Connect with us

Singapore

Prof Tommy Koh reiterates opposition to sale of Income Insurance to Allianz

Professor Tommy Koh has reiterated his opposition to the sale of Income Insurance to Allianz, supporting former NTUC Income CEO Tan Suee Chieh. Koh stressed the company’s social mission and urged Parliament to reconsider, highlighting widespread public concern over the deal’s impact on stakeholders.

Published

on

Professor Tommy Koh, Ambassador-At-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Institute of Policy Studies, has once again voiced his opposition to the proposed sale of Income Insurance to the German multinational corporation Allianz.

Allianz announced on 17 July that it planned to buy a majority stake in Income Insurance for about US$1.6 billion. Allianz offered S$40.58 per share, valuing the transaction at S$2.2 billion (US$1.66 billion) for a 51% stake in Income Insurance. NTUC Enterprise currently holds a 72.8% stake in Income and will become a minority shareholder after the sale.

NTUC Income, established in 1970, was created to provide insurance protection to the masses at a time when life insurance was primarily accessible only to the higher income group. The cooperative insurance company was later converted to a private company in 2022.

In a Facebook post on Tuesday, Prof Koh expressed his support for Tan Suee Chieh, former CEO of NTUC Income, who has been critical of the transaction.

“I have followed the exchange of views between Tan Suee Chieh, the former CEO of NTUC Income and NTUC Enterprise, and NTUC Enterprise and Income Insurance. I support the views of Tan Suee Chieh and hope that the Singapore Parliament will do the right thing when it discusses the matter this afternoon. INCOME is the people’s insurance company. It should not be sold and certainly not to a foreign company. It is part of our social compact,” Prof Koh wrote.

This follows Prof Koh’s earlier post on 23 July, where he 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.”

Prof Koh further emphasized the social mission of NTUC Income, saying, “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.”

Public Reactions on Facebook

Prof Koh’s comments received widespread support on social media, with many echoing his concerns about the sale’s impact on Income Insurance’s social mission and minority shareholders.

One commenter agreed, stating, “Even if NTUC pledges to hold Income to the commitment of keeping two existing low-cost insurance schemes affordable, what about the other insurance schemes that the common people had bought? Also, how does a lesser shareholder like NTUC Enterprise hold Allianz to the commitment? It’s also sad to see the mainstream media plastering NTUC’s POV all over the place and giving the alternate views little attention.”

Another commenter questioned the effectiveness of such pledges, writing, “Prof Koh, if both you and Mr Tan who are influential leaders in your own fields cannot convince them, will they even hear the feedback and concerns from ordinary citizens like us? This is a good example of how tone deaf some people are. Pledges are not legally binding. Even if Allianz honors the pledge to continue the social responsibility of Income, what assurance is there if Allianz sells Income to another commercial business in years to come? Will the next major shareholder honor this pledge? I doubt.”

Additional comments on Prof Koh’s Facebook post included concerns about the misuse of public reserves and the perceived lack of capability within NTUC Enterprise and Income’s management to elevate the company’s status without resorting to a sale.

Former NTUC Income CEO Tan Suee Chieh has been vocal about his opposition to the proposed sale, urging the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to scrutinize the deal thoroughly.

In his recent open letter, Mr Tan raised concerns about the dilution of minority shareholders’ stakes due to NTUC Enterprise’s capital injections at par value and the potential erosion of Income Insurance’s social mission under Allianz’s ownership.

Mr Tan’s letter highlighted that NTUC Enterprise increased its shareholding in NTUC Income from 30% to 70% by acquiring shares at a significant discount, which diluted the stakes of ordinary members. He also questioned Allianz’s commitment to maintaining NTUC Income’s founding principles and social responsibilities.

NTUC Enterprise and Income Insurance’s Response

In response to Mr Tan’s criticisms and concerns, NTUC Enterprise and Income Insurance issued a joint statement emphasizing the necessity of capital injections to support NTUC Income’s financial stability and regulatory compliance.

They assured stakeholders that Allianz, as a majority shareholder, would continue NTUC Income’s social initiatives and that the transaction would benefit minority shareholders through substantial returns on their investments—even though Allianz does not seem to have made any written commitment.

Mr Tan had previously quoted Allianz Group CEO Oliver Bäte, who stated in a Business Times article, “We’re not in Asia to buy top line; we want to build a resoundingly profitable business.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Business

Times Bookstores to close after nearly four decades in Singapore

Times Bookstores will cease operations in Singapore after nearly four decades, with its final outlet at Cold Storage Jelita closing on 22 September 2024. The closure is seen as being attributed to high rents, low sales, and rising operational costs, reflecting challenges faced by physical bookstores in Singapore.

Published

on

Times Bookstores will end its operations in Singapore after nearly 40 years, as its last remaining outlet at Cold Storage Jelita on Holland Road is set to close on 22 September 2024.

In a farewell statement posted on Instagram on 16 September, the English book retailer, established in 1978, invited customers to visit the store one final time. “Our happily ever after has finally come,” the post read. “It is with both a heavy heart and a sense of fulfilment that we announce the closure of Times Bookstores.”

The closure of Times Bookstores has been anticipated for several years. The company, owned by regional consumer group Fraser and Neave Limited, closed its branches in Plaza Singapura and Waterway Point in February 2024.

The shutdowns triggered a discussion in Singapore’s literary community about how to better support bookstores.

Struggles Facing Book Retailers

Times Bookstores has been affected by increasing rent, low sales, and rising operational costs. The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated its challenges, with the business quietly closing outlets at Marina Square and Paragon in 2021.

A key warning came in 2019 when the retailer closed its 8,000 sq ft Centrepoint branch, once one of Singapore’s largest bookstores.

These closures reflect a broader struggle for physical bookstores in Singapore. Rising rent, higher goods and services taxes (GST), and increasing printing costs have driven book prices up, making it difficult for traditional retailers to compete.

Popular bookstore also shut its Marine Parade outlet on 18 June 2023, citing similar reasons, while Books Kinokuniya closed its JEM branch on 9 May 2022 due to slow sales and rental costs.

Future of Singapore’s Bookstores

Following the closure of Times, few large bookstore chains remain in Singapore. Books Kinokuniya, the largest bookstore in Singapore, continues to operate its flagship store at Takashimaya Shopping Centre.

According to a spokesperson from Toshin Development Singapore, cited by the Straits Times, Kinokuniya remains a key tenant, though no specific renewal dates were disclosed. The spokesperson added that Kinokuniya continues to engage with the landlord regularly to appeal to patrons and remain in trend.

Although Times Bookstores will no longer have physical stores in Singapore, its book distribution business, which supplies books from international and local publishers to other retailers, continues to operate.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Are Govt policies and big business interests limiting competition in Singapore?

This opinion piece from Foong Swee Fong explores concerns about how restrictions on private driving instructors and rising COE prices may reflect a broader trend of collaboration between large corporations and the government, potentially reducing market competition and impacting Singaporeans.

Published

on

by Foong Swee Fong

The article, “Driving schools fully booked for months; some students paying bots to secure limited lesson slots” by Channel News Asia, encapsulates all that is wrong with Singapore.

The reason why students can’t get slots is because the “police stopped issuing private driving instructor licences in 1987 when the first two driving schools were set up”.

The police cited coordination and safety reasons.

In 1987, there were “thousands of them” but today “the country only has about 300 private driving instructors” as those who retired were not replaced.

With the gradual reduction of private driving instructors, students have little choice but to patronize the two main driving centres.

Thus, their business is booming not because they are providing excellent service at a competitive rate but because their main competitors – private driving instructors – are being reduced with each passing year, eventually to zero.

Singaporeans should be incensed because what the authorities did is anti-competitive and disadvantageous to them, but not surprisingly, this being Singapore, they brushed it aside, accepting it, perhaps, as the price of progress.

It is becoming a recurring trend: Big Business working hand in glove with the government to subvert the free market.

For crying out loud! The police “stopped issuing private driving instructor licenses WHEN the two driving schools were set up!” How blatant must it get before people start waking up?

While ComfortDelGro Driving Centre is part of the publicly listed ComfortDelGro Corporation, which is commonly perceived as government-linked, Bukit Batok Driving Centre is majority-owned by large corporate entities including Honda Motor Co, Kah Motors, and Income Insurance Ltd.

The CNA article then quoted young Singaporeans who say they still want to learn driving despite the skyrocketing COE prices “due to the convenience and option of renting a vehicle” from car-sharing companies.

It then relates the positive experience of a 22-year-old national serviceman, Calvert Choo, with car-sharing companies, about the price of rental and its convenient location near his HDB block, about Tribecar and GetGo, ending by saying that other reasons for learning to drive
include working in the ride-hailing and delivery industry.

I can’t help but sense that Big Business, with the government, is again trying to subvert the market:

In 2012, taxis were exempted from the COE bidding process to prevent them from driving up Category A COE prices. Instead, they pay the Prevailing Quota Premium, which is the average of the previous three months’ Category A prices at the point of purchase, with their COEs sourced from the Open Category. This arrangement acknowledges that taxi companies are using passenger cars for commercial purposes unlike private car owners, and that they can outbid private car owners.

However, recent trends have seen Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs), car-sharing companies, and even driving schools pushing passenger car COE prices higher, echoing the earlier situation with taxi companies. A simple solution would be to extend the taxi model to these groups. Yet, this approach has not been adopted, and authorities have instead proposed unrealistic solutions.

If COE prices remain elevated, average and even above-average-income drivers will be priced out of the market, forcing them to use PHVs and car-sharing vehicles.

Is this another diabolical scheme to force the people to patronize certain businesses, just like student drivers have now to patronize driving schools?

There are numerous worrisome alliances between Big Business and the Government in our country. They are using fewer generic medicines compared to many other countries in the region, which may contribute to higher healthcare costs. Some have raised concerns about the influence of patented medicines within the healthcare system, potentially increasing overall medical expenses.

As a measure of how preposterous the situation has become, the said CNA article, which in fact is propaganda and free advertisement for the respective big businesses, is published by state-owned MediaCorp, thus paid for by the people, to brainwash themselves!

The Big Business-Government cancer has spread deep and wide. By subverting the free market, resources will be mis-allocated, the poor will be poorer, a large chunk of the middle class will become the new poor, and the rich will be richer, thus tearing society apart.

Continue Reading

Trending