NTUC Income makes obscene profits for PAP government, should lose ‘cooperative’ status

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.

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. With slightly less than 50% shareholding, the government is the biggest shareholder.

For an insurance company, NTUC Income has been generating obscene profits, thanks to our population policy as well as its linkage to another pseudo cooperative NTUC Fairprice.

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. 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 CASE is also affiliated to PAP?

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 returns 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

GLCs 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.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in POLITICS. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to NTUC Income makes obscene profits for PAP government, should lose ‘cooperative’ status

  1. sinkie says:

    NTUC Income became just like any other profit-maximization company the minute it got rid of TKL. It is no secret that TKL didn’t see eye-to-eye on many things with the Board of Directors as well as with many of the senior mgmt within Income. Many on the BOD are senior PAPies and they agreed that Income should follow many of the practices of the private sector like AIG, Prudential, Great Eastern etc. The minute they got rid of TKL, almost overnight they re-wrote the contracts of 99.99% of Income’s insurance policies to reduce the guaranteed bonus to a miserable 0.7% per annum (the lowest in S’pore’s insurance industry). Worse is that this reduction is applied retro-actively on almost all policies bought previously — that means insurance contracts boh pakei one, insurance company can anyhow change & reduce benefits. Only a couple of very old types of insurance policy maintained their original bonus rate as per their original contract — but these had very few policyholders & were mainly sold to the early pioneer batch of civil servants (many included those retired ministers etc). BTW for a long time already, NTUC Income don’t offer you to buy Income shares even if you buy a very expensive policy. They are keeping the number of total shares fixed, and you need to apply specially for the shares, which you need to wait until got somebody wants to sell back the shares. Of course you’ll have to wait long long becoz nobody will sell back their Income shares that is paying them 6% per annum.

  2. Phillip Ang says:

    Top civil servants must be qualified in rewriting contracts as this is a money spinner for PAP. Rewritten CPF contracts have already earned PAP tens of billion$.

    • sinkie says:

      Haha you are right!! But they will not make mandatory change for certain contracts if the changes strongly affect the VIPs. E.g. HR contracts in the civil service. The top civil servants will psycho & strongly encourage (psychological coercion) the lower levels to sign away their better benefits for lousier ones. But the top civil servants quietly won’t sign & still keep to the old benefits.

      Compare with CPF contract. CPF is chicken feed to the top PAPies and comprise only less than 1% of their total assets. Hence changes to CPF to screw the Sinkies is still beneficial to the top PAPies.

      BTW, NTUC Income no longer calls itself as a cooperative. Instead it calls itself “Social Enterprise”. Same thing for Fairprice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s