@vijaykopitevisva: What frustrates me far more than the actual salary adjustments for politicians is seeing everyday supporters defend and justify these pay raises. It feels like an uncritical loyalty that overlooks the broader implications for ordinary citizens. To elaborate on the core themes packed into this statement: * The Frustration with Public Defense: It is highlighting a common psychological and political phenomenon where the defense of a controversial policy by a voter base can provoke a stronger emotional reaction than the policy itself. For critics, watching supporters rationalise high compensation for political leaders creates a sense of profound disconnect, as it appears to run counter to the everyday economic pressures faced by ordinary working people. * The "65%" Reference: In the context of Singaporean politics, "65%" is a direct nod to the vote share secured by the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) in past general elections (most notably the 2015 General Election). Using the term "blinded silly 65%" is a rhetorical jab suggesting that a significant portion of the electorate votes out of habit or unwavering alignment, choosing to excuse or endorse controversial governance decisions rather than holding leadership strictly accountable on pocketbook issues. * The Core Debate on Political Salaries: The underlying tension touches on Singapore's long-standing policy of pegging ministerial and political salaries to top earners in the private sector. Proponents argue that high pay attracts top-tier talent and deters corruption, while critics and opposition voices contend that it widens the empathy gap between high-ranking officials and the average citizen navigating inflation, housing costs, and cost-of-living pressures. https://mustsharenews.com/pay-raise-political-office-holders/amp/

Vijay Kopite Visva

Open In TikTok:

Region: SG

Friday 11 September 2026 23:24:15 GMT