Promotional image by NTUC Income.

By Philip Ang
Our Singapore government has unique powers to redefine just about everything.
Besides pseudo ownership of HDB flats and our CPF, we also have pseudo-cooperatives such as NTUC Income.
NTUC Income Insurance Co-operative Limited is the only insurance cooperative in Singapore. It provides life, health and general insurance products. It currently has seven branches and five lite branches across Singapore
A cooperative is defined as an organisation or business jointly owned and operated by members for their mutual benefit, ie lower premiums for insurance policyholders or higher bonus rates.
In the case of NTUC Income, it is operated by PAP-appointees to make obscene profits for shareholders. For an example of political appointees, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Mr Chan Chun Sing is currently the Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).
NTUC Enterprise Co-operative Limited holds NTUC FairPrice, NTUC Foodfare, NTUC Income, NTUC Health, NTUC First Campus, NTUC LearningHub, NTUC Link.
With slightly less than 50% shareholding, the government is the biggest shareholder.
sharesholding
For an insurance company, NTUC Income has been generating obscene profits, thanks to our population policy as well as being the few companies that are tasked to run mandatory policies and automated policies such as Eldershield.
I have been an NTUC Income shareholder – not a member of a real cooperative – for more than a decade and benefited from its dividend policy as much as the government.
Last year’s dividend rate was 6% …

and since 2005, the dividend rate has been almost unchanged.

Income is actually no different from other insurance companies such as Great Eastern Life whose main objective is to serve shareholders.
In order to serve shareholders, NTUC Income even decided to reduce policyholder bonus by a whopping 45% permanently in 2008.
Back in April 2008, NTUC Income announced a re-structuring of the bonus with respect to life policies incepted after 1993, by decreasing its annual bonus from 2.3% to 1.3% of the sum assured and increased its special bonus from 25% of accumulated bonus (for policies of more than 15 years) to 30-120% (for policies ranging from 20 years to 2 years).
It claimed that the policyholder benefits are not impacted by the re-structure. But this allowed Income to maintain a high dividend payout to its political master while policyholders were ripped off.
Hmm .. daylight robbery again?
This issue was highlighted on former Income chief Tan Kin Lian’s blog and published on TOC (below). Tan’s blog post has since been deleted.

Any recourse for consumers when the consumer watchdog, CASE is also affiliated to PAP with PAP MP, Mr Lim Biow Chuan as its president?
But recent profits pale in comparison with those prior to 2005 which had allowed Income to issue bonus shares besides maintaining a high dividend payout.
From 2001 to 2004, Income issued bonus shares of between 3% and 12%. Before the turn of the century, it was even higher at 15%.

Income’s kitty had already been emptied into shareholders’ pockets and that’s a reason for policyholder bonus to be drastically reduced.
Who was Income serving? Did ‘cooperative’ members benefit from paying high insurance premiums? Should shareholders receive 6% dividends plus bonus shares while policyholders an average return of 1%?
Government-linked companies, including Temasek, love to trumpet their ‘contributions’ to the community. Bear in mind they have been ripping off residents and the sources of their ‘contributions’ are from our pockets.
NTUC Income should not call itself a cooperative because its main objective is to profit shareholders, especially PAP.
PS: Government Linked Companies derive their obscene profits from an exponential increase in the population and our costs of living. Without creating artificial demand by growing the foreigner population, government-linked companies will likely start to collapse.
TOC has written to NTUC Income for their comment on this matter and will include their response when they reply.
Editor’s note – For those who are not aware, in Singapore, cooperatives do not have their annual reports open to the public. Even if you want to buy to see their info, it is impossible. We have tried to seek information on cooperatives in Singapore before but was told that the information must come from the cooperatives themselves and no information can be revealed. 

Explanation for NTUC’s restructure of bonus rates in 2008

“The re-structuring means that we do not have to put aside as much money to reserve for the annual bonus, and instead we are able to leave more money in the life fund. As the life fund can withstand changes in the investment markets better, the current structure gives us better solvency, flexibility and strengthens the financial position of NTUC Income.
While we aim to keep our yields in line with our past practice, we do not wish to build in annual bonuses which prevent flexibility. This strengthens the position of the life fund for the benefit of all.
In other words, we put more into variable (special) bonuses instead of basic or fixed (annual) bonus. Our overriding intention is that the combination of special and annual bonus will give a return in surrender value or death claim equal to what was intended in the past, is competitive and in line with our future investment returns. This bonus structure is in line with industry practice and widely regarded as prudent actuarial practice.
Our 2007 investment returns were good. However, we do not distribute bonuses based on one year’s returns alone. To ensure long term sustainability, we look at moving averages over five or ten year periods.
Declaring a return of 5-6% for most of our policies maturing today is fair and in line with experience. It would not be financially sound to hike up returns for 2007 simply because the actual return for 2007 was 10.7%.”

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Chan echoes PM Lee assuring that same team still in place despite Heng stepping aside as 4G leader

At a press conference yesterday (8 Apr) when Deputy Prime Minister Heng…

李函轩中暑身亡案:六名武装部队军人被控违反军事法

全职国民服役人员李函轩军训时中暑身亡,六名武装部队军人涉嫌违反军事法,昨日(20日)面控。 据国防部对昨日(20日)回应媒体询问时表示,警方已经将该六名被告移交国防部,以调查李函轩意外死亡事件。 而随着调查结束后,他们也将面临提控。 两名军人将面临武装部队法令的提控,分别为25岁连队指挥官谢智轩一级上士与26岁的二级上士许仁忠。李函轩于2018年4月18日参加快步行军训练后中暑,而当时谢智轩是快步行军的指挥官。 国防部表示谢智轩涉嫌未经批准的情况下擅自修改训练计划。 另名二级上士许仁忠则是当天快速行军的安全官员,他则涉嫌疏忽导致他人性命受威胁。 其余的人则包括国民服役人员包括庄鹏兴三级上士(22岁)、洪凯杰三级上士(24岁)和叶仁杰三级上士(22岁)。这三名分队长因在跑步训练中擅自执行惩罚,各面对三项控状。另一名服役军人陈觐扬(24岁)则是快步行军训练的医务兵,他涉嫌疏忽导致他人性命受威胁,面对两项控状。 事故发生于前年4月18日,19岁的第一精卫营士兵李函轩,在参加八公里快步行军后,出现热损伤(heat injury)症状。虽然当场接受降温急救并送院治疗,但经12天抢救后回天乏术,于4月30日在樟宜综合医院过世。 意外发生后当局成立独立调查委员会调查此事。报告显示,李函轩是因中暑导致多个器官衰竭,同时也无任何证据指出是医疗缺失所致,但很有可能是因为其间接缘故包括过度疲劳。 而日前被指控的31岁陈保树上尉则因被诊断患末期癌症,于上月初获无事省释。他于本月13日逝世。 为避免产生任何偏见,国防部亦选择将该六名军人的内部诉讼推迟,直至陈保树刑事诉讼结束,才开始对另六人展开调查。

蝙蝠出没组屋偷食香蕉还打盹 屋主无奈拿香蕉诱它出去

有蝙蝠出没在组屋内,还偷食居民挂在厨房内的香蕉,并在晒衣架上睡觉。 事主Simon Tay昨日(26日)凌晨1点在脸书上发文,自己半夜欲到厨房喝水时,赫然发现家中竟然出现蝙蝠。 据事主所述,他住在大巴窑7巷第10B座。饱受蝙蝠骚扰的事主纳闷说道,“这是这三个月来的第二次了! 过去二十二年都没碰过!” 于是事主将蝙蝠在房内乱串的视频上传至网络,从视频上可见,一只蝙蝠不停在厨房内盘旋,但当时香蕉依旧完好无损。 然而,事主再出来时,却发现两只蝙蝠在家中来回盘旋,他续指,当他到厨房内检查时,发现厨房内的香蕉有被啃咬过的痕迹,而“真凶”疑似是蝙蝠。 此外,事主也发现一只蝙蝠非常怡然自得,还自家的晾衣杆上倒头睡,似乎正在打盹,而另一只真在阳台处飞来飞去,最后不得不用扫帚赶出家外,并使用香蕉诱使蝙蝠离开住处。 事主在把视频上传至网络后,网友纷纷为事主感到惊讶,甚至有同一组屋不同楼层的屋主也留言说饱受蝙蝠的困扰,并怀疑附近是否有蝙蝠巢。 蝙蝠入民宅已非首例,《8视界新闻》报道去年2月,武吉知马GardenVista公寓居民戴太太从一年前开始就有蝙蝠在公寓的底层停车场出没。 御川苑(Riverbank@Fernvale)也曾被居民发现蝙蝠,且在一年内两度飞进屋内偷吃香蕉。 9月期间,文庆路上段第14座组屋附近的果树则有蝙蝠筑巢,甚至飞进住家。裕廊东31街第345座的24小时职总平价超市也出现小蝙蝠偷吃超市摆放在外的香蕉。…

罗厘车斗设隔板载客工? 人力部、陆交局:不安全

日前在脸书上流传,一家建筑公司自行改造罗厘车斗,用隔板把乘车客工“隔离”开来以保持安全距离。 但是,人力部和陆路交通管理局商议后,认为此做法或许会危及车上的乘客,甚至是其他的道路使用者,很不安全。 人力部表获悉有关视频后,指出那是该公司向当局提呈的建议和示范,是在建筑公司范围内拍摄,但是还未正式使用。 当局指出,在和陆交局进行商议和评估后,认为隔板会在卡车行驶时突然移动,乘客和其他道路使用者的生命安全或受影响。因此当局在周三(5月13日)已经向该公司郑重声明,并不采纳这种设计,而且也不安全。 此外,人力部也强调已设立新规定,即在罗厘车斗的客工们也必须保持一米的安全距离,因此每辆罗厘的载送客工数量将受到限制。 另一方面,有关公司昨日在脸书帖文澄清,有关视频只是演练,并对引起误会表示歉意。 Shin Khai建筑表示,建议在罗厘上设隔板,主要是保护客工免受冠状病毒传染,并解决客工载送数量限制的问题。 该公司表示,虽然视频引起关注,吸引更多的建议,然而也因此一些误会,以为该公司不人道且无礼对待客工,因此表示歉意。