When we debated the Income-Allianz transaction at the last parliamentary sitting, I said that the leadership of NTUC and NTUC Enterprise (NE) owed Singaporeans a more substantial explanation. They need to explain why and how they had arrived at their decision to sell Income with so little assurance about the ability of Income to carry out its social mission and whether Income’s $2 billion surplus will continue to be used towards its social missions.
NTUC has not provided further explanations more than two weeks after the parliamentary debate. I have hence filed 3 new Parliamentary Questions for next week’s parliamentary sitting (see attached graphics).
My first PQ is to ask MCCY to provide details about what safeguards were put in place to ensure that Income would comply with its representations to MCCY when MCCY granted an exemption for it to retain the $2 billion capital in 2022.
During the corporatisation exercise, Income had told MCCY that it was aiming to build up capital resources and enhance its financial strength. If the boards of NE and Income knew about the capital reduction plan, why did they not realise the capital reduction plan would have run counter to that?
As NTUC, through NTUC Enterprise (NE), controls many strategic businesses important to Singapore including FairPrice, Income, and First Campus, it is important for Singaporeans to know how these businesses are managed, governed, and disposed of.
My second PQ pertains to Income’s one-off capital reduction exercise of $43 million in 2023. Did MCCY know of this capital reduction exercise at the time? Was this capital reduction exercise in line with what Income had told MCCY in 2022?
My third PQ asked whether Income’s financial advisor had provided competent, independent advice on the capital reduction plan.
We came close to making a grave mistake. Singaporeans deserve to know more about what happened so that we can be better assured that any future disposal of Income, or other NTUC assets, will always put the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans first.
NMP Neil Parekh said during the debate that control of carefully nurtured national treasures, such as Income, should never be passed on to foreigners. I agree with this view and I believe many Singaporeans do, too.
Income Insurance is comparable to POSB as a financial icon and national treasure among Singaporeans. POSB was sold to DBS Bank in 1998. NE should have tried harder to retain majority control of Income even if there is a need to look for strategic partners.
NTUC owes Singaporeans a more detailed explanation before it makes another attempt, if any, to sell Income Insurance.
