Calvin Cheng comment on NTUC Income sale backfires as netizens call for return to its social mission

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assessing NTUC Income’s current relevance in the market and cautioned against allowing “sentimentality, nostalgia, and outdated practices” to hinder necessary changes.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. ”