WTC Wrap: 12 September 2026

Guess who has learnt the hard way that she no longer has the youthful constitution to be able to consume the mystery concoction that is the Jollibee spaghetti 🥲 One more self-inflicted sick day for me... (Thankfully, my intolerance does not—yet—extend to chickenjoy.)

(1)

This is what solidarity and collective strength looks like. Loads of people showed up in court on Wednesday morning in solidarity with the six people who were being charged for a variety of 'offences' related to pro-Palestine and anti-death penalty organising. According to Students for Palestine SG, there were as many as 300 people there, which is pretty astounding. The photo is of the people who were okay with being photographed—I'm not sure how many others had shown up but elected not to be in the shot.

As mentioned in last week's newsletter, the charges pertained to activities like kite-flying to remember children killed in Gaza, delivering letters to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Istana, posing for a group photo outside the State Courts, and attending vigils for death row prisoners who were about to be executed. For many who showed up at the State Courts in solidarity, it was unacceptable for fellow Singaporeans to be prosecuted for expressing grief over lives taken by genocide or state-sponsored killing—especially when the killing itself continues unabated.

That same morning, Singapore had carried out its 19th execution of the year, pushing us to a high we haven't seen since 2003. And it's still only September—it's possible that the number of hangings in 2026 might exceed 2003, making it the deadliest year for Singapore in the 21st century so far.

This isn't the end of it: there will be pre-trial conferences, and we'll have to wait and see whether those who have been charged will choose to contest these charges or not. There might also be more charges on the horizon for more people, so watch this space for more updates.

(2)

Politicians are getting a salary bump! After the last adjustment 15 years ago, the government is increasing the benchmarks for political salaries, with the actual changes being implemented in stages.

[CORRECTION] In the previous paragraph I’d originally written that the last review was 15 years ago, but the last review was actually in 2017, only the decision at the end was not to make any changes to the salaries. I’ve edited the paragraph to clarify that the last adjustment was 15 years ago.

The MR4 grade (i.e. the lowest ministerial-level tier) will rise from a benchmark of $1.1 million to $1.8 million, with ministerial salaries to increase by up to 9% as a one-off adjustment for now. Future changes will be based on the performance and responsibilities of the individual minister.

Starting from 15 October, MP allowances are going up from $13,750 to $18,500 per month. The Leader of Opposition allowance will be raised from from $385,000 to $518,000, although this is rather moot since that position is still vacant. Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) will see their monthly allowance go up to $5,550. And mayors—a position I'm still not at all convinced is necessary—will get $720,000 a year with this increase.

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's annual salary is getting a bump from $2.2 million to $3.6 million—a difference of $1.4 million that he has pledged to donate to "suitable good causes" for the next five years, assuming that he remains premier (which, come on, this is Singapore, the PM is a creature with no natural predator). He promises that this will include whatever tax benefits he might have got out of such a donation.

I think politicians should be paid fairly for their responsibilities and the scope of work that they do, just like any other type of job. But it's pretty gross to be talking at this level of compensation—for a tiny country, Singaporean's politicians are among the most highly paid in the world—and to hear arguments about how it's necessary for the good of the country, when we know how quickly the tone shifts when it comes to issues like legislating a living wage or requiring safe and proper modes of transportation for migrant workers. When those issues come up, suddenly we're being told that it's in Singapore's interests to not have these measures that protect the interests of workers. Damn pek chek.

(3)

Where the #%!@ did this come from? In response to a question from the Workers' Party's Gerald Giam, K Shanmugam, the home affairs minister, said that Singapore is open to considering chemical castration as a potential penalty for sexual offences, especially those where the victim is a minor.

I have no idea where this idea is coming from and what prompted Giam to bring it up in a parliamentary question, but it's entirely within the pattern of Singapore defaulting to harsh penalties as the response to anything we find abhorrent or objectionable. Yes, of course we want to protect children and young people from being sexually abused or assaulted, but why is the focus placed so heavily on punishment? Will this actually deter perpetrators, especially when they are often in positions of power and authority that often mean they have ways to pressure or frighten their victims into keeping the abuse secret and therefore think they won't get caught? It has also been pointed out that sometimes harsh penalties make victims and survivors less likely to report what's happened to them, because the perpetrator is someone known to them, like someone in their family or close social circle. In any case, what does this sort of punishment and pain do to address the long-term needs of survivors, in terms of social support, compensation, well-being, or healing?

Also, chemical castration is a sensational, attention-grabbing punishment, but feeds the misconception that sexual assault is all about sexual desire or libido. We know that sexual assault and abuse is about power, and exercising that power over someone else without care for their consent. Chemical castration isn’t going to address that.

If we really want to protect minors, we would be better off directing our attention towards systemic and structural measures that we can put in place. In the 26 July issue of WTC, I had a section about mandatory screening processes (or the lack thereof) for people who want to work with children. That's one thing. What's also really important is educating children and young people about consent and boundaries, so they're equipped with the knowledge and tools to identify what is absolutely not okay—this is something that often gets undermined when all we have are abstinence-only sex education programmes, because everything gets bundled under "just don't have sex" instead of talking openly about agency over our own bodies and how to navigate what we want or don't want. We can also put more thought into how we can create and hold more spaces where young people can feel safe to talk to trusted adults if something bad is happening to them, with structures in place to provide support and care that meets them at where they are. So, so many things that we should be thinking and talking about rather than reaching for punishment as the solution every time.

Music for the weekend! I've been on a bit of a Kelly Clarkson kick recently because hello, have you seen her cover of Golden? And I'm going to sneak in a second song, too, because her latest single has been a earworm on my playlist.