Netizens criticise NTUC chief’s response to Income court case, citing systemic issues, fairness and ethics

SINGAPORE: NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng’s public response to the district court’s criticism of Income Insurance’s handling of a 2019 accident claim — describing it as “of deep concern” and conceding that the company could have done better — has drawn a wave of online backlash. Many netizens felt his remarks downplayed the gravity of the insurer’s conduct and lacked an apology, suggesting the case might reflect broader, systemic issues within the insurance industry, such as stonewalling and unfair claims rejections. Others also criticised Ng for framing the insurer’s eventual payment as an act of compassion rather than a matter of contractual fairness and moral duty. In a Facebook post on 8 October 2025, Ng said the judgment surrounding the insurer’s handling of a claim by the estate of the late Ko Wah had been “of deep concern” to him. The remarks came a week after media outlets reported that the court had awarded S$417,000 in damages to Ko’s son, Jonathan Ko Wei Ze, who represented his father’s estate. Ng expressed sympathy for the Ko family, recognising their “grief and emotional distress” during the prolonged legal process. He emphasised that while NTUC does not interfere with the daily operations of its affiliated enterprises, they must uphold high standards of fairness, integrity, and compassion. “These values are the foundation of our work and our promise to the people we serve,” Ng wrote. He added that, although Income Insurance had accepted the court’s decision, reflection was necessary to ensure future conduct aligns with ethical expectations. “Income must balance rigour and due process with greater empathy and compassion. I expect no less,” Ng said.

“This May Not Be an Isolated Issue,” Netizens Say

Netizens responded critically to Ng’s remarks. On social media platforms such as Mothership, CNA, and The Straits Times Facebook pages, several users suggested the case may reflect wider issues within the insurance sector. One user urged Ng to instruct the insurer to review how many similar cases of stonewalling and claims refusal exist and to compensate affected policyholders promptly. Another described the court case as “just the tip of the iceberg”, adding that many claimants may have accepted unfavourable outcomes rather than pursuing legal action due to the time and expense involved. “This raises the major question of whether insurance companies could be trusted at all,” the user wrote.

Calls for Fairness Over ‘Compassion’

Some netizens criticised the framing of Ng’s remarks, particularly the suggestion that payments were made out of compassion. One user remarked that if the insurer truly had compassion, the matter would not have reached a court judgment. “Is it compassion? No, it’s really not that. It’s about doing the right thing,” another user wrote. Others echoed this sentiment, highlighting that the issue is one of fairness. “What compassion? It’s about fairness. Contract says pay, then must pay. Don’t bully people until a lawyer is needed. Nothing to do with compassion,” one user commented. Another user suggested the best way to show empathy is to process payouts as quickly as possible, adding that the pool of money paid into an insurance company is not meant as immediate profit, but rather as funds set aside for the claimant’s urgent needs.

Concerns About Insurance Practices

Some netizens also questioned Income Insurance’s broader business practices. One asked how such a decision was reached in the first place, adding that the company’s entire business model and underwriting processes needed review. Another noted that cases like Ko’s explain why many remain sceptical of insurance, with even logical claims often met with excuses to avoid payouts. “Luckily, the victim’s family did not give up making the claim, going through the court process,” the user wrote.

Ravi Philemon Criticises Ng for Lack of Apology

Alternative party Red Dot United (RDU) chief Ravi Philemon also weighed in, criticising Ng for failing to apologise following the court’s rebuke of Income Insurance, calling his response “no apology, no reflection, just it’s not my fault.” He argued that Ng’s distancing of NTUC from the insurer’s conduct amounted to moral abdication rather than prudence.

Court rebukes NTUC Income for ‘stonewalling’ & unreasonable defence in the case

Income Insurance, formerly NTUC Income, was rebuked by the State Courts for “wholly unreasonable behaviour” and “casually impersonal stonewalling” in a civil case involving a severely injured security officer. In a judgment dated 4 August 2025 and released publicly in late September, Deputy Registrar Kim Bum Soo said the insurer’s legal strategy, which included “unfounded objections”, caused unnecessary hardship to the victim’s family. The case arose from a 21 June 2019 accident in which 78-year-old Ko Wah was struck by a vehicle driven by Samikannu Manickavasakar, leaving Ko permanently incapacitated until his death in October 2024. His son, Jonathan Ko, filed a civil suit for medical costs, loss of earnings, and damages for pain and suffering. A key dispute involved the insurer’s claim that Ko, being comatose for much of the time, could not feel pain. Kim rejected this as “unreasonable”, citing periods of alertness and legal precedent recognising loss of amenities even when victims are unconscious. He awarded S$218,000 for pain and suffering, noting Ko’s inability to enjoy his children’s company in his final years. The court also criticised the insurer for refusing to cover ambulance and specialised care costs, ultimately awarding about S$122,900 for medical expenses and allowing all ambulance-related claims. Kim also rejected objections to specialised nutrition and care items, explaining that Ko required milk-based diets and constant monitoring due to his bedridden state. Between June 2019 and October 2023, Ko’s family had spent roughly S$16,500 on milk powder; the court applied a 60 per cent discount, awarding around S$6,600 to account for normal food costs. In total, Income Insurance was ordered to pay over S$417,000, covering damages for pain, medical expenses, and partial loss of earnings. The court also applied a 50 per cent discount to loss-of-earnings claims due to Ko’s pre-existing health issues, including diabetes and heart failure, while recognising that he was still employed before the accident.