Netizens skeptical of justification for selling Income amid concerns over social mission shift

SINGAPORE: The online community has largely disagreed with the justification provided by NTUC Enterprise Co-operative Ltd on Tuesday (30 July) for the sale of a majority stake in Income Insurance (formerly NTUC Income) to the German insurer Allianz.

Many netizens questioned the validity of NTUC Enterprise’s claim that Income Insurance made competitive bids but still lost key contracts.

Critics argue that NTUC Income’s management failed to grow the business effectively leading to the decision to sell due to declining profitability.

There is a strong desire among netizens to preserve Income Insurance as a Singaporean entity with a local focus.

They express concern that the organization has strayed from its original mission of serving citizens, particularly the lower-income population, in favour of profit-driven motives.

NTUC Enterprise defends the sale of Income Insurance to Allianz

In a statement, NTUC Enterprise emphasized that the competitive landscape in Singapore’s insurance market has drastically changed, with more than 40 global, regional, and local insurers vying for growth.

Despite aggressive bids, Income has lost several key contracts, highlighting the necessity for robust and continuous capital support to thrive.

“A social enterprise model alone cannot shoulder growth in Singapore’s competitive insurance environment,” the statement read.

NTUC Enterprise believes that the partnership with Allianz will enable Income to leverage global expertise in asset management, technology, product development, and distribution, thus enhancing its competitive edge.

NTUC Enterprise Chairman, Mr Lim Boon Heng, reiterated the company’s commitment to protecting families financially against key risks.

He acknowledged that while the landscape has changed, the social objective remains unchanged. NTUC Enterprise will continue to be a substantial shareholder, guiding Income towards achieving its social outcomes.

Mr Lim noted that the co-operative model is no longer effective for Income’s competitive ambitions and growth plans.

However, he emphasized that NTUC Enterprise intends for Income to remain financially sustainable and socially responsible, in line with its purpose of empowering financial well-being for all.

Many remain unconvinced by NTUC Enterprise and Mr Lim’s justifications for selling Income Insurance

Observing the comments on CNA’s Facebook post, it appears many are unconvinced by NTUC Enterprise and Mr Lim’s justification for selling Income.

Concerns were raised about how NTUC Enterprise can justify selling a 51% stake while still claiming it will ensure the merged entity continues to emphasize social causes. There is scepticism about NTUC Enterprise’s ability to enforce its values and goals after losing majority control.

One comment reminded that NTUC Income was established with a “social-minded” agenda and believed that the senior management and Board of Directors have significantly deviated from NTUC Income’s original objective.

Another comment believed many Singaporeans have been influenced by government rhetoric emphasizing the need for big profits from government-linked companies, losing sight of these organizations’ original social welfare purposes.

He criticized the privatization and corporatization of these entities, arguing that the government aims to profit from citizens rather than support social welfare or build up local SMEs into MNCs.

“U cannot be the regulator and protector when u are also the player and profiteer. There’s a huge conflict of interest that most of us just simply refuse to see.”

A comment questioned the validity of NTUC Enterprise’s claim that Income Insurance made competitive bids but still lost key contracts, arguing that losing these contracts indicates that Income Insurance was not competitive enough.

The critic also pointed out that if Income has been on a decline for the past decade, he suggests that rather than selling a controlling stake, the focus should be on bringing in global talent to reinvent and rejuvenate the company.

A netizen felt that NTUC Enterprise’s decision to sell Income Insurance reflects a lack of resilience and grit in facing challenges. He believes the organization should have worked to build its competitiveness rather than abandoning it.

Critics accuse NTUC Income’s management of prioritizing profits over Singaporeans

One comment criticized NTUC Income’s management for failing to effectively grow the business and prioritizing profits over the needs of Singaporeans.

The comment also highlighted that NTUC Enterprise had previously promised to retain majority ownership but is now reducing its stake to a minority position, undermining its control and breaking its promises.

“The whole corporatisation exercise stinks of conflict of interests.
Why mitigate here and there arising in recusals of people in the decision-making when it is better to choose other options without any conflict of interests?”

A netizen, who identified herself as a longtime Income policyholder, shared an email in a Facebook comment addressed to Income Chairman Mr Ronald Ong and CEO Mr Andrew Yeo.

In the email, she argued that selling a majority stake to a foreign entity like Allianz is unacceptable, as it involves policyholders’ life savings. She emphasized that Income’s core duty should be to manage these savings for the benefit of policyholders prudently.

“We, policyholders will not allow our homegrown INCOME to be bought over and deeply infiltrated by evil agendas globalists from WEF and other evil foreign organisations/individuals to achieve their hidden evil agendas. ”

The email also demanded that NTUC Income and the relevant authorities reconsider the deal and not allow Allianz’s acquisition, citing potential irreversible damages and negative consequences for the country’s sovereignty and policyholders’ interests.