SINGAPORE: Wealth inequality is challenging to measure accurately due to difficulties in obtaining comprehensive wealth data, which comes in various forms that are often hard to value, said Second Minister for Finance, Mr Chee Hong Tat.

He noted that financial wealth is highly mobile across borders, and bank deposit data in Singapore is protected by the Banking Act.

“Many countries and international organisations face similar data challenges in measuring wealth inequality accurately. ”

Mr Chee also defended that international studies, such as UBS’ Global Wealth Report, rely on assumptions that may not fully capture Singapore’s wealth inequality due to differences in methodology and data limitations.

Mr Chee was responding to Parliamentary question filed by Mr Yip Hon Weng, Member of Parliament for Yio Chu Kang SMC,  who inquired the Government on its actions to address wealth inequality.

His inquiry came in light of a July report highlighting that while Singapore’s average wealth has risen, so has wealth inequality.

Mr Yip specifically asked the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance what additional measures the Government is taking beyond existing handouts and Central Provident Fund (CPF) top-ups.

He also questioned whether there is a need to enhance the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) to ensure that salaries for lower- and middle-income workers rise more rapidly, potentially narrowing the wealth gap.

Mr Chee in a written reply on 14 October 2024 emphasised that the Government is working to improve data collection on both income and wealth to better assess inequality.

On the measures being implemented, Mr Chee highlighted several key initiatives aimed at addressing wealth inequality. He pointed to the CPF and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) home ownership scheme, both of which enable Singaporeans to accumulate substantial assets over their lifetimes.

The Government provides significant housing grants of up to S$120,000 for lower-income Singaporeans to assist with home ownership.

These grants, announced at the National Day Rally 2024, are designed to make home ownership more accessible, complementing the discounted prices of new flats.

Mr Chee further elaborated on the progressive nature of Singapore’s tax system. Wealth taxes, including stamp duties, property taxes, and the Additional Registration Fee for motor vehicles, have been made more progressive over time.

Recent Budgets have introduced higher marginal stamp duty rates on high-value properties, and increased property tax rates for non-owner-occupied residential properties. The Government’s transfer schemes, which are means-tested, also factor in wealth proxies such as home ownership and property value.

In the realm of education, Mr Chee underscored the Government’s commitment to providing equitable opportunities for all Singaporeans. The education system, which is heavily subsidised, offers multiple pathways to success, regardless of socio-economic background.

On average, the Government invests more than S$250,000 per child from pre-school to post-secondary education. This investment prepares students for their careers and supports their long-term wealth accumulation.

For lower-wage workers, Mr Chee cited the success of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) in driving wage growth. Between 2013 and 2023, real wages for workers at the 20th percentile grew by 30%, outpacing the median worker’s 22% increase.

The PWM, which links wage increments to skill and productivity gains, has been expanded to sectors such as food services and waste management. The Government has also raised the Local Qualifying Salary to S$1,600 and enhanced the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme to provide further financial support.

To address the long-term earning potential of young workers, the Government recently introduced the ITE Progression Award. This initiative provides Institute of Technical Education (ITE) graduates with financial incentives to upskill to diploma levels, offering S$5,000 in their Post-Secondary Education Accounts and a S$10,000 CPF top-up upon diploma completion.

The goal is to boost graduates’ starting salaries and future earning potential, while supporting wealth accumulation through home ownership or retirement savings.

“The Government will continue to explore ways to tackle wealth inequality, including by keeping our social support measures progressive and targeted at lower and middle-income households,” Mr Chee said.

The Global Wealth Report 2024 by UBS, published in July, revealed that the number of millionaires in Singapore rose to 333,204 in 2023, a 0.4% increase from 332,000 in 2022.

Total household wealth in Singapore also grew by 5.6% in 2023, reaching over US$2 trillion, compared to the 4.2% global increase in household wealth, following a 3% contraction the previous year.

In a July 2024 interview with The Straits Times, Lim Boon Heng, chairman of NTUC Enterprise, framed the proposed acquisition of Income Insurance by German insurer Allianz as a positive development.

The former People’s Action Party minister, who is also the chairman of Temasek Holdings, emphasised the deal’s potential to strengthen Income’s competitiveness and enable it to fulfil its social mission more effectively.

However, Culture, Community, and Youth Minister Edwin Tong’s 14 October 2024 ministerial speech uncovered inconsistencies in Mr Lim’s statements, particularly regarding the planned capital extraction, casting doubt on the broader implications of the transaction.

While Mr Lim’s remarks focused on the benefits of Allianz’s majority stake, Mr Tong’s detailed disclosure in Parliament revealed significant concerns over the deal’s financial and social impacts, leading to the government’s intervention to block the transaction in its current form.

Misrepresentation of Income’s Social Mission

In the July interview, Mr Lim assured the public that Income’s social mission, which has historically supported low-income and vulnerable communities, would remain intact even after Allianz’s acquisition.

Lim noted that commercial companies worldwide had adopted similar values, suggesting that Allianz would likely uphold Income’s mission of “doing well to do good.”

He also reassured Singaporeans that the partnership would not compromise Income’s involvement in national insurance programmes.

However, Mr Tong’s ministerial statement revealed that the deal involved a significant capital reduction of S$1.85 billion within three years of the acquisition.

This planned extraction, which had not been disclosed publicly by Mr Lim or NTUC Enterprise, cast serious doubt on Income’s ability to continue fulfilling its social responsibilities.

During its corporatisation in 2022, Income had emphasised that the shift from a cooperative to a corporate entity was necessary to build a stronger capital base and ensure long-term sustainability.

Furthermore, NTUC Income, Singapore’s only insurance cooperative, was corporatised in 2022 into Income Insurance Limited “to achieve operational flexibility and gain access to strategic growth options to compete on an equal footing with other insurers locally and regionally.”

Shareholders were assured at the 2022 annual general meeting that NTUC Enterprise would remain the majority shareholder of the new company post-corporatisation, a promise that was not honoured in the proposed deal.

The proposed capital reduction directly contradicted these earlier justifications, raising concerns about the deal’s real motivations.

Lack of Transparency on Capital Optimisation Plans

In Mr Lim’s interview, there was no mention of Allianz’s post-transaction capital optimisation plans, which Mr Tong later disclosed.

These plans included freeing up capital for shareholder returns, which fundamentally altered the nature of the deal.

Workers’ Party MP for Sengkang GRC, He Ting Ru, questioned why NTUC Enterprise decided to proceed with the sale despite knowing about the capital extraction. She highlighted the difficulty of reconciling the withdrawal of capital with the goal of strengthening Income’s financial base, especially given its social mission.

Mr Tong responded by stating that the capital withdrawal needed to be seen within a broader context. He explained that even with the capital reduction, NTUC Income would still meet regulatory capital adequacy requirements.

Nevertheless, Mr Tong emphasised in his speech that the government’s decision to block the deal was not based solely on financial factors but also on concerns about governance and the lack of structural protections to ensure that Income could continue to pursue its social mission under Allianz’s majority ownership.

Second Minister for Finance Chee Hong Tat also clarified that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) had not approved the proposed capital reduction plan, leaving key questions about the deal unresolved.

Contradictions on Income’s Financial Needs

Mr Lim’s portrayal of the Allianz-Income deal as essential for shoring up Income’s finances was contradicted by Mr Tong’s revelations.

He had pointed to Income’s struggles with its capital adequacy ratio (CAR) during past economic downturns as justification for seeking a majority shareholder.

However, Mr Tong noted that the planned capital extraction undermined Income’s long-term financial sustainability.

The lack of transparency over the capital reduction drew sharp criticism from Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP).

During the 14 October parliamentary session, Leong expressed shock over the revelation of the planned capital extraction, which had not been disclosed to the public during discussions about the deal.

He argued that this critical financial condition should have been made public from the outset.

“This information should be available to all Singaporeans,” Leong said. “For the last few months, we were under the impression that the information provided was complete. Now, we learn about capital extraction, which is a very important condition of any financial deal.”

Leong expressed his dissatisfaction with how the deal had been communicated to the public, stating, “I’m surprised, I’m shocked, and I’m very unhappy today that this important condition was not disclosed to Singaporeans when we were all discussing this deal.”

He pressed the government for accountability, asking, “Who is responsible for not disclosing this information? Can the government give a commitment that it will pursue responsibility in this matter?”

Despite the various misleading or non-disclosed elements in NTUC Enterprise’s and Income Insurance’s communications, Mr Tong is of the view that no one deliberately misled the public.

PSP NCMP had questioned whether action would be taken against those responsible for misleading the public and government. In her speech, Poa highlighted that the deal contradicted earlier representations made during Income’s corporatisation and called for greater transparency.

Mr Tong, however, rejected the suggestion of deliberate misinformation but acknowledged that the government had concerns about whether Income could continue to serve its social mission after the capital reduction.

Was Lim Boon Heng Misleading?

While Mr Lim’s statements in the July interview painted a positive picture of the Allianz-Income deal, subsequent revelations by Mr Tong and MPs He Ting Ru, Hazel Poa, and Leong Mun Wai have raised significant concerns about the financial and social impacts of the transaction.

The planned capital extraction and lack of transparency over key financial conditions suggest that important details were withheld from the public.

This leaves an important question: Did Lim Boon Heng’s statements mislead the public, or was it a matter of differing interpretations of the deal’s long-term impact?

As more details emerge, the public will have to decide whether NTUC Enterprise’s leadership was fully transparent or whether key aspects of the deal were deliberately downplayed. What do you think?