The Workers' Party (WP) proposals on ministerial pay fail to improve on what the Government already intends to accept, several People's Action Party (PAP) MPs pointed out in Parliament on Monday.
Its call to peg the salaries to civil service pay results in a high base salary that is 'still market-based' - just like the recommendation it is opposing, said Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang GRC).
The WP's proposed monthly pay for an entry-level minister is $55,000, the same as the committee's figure.
But the WP also wants bonuses to be smaller, yielding a lower overall salary.
Mr Zaqy was among at least five PAP MPs who critiqued the WP's proposals in on Monday's parliamentary debate on the recommendations of the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries.
He noted that as civil servants are executives, their pay must be competitive.
This means the WP has not managed to escape a market-based pay system.
'The difference between the proposal accepted by the PAP Government and the WP's proposal is that the latter leaves out the principle of sacrifice (and the) discounts to reflect service to the people,' he said.
Dr Amy Khor (Hong Kah North) similarly observed that as the civil service has competitive salaries, the WP approach links ministerial salaries to market pay - but in a less straightforward way.
It would be 'more transparent' to peg ministerial salaries to 'the competitive salaries that the calibre of people we are looking for in ministers earn, or have the potential to earn', said the Minister of State for Health.
And as the MP allowance is a percentage - 17.5 per cent - of an entry-level minister's salary, this means the minister's salary is already a multiple of the MP allowance, she added.
The WP had proposed that an entry- level minister's pay be five times an MP's allowance.
'I do not see how their (the WP's) proposed formula is an improvement over the committee's recommendation,' Dr Khor said.
She argued that the WP formula does not 'account for the burdens and responsibilities that come with the job'.
Political service 'is more than public service' as civil servants are not subject to the vote and do not need to 'carry the ground' in policymaking, she said.
Meanwhile, Mr Alvin Yeo (Chua Chu Kang GRC) said the review committee 'was not seeking to monetise the value of public service' - which he said was suggested by WP's Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied GRC).
Instead, in pegging ministerial pay to the private sector, the committee was looking at the talent pool from which the Government seeks to draw future leaders.
He acknowledged that income-earning ability, academic qualifications and lofty corporate posts do not determine 'the qualities to be a leader'.
But Singaporeans demand top performance from ministers. And ministers are in turn drawn from 'what is considered to be the likely pool of top performers'.
Mr Chen's own entry into politics illustrated this point, said Mr Yeo, when it generated 'considerable excitement in political circles'.
Such excitement 'was not because Mr Chen was considered to be a 'median-income' sort of guy, or somehow an emblem of the lowest income quintile of society', observed Mr Yeo.
Rather, with his 'sterling qualifications', Mr Chen 'was proof that opposition parties could also attract the sort of top talent, that one day perhaps may form the Government'.
The importance of talent was highlighted earlier by Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs and Community Development, Youth and Sports) Sam Tan.
'Pay should not be the reason for entering politics, but neither should it be the reason for losing talent,' said Mr Tan (Radin Mas) in Mandarin.
He noted that talent is important to any successful government, but it is even more important for government to have a heart. Lacking either would spell disaster.
