspires confidence and makes good people want to join us.

But even if we do all these things well, I am under no illusion. Attracting capable Singaporeans into politics will not become easier.

It’s a challenge I face today. And future Prime Ministers may find it harder still.

That is the issue we have to confront in this debate. 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 — from the public service, the private sector and other walks of life — to step forward and build a first-rate team to serve Singapore and Singaporeans.

Recommended revisions

Sir, that brings me to the government’s response to the committee’s recommendations.

Based on the latest data, the committee has recommended updating the MR4 benchmark from S$1.1 million to S$1.8 million. It has also recommended changes to the other political officeholder salaries and to MP allowances.

The government accepts these recommendations. The revised framework will take effect from Oct. 15.

The monthly allowances for MPs will increase from S$13,750 to S$18,500 from that date.

The adjustments to the salaries of President, Speaker and Deputy Speaker will also take effect from then.

The prime minister's salary is set at twice the MR4 benchmark. I have decided that, for the next five years — assuming I remain prime minister — I will donate the full increase in my salary arising from this adjustment.

The government will continue to pay me the salary provided for under the framework, which is how our system works. I will then donate the increase to suitable good causes.

This is my own decision. I do not expect other officeholders to do the same. As a general rule, I do not believe in making a public show of charitable giving.

But although the salary framework is a Cabinet decision, as prime minister, I carry ultimate responsibility for it.

So I want to be clear about how I will personally handle the increase, and why I am taking these changes forward. Because I believe they are in Singapore’s interests.

At the end of the five years, I will review the position afresh, taking into account the circumstances at that time. I fully expect to continue supporting good causes, as I have always done.

But I do not want to make an open-ended public commitment, or to create an expectation that future prime ministers may feel obliged to follow.

Ministerial pay revisions

So that deals with the salaries and allowances of the president, the prime minister, speaker, deputy speaker, and members of parliament. For ministers and other officeholders, however, the implementation will be different.

We will not move immediately to the new salary benchmarks. Instead, we will make a one-off adjustment now of up to 9 per cent for political officeholders.

I say “up to” because the same increase will not automatically apply to everyone.

The adjustment for each officeholder will depend on individual circumstances, including performance and when his or her salary was last adjusted.

To illustrate, for an MR4 minister earning the current reference salary of S$1.1 million, the full 9 per cent adjustment would bring the salary to about S$1.2 million.

Thereafter, after this one-off adjustment, there will be no further special adjustments to close the gap to S$1.8 million. Instead, any subsequent changes will be based on individual performance and responsibilities.

So let me explain how this works.

Today there are four ministerial grades — MR4, 3, 2 and 1. For each grade, there is a range of salary points, which determine the minister’s fixed pay.

So MR4 there is a range of salary points, MR3 likewise, MR2, MR1.

As prime minister, I decide the grade of each minister; where each minister is positioned within the salary range for that grade; and the individual performance bonus each year.

So at present, 10 out of 16 ministers are at MR4. The other six are at higher grades, reflecting their seniority and heavier responsibilities, including those serving as coordinating ministers.

Within each grade, ministers can move to different salary points over time, based on performance.

I will place a new officeholder at the lower end of the salary range. Those who perform well may move to a higher point within the range.

And of course, those who do very well may be promoted to a higher grade as they take on greater responsibilities.

Variable components

There are also variable components which make up more than one-third of a minister’s annual remuneration.

There is a National Bonus which applies to all officeholders, based on the outcomes specified in the framework.

The individual performance bonus depends on my assessment of each officeholder’s performance. Last year, for example, individual performance bonuses for political officeholders ranged from three to six months.

So when we refer to the current MR4 reference salary of S$1.1 million, this is an all-in reference figure. It includes fixed pay together, together with assumed levels of performance and bonus payouts.

The actual remuneration received by an individual minister in any year can therefore be higher or lower than the reference salary, depending on his or her salary point and the variable payouts.

Fine-tuning of structure

This is how the system operates today. The committee has recommended some fine-tuning to the current structure.

They have recommended that the MR2 and MR3 grades be combined. So there will be three ministerial grades instead of four. They have also recommended that the salary range for each grade be widened to plus or minus 25 per cent.

We agree with these changes. But the basic approach to assessing and differentiating individual salaries, based on performance, will remain the same, as I have explained just now.

So after the one-off special adjustment, I will continue to assess ministers and adjust their salaries in the usual way, based on performance.

On that basis, by the end of this term of government, I expect most ministers who remain at MR4 to be at the lower end of the new salary range — about S$1.35 million.

Those who excel and take on larger responsibilities may move higher within the range, or be promoted to a higher ministerial grade.

In other words, ministers' salaries will be set within the ranges under the revised framework. But exactly where each person is positioned will depend on performance and responsibilities.

So, to be clear, the revised MR4 benchmark of S$1.8 million is not a target salary that every minister must eventually reach. Ministers can be paid above or below the benchmark, within the prescribed range.

And as I've explained, after the one-off adjustments, the usual adjustments continue based on salaries. And by the end of this term of government, I expect ministers who remain at MR4 to be at the lower end of the new salary range, and that's S$1.35 million.

Other officeholders

I have described how this will apply to ministers.

The same approach will apply to the other officeholders — ministers of state, parliamentary secretaries, and mayors. For these officeholders, I will typically consult their supervising ministers on their performance.

But the final decision on their salary points, grades, and bonuses rests with me.

New officeholders appointed in the next term of government will likewise come in at different points within the range, taking into account their experience and previous remuneration.

So over time, we should expect a wider spread in salaries than we have today with the current framework.

That is the purpose of the revised structure.

It gives the prime minister more room to differentiate pay according to performance, and importantly, to bring in people with substantial experience from outside government, especially those already earning significantly more in the private sector.

We will still expect them to make a meaningful sacrifice to enter political service.

But we should not make that gap larger than it needs to be.

Building the strongest team for Singapore

Overall, I believe this will give me and future prime ministers a better chance of persuading capable Singaporeans to step forward, and of building the strongest possible team for Singapore.

Sir, good government did not come naturally to Singapore. It was built deliberately over many years. And there is nothing automatic about sustaining this.

For more than 60 years, Singaporeans have benefitted from a government that is able to plan ahead, take difficult decisions and deliver. Our responsibility is to preserve that capacity for those who come after us.

And that is why I have decided to deal with this issue now. 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 charge, whichever party is in government, Singapore will need strong and effective political leadership to serve our people and take our country forward.

Good leadership has always been important. It will be even more crucial as we navigate a more uncertain and troubled world.

So let us make the right decision — to keep the path open for capable and public-spirited Singaporeans to step forward, lead and serve.

Let us give our children and future generations the confidence that, when the time comes, there will be leaders ready to rise to the challenge and take Singapore forward.

Related news