Current Affairs
Lim Boon Heng assures affordable insurance for lower-income customers amid Allianz deal concerns
Income Insurance will continue to provide affordable insurance for lower-income customers following the deal with Allianz, NTUC Enterprise chairman Lim Boon Heng stated in a statement on Thursday (25 July).
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/07/25184138/limboonheng.png)
SINGAPORE — Income Insurance will continue to provide affordable insurance for lower-income customers following the deal with Allianz, NTUC Enterprise chairman Lim Boon Heng stated in a statement on Thursday (25 July).
His comments come in response to concerns surrounding the German company’s acquisition of a majority stake in the Singapore co-operative.
“NTUC Enterprise will also continue as an active shareholder of Income Insurance to keep it to its purpose and deliver social commitments to its policyholders,” added Mr Lim, a former Minister of the People’s Action Party.
On 17 July, Allianz announced its plans to purchase a majority stake in Income Insurance for approximately US$1.6 billion. The offer includes S$40.58 per share for a transaction value of S$2.2 billion (US$1.64 billion) for 51 percent of the shares in Income Insurance.
NTUC Enterprise, currently holding a 72.8 percent stake in Income Insurance, will remain a substantial shareholder if the sale is finalized.
In his clarification on Thursday, Mr Lim assured that Income would continue to “price its products very competitively” and reiterated its commitment to participate in national insurance programmes in partnership with the CPF Board.
Bringing in a “global player with proven insurance and asset management capabilities” would help Income “compete more effectively,” Mr Lim stated, noting that Income Insurance’s life insurance market share has been less than 10 percent over the past decade.
“Allianz’s offer to be a majority shareholder will enable Income Insurance to be even more relevant and resilient over the long term, to serve families in Singapore, and fulfil its obligations to its policyholders,” he added. “Given that insurance has a long tail – people buy policies when they are young and depend on them when they are old – a strong, thriving and growing insurance company will ensure their expectations are met.”
Income Insurance, established in 1970 as the first co-operative society by Singapore’s labour movement, maintains a social mission to provide affordable insurance to workers and families. Formerly known as NTUC Income Insurance Co-operative, it remains the only insurance co-operative in Singapore, serving around 2 million customers with life, health, general insurance, and investment-linked products.
Concerns about the possible sale have been voiced by former CEO of NTUC Income Co-operative Tan Suee Chieh and Ambassador-at-large Professor Tommy Koh.
Dr Koh highlighted the origins of NTUC Income, stating, “INCOME started life as a cooperative of NTUC like Fairprice. The idea was to offer insurance to the people at affordable rates. A few years ago, it was made into a company and ceased to be a cooperative. Now we are told that it may be sold to a German insurance company.”
Dr Koh emphasized the social mission of NTUC Income, arguing, “I don’t think it’s a good idea to sell INCOME. It was founded to serve a social purpose and a social need. They remain valid today. I wish to argue that INCOME and Fairprice should never be sold.”
In a Facebook post, Mr Tan cited Allianz’s Group CEO Oliver Baete’s remarks about building “a resoundingly profitable business,” suggesting this ethos was “diametrically opposite” to the co-operative’s aim.
“We wanted to have as much reach to Singaporeans (the top line), not to maximise profits but to maximise social impact,” Mr Tan said, urging opposition to the deal.
Mr Tan had also previously opposed the corporatisation of the insurance co-operative in 2022 and pointed out the reversal of the promise made by Income CEO Andrew Yeo that NTUC Enterprise would continue to hold majority shares in the new entity.
Public sentiment has also surfaced online. One Reddit commenter wrote, “Many customers, myself included, signed up when NTUC was still a cooperative. It was a selling point, as the agent mentioned that a cooperative means when they have excess investment returns, it goes to policy holders instead of shareholders. Customers signed 30-year policies on the back of that and we are held to the yearly payments. But we are no longer getting the excess investment returns that we were promised.”
There is growing public discomfort with the deal, as highlighted by Gerard L Pennefather, Chairman of Huntington Investments, in an open letter.
He emphasized that 2 million Singaporeans have entrusted their lives and possessions to Income Insurance for over 50 years and have every right to be concerned about the sale. Pennefather argued that the deal does not make economic or strategic sense, citing Income’s strong financial performance compared to Allianz’s substantial losses in Singapore over the past three years.
Over the years, the Singapore labour movement has provided capital to support Income’s business. Mr Lim noted a capital injection by NTUC Enterprise in 2020 to maintain solvency during the COVID-19 pandemic. “Insurance is a capital-intensive business and to grow, there is a need to tap the capital markets,” said Mr Lim, adding that Allianz’s financial strength would bolster Income Insurance as needed.
He mentioned that since Income became a public non-listed company in 2022, minority shareholders have sought share liquidity. “When the offer is launched, minority shareholders will have the opportunity to tender their shares ahead of NTUC Enterprise and can choose to tender all, any or none of their shares during the offer period,” Mr Lim explained.
The offer’s launch is subject to regulatory approval and is expected to close in the fourth quarter of this year or the first quarter of next year, Income said in a separate statement.
This was first published on Gutzy Asia
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/03/26202010/TOC_newlogo_small.webp)
Current Affairs
Man arrested for alleged housebreaking and theft of mobile phones in Yishun
A 23-year-old man was arrested for allegedly breaking into a Yishun Ring Road rental flat and stealing eight mobile phones worth S$3,400 from five tenants. The Singapore Police responded swiftly on 1 September, identifying and apprehending the suspect on the same day. The man has been charged with housebreaking, which carries a potential 10-year jail term.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/09/03132151/PHONE3.jpg)
SINGAPORE: A 23-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly breaking into a rental flat along Yishun Ring Road and stealing eight mobile phones from five tenants.
The incident occurred in the early hours on Sunday (1 September), according to a statement from the Singapore Police Force.
The authorities reported that they received a call for assistance at around 5 a.m. on that day.
Officers from the Woodlands Police Division quickly responded and, through ground enquiries and police camera footage, were able to identify and apprehend the suspect on the same day.
The stolen mobile phones, with an estimated total value of approximately S$3,400, were recovered hidden under a nearby bin.
The suspect was charged in court on Monday with housebreaking with the intent to commit theft.
If convicted, he could face a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.
In light of this incident, the police have advised property owners to take precautions to prevent similar crimes.
They recommend securing all doors, windows, and other openings with good quality grilles and padlocks when leaving premises unattended, even for short periods.
The installation of burglar alarms, motion sensor lights, and CCTV cameras to cover access points is also advised. Additionally, residents are urged to avoid keeping large sums of cash and valuables in their homes.
The investigation is ongoing.
Last month, police disclosed that a recent uptick in housebreaking incidents in private residential estates across Singapore has been traced to foreign syndicates, primarily involving Chinese nationals.
Preliminary investigations indicate that these syndicates operate in small groups, targeting homes by scaling perimeter walls or fences.
The suspects are believed to be transient travelers who enter Singapore on Social Visit Passes, typically just a day or two before committing the crimes.
Before this recent surge in break-ins, housebreaking cases were on the decline, with 59 reported in the first half of this year compared to 70 during the same period last year.
However, between 1 June and 4 August 2024, there were 10 reported housebreaking incidents, predominantly in private estates around the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Road.
The SPF has intensified efforts to engage residents near high-risk areas by distributing crime prevention advisories, erecting alert signs, and training them to patrol their neighborhoods, leading to an increase in reports of suspicious activity.
Current Affairs
Consumers Association of Singapore fined S$20,000 for PDPA breaches following two data security incidents
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/08/30113758/case-fined-Ja2vq4.png)
The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) has been fined S$20,000 by the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) for breaches under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).
According to a judgement which was published on 28 August, the fine was imposed due to the consumer watchdog’s failure to implement reasonable security measures to protect the personal data in its possession and to establish necessary policies and practices required under the PDPA.
The breaches resulted in two significant incidents, one in October 2022 and another in June 2023, where the personal data of up to 34,760 individuals was potentially compromised.
Both incidents were handled under the Expedited Decision Procedure (EDP) at the request of CASE, with the organization admitting to all the facts and contraventions of the PDPA, leading to a faster resolution of the case.
The First Incident: Phishing Attack in October 2022
The first incident occurred in October 2022 when a threat actor accessed CASE’s email accounts and sent phishing emails from its official email addresses.
On 8 October 2022, some consumers received unsolicited emails from “[email protected],” which falsely claimed that their complaints had been escalated to the “collections and compensation department” and that they were eligible for compensation.
The recipients were asked to provide their banking details by clicking on a chat icon.
The following day, similar phishing emails were sent from “[email protected],” an account used for complaints that had progressed to mediation. CASE later discovered that the phishing emails had affected up to 22,542 email addresses.
Further investigations revealed that the phishing emails likely resulted from the threat actor obtaining login credentials from a CASE employee via a phishing attack.
The compromised accounts led to the sending of 5,205 phishing emails to 4,945 recipients. Although CASE acted swiftly to suspend the affected accounts and reset all administrator passwords, three consumers reported that they had clicked on the phishing links and collectively lost S$217,900. CASE subsequently lodged a police report.
The Second Incident: Data Breach During Vendor Migration
While PDPC was investigating the first incident, a second breach came to light in June 2023. On 22 June 2023, PDPC received a complaint about a phishing email that replicated a consumer’s complaint previously submitted to CASE.
This led to the discovery that the personal data of 12,218 individuals, including names, email addresses, contact numbers, and complaint details, had been exposed. The PDPC concluded that the breach likely occurred during a data migration exercise conducted by CASE between December 2019 and January 2020 when CASE switched vendors.
Investigations revealed that CASE’s contract with one of its vendors, Total eBiz Solutions Pte Ltd (TES), did not stipulate clear security responsibilities. This lack of contractual clarity contributed to the data breach during the migration process, highlighting CASE’s negligent vendor management.
PDPC Findings and Penalties
The PDPC found that CASE had failed to enforce its password management policy, with some passwords not meeting minimum length and complexity requirements and others remaining unchanged for up to four years. Furthermore, CASE’s vendor management was deemed negligent, as one of its contracts did not specify clear security responsibilities, putting personal data at risk.
CASE admitted to not conducting regular security awareness training for its staff, with the last session held five years before the first incident.
The PDPC also noted that CASE lacked an Information and Communications Technology (ICT) policy, particularly in relation to patching and maintaining IT systems. The absence of a documented IT infrastructure management plan, insufficient logging and monitoring practices, and the lack of security reviews over the three years preceding the first breach were significant failures highlighted in the judgment.
In assessing the financial penalty, the PDPC considered the nature and gravity of the breaches, the duration of non-compliance, and CASE’s annual turnover. The fine of $20,000 was determined to be appropriate in light of these factors.
Remedial Actions by CASE
It is said that CASE, which is headed by Mr Melvin Yong, People’s Action Party Member of Parliament for Radin Mas, has implemented several measures to enhance its cybersecurity in response to the breaches.
These include introducing multi-factor authentication for all web-based applications, strengthening password complexity requirements, decommissioning end-of-life devices, and implementing patch management software for security updates.
CASE has also revised its contracts with outsourced vendors to include data protection clauses and mandated annual data protection training for all staff members.
CASE is working towards obtaining the Cyber Essentials Mark and the Data Protection Trust Mark to reinforce its commitment to safeguarding personal data and complying with PDPA obligations.
The PDPC has directed CASE to review and update its data protection policies, rectify all identified security gaps, and report back within one week of completion. The organization has also been instructed to conduct a penetration test after addressing the vulnerabilities to ensure no further security gaps exist.
The post Consumers Association of Singapore fined S$20,000 for PDPA breaches following two data security incidents appeared first on Gutzy Asia.
-
Opinion3 days ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Diplomacy2 days ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Food2 days ago
NTU stall food prices questioned after parent pays S$6.30 for meal
-
Politics1 day ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Civil Society4 days ago
CIVICUS Monitor labels Singapore as ‘repressed’ for crackdown on civic freedoms
-
Opinion5 days ago
Is the shuttle bus service at Marine Parade town cluster just a S$1 million political ad campaign?
-
Economy3 days ago
IRAS reports S$80.3 billion in tax revenue for FY2023/24, a 17% increase from the previous year
-
Parliament3 days ago
Workers’ Party to question Govt on Mobile Guardian breach and entry of extremist preacher in upcoming parliamentary sitting