Lack of protection: Edwin Tong questioned over S$2 billion surplus in NTUC Income corporatisation

[@chriskoi01]

I am not the expert on this issue. But one puzzling point that Min Edwin Tong spoke of re government’s support in July/Aug to Allianz acquiring major shareholder stake in Income. In a normal acquisition, does it not mean Income would lose the position to make key business or organisational decisions in future and/or the ability to elect key position holders eg chairman, CEO in future? Wonder why Min say that was not a showstopper to government in July/Aug as a pertinent issue in public interests? Why would a profit making firm consider its social mission out of the goodness of its heart? In other parliamentary discussions, I gather that Allianz/Income would commit 100 million over 10yrs to ‘do good’ in social programmes, while extracting nearly 2 billion within 3 yrs post acquisition to return it to shareholders, of which Allianz is majority shareholder? Isn’t this what a profit making firm would do? Wonder why our government so innocent to not pre-empt this? Imagine if no one figured the connection, then people’s money would have been siphoned off? Hope I am reading the happenings correctly..

[@rockychong4299]

This fiasco stinks 😢. Why was the 2billion not disclosed and who benefits?

[@cambodianye8429]

Can a COP be convene to make him answer questions genuinely?

[@LonganLee]

The parliament does it have a law that says all MPs must answer directly to the questions and not go one big round the garden the size of Ridout Road?

[@LonganLee]

If 51% to Alliance a profit-oriented private sector giant, how can social mission not be affected? Legally, is it not that profit-oriented Alliance can decide to focus less on social mission? Less means still have social mission but reduced. So we can see english is roti prata . Its Ambiguous in that we can say there is still social mission but reduced. By how much? Its not clear as english is ambiguous and qualitative and not quantitative in this example. In short, many Do Not Buy what the Tong said

[@wowokingxoxo]

Who brought the bad deal on the table? Still hiding ? Come clean and explain yourself!

[@ravindrandoraisamy9758]

Good to have a certain level of opposition to keep the PAP MP’s on their toes..

[@LonganLee]

Why do i not hear LW speaking? Where does the buck stop?

[@nicholasgoh3526]

He is busy taking selfies and refining his guitar skills.

[@choonhweeyap1907]

Now that you mentioned, he is very quiet over this issue esp when he is the 'leader' of the party.

[@TheSaintGambler]

@@choonhweeyap1907 Hmm..this begs the question. Who can stop this deal given that the 2 ministers's support during august can be said to be iron-clad?

[@ongernie7216]

How this guy can be a minister?????????

[@RichardSKLim]

This whole Allianz-Income deal shouldn't have been contemplated in the first place. This whole saga has left a bad taste in Singaporean's mouth.

[@chenghonggoh4746]

NTUC don't know about capital reduction exercise when this deal was first made known? I find it unbelievable. Someone is either incompetent or ignorant. Another thing. Why bring the matter up to parliament for discussion in Aug if the MAS has not completed the vetting process of the deal. It's such a waste of parliament time.

[@franciscody9622]

When did he know about the capital extraction?

[@cambodianye8429]

Permit me to believe hr knew it all this while from day one, even if he place 2 hands on the Torah then the Bible then the Quran then the Taoist Almanac......

[@mr.g702]

@@cambodianye8429lawyers are liars - its a very well known fact.

[@hengbin2974]

NTUC Income should NOT be corporatised in the 1st place. To tok about competition etc, I did NOT see any reference to local insurance company Great Eastern Insurance, substantially owned by OCBC. All I can say once again is the WAYANG by the wayang party MPs.......as a policy holder of NTUC Income @ since the 2000s I objected to its corporisation many yrs ago, but as I've said many times, I was and am too busy on legal matters

[@ewmurphy]

NE and Income boards have to step down. This saga casts significant aspersion on their governance credibility, expertise and accountability to act in the public interest of their social objectives over shareholders.

[@batmankky]

When most of our parliament & ministries' leaders are scholars, paper generals & grc free-riders, this type of blunders happens. This is a near-miss. Spore may not be that lucky next time. Why no investigation? Why no apologies? Why is there no committee of inquiry? Why so silent from the ntuc bullies or the like: heng chee how, desmond, patrick, alvin...etc? Ntuc & pap cannot be similar people at the top! Who genuinely represent workers if there is conflict of interest? No democracies do such things. Balance them off with your vote in the coming GE as we urgently need check & balance in place.

[@LonganLee]

If giving away Majority control is not a issue, then every sg asset should be sold to foreigners. Since at least a decade or more ago, every singapore power plant was sold to foreigners already. SP is not power plant per se. Power plant is a power generation Factory

[@arch-generalkristenchngsy9309]

Can Google TREASON LAW. Punishable by Death or Life imprisonment.

[@ericleoww]

Was the change of mind got to do with possible loss of votes?

[@ttkoh123]

I think Opposition has to dig up the the Sports Hub payout again. As we recall "$2.3b cost of ending Sports Hub public-private tie-up represented 'fair deal' for Govt: Edwin Tong"

[@peterho4890]

Mr Tong mentioned to make income competitive, 1. If income is sold without majority control on our end - it really doesn’t matter any more since income is not ours 2. The other way to fix it is to restructure income and make it competitive through cost mgmt

[@douglasang3527]

Only vote for CHANGE , VTO PAP , then we can have all the Answers ! 😅

[@mohamedzackriamydingani241]

3 day to pass the insurance act Bill. Why so fast. All this Leaders are yes sir group. I've never trust them. Will never.

[@LonganLee]

On the point of Social Mission after the sale, if it were to subsequently go through after a revised deal proposal, if that were to happen, Opposition MPs should question more rigorously by making Tong Quantify what he say and claim because English is Ambiguous as its spoken Qualitatively. How much social mission will be affected? Or does he mean exactly the same level of aocial mission is to be guaranteed? Get them to Guarantee in a Quantifiable way else there is nothing concrete because English is fking ambiguous allowing for roti prata

[@SamStab007]

As usual non of the PAP MPs asked hard questions. Where is the representation of the people? Abloish GRC!

[@2bystander2]

they r no longer for the plp but serve their million dollar paymaster by towing the line by speaking in tune with paymaster agenda

[@metalstamping]

Some party simply don't feel apologetic. Proud n Proud. Zzz...

[@marktan5222]

Some heads have to roll for dropping the ball

[@nicholasgoh3526]

The question is how can such a big deal passed through all the levels till the approval stage? Even ex CEOs have to come out to voice their concerns and now ministers have to defend the deal. Would the deal have gone through if there were no public outcry by some prominent figures- which led to the public attention?

[@avatart183]

$1.85B capital extraction to be redistributed to shareholders in 3 years to enhance NTUC income capital strength(how make shareholder richer?)? Shareholder was explicitly mentioned, but no mention on how much $1.85B will be used for social mission for CSLA? Shouldn't MCCY ensure that this structural protection terms to be in place before approving the deal(after the deal, terms can still be negotiated)? When we lose the deal on 6 Aug, does it means NTUC is in verge of collapse or financial trouble (ET mentioned tipping the balance(balance between what?))? Thot the move from NTUC Cooperative to Income was suppose to solve funding problem? So the previous initiative failed and now considered sales of 51%? Which is which?

[@joelow4120]

time for change of guard! was there guard in the first place! only political nominees and Generals hopefully holding a questionable Havard cert.

[@LonganLee]

If Opposition still unable to bite hard enough on this issue, then there is no hope left for Change. If their questioning ability is good enough, they can take them down. Else no followup and persistence as usual

[@ang1852]

If anyone have a product with Income, actually the dividends is received yearly, when many stocks are always stagnant. So if there is a change of system, the dividends could drop or become that non-performing stock, and force you to give up that lobang. and people have long term contracts that stretch many year. A bit unpedictable what will happen after takeover.

[@franciscody9622]

Opposition should be more confrontational. It should have asked: Was the capital extraction plan was in before Aug 6, yes or no?

[@LonganLee]

Agree. I wonder who here feels the same as me that the Oppositon's questioning has not been as strong as they are capable of? Give the ruling party face? Fear of a hammer falling down on them?

[@nicholasgoh3526]

We need better opposition. I think even TCB can do better.

[@lleong666]

This is definitely more purposeful than ms Khans nonsense.

[@tanpengjoo7205]

SALUTE OPPOSITE HAVE SPOKEN OUT FOR LOCAL BREEDS WHAT OUT GOVERNMENT OWN ASSESTS THAT ARE NOT TRANSPARENT TO SINGAPOREAN, ESPECIALLY TEMASEK AND GIC INVESTED OUR LOCAL BREED WHOLE-LIFE HARD-EARNED STRESSED N SWEAT C P F MONEY THAT MAY CAUSED OUR C P F MONEY NOT RETURN SOONER.

[@LonganLee]

I was watching Sesamee street Bert and Ernie when i bump into the Tong speech. Nice eyebrows. Before that i was watching WangSa and YeFong famous comedians of sg doing crosstalk

[@AlphaSorceror]

Really too much time.

[@tanpengjoo7205]

If every government assets or services are sold or franchise no wonder prices of basic needs keep going up just new owners just want higher revenue for top management at the expense of ordinary folks. No wonder n t u c can afford to open more " super " market because n t u c sourced their products from cheaper third world countries which their currency are so low, but n t u c sell to Singaporeans SGD that are not cheap at all just because n t u c are household name not because cheap.

[@ktan6738]

biggest scandals exposed since imo

[@LonganLee]

Do you all know what they say about Lawyers?

[@tanpengjoo7205]

Any surplus definitely top management will keep the most " quietly " if deficite they will give tonnes of excuses to raise premium and other reasons to increase to cover those loses

[@ktan6738]

well well miw can do no wrong. allowing $2 billion to be taken and then return 1.5 billions over few years and then transfer 51pc of income which has 20 billions assesst. i wonder what kind of maths is that to proof it is good deal and benefit the people? this needs investigation. oh not forget the bank involved is the bank the md works for. lets clap for such creative accounting and accountability.

[@Tales_by_Thubten_Namgyal_Lim]

Edwin and his word salad!

[@vulcanken1273]

Play of words repeating nothing of substance in circle not answering the question!

[@kokwahchan8478]

Probably as a lawyer, he does not understand the financial structure? Your guess is as good as mine.

[@lolipopi503]

Wayang

[@johnwong4424]

We need to grill Income Enterprise chief . But wait, we can't. They have been corporatized 😅

[@mohamedzackriamydingani241]

They trying hard to reply

[@Li-ty4ve]

There are many successful co-ops in the West. In US, the government employess union Calper, in EU, agri co-op and banks and successful companies being owned only by employees. The pro and con is skewed towards Co-op giving better value preposition to its members. It could be that Income Insurance was planned for SGX listing as Great Eastern was unfortunately a subject of delistment. Oblviously, the capital retraction decision will be studied in details. The old insured and Chenghu interests inder Income Co-op and its conversion are now within the purview of latest retrospective Insurance Enactment.

[@Osofg8]

o ah Lian n income surplus $2b ~ building 💰 in shenton is urgently may apply to as a foreign major stake holder 🎈 o

[@chrischris8623]

I wonder if there were no opposition, will this deal goes through 🤔

[@kenzong8427]

good discussion. Thanks to all the MPs and Minister Tong

[@LonganLee]

Yes, but do you mean the questioning is as great as it should be and could be?

[@zhihao81]

Not competent. Don't know which expert the government consulted.

[@vincecarlo]

Tong the USELESS 🐍

[@Osofg8]

o oct 2024 sg should not be shadow nor interest for public confirmation of 2023 income liquidation or stopping business luckily mini powers (s 8.8) limited trans’ cooperative ~ corporations …. p interests (pi) is to bring ge insurance (ocbc) as prefer c for public i replace local banks in stake o

[@SANN-1969]

Two sided like our flag white moon for eclipse for both justices to balance overall life, finance, environment clean and security with safety factor measurement to watching effectively publics depended on authority and higher educated to solved volumes issue

[@teohtongwah9063]

MCCY has done a good job in safeguard the public interest of Singapore and Singaporean

[@SANN-1969]

Singaporean are multing through times from defussion, knowledge constraints is not a long term plans or policy when population changes in direct or indirect local citizens change in numbers from volume to numbers, ratio and scales measurement needed AI shall be fited in condition

[@vulcanken1273]

Play of words repeating nothing of substance in circle not answering the question!