In February, Chan Chun Sing told Parliament not to conflate duty with transaction, and refused to peg NSF allowances to a wage benchmark. In September, he defended a S$1.8 million ministerial reference salary using opportunity cost, market benchmarks and inflation — the very reasoning denied to the conscript six months earlier.   https://theonlinecitizen.com/2026/09/09/in-february-duty-was-priceless-in-september-it-came-with-a-discount-rate   "In February, duty was priceless. In September, it came with a discount rate." — Full Summary & Details   This article by Terry Xu, published 9 September 2026 on The Online Citizen , critiques what it calls a double standard in how the Singapore government talks about money, duty, and sacrifice — depending on who is being paid.       📌 February 2026: "Don't conflate duty with transaction"   On 27 February 2026, Workers' Party MP Kenneth Tiong proposed in Parliament that second-year NSFs be paid at least the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) of S$1,800 — with CPF contributions .   Current NSF allowances:   - Recruit/Private: S$790/month - Second-year corporal (basic): S$865/month - Second-year corporal (combat vocation): ~S$1,035/month - No CPF on any of these amounts   Tiong estimated the cost at S$150–200 million/year — less than 1% of Singapore's defence budget .   The official response :   Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad: "A salary is a transaction for labour rendered… National Service is a unique civic duty — it is not a transaction."   Chan Chun Sing: "Those who have served are careful not to use the word compensate. No amount of money can be equated with the contributions of NSmen. Do not conflate duty with transaction."   The government also argued that because lodging, food, clothing and medical care are provided, cost-of-living adjustments do not apply to NSmen — a position stated back in 2023 as well .       📌 September 2026: Duty gets a price tag — for ministers   On 8 September 2026, the government announced the first ministerial salary review in 15 years :   Position Old reference New reference  MR4 (entry minister) S$1.1M/yr S$1.8M/yr  Prime Minister S$2.2M/yr S$3.6M/yr  MP monthly allowance S$13,750 S$18,500    Chan Chun Sing's justification — the very same reasoning rejected for NSFs :   - Market benchmarks: S$1.8M is the median income of Singapore's top 1,000 earners, minus a 40% discount to reflect public service ethos - Opportunity cost: Ministers sacrifice what they could earn in the private sector (CEO salaries of S$6–7M are real, he argued) - Inflation / cost of living: MP allowances are being raised because expenses have risen - Wage benchmarking: The 3.6% annualised growth since 2011 is below median worker growth (4.3%) and P20 growth (4.6%) — proving wage comparisons are valid       ⚖️ The core accusation: Two sets of rules   The article points out the same arguments were declared invalid when applied to conscripts, but authoritative when applied to ministers:   Argument February (NSFs) September (Ministers)  Duty vs transaction "NS is duty, not employment — don't put a price on it" Political service can be valued, benchmarked, discounted and paid  Inflation / cost of living "Basic needs are provided — doesn't apply" "Expenses have risen — update pay accordingly"  Opportunity cost Not acknowledged as a factor Central justification — "top talent will stay away"  Wage/market benchmarking LQS is "just an administrative tool" — irrelevant Top 1,000 earners median is the definitive benchmark  What counts as pay Lodging, food, uniform counted as part of "package" Ministerial pay is strictly cash — office costs are separate        💡 Key points from the article   1. The difference is leverage, not sacrifice. A minister can walk away to a high-paying private job; an NSF cannot. The system pays those with options more, and those with no options less — wrapping both in the language of duty . 2. The sums are trivial relative to the budget. S$150–200 million for NSFs vs ~S$5 million total for all political appointment holders and S$6.6 million for MPs. Both are fiscally feasible — the difference is a choice, not a financial constraint . 3. The definition of "duty" shifts. When a 19-year-old serves his country, duty is priceless and money degrades it. When a minister serves, duty has a market price minus a modest discount. The ethos argument flows only one way . 4. Chan's own words cut both ways. He said: "If money is your main reason for wanting to be a Minister, frankly, you are not the person we are looking for." Yet the entire salary review is premised on the opposite — that money is necessary to attract good people .       🎯 Conclusion   "What I begrudge is being told that duty is priceless by men who have just finished pricing their own — reaching, as they did it, for every argument they had denied the soldier six months earlier."    The article does not say ministers should be underpaid — it says the reasoning should be consistent: if opportunity cost, inflation and market benchmarks are valid for those who govern, they should not be dismissed as "transactional" for those who serve at the bottom of the hierarchy with no choice in the matter.       Source: Terry Xu, The Online Citizen, 9 Sep 2026 — Full article

Minister for National Development Chee Hong Tat said the reclamation profile, land use plans, construction methods and timeline for the proposed new western island have not been determined, in a consolidated written answer to 14 MPs seeking environmental, heritage and site-selection details.   https://news.theonlinecitizen.com/2026/09/08/reclamation-profile-land-use-and-timeline-for-new-western-island-not-determined-chee-hong-tat Full Details — New Western Island (Singapore) & Minister Chee Hong Tat's Reply, 8 September 2026   Background: The Announcement   Prime Minister Lawrence Wong first announced the proposal at the 2026 National Day Rally on 23 August 2026 . The plan is to merge Pulau Semakau, Pulau Bukom, Pulau Sudong and other surrounding southern islands into a single larger landmass over the coming decades, modelled on the creation of Jurong Island. A video shown at the rally also indicated the reclamation could eventually absorb Pulau Hantu, Pulau Jong and Pulau Sebarok .   Stated purposes:   - Meet strategic national needs — security, energy and industry  - Support a new generation of industries including advanced manufacturing - Accommodate new power generation infrastructure - Provide space for national defence uses       Minister Chee Hong Tat's Written Reply — 8 September 2026   Minister for National Development Chee Hong Tat gave a consolidated written answer in Parliament responding to questions from 14 MPs (5 oral + 9 subsequent) from both PAP and the Workers' Party .   ✅ Key Conclusion: Nothing Yet Determined   "The reclamation profile, land use plans, construction methods and timeline for the proposed new western island have not been determined."    Chee described the project as "complex and technically challenging" and said many factors — ecological impact, heritage impact, and the needs of present and future generations — will be weighed before any final decision .       📋 Scope of Studies to Be Carried Out   The Government will conduct technical and environmental studies including:   - Feasibility studies - Site investigations and surveys - Engineering studies - Environmental studies - To assess impact on geology, hydrology, biodiversity and other areas    📋 Environmental & Heritage Matters   - Cumulative impact: Agencies will coordinate to manage the combined environmental impact of multiple nearby projects . - Environmental report: Will be released for public feedback "when ready" — no publication date given . - Stakeholder engagement: Ongoing engagement with nature groups, experts, descendants of former island communities including the Orang Pulau and Orang Laut, and community representatives . - Heritage & cultural significance: Recognised, but no details provided on how pre-1980s resettlement history or heritage will be factored into design and land-use plans — plans remain undetermined .   ❌ Information Not Provided in the Reply   - ❌ No current assessment of environmental or climatological impact - ❌ No details of coral mitigation measures or other specific biodiversity protections - ❌ No list of islands / waters under consideration - ❌ No identification of habitats to be avoided or protected - ❌ No timeline, methodology, cost estimate or publication date for environmental reports        MPs Who Raised Questions (14 total)   Question MPs  Oral questions Sharael Taha, Dr Charlene Chen, He Ting Ru, Low Wu Yang Andre[__LINK_ICON]  Subsequent written questions PAP: Lee Hui Ying, Jackson Lam, Dr Hamid Razak, Cassandra Lee, Cai Yinzhou, Vikram Nair, Rachel Ong WP: Fadli Fawzi, Gerald Giam[__LINK_ICON]        Summary   The project is at a very early planning stage. No concrete plans, boundaries, timeline, budget or mitigation strategies exist yet — all remain subject to further study and stakeholder consultation. The Government will release more details only when studies are complete and plans take shape .   Source: The Online Citizen, 8 Sept 2026  

Minister for National Development Chee Hong Tat confirmed in a written answer that there are currently no plans to designate Tagore forest as a Nature Reserve, in a consolidated reply covering five questions on how ecologically significant land is assessed before development proceeds.   https://news.theonlinecitizen.com/2026/09/08/no-plans-to-designate-tagore-forest-as-nature-reserve-chee-hong-tat-tells-parliament   No Plans to Designate Tagore Forest as Nature Reserve: Minister Chee Hong Tat   Date: 8 September 2026 | Parliamentary Written Reply        Key Announcement   Minister for National Development Chee Hong Tat confirmed there are no plans to designate Tagore Forest as a Nature Reserve. The statement was given in a written answer to questions filed by Workers' Party MP Kenneth Tiong (Aljunied GRC) during the 8 September 2026 Parliament sitting.    About Tagore Forest   - Location: Lentor area, southeast of the SLE–Upper Thomson Road intersection - Zoning: Currently earmarked for residential development under URA's Master Plan  - Ecological value: A secondary forest serving as a buffer for Central Catchment Nature Reserve; habitat for the endangered Raffles' banded langur and other wildlife - Background: In 2024, over 40 scientists and conservationists proposed studying its protection — ideally as a Nature Park — in the Singapore Terrestrial Conservation Plan   How Nature Reserves Are Designated   Minister Chee stated that designation considers:   - Biodiversity and ecological value of the site - Importance to Singapore's native biodiversity - Balancing these against other land-use needs such as housing, industry, and infrastructure    Singapore currently has four Nature Reserves:   - Bukit Timah & Central Catchment (gazetted 1990) - Labrador & Sungei Buloh Wetland (gazetted 2002)    ⚠️ Notable point: Minister Chee did not provide a specific assessment of Tagore Forest against these criteria, even though explicitly requested by MP Kenneth Tiong.    Broader Context   - Singapore has 7,800 ha of green space, targeted to reach 8,800 ha by 2035  - The decision comes amid rising public debate over development at Maju Forest, Gillman Barracks, and other forested sites; petitions and rallies have called for pausing development until full ecological reviews are done  - Where development proceeds, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be conducted and mitigation measures implemented  - Housing supply must balance multiple factors including demographics, market conditions, and available land — and SERS alone cannot meet all demand    The Core Tension   The announcement highlights the ongoing balancing act in land-scarce Singapore: protecting ecologically important secondary forests versus meeting housing needs. Critics argue that without formal protection status, valuable habitats remain vulnerable; the government maintains it applies a science-based, holistic planning framework to both conservation and development.