- Joined
- Aug 20, 2022
- Messages
- 27,409
- Points
- 113
Gan Kim Yong's economic warning sparks backlash over job guarantees and ministerial pay
Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong’s remarks on the limits of job creation despite growth have ignited strong criticism, with Singaporeans questioning why they must bear the uncertainties of economic transformation while ministers’ pay remains secure.The Online Citizen
2 Feb 2026
theonlinecitizen.com
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry Gan Kim Yong’s statement that economic growth may no longer lead to automatic job creation has drawn widespread public anger, highlighting deep concerns over fairness, accountability and trust in Singapore’s political leadership.
Speaking on 29 January 2026 at the midterm update of the Economic Strategy Review (ESR), Gan cited structural changes—such as technological disruption, an ageing population, and global protectionism—as reasons why even strong economic performance may not result in sufficient new jobs.
This shift, he said, reflects a “new phase” of Singapore’s economic journey, where traditional assumptions linking GDP growth with employment must be revisited.
Backlash over jobs and political accountability
While framed as a realistic assessment of the global economic landscape, Gan’s comments triggered sharp criticism online, particularly on The Online Citizen’s (TOC) Facebook page.Many Singaporeans questioned how such a message could come from the world’s highest-paid political leadership. If jobs are no longer guaranteed, they asked, why should ministerial salaries remain so?
“Their jobs are guaranteed. Not ours,” one commenter wrote, echoing a widely shared sentiment. Others called the remarks tone-deaf, especially as citizens continue to bear rising living costs, stagnant wages, and growing job insecurity.
Some called for ministerial pay to be pegged to employment outcomes or economic wellbeing, rather than GDP, arguing that leadership accountability must reflect the realities ordinary Singaporeans face.
Foreign labour and uneven benefits of growth
The reaction also reignited long-standing frustrations over foreign manpower and perceived inequality in opportunity.Many questioned how job creation could be uncertain for locals when foreign hires under work pass schemes remain prevalent. Remarks such as “Jobs for CECA, not for Singaporeans” and “FTs get guaranteed jobs” reflected deep concerns over whether economic gains are being fairly distributed.
Some accused the Government of prioritising GDP expansion, tax optimisation, and international capital inflows over meaningful local employment outcomes. For them, the disconnect between national economic performance and individual livelihoods has become increasingly difficult to ignore.
Trust, sacrifice, and deepening scepticism
Beyond present grievances, the backlash reflects a longer arc of public discontent.Commenters across platforms such as Facebook and Reddit noted how Singaporeans have long been asked to adapt—whether through accepting higher immigration, enduring inflated property prices, or constantly reskilling in response to disruption. This was tolerated, many say, on the belief that growth would eventually translate into better lives.
Gan’s statement that even growth no longer guarantees good jobs shattered that assumption for many. As one commenter put it, “We gave up our comfort, and now even progress won’t benefit us.”
Others described the message as a pretext for future policy shifts, framing it as a way to lower public expectations or to justify downward pressure on wages and job quality.
The result is not just anger, but eroded trust—a view that assurances no longer carry weight without visible results.
Leadership, responsibility, and the path forward
While Gan’s candid acknowledgment represents a shift in tone, many citizens now expect action that matches the rhetoric. The demand is for structural solutions—not more schemes or slogans, but a fundamental rethink of Singapore’s economic direction and leadership accountability.In this climate, the ongoing review of political salaries—chaired by Gan Seow Kee and announced in January—has drawn renewed attention. The current framework, which ties ministerial pay to top private-sector benchmarks and GDP growth, is increasingly seen as misaligned with public sentiment and lived experience.
Critics argue that if Singaporeans are being asked to brace for uncertainty, the same principle should apply to leadership compensation. For many, this review is not merely administrative—it is a test of whether accountability still exists at the highest levels.
As Singapore prepares for a new economic phase, the real question is whether the social compact can be restored. With the ESR’s final report due mid-2026, and the salary review committee set to present its findings, these developments are more than policy checkpoints—they are litmus tests for trust, equity, and leadership.
Whether they lead to renewed confidence or deepen public scepticism will depend on what comes next—and whether leadership is prepared to share in the risk it asks its people to bear.
