Recently, NTUC Income made the news again, they lost a court case against a customer (who has not lived to see justice done to him) (1). However, the secretary general of the Union himself, Mr Ng Chee Meng, has had to issue a statement regarding the case.
Some background
When you buy insurance, you are getting into a contract with the insurer. A
simplified view of the process and responsibilities is as follows:
1 you have to be truthful when answering the questions of the
insurer/agent/broker. This is because, based on the answers you give the amount
of risk the insurer estimates it would be taking is calculated. Then based on
the risk, the insurer will decide whether to agree to the contract, and if yes,
what premium you have to pay to have the insurer cover you.
An example will make things easier. Say you want the insurer to pay a certain
sum to your family in case you die within a number of years; in the event your
death within that period, the insurer will pay the agreed sum, alleviating the
financial burden to your family. Among the questions you are likely to face are
about your habits, for example whether you smoke and how much. All things
equal, regular smokers have higher risk of death than non-smokers. So if you
smoke a pack a day compared to someone who doesn't smoke, then chances of you
dying within a period are higher, hence the insurer would bear higher risk with
you, and likely as for higher premium.
So if you lie, technically, the contract may be invalidated, and often the
insurer would at most just return the premium paid minus costs.
2 once the answers are obtained, a bunch of people called underwriters will
look at the information, and based on this calculate the appropriate premium,
or even recommend to decline if the risks are beyond an acceptable limit
usually set by the company.
3 usually, once you "sign on the dotted line", you are covered by the
insurer even if the paperwork has not been issued. There have been claims made
before the actual insurance contract has been issued. For example, I used to
buy travel insurance at the airport, and receive the policy after my trip is
completed.
4 if the event you have insured against occurs, then you file a claim,
basically telling the insurer, hey, this has happened, can you please
compensate me as per the insurance contract. The majority of cases of dispute
happen when a claim is made. Obviously, if there is no claim and premiums are
paid on time, there is no reason for the insurer to check on the policy, they
are making money. But if a claim is made, that's when a different team will
take over.
5 the claims process can vary widely across different insurers. Usually, cases
where the quantum to be paid out is large enough, or there is some suspicion of
fraudulent or extra risky behaviour on the part of the insured go in front of
the claims committee.
A few years ago in Singapore, it was widely known that a certain 3 letter
insurer would pay for car accidents very quickly, even if the amount was
non-trivial. In exchange they charged higher premiums.
This was a matter of policy for the insurer, and people who valued quick
payment would go for them.
This is the key; these decisions are driven by policy.
Senior management of the insurer made the decision.
In one of my roles, we worked to automate the motor vehicle insurance claims
process. Part of the automation was to choose different processes for different
claims, based mainly on the size of the claim and some indicators on the
claimant. The key here is that the thresholds and the conditions for differed
processing were decided by senior management/ownership.
Actually, the same is done for underwriting, this is important for insurers who
want to differentiated by speed felt by the customer.
In sum, I reiterate, how an insurer deals with claims (and customer
relationships as a whole) is a matter of strategy and policy; it is not a fixed
thing. The way Income deals with claimants is a deliberate senior management
choice.
Now let's look at the case that brought the way Income dealt with a customer to
the fore and the reason Brother Ng had to apologise and promise to do better
again.
The case (2)
Mr Ko Wah, then 78 was knocked down and rendered bedridden by a van in a
basement car park in 2019. The van was insured by Income. The son of Mr Ko Wah
sued the driver and owner of the van in 2021. Income assumed the defence as the
insurer and contested the charges.
Mr Ko Wah died in 2024 before the quantum of damages was decided.
A little collection of words the judge used to characterise the behaviour
of Income is enlightening:
"Wholly unreasonable behaviour"
"Unfounded objections"
"Impersonal stonewalling"
"Callous and meritless" objections
"Remarkably thin" arguments
Some examples of the behaviour:
Refusing to pay expenses covered by Medishield (the claimant's own medical
insurance) despite precedent clearly allowing it
Refusing to pay for ambulance services in transporting Mr Ko Wah
And to me the most horrible,
Claiming there was no need to compensate for pain and suffering since the
victim was in coma.
While you can argue that lawyers were overzealous, their strategy and behaviour
is discussed with and agreed by the client, here Income. The lawyer could not
have taken such an approach without Income’s instructions.
Again I reiterate, the behaviour that made Deputy Registrar Kim Bum Soo who
expressed "the court's unmixed dissatisfaction with the manner in which
NTUC Income has conducted itself" is the result of a deliberate policy
choice on the part of Income.
Hence Mr Ng Chee Meng, Secretary General of NTUC, the majority shareholder of
NTUC Income apologising.
Note that Mr Ng is not on the board of directors of NTUC Income (3) and
obviously neither would he be involved in any executive function.
In fact, it is NTUC enterprise that is the arm of the union that owns the
portfolio. Mr Ng Chee Meng, as secretary general of NTUC is a member of the
board of NTUC Enterprise whose chairman is Mr Lim Boon Heng, previously
minister in prime minister's office.
The apology (4)(5)
Mr Ng explained the NTUC held itself to "a high standard of fairness,
integrity and compassion" on his personal Facebook page while highlighting
that NTUC plays no role in the day to day commercial decisions of entities such
as NTUC Income.
In fact, this is not the 1st time Mr Ng has been forced to apologise for
something Income has done or not done.
In the case of the proposed sale of majority share of Income to Allianz (6),
after the debacle, Mr Ng Chee Meng apologised and promised to "do better"
(7).
In retrospect, given the fact that NTUC Enterprise was willing to sell NTUC
Income and NTUC Income defended its social compact would be protected within
the sale, it should not be surprising that the behaviour of NTUC Income
represents the worse of vulture capitalist behaviour.
In sum
In my view, the senior management of NTUC Income is wholly responsible for the
strategic behaviour, as shown by the "unmixed dissatisfaction" felt
by the court. I really wonder how serious NTUC Enterprise is in promoting values
of NTUC (the union) to its entities given the insurer NTUC Income consistently
falling short of the standards of "fairness, integrity and
compassion". The same management team is in charge of NTUC income since
the Allianz debacle.
While the buck has to stop somewhere, especially as close to the top as
possible, it is not reasonable for the head of a shareholder organisation to
take the hit for the executive, again. But if he feels that he has been unable
to fulfil his role to hold NTUC Income to the high standards of NTUC, then he
will no doubt do the honourable thing.
In normal circumstances, I would expect the executives of
NTUC Income to pay the price for their successive decisions that have splattered
some mud on the image of the once proud NTUC Income.
Mr Ng was a career military man, having brought his discipline even as Minister
for Education, towards teachers (8) enforcing respect such as
standing when the minister is speaking, should feel let down or unable to
uphold his standards.
He made the wise decision of pre-emptively refusing any cabinet appointment.
This was partly due to the hoo-hah over the dinner Mr Ng had with people,
including Mr Su Haijin (10), someone who was afterwards convicted of being art
of a very large money laundering operation in Singapore (11).
May be it is time for Mr Ng to break away from the cycle and existing advice
circle and focus on his role as member of parliament if he chooses not to stand
for election again in a role where his standards have not been followed, as
Secretary General of NTUC, and focus on serving Jalan Kayu residents who, I am
sure, would be glad of his personal undivided attention. His current efforts
are like the Sengkang line (12) or the giant umbrellas at the cross-walk to
shade residents from the harsh sun (13).
- https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2025_SGDC_150
- https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/court-awards-over-417k-accident-claim-lashes-ntuc-income-wholly-unreasonable-conduct
- https://www.income.com.sg/about-us/corporate-information/board-of-directors
- https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/ng-chee-meng-ntuc-income-insurance-court-rebuke-suit-accident-victim
- https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1358635528955948&id=100044285416860
- http://thegatesofbabylon.blogspot.com/2024/09/changes-in-landscape-of-insurance.html?m=0
- https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/income-allianz-deal-made-in-good-faith-ntuc-will-do-better-ng-chee-meng
- https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/1kc3f78/exmoe_teacher_shares_past_experience_with/
- https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2025/05/06/ng-chee-meng-apologises-after-online-criticism-and-controversy-declines-cabinet-appointment/
- https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/ng-chee-meng-fujian-gang-su-haijin-photo-5111076
- https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/3b-money-laundering-case-man-who-jumped-off-bukit-timah-bungalow-balcony-during-raid-convicted
- https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/new-mrt-lines-tengah-seletar-transport-4977621#:~:text=Three%20new%20stations%20as%20part,stages%20in%202028%20and%202029.
- https://mustsharenews.com/ng-chee-meng-umbrellas/
(13)
No comments:
Post a Comment