SINGAPORE: Netizens are suggesting harsher punishments for bullying perpetrators, emphasizing that rehabilitation alone is insufficient considering the lasting trauma victims often endure.

This sentiment follows a recent parliamentary session on Monday (14 Oct) during which Education Minister Chan Chun Sing addressed concerns raised by Members of Parliament regarding a school bullying case that has sparked public outrage.

During the session, Mr Chan reported that, on average, there are approximately two incidents of bullying per 1,000 primary school students and six incidents per 1,000 secondary school students each year.

He noted that incidents involving technology account for fewer than one per 1,000 secondary students, and even less at the primary school level.

A specific case highlighted involved a video that circulated online last month, allegedly showing students from Bukit View Secondary School bullying a peer, although the incident actually occurred in October of the previous year.

In response to the ongoing issues, Mr Chan reassured MPs that the Ministry of Education (MOE) is committed to equipping students with pro-social skills through the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum.

This program includes lessons on kindness, conflict resolution, and appropriate behaviour.

He explained that teachers are trained to foster a supportive classroom environment and proactively address bullying.

When determining disciplinary actions, the MOE considers the severity of each incident as well as the profiles of the students involved.

Disciplinary measures can range from detention and suspension to caning for boys as a last resort, with police reports filed in serious cases.

However, Mr Chan also stressed the importance of balancing punishment with rehabilitation.

He warned that “circulating such materials, trying to dox the student perpetrators, or calling for them to be ostracized could isolate them even more, drive them to extremes, and make it harder for them to mend their ways.”

“We want to steer clear of actions that might hinder or deny a perpetrator’s chance for rehabilitation, such as counterproductive social media behaviours,” he added.

Public voice discontent over minister’s response to school bullying

Many netizens took to the Channel News Asia and Mothership Facebook pages to express their disagreement with Mr Chan’s proposed solution regarding a recent school bullying case.

Several users commented that if the video of the bullying had not been circulated, it is unlikely any action would have been taken.

One user pointed out that if no one had recorded the incident, it might not have gained the attention needed for action.

Another user shared a similar sentiment, stating, “If these videos hadn’t been circulated, I don’t think actions would have been swift.”

They added that, in many cases, the videos are often recorded by the perpetrators themselves or their circle, and are posted to showcase their arrogance and supposed “bravery.”

Several users expressed concern that it seemed as though the minister was siding with the perpetrators rather than the victims in the school bullying case.

One user questioned, “Where is justice for the vulnerable bullied victims?”

They criticized the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) approach of emphasizing rehabilitation for bullies, warning that such individuals could potentially become members of secret societies, abusers, or even criminals in the future.

They argued that punishment for bullying should be harsher, suggesting public caning and imprisonment as effective deterrents to prevent further incidents.

Another user voiced concern that focusing primarily on helping the perpetrators would not improve the bullying situation.

They pointed out that conflicts are a normal part of life and can serve as opportunities for children to learn how to manage their behaviour.

However, if bullies face no real consequences because of their age, they miss out on valuable learning opportunities.

The user argued that this lack of accountability could make bullying more widespread, as bullies may see it as a “no-loss” situation where they gain attention and help without facing punishment while victims are left to endure their pain in silence.

Another user raised the question of who would help the victims if the focus was solely on rehabilitating the perpetrators.

They emphasized that victims often suffer lasting trauma and asked who would be held accountable if they do not recover.

The user stressed that perpetrators need to understand the consequences of their actions and take responsibility for them.

One user argued that leaving a long-lasting digital footprint for perpetrators could be a strong deterrent, as it would serve as a constant reminder of the consequences of their unlawful behaviour.

They criticized the protection of bullies’ identities through doxxing laws, suggesting that it may indirectly encourage such behavior by minimizing the consequences simply because the offenders are not yet adults.

Calls for stronger anti-bullying measures in schools

Several users highlighted the broader dynamics involved in school bullying, emphasizing that it extends beyond just the bullies and victims to include bystanders.

One user pointed out that bystanders can either perpetuate or help mitigate the problem, but, unfortunately, some schools tend to downplay bullying incidents.

They observed that schools often focus only on counseling the victim while giving verbal warnings to the bully and their accomplices.

Another user emphasized that true justice requires schools to adopt a more effective framework for tackling all forms of bullying, including not just physical bullying, but also social and cyberbullying, which can be even more harmful.

They suggested that there are often telltale signs of bullying that are overlooked.

The recently blocked acquisition of a majority stake in Income Insurance by German-insurer Allianz has drawn sharp criticism from retired Singaporean banker Chris Kuan, who has been dissecting the deal’s structure and financial implications since its announcement.

Kuan, who initially supported the acquisition from a value perspective, now questions the proposed capital reduction and NTUC Enterprise’s motivations, which he refers to as NTUC in his posts.

The deal, announced in July 2024, would have seen German insurer Allianz acquire a 51% stake in Income.

However, on 14 October 2024, the Singapore government intervened, citing concerns over Income’s ability to maintain its social mission and the significant capital extraction proposed in the deal.

In a series of detailed Facebook posts, Kuan criticised the undisclosed S$2 billion capital reduction, which would have allowed shareholders, primarily NE, to extract funds from Income soon after the transaction. Contrary to popular belief, Kuan argued that Allianz, despite reducing its acquisition cost, was not the real winner in this arrangement.

“There are many comments out there saying Allianz is getting back a heck of a lot of money from the capital reduction and therefore it is the bigger winner,” Kuan wrote. “This is completely wrong.”

Kuan explained that under the deal’s structure, Allianz was set to pay S$2.2 billion for a 51% stake in Income, whose total equity stood at S$3.2 billion as of its last financial statement.

After the acquisition, the $2 billion capital reduction would kick in, with Allianz receiving about $1 billion, which would reduce its total outlay to S$1.2 billion. However, Kuan highlighted the downside: Allianz would end up owning 51% of a significantly smaller entity, with Income’s capital base dropping from S$3.2 billion to just S$1.2 billion.

“In effect, Allianz’s total outlay is S$1.2 billion for a company whose total capital is now just S$1.2 billion, after having S$2 billion extracted from its capital base,” Kuan pointed out. He argued that this left Allianz paying a substantial premium for what would be a much smaller insurer post-acquisition. This revelation flipped the narrative, showing that Allianz was not benefiting as much as it might seem from the capital reduction.

Kuan contrasted Allianz’s position with that of NTUC, which stood to gain significantly from the deal. “NTUC gets S$2.2 billion from Allianz and another S$1 billion from the capital reduction—altogether S$3.2 billion,” he noted.

Kuan underscored that NTUC was the real beneficiary of the deal, extracting value not just from the sale but from the capital extraction as well. He further suggested that this might explain why no other insurers submitted competing bids, with NTUC’s asking price seen as too high by others in the industry.

“This is why IPO [initial public offering] is not an option,” Kuan added. “The German solution is much better for NTUC. With the disclosure of the S$2 billion capital reduction, it now appears the Germans were paying an even bigger premium.”

Kuan criticised NTUC’s eagerness to push the deal through and alluded to potential conflicts of interest, particularly with senior executives possibly having roles in both NTUC and Income.

“You can fully understand why NTUC die die wanna do this deal… the price NTUC is getting is too high,” Kuan commented. He also questioned the appropriateness of such a significant capital reduction in an era of higher capital adequacy requirements for banks and insurers.

Despite Allianz reducing its outlay through the capital extraction, Kuan argued that this didn’t make the German company the ultimate winner. Allianz would be left with a majority stake in a much-reduced Income, whose future capital base would be slashed.

Kuan speculated that NTUC might have been trying to “extract as much as it can possibly get away with” through the capital reduction, leaving Allianz with a diminished company.

As Kuan delved deeper into the financials, he pointed out that the deal contradicted former NTUC Income CEO Tan Suee Chieh’s earlier advice.

Tan had previously suggested that Income should exit capital-heavy insurance products, like annuities and savings products, to avoid the need to raise additional capital.

Kuan highlighted the irony that this strategy was now being implemented as part of the Income-Allianz deal.

“The irony is that Allianz’s business plan goes along the lines of what Tan had suggested Income to do… exiting capital-heavy product lines,” Kuan said.

In his Wednesday (16 Oct) post, Kuan elaborated further on the mechanics of the proposed capital reduction. He explained that for Income to execute the S$1.85 billion reduction within the next three years, the insurer would likely have to exit its capital-intensive product lines such as annuities and savings products.

By doing so, Income’s risk exposure would shrink, allowing it to reduce the amount of capital needed and freeing up funds to be returned to shareholders. However, this would also mean that Income would become a much smaller insurer after the deal.

Kuan highlighted that while NTUC and Allianz would benefit from this reduction, the latter would be left owning a majority stake in a significantly downsized company.

“Allianz is left owning 51% of a company whose capital base is reduced by more than half,” Kuan remarked. He emphasised that this deal structure was more advantageous for NTUC, allowing them to extract both the acquisition proceeds and capital reduction gains, while Allianz was stuck with a smaller and less capitalised company.

Addressing public misconceptions, Kuan cautioned against interpreting the government’s ruling as a win for those who had opposed the deal on ideological grounds.

Many of the arguments about Income’s social mission, he stated, were not the basis for the government’s decision.

“The plebs… are cheering the deal getting blocked by the government by reading the headlines only or reading only what they want to read,” Kuan wrote.

“None of those favoured arguments formed the basis of the government’s objection, which is based almost entirely on the previously non-disclosed capital reduction.”

In the end, Kuan suggested that the deal could return in a revised form. He speculated that Allianz and NTUC might re-negotiate the terms, potentially removing the capital reduction or redirecting the extracted funds to the Co-operative Societies Law Association (CSLA).

“I can see a revised deal in which S$2 billion is extracted before the sale to Allianz, and paid to the CSLA,” Kuan wrote.

This scenario, however, would require NTUC to accept that it could no longer benefit from the capital extraction.

Kuan’s in-depth analysis of the deal highlights his shift from initial support to strong criticism, particularly over NTUC’s disproportionate gains and the questionable capital reduction.

While the government’s intervention has blocked the deal for now, Kuan believes this may not be the final chapter, with Allianz likely to return with a revised proposal.