A poll with 1,125 respondents saw 78% disagreeing with the high pay of political office holders while 12% strongly supported it. "Why begrudge those that earn big salaries if they deserve it?" asked one commenter. 👉 https://tsl.to/politicalpaypoll @mustsharenews   Here are the full details from the MustShareNews (MS News) Poll article published on 11 September 2026:   Key Findings & Breakdown The online poll was conducted via Answers.sg on the topic: "Do you agree with the high pay of political officeholders?"   Out of 1,125 respondents, the breakdown is as follows:    * 63% — Strongly Disagree    * 15% — Disagree      (Total Disagree: 78%)    * 4% — Neutral    * 6% — Agree    * 12% — Strongly Agree    (Total Support: 18%)   Context & Public Reactions    * Upcoming Adjustment: The poll was prompted by announcements regarding the salary and allowance revisions for Singapore's political officeholders (set to take effect from 15 October 2026).    * PM Lawrence Wong's Statement: The article highlights Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's stance that "No one should enter politics for the money," emphasizing that political leadership requires a sense of public duty rather than financial motives.    * Online Commentary: Public debate remains split between those who view high compensation as necessary to attract top talent from the private sector and discourage corruption, versus those who feel current salaries are already disproportionately high relative to general income levels.  

**PM Wong’s claim is factually accurate for top civil servants:** senior Permanent Secretaries often earn more than the revised MR4 ministerial benchmark (now ~S$1.8m reference), so entering politics can mean a pay cut or no gain, with potentially higher long-term earnings if they stayed and excelled.   **However, the framing is incomplete.** It applies mainly to the elite tier; most mid-to-senior officers still see a financial step-up. Absolute pay remains among the world’s highest, lifetime and post-office earnings often favour politics, and electoral risk is lower under PAP dominance. The “sacrifice” narrative underplays power, prestige and absolute levels relative to median incomes. Both the technical point and public scepticism about absolute compensation can coexist.

In Parliament on 10 Sept, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong sought to dispel what he called a “myth” that civil servants receive a pay rise when they enter politics, saying they can instead take a pay cut. 👉 https://tsl.to/lawrencewongpaycut @mustsharenews   Red-teaming and taking a critical devil's advocate perspective on Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's statement requires examining the nuances, structural realities, and public perceptions behind ministerial and civil service compensation.   While the PM's point is technically accurate for certain top-tier civil servants, a critical analysis highlights several counterpoints:   1. The "Cherry-Picked Benchmark" Counter-Argument    * The Reality: The statement applies primarily to senior civil servants—such as Permanent Secretaries (Perm Secs) or top-ranking Administrative Officers (AOs)—whose compensation already scales into the high hundreds of thousands or low millions.    * The Critique: For the vast majority of mid-to-senior civil servants, entering political office (e.g., as a Minister of State or Full Minister starting at the MR4 benchmark of ~$1.1M to ~$1.2M+) represents a massive step-up in total compensation. Frame-shifting the narrative around top-tier Perm Secs obscures the fact that political entry remains a financial leap for most public service ranks.   2. Lifetime Earnings vs. Base Pay Trajectory    * The Claim: PM Wong noted that civil servants who stay on and perform well would "very likely earn more in subsequent years".    * The Challenge:      * Survivorship Bias: This assumes an individual would have reached the absolute pinnacle of the Administrative Service (Perm Sec status) had they stayed. Only a tiny fraction of civil servants reach those levels.      * Post-Politics Monetization: Leaving politics often unlocks lucrative private sector board directorships, advisory roles, and international consulting positions that far exceed standard civil service post-retirement paths.   3. Absolute Pay vs. Relative Benchmark    * The Public Perception: Arguing that a minister taking home $1.1M+ to $1.35M+ is taking a "pay cut" risks coming across as tone-deaf to ordinary citizens earning median wages.    * The Red Team Take: Whether a senior civil servant took a minor relative pay dip is secondary to the structural debate over the absolute size of Singapore's political compensation, which remains among the highest globally.   4. Risk, Job Security, and Scrutiny Trade-offs    * The Defense Case: Political roles carry election risks, public scrutiny, loss of privacy, and shorter tenure security compared to permanent civil service posts.    * The Counter-Argument: The ruling party (PAP) has historically maintained dominant electoral security, making the actual risk of losing office mid-career lower than in most Western parliamentary democracies. Furthermore, former political office holders are often reassigned to statutory boards, government-linked companies (GLCs), or state-backed initiatives.   Key Takeaway PM Wong’s statement highlights a genuine institutional feature of Singapore's Public Service: top-tier administrative civil servants are paid heavily to retain talent. However, framing political entry as a "financial sacrifice" oversimplifies the dynamic, as it only holds true for the elite tier of civil servants while overlooking the broader compensation, power, and long-term prestige that politica l office confers.  

if she wins, power already everyone will lawyer up

I have more respect for Huang Yi Liang(although jailed before) than all these scammers actors and actresses.