Dear Friends,
Before the latest salary review, the reference salary of an entry-level MR4 Minister was $1.1 mil a year.
That works out to about $3,014 for every calendar day of the year.
An NSF recruit receives $790 a month.
It takes an NSF recruit roughly four months to receive what an entry-level minister presently earns in one day.
Now, the Government has accepted a 64 percent increase in the MR4 ministerial salary benchmark to $1.8 mil.
An NSF recruit would take more than six months to receive the same amount.
One day’s work versus six months of duty. Let that sink in.
The government has been extremely reluctant over the years to increase NSF’s earnings – which it insists on calling an “allowance”.
The common reasons bandied around – “duty”, “service to the nation”, and “sacrifice”.
Strangely, we hear many of the same terms when ministers are discussed.
We are told that political office is also a form of public service.
Under the ministerial salary formula, the benchmark is based on the median income of Singapore’s top 1,000 earners, with a 40 percent “discount” supposedly to reflect the ethos of this public service.
We are also told about opportunity cost.
A capable person entering politics could potentially earn much more in the private sector, and if political salaries are not “competitive”, these good people may be unwilling to give up lucrative careers to serve.
There is a logic to that argument.
But if we accept that logic, then we must have the courage to apply it consistently.
An NSF has an opportunity cost too.
He enters university later, begins his career later, starts accumulating CPF later.
He loses almost two years in which his peers may be studying, working, building businesses or progressing in their careers.
And throughout that period, his time and much of his personal freedom are placed at the disposal of the State.
All this, for one-third of what a service staff at McDonald’s is earning.
How can the government insist that NS is indispensable to Singapore’s survival, while placing such a modest monetary value on the time of the young men required to perform it?
And yet, there is an even more fundamental contradiction – a person considering political office has a choice while an NSF does not.
When determining how much to compensate someone who voluntarily enters political office, opportunity cost seems to matters so much.
Then why should it matter so little when we determine what to give someone who is forced to surrender two years of his life to the nation?
Where is the fairness in this?
Nobody is arguing that ministers should not be fairly compensated, or that NSFs should be paid a minister’s salary.
The issue is whether we apply the same principles of fairness to everybody.
The SDA has been consistent on this issue.
In our 2025 General Election manifesto, we proposed bringing the base NSF allowance up to the Local Qualifying Salary, which is now $1800 a month.
The principle is straightforward: if this is the amount the government considers necessary for a local worker to be meaningfully employed, someone giving two years to NS should not be valued below that level.
Consider what MINDEF itself pays Singaporeans who voluntarily sign contracts with the Army.
The salary of a recruit can start from roughly $2500 – not including tens of thousands in recruitment bonus.
When the SAF needs someone to serve “voluntarily”, market wages, CPF, bonuses and benefits suddenly matter.
But when a young NSF, $790 is considered enough.
Is his time worth less because he is forced to serve?
And even at $1,800, there is already a substantial element of sacrifice built in, just like the “discount” applied to ministers’ wages.
Ministers believe that opportunity cost matters, that public service deserves fair compensation, and that sacrifice should be recognised.
So do we.
But it cannot be one principle for those at the top, and another for those on the ground.
Fairness must mean fairness for everyone.
Desmond Lim
Chairman
Singapore Democratic Alliance
