He looked familiar.
But I couldn’t tell where I had met him before. He sat, telling me about his divorce, his incarceration, and how he was left with two daughters.
Now, he was out of money.
And he needed help.
I did what I could, and sent him on his way.
Later it occurred to me where I had met him. Primary school. He was on the same course to grow rainbow corn when we were innocent 9 year olds. Now, he had gone through a much different path compared to me.
Often when I think of the elections, I think of this story, because it reminds me of how we aren’t really, masters of our own destiny.
The system shapes our destiny too.
A question arises,
how could two students in the same primary school end up with so different outcomes?
In times like this, it’s easy to blame the ruling government for emphasizing a meritocratic society based on academic success.
It’s not their fault.
Beyond academic results, it’s difficult to find a better proxy for distinguishing competencies. Can a great basketball player be as ‘great’ as a scholar? Other places will tell you,
Yes, in fact the basketball great probably had more to achieve.
But how do you tell a basketballer will become great?
So the government does Direct Schools Admission, to provide for more pluralistic definitions of success.
But systems aren’t remade overnight. And our government has made great efforts to shift the focus away from grades.
But that focus on meritocracy has continued to plague our economic development. In its early days, Singapore grew up on a heady dose of attracting foreign direct investment, making itself attractive as a business hub with cheaper foreign talent. But it now finds itself in a tricky place in a changed world where foreign companies may not be as willing to expand abroad.
Singapore now finds itself struggling to restructure its economy, after realizing that the cheaper, better, faster foreign talent is no longer as politically palatable.
Keeping the ruling party on their toes?
One can argue that without the opposition, the PAP wouldn’t have been kept on its toes, and that it might have pushed through more policies like before.
Like the Income-Allianz deal, which nearly got through… but for the speaking up of Mr Tan Suee Chieh, the ex-CEO of Income.
Ng Chee Meng, the current secretary-general of the NTUC has been noticeably tight-lipped about the affair, until the recent elections, where Tan openly called out NTUC’s inconsistencies by writing open letters on LinkedIn.
I’m sorry …?
Yet one struggles to see the contriteness of Ng, especially in his remarks.
Ng argued that the deal would have strengthened Income, given its declining market share, from 20% to 6%. Yes, Allianz might have a bigger balance sheet, but one struggles to see what Allianz was bringing to the table, given that they had close to no market share in Singapore.
And if the deal was to strengthen Income’s capital resilience, one struggles to see how the $1.85 billion capital extraction would have done so.
He also argues that the deal would have protected Income’s policyholders. Yes, we know the long-tail of insurance. Where your customer pays now, but you, as the insurer, pays out the sum insured 50 years later.
Well, many insurers face this trouble. Some, like Great Eastern (owned by OCBC), have made it a point to beat Prudential and Manulife.
Income’s CEO Andrew Yeo, in his July 2024 Straits Times interview, himself argued that Income had “strong solvency as well as capital adequacy ratio, which are well above regulatory requirements.”
So what was Income afraid of?
Perhaps what they were really afraid of was losing. Because Ng himself acknowledges that Income’s market share fell from 20% to 6%. And if he, as a Board member, could not address the slide, then it might have responsible of him to take responsibility for the slide.
Yet his apology was,
“In NTUC, we will do our best.
And I’m sorry that it is not good enough.”
Forgive me for looking impudent. But I don’t think anyone said he didn’t do well enough.
Instead, the bulk of the frustration comes with the opinion that:
- The public doesn’t understand why you need to sell Income, and your stated argument of increasing Income’s capital resilience does not square with the planned capital extraction.
- Was your capital resilience argument just to get the deal over the line, and neglect the countless members of public who actually know finance?
- Even if your ‘we can’t survive in the future’ argument makes sense, then the question must be asked, “how did you (and your Board) steward Income from market leading to market laggards?”
And instead of saying a perfunctory sorry (and swiftly going onto rhetoric about how you “will learn the right lessons, and we will do better”), perhaps a better apology would have been:
I’m sorry that over the years, we’ve not led Income as well. Its market share has dropped from 20% to 6%.
We, as the Board, take full responsibility. I’m sorry we’ve not done as well as you would have expected of us.
We have to do this deal now because without this deal, Income might not actually even exist in 5 years’ time.
Why success does not repeat itself
Because let’s not forget, this isn’t the first time Income had faced such competition. When Mr Tan Suee Chieh took over Income in February 2007, he also faced such difficulties.
Income was getting cut to pieces by bigger, better, faster competitors, and their market share was declining.
The changing market meant that Income’s market share had dropped in general insurance to 10% in 2007.
Chairman Ng Kee Choe reported in his 2007 Annual Report,
Our market share for life insurance new business was 13.3% in weighted premium, a significant increase from the 10.2% market share in 2006.
Our general insurance market share in 2007 was 10.9%. Our general insurance business amounted to $251 million which reflected a growth of 11%.
Insurance premium revenue for the year was $2.5 billion, an increase of $417.9 million or 20% compared to the previous year.
Suee Chieh started the Cultural and Orange Revolution to change this.
And eventually, he did.
So it begs the question.
If Tan could do it between 2007 to 2013, then why can’t this Income do it?
Or do they truly lack the imagination to remake a great social enterprise, that does good, and does well?
Accountability and trust
What this incident with Income-Allianz reveals is a larger malaise in some politicians.
That some think they know better, and can pull a fast one over an increasingly discerning public.
That some are above reproach, and when questioned, can get away with a perfunctory sorry, that leave people confused about what exactly they are apologizing for.
Please don’t get me wrong.
For the most part, PAP, as the ruling government has been foresighted with its economic policies, and has moved steadily leftwards with a (partial) unemployment insurance policy such as the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance.
But then there are some who leave some with a bad taste, wondering whether this is the best Singapore has to offer.
Some worry that more opposition voices mean a less effective government, with less Ministers.
But I believe healthy competition and accountability, always keeps power in check.
A year ago, I chanced upon that client again. He was zooming away on a scooter with a Grab delivery bag behind, at 11pm at night, with no helmet. I sat, waiting for the bus that would take me to the airport, to another flight to see my business partner in Bangkok.
The contrast couldn’t have been more stark. No one knows if more equitable outcomes could have come about earlier if there was a stronger opposition voice in the 1990s.
What we do know now, is that a greater diversity of voices since 2020’s Elections, holds power to account.
Like MP Jamus did in 2024’s deal, asking whether Allianz would actually inject any capital into Income, or whether it would be allowed to rationalise, or reduce Income’s capital post-acquisition.
In times like this, difficult questions don’t make policies worse.
They make Singapore better.