Current Affairs
Calvin Cheng comment on NTUC Income sale backfires as netizens call for return to its social mission
[#item_excerpt]
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/07/29133735/Calvin-comment-on-Income1-3eRU3P.jpeg)
SINGAPORE: Calvin Cheng, a Singaporean businessman and former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), has stirred controversy again with his comments on the potential sale of Singapore’s NTUC Income to the German insurer Allianz. He suggested that nothing should be considered a “sacred cow” if it no longer serves its purpose effectively.
In his interview with Mothership on 26 July, Cheng emphasized the importance of assessing NTUC Income’s current relevance in the market and cautioned against allowing “sentimentality, nostalgia, and outdated practices” to hinder necessary changes.
However, netizens challenged his notion, some argued that his logic of selling NTUC Income because it is no longer the cheapest ignores the real issue: why a cooperative started with public funding is not fulfilling its original mission.
They believe that the government should ensure NTUC Income continues to serve its social purpose of providing affordable insurance to low-income workers.
On 17 July, Allianz revealed its intention to purchase a controlling stake in NTUC Income, offering S$40.58 per share, valuing the transaction at S$2.2 billion.
Calvin Cheng: “Nothing is a sacred cow”
In January 2022, NTUC Income transitioned from a worker’s co-operative insurer to a company, attracting significant public scrutiny.
The public questioned whether this move would compromise NTUC Income’s status as a social enterprise, which was established in 1970 to provide affordable insurance to low-income Singaporean workers.
Former NTUC Income CEO Tan Suee Chieh also voiced opposition to the sale. In a Facebook post, he stated, “Very importantly, there was a social mission to provide workers — especially unionised workers — affordable insurance, with good coverage, to make sure that their healthcare needs were looked after if they ever fell sick…or passed away and weren’t able to leave something for their family.”
In the Mothership interview, NMP Calvin Cheng argued that while NTUC Income has retained its social mission, it is “no longer always the cheapest, most affordable insurance.”
Having reviewed some insurance plans, Mr Cheng pointed out that Income’s plans are seldom the cheapest and, in some cases, are among the more expensive ones
“So I don’t think the role that they play now is the same as the role they played in 1970.”
Mr Cheng further argued that although government-linked organizations can be valuable during crises or “black swan events,” normal operations should not be designed around these rare occurrences.
He highlighted that the backlash against the sale is largely driven by sentiment and nostalgia, particularly among older Singaporeans who remember NTUC Income’s historical role.
He questioned the notion of treating NTUC Income as a “national treasure,” suggesting that practical considerations should take precedence over sentimentality.
Mr Cheng also pointed out that the older generation, who are more attached to NTUC Income, represents a significant voting bloc for the ruling party. This creates a political challenge, as their desires may conflict with the interests of younger, more liberal voters.
He called for a pragmatic approach, suggesting that nothing should be considered a “sacred cow” if it no longer serves its purpose effectively.
“If [something] isn’t achieving the aims that it was meant to achieve, or if those aims have become irrelevant, then let’s stop being stubborn about it. Let’s stop being rooted in the past.”
Netizens Mock Cheng’s Logic: Should We Sell Singapore if It Struggles to Compete?
However, observing netizens’ comments on Mothership’s Facebook post in response to Mr Cheng’s remark, some pointed out that the core issue is not why NTUC Income is no longer the cheapest, but rather why a cooperative started with public funding has failed to maintain its affordability and social mission.
Some argued that despite changing times, a government that claims to be inclusive and caring for the less fortunate should ensure that entities like NTUC Income continue to serve their original social purposes.
There are also netizens reminded that while contexts change, basic human needs remain constant. In a world facing economic turmoil and inflation.
A netizen argued that affordable insurance is more critical than ever. He expressed concern that prioritizing profits over social mission could lead to increased premiums across the market, negatively affecting the general public.
Some netizens pointed out that NTUC, including its supermarkets, plays a crucial role during crises by providing essential goods and services.
They refuted Cheng’s suggestion that older generations are the primary supporters of NTUC, noting that younger people also rely on its services due to its widespread presence.
Notably, one netizen emphasized that future policies should be inclusive and balance the needs of younger and older generations.
The comment mocked Cheng’s logic by extending it to an extreme, suggesting that if anything that cannot compete should be sold, then by that logic, Singapore itself should be sold if it faces competition.
She further argued that selling off NTUC Income, a homegrown entity, could lead to a loss of national identity, comparing it to a branded PC filled with foreign components, implying that nothing uniquely Singaporean would remain.
Another netizen argued that the real issue is that NTUC Income is no longer fulfilling its core function of regulating insurance prices.
“This is the root problem, so solve this root problem by ensuring its policies continue to be the lowest. ”
The post Calvin Cheng comment on NTUC Income sale backfires as netizens call for return to its social mission appeared first 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.
-
Opinion4 days ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Diplomacy3 days ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Food3 days ago
NTU stall food prices questioned after parent pays S$6.30 for meal
-
Politics2 days ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Civil Society5 days ago
CIVICUS Monitor labels Singapore as ‘repressed’ for crackdown on civic freedoms
-
Opinion6 days ago
Is the shuttle bus service at Marine Parade town cluster just a S$1 million political ad campaign?
-
Economy4 days ago
IRAS reports S$80.3 billion in tax revenue for FY2023/24, a 17% increase from the previous year
-
Parliament4 days ago
Workers’ Party to question Govt on Mobile Guardian breach and entry of extremist preacher in upcoming parliamentary sitting