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?

Dr Lee Wei Ling, who passed away on 9 October 2024, was a steadfast advocate for her father, Lee Kuan Yew’s (LKY)—Singapore’s founding Prime Minister—wish to demolish their family home at 38 Oxley Road.

Her funeral on 12 October 2024 was not just a moment of farewell but a poignant reminder of her lifelong commitment to honouring her parents’ final wishes, particularly the demolition of the Oxley Road house.

Even at her passing, Dr Lee never wavered in her dedication to fulfilling her father’s last wish—a cause she championed until her final days, despite battling progressive supranuclear palsy.

In his eulogy for his beloved sister, Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) conveyed a message from Dr Lee, in which she reaffirmed their parents’ wish for their home at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished after their deaths:

“My father, LEE KUAN YEW, and my mother, KWA GEOK CHOO, had an unwavering and deeply felt wish for their house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629, to be demolished upon the last parent’s death. LEE KUAN YEW directed each of his three children to ensure that their parents’ wish for demolition be fulfilled. He also appealed directly to the people of Singapore: Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

The house, which had become a focal point of public and familial dispute, remained central to her legacy.

But why were Dr Lee and LHY so adamant about fulfilling their father’s wish, despite the personal sacrifices they faced?

Some netizens speculated that LHY, who acquired the property from their brother, Lee Hsien Loong (LHL), then-Prime Minister in 2015, might intend to sell it for financial gain—an allegation put forth by LHL in his statutory declaration.

However, given the persecution Dr Lee, LHY, and his family have endured—ranging from surveillance to political attacks—it is clear that financial benefit would hardly justify the immense personal and legal challenges they have faced over the years.

Their determination, therefore, seems rooted not in monetary interests but in a deep sense of duty to their father, LKY, and his values.

It could be argued that the siblings saw the demolition of the house as more than a matter of inheritance—it was a moral imperative, driven by filial piety and a desire to protect their father’s legacy from being politicised.

In their public statement on 14 June 2017, accusing LHL of abusing his power as Prime Minister, they articulated their commitment: “We have nothing to gain from the demolition of 38 Oxley Road, other than the knowledge that we have honoured our father’s last wish.”

Their determination to demolish the Oxley Road home may also have been rooted in a sense of guilt over failing to honour another of their father’s critical wishes: his desire for a quick death without being placed on life support.

Placed on Life Support for Weeks Despite Advance Medical Directive

LKY, known for his pragmatism, was clear that he did not wish to be kept alive artificially if there was no chance of recovery.

In his 2013 book One Man’s View of the World, he revealed that he had signed an Advance Medical Directive (AMD) stating that if he reached a point where he could not recover and would need to be kept alive by artificial means, he wished for the doctors to let him “make a quick exit.”

In his own words: “Some time back, I had an Advance Medical Directive (AMD) done which says that if I have to be fed by a tube, and it is unlikely that I would ever be able to recover and walk about, my doctors are to remove the tube and allow me to make a quick exit.”

He made it clear in his personal writings that he preferred a dignified end rather than prolonged suffering or incapacitation—likely a reflection of having cared for his wife, Kwa Geok Choo, who had been bedridden for over two years as a result of a series of strokes.

His desire for a swift and natural death was one of only two explicit wishes he made for his final days, the other being the demolition of his home after his passing.

Yet, when LKY’s health deteriorated in early 2015 due to severe pneumonia, this wish was not honoured.

According to the official statement from the Prime Minister’s Office, LKY was placed on mechanical ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit as his condition worsened in February of that year. This meant he remained on life support for weeks until his death on 23 March 2015.

The AMD was previously highlighted by Dr Lee in a Facebook post in April 2019, where she noted that Lee & Lee—the law firm co-founded by her parents—had handled her father’s personal matters, including his wills, powers of attorney, and AMD, which LKY reaffirmed in August 2014.

In that post, Dr Lee also accused LKY’s lawyer, Mdm Kwa Kim Li (KKL), of lying about her involvement in the events that led to LKY’s final will—a point crucial to the persecution her younger brother and sister-in-law are currently facing.

Dr Lee asserted that Mdm Kwa had been in discussions and exchanged emails about what LKY wanted in his December 2013 will, despite KKL’s denial.

In May 2023, a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) found KKL guilty of misconduct, confirming Dr Lee’s assertions that KKL had misrepresented her role in LKY’s final will.

It was proven that KKL had misled the executors of LKY’s estate—Dr Lee and LHY—by withholding critical information regarding instructions she had received from LKY about his will.

Despite her claims to the contrary, evidence showed she had been in correspondence with LKY about potential changes in November and December 2013. The tribunal ruled that her conduct fell short of the standards expected of a solicitor and imposed penalties, including a fine of S$8,000 and additional costs to the Law Society of Singapore.

It remains unclear who made the decision to place LKY on life support despite his AMD or whether the AMD, overseen by KKL’s law firm, had been highlighted to the attending doctors. This will likely remain a mystery—just as it is unknown who misled LKY into believing that his house had been gazetted by the Singapore government.

Note by Kwa Kim Li that she couldn’t find the records of 38 Oxley Road being gazetted and that she had informed Lee Kuan Yew of this.

Regardless, this failure to honour LKY’s wish, along with the likely prolonged suffering he endured while on life support, may have placed an emotional burden on Dr Lee and LHY, knowing that they had been unable to fulfil their father’s desire for a quick and dignified end.

This experience likely intensified their resolve to ensure that his other major wish—the demolition of 38 Oxley Road—was honoured. For them, it went beyond fulfilling a practical request; it became a personal mission to ensure that at least one of their father’s final wishes was carried out.

This was made clear in their 2017 statement, where they expressed profound disappointment in LHL, whom they accused of blocking the demolition for political reasons—allegations that LHL categorically denied both in public and in parliament. They wrote, “Hsien Loong has everything to gain from preserving 38 Oxley Road—he need only ignore his father’s will and values.”

LKY feared that the house might become a symbol of his personal legacy, detracting from his contributions to Singapore as a whole. He always prioritised the collective good over personal glorification, viewing the house as a private space rather than something to be preserved for political or historical purposes.

Dr Lee emphasised this about her father’s personal beliefs in a 2016 Facebook post, stating, “Papa was dead set against a personality cult and any hint of cronyism.”

The siblings believed that by preserving the house, their brother was not only defying their father’s will but also eroding the values LKY stood for: humility, simplicity, and putting the country first.

Dr Lee went so far as to refer to LHL as a “dishonourable son” for trying to build a “Lee family cult.”

In response to the allegations, LHL stated in his 2017 Ministerial Statement that he had recused himself from all decisions regarding 38 Oxley Road and that a ministerial committee, led by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, had been studying various intermediate options related to the house.

In the same parliamentary session, DPM Teo stated that the government’s position was that “no decision is needed now” as Dr Lee was still living in the property—implying that a decision would be made after her passing. With Dr Lee’s recent passing, this deferred decision on the fate of the house will likely be addressed soon.

LHY and LWL’s Sacrifices to Fulfil Their Father’s Final Wish

LHY, who had expressed his sadness over his sister’s death and their shared commitment to their father’s wishes, has frequently highlighted the personal cost of their battle.

In March 2023, he spoke of feeling “deeply saddened” that he had become a “refugee” from his own country due to his refusal to back down on the Oxley Road issue. Both he and Dr Lee had faced what they described as harassment and surveillance in the years following their public dispute with their brother.

Their 2017 statement had already indicated their discomfort with the political environment in Singapore, where they felt “closely monitored in [their] own country” and could no longer trust their brother “as a brother or as a leader.”

Currently, LHY and his wife, Lee Suet Fern (LSF), who are living outside Singapore, face allegations of perjury by Singaporean authorities, accused of misrepresenting the circumstances surrounding LKY’s Last Will (dated 17 December 2013) during LSF’s Disciplinary Tribunal hearing for alleged misconduct.

It was alleged that they rushed the signing of the will for personal gain and misled LKY, particularly regarding the Demolition Clause, as described by DPM Teo in a 2023 parliamentary response, where he first revealed that the police had commenced investigations into LSF and LHY for potential offences of giving false evidence in judicial proceedings.

However, the findings from the DT in May 2023, which confirmed that LKY’s lawyer, KKL, had misrepresented her role, show that LKY had directly communicated his intentions about the will’s changes. This undercuts the allegations that LHY and LSF had deceived LKY, as his wishes—including those of 38 Oxley Road—were clear and known to KKL.

LHY, due to the perceived risk from Singaporean authorities, is unable to return to Singapore for Dr Lee’s funeral, much like how LSF had to be absent from her own father’s funeral in July of last year.

By staying abroad, LHY may feel he can better pursue LKY’s final wish—the demolition of the house—especially after Dr Lee’s passing, rather than risking being ‘trapped in the system.’

In many ways, the conflict over 38 Oxley Road represented more than just a family dispute—it was a struggle over the legacy of one of Singapore’s most iconic leaders.

Dr Lee and LHY believed that allowing the house to stand would betray their father’s values and final wishes, as they stated in their public posts. Their determination, however, may have been further fuelled by the emotional weight of having been unable to fulfil one of his other requests—the wish for a quick, dignified death.

Thus, the demolition of the house became not just an act of obedience but a personal mission to ensure that at least one of LKY’s final wishes was honoured.

As Dr Lee is laid to rest, the fate of 38 Oxley Road remains unresolved, especially with the 2021 amendments to the Preservation of Monuments Act, which allow the National Heritage Board to issue an Enforcement Notice (EN) to halt any activity that risks destroying, damaging, or altering a National Monument.

But what is undeniable is that she devoted her life to fulfilling her duty as a daughter, standing firm in her resolve to honour her parents’ wishes—even when it came at great personal and familial cost.