SINGAPORE: The Workers’ Party agrees with the broad principles underpinning the political salary framework, but continues to diverge with the Government on the formula by which these salaries should be calculated, party chief Pritam Singh said on Sept 10.
He also called for more transparency on the total remuneration of ministers at the entry-level MR4 grade, saying this would provide a more accurate picture of what they earn than the annual salary benchmark.
Speaking during the parliamentary debate on changes to political salaries, Singh said his party supports increasing MPs’ salaries in view of inflation. He was the only WP MP to speak out of the 12 MPs who weighed in on the debate.
It also agrees with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s decision that the one-off increase to ministers’ salaries should not exceed 9 per cent, and that the benchmark salary of $1.8 million for MR4 ministers is not a target that every minister must reach.
This is a more “sober” approach to ministerial salaries than the recommendations of the independent committee that conducted the recent salary review, Singh said.
PM Wong and Coordinating Minister for Public Services Chan Chun Sing had announced the changes to political salaries on Sept 8.
Under the proposals in the committee’s report, the annual MP allowance package will increase from $192,500 to $259,000 to account for inflation.
It also said that ministerial salaries should continue to be benchmarked to the median income of the top 1,000 earners who are Singapore citizens, with a 40 per cent discount to reflect the ethos of public service.
Singh agreed that political salaries should be competitive enough to attract people of the necessary calibre; that political service is a calling with its own ethos; and that political remuneration should be transparent.
But he said the WP continues to take the view from its 2012 proposal that pegging ministerial salaries to a multiple of an MP’s salary, which is in turn derived from a public sector appointee salary, is preferable.
Under its proposal, increases to a minister’s total salary over time would be more modest, he added.
Singh also noted that Non-Constituency MP Eileen Chong of WP had in February asked for the ranges of performance bonus, national bonus and annual variable component (AVC) received by ministers from 2018 to 2024. She was told that the AVC ranged from zero to 1.5 months.
For transparency, the Government should disclose the actual total remuneration received by MR4 ministers, he said. He added that this would provide a more accurate picture of what ministers have actually received in practice, as distinct from the annual total salary norm.
He also said wider salary ranges, intended to give the Government more flexibility in recruiting candidates from the private sector, will increase public scrutiny of individual ministers' total annual salaries.
“It would follow that this information should be published accordingly in a practical format that promotes public understanding of the total salaries,” he said.
Attracting strong candidates
Singh also said appropriate remuneration is often framed as a factor influencing high-quality private-sector individuals' decision to enter politics.
“From the evidence so far however, only a small handful have taken the plunge, and the majority of ministers continue to be sourced from the public sector or civil service,” he said.
He also said that for some civil servants, joining politics “potentially opens the door to a wage increase from the salary they previously earned”, if they are appointed as ministers.
“(This) reality that is often overlooked when the focus is on ensuring that individuals drawn from the private sector can receive a competitive salary as ministers,” he added.
Singh then asked whether it is the salary or the reality of political service today that dissuades many high-earning private sector individuals from joining politics.
“For some, it would not be out of order to suggest that no amount of money will persuade them to trade their suits and ties for grassroots activities and to immerse themselves in municipal concerns and in the rough and tumble of politics, since all ministers must first be elected as Members of Parliament,” Singh said.
By the same token, he said Singaporeans “would not be well served by any individual who winces at undertaking political groundwork, even if he or she is a corporate titan or private-sector high-flyer”.
Turning to his own party, Singh also said that a sufficient MP allowance is not a reason Singaporeans choose to stand on the WP ticket.
He was responding to PM Wong, who had said on Sept 8 that a proper allowance has enabled both the PAP and the WP to field strong candidates and bring about high-quality debate in the House.
“The point I wish to make is not that the MP remuneration is unimportant,” said Singh. “It is that remuneration is not what drives an individual Singaporean to become a WP candidate.”
Singh said that for the opposition, winning an election “in a one-party dominant state, where PAP remains electorally dominant, represents a gargantuan challenge both personally and professionally”.
A WP candidate cannot reasonably take for granted that he or she will win and become an MP, let alone approach the decision to stand for elections on the basis of achieving some degree of parity in terms of remuneration, he added.
“The WP fields candidates who not only believe in a more balanced political system but are prepared to stand behind their convictions against significant odds, while working for Singaporeans on the ground,” Singh said.
Mayors’ roles
The salary review committee had also recommended that the Government study how remuneration for “community-related roles” - such as mayors and MPs - can be delinked from the MR4 benchmark.
Singh asked when this study will be completed, and for the Government to include in its study if it intends to keep the office of the mayor and to explain its scope, role and function.
“It remains unclear to many Singaporeans what the job scope of mayors is,” Singh said.
He also noted that his party had previously raised questions on the scope of a mayor’s responsibilities, given that many functions previously performed by Community Development Councils have gradually been devolved to other organisations, including social service offices and other government agencies.
Singh noted that political office-holders receive one wage, in addition to their MPs allowances. It would follow that two out of five mayors today receive a full mayor salary, since the other three are office-holders, Singh noted.
“Paradoxically, this treatment in the case of mayors who are also political office-holders only amplifies the public interest on the real job scope of mayors,” he said.
Singh also called for a review of remuneration for MPs’ legislative assistants and secretarial assistants, saying it should increase to account for inflation.
These allowances were last updated in 2007. Singh noted that the Government had said in March that the committee did not do so as it fell outside their terms of reference.
But legislative assistants and secretarial assistants help MPs discharge their responsibilities to their constituents or to the House regardless of party affiliation, he said.
“It would be a travesty to overlook these individuals when considering the resources necessary for MPs to discharge their responsibilities effectively,” he added. - ST/ANN
