Progress Singapore Party

30/10/2026

COE REFORM: FAIRNESS BEFORE REVENUE

Thank you for your valuable contributions!

Over the past month, many of you have actively participated in our discussions on COE reform, sharing thoughtful comments, constructive suggestions and different perspectives.

Your contributions have helped PSP refine our policy recommendations.

Today, we have taken two important steps.

First, PSP has submitted our recommendations to the Land Transport Authority (LTA), incorporating feedback from our social media discussions.

Second, we have published a full essay, "COE Reform: Fairness Before Revenue", on our Substack, explaining our five recommendations, their rationale and the trade-offs involved.

Our central argument is that COE reform must address how scarce COEs are allocated, not merely adjust the prices paid by different buyers, so that ordinary Singaporeans have a fairer opportunity to own cars.

Read the full essay at:

https://pspmidpoint.substack.com/p/coe-reform-fairness-before-revenue

But the discussion should not stop here.

We hope our policy essays will serve as useful reference materials whenever these issues are discussed again.

Whatever changes the Government eventually introduces, we must continue to monitor their effectiveness, particularly their impact on COE prices and affordability.

Public participation should not end when a consultation closes. It should continue through the implementation and evaluation of government policies.

Please continue sharing your observations and suggestions.

Fairness and Singaporeans' aspirations must come before government revenue.

Thank you once again for making this a meaningful public discussion!

Five Proposals to Create a Fairer System

10/10/2026

COE REFORM: FAIRNESS BEFORE REVENUE

After 36 years, the Ministry of Transport has finally proposed a major revamp of Singapore's COE system.

But the fundamental question is not just how to allocate COEs efficiently, but fairly.

Why should an average Singaporean pay as much for a COE as a wealthy luxury-car buyer?

The convergence of COE prices for small and large cars highlights this inequity. The proposed $15,000 price difference hardly addresses it. Combining buyers into one bidding pool could push prices even higher.

I propose five changes to make the system fairer.

1. Allocate 80% of passenger-car COEs to Category A

Combine quotas of A, B and E, then allocate 80% to A and 20% to B, abolishing the Open Category. This could restore a meaningful price differential.

2. Redefine Categories A and B using Open Market Value (OMV)

Replace engine size and power with OMV to distinguish mass-market from luxury cars by vehicle value.

3. Introduce pay-as-you-bid

Successful bidders pay their own bids instead of a common clearing price. This could encourage more disciplined bidding.

4. Charge private-hire vehicles (PHVs) an additional premium

PHVs generate commercial income from scarce road space. It is unfair for ordinary buyers to compete equally with well-funded PHV operators.

5. Give commercial vehicles special consideration

Offer zero-interest financing to qualifying SMEs and sole proprietors, and targeted COE rebates for smaller commercial vehicles essential to livelihoods.

What should COE reform achieve?

Singapore must control vehicle growth because road space is limited. But within that constraint, we should maximise opportunities for Singaporeans to fulfil their aspirations.

COE reform must balance economic efficiency with social equity, making car ownership more accessible to ordinary families while supporting small businesses.

Fairness and Singaporeans' aspirations must come before government revenue.

Photo by: Roslan Rahman/AFP

09/10/2026

THE DEBATE MUST GO DEEPER

The latest Ministerial Salary review has generated considerable discussion.

But this issue deserves more than reactions to headline numbers.

Singapore has had more than 30 years of experience with private-sector benchmarking of Ministerial Salaries. We now have enough history to examine the system more deeply: why it was introduced, how it has evolved, whether it has achieved its intended objectives, and whether there are better alternatives.

That is why we have written a longer Substack essay structured around eight questions.

Some questions go back to first principles, such as:

• How were our first-generation leaders paid before private-sector benchmarking?
• Why should the earnings of Singapore's highest-paid people remain the starting point for determining Ministerial Salaries?
• If the benchmark is objective, why has its implementation repeatedly required political and economic judgment?
• And after more than three decades, has benchmarking actually broadened the pool from which our political leaders are recruited?

Other questions arise from the opposition's experience that some Singaporeans enter politics without any realistic prospect of Ministerial Salaries, while accepting significant career, financial, personal and electoral uncertainties. In particular:

What motivates capable Singaporeans to enter politics?

What constitutes fair and adequate remuneration once they serve?

The essay also explores an alternative approach: determine what constitutes adequate remuneration first, then link future Ministerial Salary movements more directly to the income growth of Singaporeans.

This is a complex issue that deserves deeper and more thorough discussion.

If you would like to examine these questions in greater depth, please go to our Substack (link below) to read the full essay. We welcome your views and hope it will develop into a deeper discussion on how Singapore should approach Ministerial Salaries.

Eight Questions About Private-Sector Benchmarking

27/09/2026

24/09/2026

THE MINISTERIAL SALARIES DEBATE: SOON TO BE FORGOTTEN?

In our political discourse, controversial issues often have a short shelf life. There is an initial burst of public reaction, a parliamentary debate, and then attention moves elsewhere.

The same may soon happen to the Ministerial Salaries issue.

But should the conversation end simply because the news cycle has moved on?

Singapore has more than 30 years of experience with formal private-sector benchmarking of Ministerial Salaries. The present formula benchmarks an MR4 Minister's reference salary to the median income of the top 1,000 Singapore Citizen earners, with a 40% discount for public service. The latest review raises that reference salary from $1.1 million to $1.8 million, although serving Ministers will not immediately move to the new benchmark.

The Government's rationale is that the framework helps attract capable people to political service while recognising the sacrifices involved.

That is an important objective. But after more than three decades, we have enough history, experience and evidence to ask a more fundamental question — not simply whether the latest increase is too high or too low, but whether the underlying approach itself continues to make sense.

PSP intends to examine the Ministerial Salaries issue through eight questions:

1. How Were Singapore's First-Generation Leaders Paid?
2. How Did "Adequate Compensation" Evolve into Private-Sector Benchmarking?
3. Has the Salary Framework Achieved Its Intended Objective?
4. What Does the Opposition Experience Tell Us About Attracting Political Talent?
5. Why Were Ministerial Salaries Significantly Reduced After GE2011?
6. If the Formula Is Sound, Why Does Political Timing Matter?
7. Can We Design a Better Framework So That Every Review Does Not Become a Major Political Controversy?
8. Beyond Salaries: How Can We Encourage More Singaporeans to Step Forward and Serve?

These questions go beyond how much Ministers should be paid. They concern something more fundamental: how should Singapore identify, attract, value and reward political leadership?

Our aim is to add greater depth and breadth to the national conversation.

The Ministerial Salaries issue may soon move out of prime time.

But it does not mean that the questions have been answered.

Over the coming weeks, we will examine them one by one.

Stay tuned!

25/08/2026

Celebrating Singapore's 61st National Day with the Progress Singapore Party! 🇸🇬

Dynamic energy, meaningful conversations, and a shared commitment to building a better future for all Singaporeans. Thank you to everyone who joined us for an unforgettable evening of unity and progress!

18/08/2026

On Sunday, members of the Progress Singapore Party joined Singaporeans at Hong Lim Park in support of Maju Forest.

It was a different sort of gathering. People meditated, shared poetry, chanted, and came together for a mass photograph. We were there to listen, and to stand with those who believe that before another part of Singapore is changed forever, the case for doing so should be clearly made.

The debate over Maju Forest is not simply about whether Singapore needs housing. Of course we do.

It is also about how decisions are made.

For many years, Singaporeans were accustomed to the idea that difficult trade-offs had already been studied somewhere within government: that the numbers had been run, the alternatives considered, and the best decision reached.

Today, more people are asking to see that reasoning for themselves.

What were the alternatives? What assumptions were used? What data informed the decision? Why this particular piece of land? What is the ecological cost, and how was that weighed against the need for development?

These questions are reasonable. They are the questions an informed and mature electorate should be asking.

Earlier, we wrote that every reasonable alternative should be exhausted before an irreversible decision is made to clear part of Maju Forest. We still believe so.

The name Maju is quite fitting. Maju means to move forward, to advance, to progress. Majulah is the call Singaporeans have grown up with: onward, Singapore.

Progress is in our name too as PSP. And progress today has to mean more than simply building faster or building more.

Progress should also mean better scrutiny, greater transparency, and a government confident enough to show citizens the evidence behind difficult choices.

There was a time when the political instinct was simply to ask: what is the Government doing?

Increasingly, Singaporeans are asking another question: where are the facts? Show us the data.

That may be the next stage of progress.

Because Singapore has a habit of naming things after what is no longer there.

We would rather keep Maju Forest than one day name an estate, a road or a park connector after it.