Tan Suee Chieh urges Gan Kim Yong to explain his role in failed Income-Allianz deal

SINGAPORE: On 28 April 2025, former NTUC Income CEO Tan Suee Chieh published an open letter calling for Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong to provide full disclosure regarding his role in the failed sale of Income Insurance to Allianz. The letter, shared widely on social media, urged Gan to explain and account for his actions to help restore public trust in Singapore’s governance processes. Tan revealed that this was his fourth letter to Gan over an eight-month period, the previous three having been sent between August and September 2024. In these earlier letters, Tan had raised serious concerns about the proposed sale, but allegedly received no response. According to Tan, Gan’s dual role as Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and former Chairman of the Singapore Labour Foundation (SLF) placed him at the heart of decisions that directly impacted the strategic direction of NTUC Income. Tan expressed that the collapse of the Allianz deal exposed significant weaknesses beyond a single failed transaction, including fragmented oversight and shifting narratives that betrayed earlier assurances given to the public.

Growing scrutiny as election approaches

Tan pointed out that Gan, who now leads the PAP slate in Punggol GRC for General Election 2025, must adopt a posture of transparency and engagement. In Tan’s view, these qualities are not optional but fundamental expectations of any political candidate. He stressed that Gan’s unique insight into the development of NTUC’s social enterprises made him the ideal person to clarify why strategic directions shifted so dramatically within a decade. In his letter, Tan posed a series of specific questions on regulatory oversight, beginning with why MAS did not require Allianz to inject any new capital before proceeding with the proposed S$2.2 billion acquisition. He also queried whether MAS knowingly allowed the stripping of US$1.85 billion in cash reserves from Income without safeguarding its social mission, a move which, in Tan’s assessment, severely undermined Income’s resilience. Further, Tan asked why MAS did not engage with his previous requests for dialogue and why, despite growing public concern through mid-2024, MAS remained silent on critical aspects of the deal. Tan noted a significant discrepancy between MAS’s internal knowledge and the information available to senior ministers such as K Shanmugam, raising concerns over transparency at the highest levels.

Governance and mission drift within NTUC entities

Beyond regulatory oversight, Tan’s letter delved into broader governance issues within NTUC and its affiliates. He reminded Gan that during his time as SLF Chairman, strategic moves such as increasing NTUC Enterprise’s shareholding in key entities were justified by the need to protect their social missions. Tan questioned how and why this strategic intent shifted, culminating in a near-sale of Income to a foreign multinational without concrete safeguards. He also raised concerns about the dilution of SLF’s shareholding in NTUC Enterprise from 30% to 20% in 2021, asking whether this weakened the government's influence over decisions affecting public interest.

Transparency and accountability in leadership

In his open letter, Tan criticised what he termed a perceived lack of accountability among leaders of NTUC Enterprise and Income Insurance. He emphasised that when leaders secure public trust through assurances, any subsequent changes to agreed strategies must be explained clearly, transparently, and convincingly, particularly when public institutions are involved. He asked Gan whether he agreed that the handling of the attempted Allianz sale fell short of these standards.

Conflicts of interest and concentration of power

Tan further queried whether it was sound governance practice for key leaders to concurrently hold multiple influential roles across SLF, NTUC Enterprise, and Income Insurance, suggesting that this could lead to selective information flows. He called for reforms to strengthen the independence and accountability of governance structures in such organisations. Given Gan’s close involvement in the original capital injections into Income between 2015 and 2017 — made with specific undertakings to safeguard the company’s social mission — Tan asked how Gan now viewed the reversal of those commitments. Tan also raised broader concerns about systemic risk management, noting that Income’s dominant share in sectors such as motor, health, and travel insurance should have warranted a stronger regulatory response to any potential foreign acquisition. He asked whether MAS was prepared to allow the permanent loss of Income’s cooperative identity without parliamentary debate or public consultation.

Call for engagement and democratic reflection

In his concluding remarks, Tan clarified that his intent was not to question Gan’s motives but to uphold the right of citizens to demand accountability. He urged Gan to respond candidly to the questions posed, in the spirit of democratic engagement and public service. Tan encouraged voters in Punggol GRC, and across Singapore, to weigh these issues carefully as they head to the polls in General Election 2025.

Ng Chee Meng defends actions but key questions remain unanswered

Tan's letter follows a similar call made on 27 April, when he encouraged voters in Jalan Kayu to question PAP candidate Ng Chee Meng’s leadership over the same issue. Speaking at a rally on the same day, Ng defended his role in the transaction, citing his position as NTUC Secretary-General. He asserted that the proposed sale had been conducted in good faith and noted that a review had been initiated after government intervention halted the deal, with the objective of drawing lessons from the episode. Ng said, “I’ve initiated a review in NTUC Enterprise so that we can learn the right lessons humbly and do better for fellow Singaporeans.” However, he did not address whether he had prior knowledge of the capital extraction clause — the key factor that prompted the government to intervene and block the transaction.