Connect with us


NCMP Leong Mun Wai seeks clarity on judges’ remuneration following latest POFMA correction

NCMP Leong Mun Wai calls for transparency in judicial remuneration, highlighting the lack of clarity in determining judges’ salaries and allowances after a POFMA correction targets misleading claims about judicial influence.



Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai has called for enhanced transparency regarding the determination of judges’ salaries and allowances, following a recent correction direction issued under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).

The call for transparency by the NCMP from the Progress Singapore Party was prompted by a POFMA correction direction issued on Wednesday (30 May) by Mr Edwin Tong, the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Second Minister for Law. This directive targeted Mr Jeyaretnam’s claims that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Law could influence the performance bonuses of High Court Judges.

The POFMA Office clarified, “The remuneration of Supreme Court Judges, including their bonuses, is determined by the Chief Justice within a legal framework established by the Judges’ Remuneration Act 1994, following guidelines set by the Legislature under Article 98(6) of the Constitution.”

Moreover, the correction direction addressed Mr Jeyaretnam’s assertions regarding the judicial appointment process, emphasizing that “Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the President, based on the advice of the Prime Minister, who consults the Chief Justice.” This process involves extensive consultations with various stakeholders in the legal community and beyond.

On his Facebook page, Mr Leong criticized the lack of detailed disclosure concerning the salary components of Supreme Court judges.

“The Correction Direction issued by the Minister for Law yesterday brought to the fore the issue of how judges are being remunerated,” Mr Leong wrote.

He elaborated that despite the legal provisions under the Judges’ Remuneration Act 1994 allowing for various allowances and privileges, the actual process by which these are determined remains opaque.

“Given that the total salary packages of the judges are likely to be much more than the $234,000 to $347,000 in annual pensionable salary stipulated under the Act, the Government should explain how the other components are actually determined,” he argued.

This request for transparency was linked to a parliamentary query by fellow NCMP, Ms Hazel Poa Koon Koon, who, in January, asked for specifics on the remuneration structure of Supreme Court judges.

In response, Minister-in-Charge of Public Service Chan Chun Sing detailed the components but did not provide insights into their determination.

“The annual salary package of a Supreme Court Judge consists of six components: gross monthly salary, Annual Variable Component (AVC), Non-Pensionable Annual Allowance (NPAA), Performance Bonus (PB), National Bonus (NB), and Judiciary Allowance,” Mr Chan who is also the Education Minister explained in a written response to Ms Poa.

Mr Chan further noted that the structure is the same as that of civil servants of the equivalent substantive grade and that the types of leave and medical benefits, including the retirement and death gratuity rates, are the same as that of civil servants of the equivalent substantive grade.

“The remuneration of judges has its own separate benchmark and is not linked to that of political office holders.”

The clarification from the POFMA Office stated that neither the Prime Minister nor any Minister can determine or influence the payments made to specific judges under this framework.

However, many have pointed out that Section 2(2) of the Judges’ Remuneration Act 1994 empowers the Minister to determine additional pensionable and non-pensionable allowances and privileges for Supreme Court judges. This provision stipulates that these allowances must at least match those received by public officers on the same pensionable salary. However, the Act does not specify the criteria or guidelines for these determinations, leading to potential ambiguity.

Following Mr Tong’s POFMA correction direction, Mr Jeyaretnam has since complied with the directions to insert the designated correction notice in his post. However, he noted in the comment section that he intends to appeal against the direction, as he had “merely asked a question.”

Share this post via:
Continue Reading
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

How is it a Administration won by popular votes can close itself to popular opinion – a dictatorship lying as a democratic Administration to FOOL, to TRICK it’s people. Is it for the sake, for the benefit, for the advancement of its people to keep information secret, keep it’s operations SHROUDED in full DARKNESS.

Is this bunch of OWNSELF praise OWNSELF advancing the country progress OR KEEP itself to FOOL the people with PROMINENT LIES like inclusiveness, we have your backs.

This Administration CAN GO TO HELL ASAP.

A “POFMA” corrective order that provides no details on the facts being questioned? I’m shocked.

It’s almost like the ruling government just wants to shut up political dissidents without the need for a reason.

Transparency for this government is like nakedness.
Once exposed, all their high self righteous posturing will be seen to be fake!!!

They will stonewall the people until “learned hopelessness” (aka bo-pyen syndrome) sets in.

What a group of elitist oligarchs these are that is running the island!!!

“Yes we have the information, but what’s the point” ? (CCS)

Mr LMW is going to get that type of response …..or Indranee R will not only slam her file ,but i hope she doesnt aim her file at him like a Frisbee this time..😂🤣😅

Like everything to do with this regime and their great resistance and reluctance to be transparent, … especially where salaries or how they’re “made up” or what it comprises, .. of judges, electrical engineer and themselves are concerned, along with real statistics of employment and unemployment figures featuring and incorporating new citizens, and of course, … not omitting all them things that gets done or goes on in the “dead of darkness”, when no one’s awake, alive or watching, and where the current PM once cited when challenged by LTK, … that “release of all past cabinet records may not… Read more »