My time to contribute more constructively. Haven't read much of WP salary stand, but I understand it is the formula difference rather than the amount that was their focus. And most people seem to understand that.
I think the main opposition could have proposed a lower multiplication of 4x and 7x instead of 5x and 9x, in order to avoid confusing the people when the issue that WP's formula derives the same amount as PAP's formula is brought in. They also failed to emphasis that such multiplication benchmarks can be further lowered in future.
Naturally, PAP is on a "high note" after cutting their own salaries, based on my own ground measure of sentiments, and proposing further drastic cuts from what Gerard and gang proposed would reflect badly on WP for scoring points. Scoring points is not wrong, but parties score points only when you have the ground behind you. But as I said a small but distinct differentiation would be good.
I am also of the view that civil service salary is pegged to the private close to 1 on 1 anyway, so this would reflect better than benchmarking to top 1,000. So overall, a good idea by WP.
Any ruling party will be crazy to increase civil service salaries across the board to increase their own salaries if this formula was in place. If civil salaries are higher than private salaries by just a bit too much the impact will be bad because civil service is so huge and overpaying each by a lot would total more than the entire cabinet costs. PAP pegging to private sector is also conflicting since we all know that PAP owns businesses. They might even be tempted to widen the income gap further since they would be riding on the upper part of the gap. So in the end, peg to who?
Therefore, anyone - so far one only - with such a worry is not the right mind. Most countries practice this anyway (pegging to civil service) and seem that only one chap in the whole world is worried.