SINGAPORE: The Workers’ Party (WP) should have raised its questions about the proposed deal between Income Insurance and German insurer Allianz when it was discussed in parliament last year, but it did not, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong said on Tuesday (Apr 29).
The aborted deal became an election campaign issue when WP chief Pritam Singh said last week that not a single labour MP had raised the matter in parliament.
In its rally on Monday, the WP once again raised the issue, pointing to Mr Gan's role as chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) board of directors. MAS, as the financial regulator, would have had to approve the deal.
Mr Gan said on Tuesday that he was “surprised” that the opposition party reiterated their questions on the subject in its rally the day before, adding that the WP had its chance to do so and seek answers on the matter last year.
“I would have taken that they understood the issue, they accepted the issue,” said Mr Gan, who spoke to reporters in Punggol, where he is leading a four-member People's Action Party (PAP) in the contest against a WP team.
The proposed deal, which was announced last July, was first discussed in parliament on Aug 6 last year, with questions to two political office holders filed by five People’s Action Party MPs, one WP MP, one Non-constituency MP and a Nominated MP.
The WP had eight MPs in parliament at the time.
“We talked about the deal, and that was the time when we said that we had a relatively positive attitude towards the deal. We want to support the deal, because it will help Income. But when more details were furnished, we decided to have to stop the deal,” said Mr Gan.
After the deal was blocked, parliament again discussed it on Oct 16 during the debate on the Insurance (Amendment) Bill, which was tabled to allow the government to block the acquisition. The debate lasted close to four hours and involved nearly 20 MPs from both sides of the House.
The Bill was eventually passed with seven abstentions from the WP.
Mr Gan told reporters he found it strange that the WP never raised their concerns in parliament last year when they had the chance to.
“It is strange, because if they have such concerns, they ought to have raised them in parliament. They had opportunities to raise it in parliament, and whatever questions they have raised, the parliament will address them. If they are not happy with the answer, they could raise the questions again, even in subsequent parliament sittings,” he said.
“They have done none of this.”
Mr Gan said the WP objected to the Insurance (Amendment) Bill because, as Ms He Ting Ru had explained, it was seen as retrospective. He hence explained to Ms He after the sitting that the deal had not been approved in the first place, as he thought she did not understand.
“Perhaps then, did they raise such issues, and if they did, were they not happy with the answer? If they were not happy with the answer, did they not raise it further? Or if they cannot raise these questions before, why did they not? I think these are the questions probably only the Workers’ Party can answer,” said Mr Gan.
Mr Gan has been MAS chairman since May 15 last year.
He said that the deal was subject to MAS approval, and when an open letter was written by former NTUC Income chief Tan Suee Chieh to MAS and several Cabinet ministers, Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam engaged with Mr Tan on behalf of the government, then shared his concerns with the Cabinet.
The deal was subject to MAS’ regulatory green light and had to be approved under the Insurance Act as well.
“In assessing and evaluating any applications of that nature, MAS will have to consider prudential practice to make sure that the transaction will continue to be viable and feasible, to continue to protect the interests of the insurance policy holders, to make sure that the company will continue to remain liquid, something that is part and parcel of MAS’ work in assessing such applications,” said Mr Gan.
When the deal first surfaced, the government and relevant agencies all took “a positive approach” into parliament, on the basis that Income needed the deal to strengthen its capital base to move forward, said Mr Gan.
When more details later surfaced, the government had concerns over how a new entity could fulfil Income's social mission under assurances provided to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth.
“Therefore, the two agencies came together to discuss how do we square both sides’ obligations, and then we presented the case to the Cabinet. The Cabinet discussed and decided that, given the conflicting interests both from the insurance point of view as well as from a social mission point of view, the deal could not go through. It has to be blocked,” said Mr Gan.
As such, the decision was made to amend the Insurance Act to give MAS the legal basis to block the Income-Allianz deal.
“We had a full debate on both parliament sittings, and even after the parliament sittings, MPs were at liberty to raise further parliamentary questions on this deal, if so, if necessary. I think there was ample opportunity for MPs to raise questions, and the debate was very comprehensive, quite a long debate, with many MPs raising questions, and we answered all the questions,” said Mr Gan.
“So I think the whole process was transparent and upfront, and we had opportunities for MPs to ask questions on all aspects of the deal, and I think we had settled the details there. And once the details were settled, we passed the Bill, and for reasons that the Workers’ Party have explained in parliament, they decided to abstain from the voting.”
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also said that while the WP talked about the Income-Allianz deal in its rally the evening before, it was ultimately the government that stopped the deal, with MAS, chaired by his deputy Mr Gan, which proposed new legislation that enabled the government to stop the deal.
While ex-NTUC Income chief Tan Suee Chieh credited him and the government for the move, Mr Wong said “Actually he shouldn’t be crediting me”.
“He should be crediting Gan Kim Yong and MAS, because they amended the Insurance Act, in order that we have the legislative put a stop to the deal,” he said.
“So we are the ones who stopped the deal. We are the ones who ensured it didn't happen. And we had a full debate in parliament on this, explaining the circumstances, explaining why we had to do what we did.”
Continue reading...
The aborted deal became an election campaign issue when WP chief Pritam Singh said last week that not a single labour MP had raised the matter in parliament.
In its rally on Monday, the WP once again raised the issue, pointing to Mr Gan's role as chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) board of directors. MAS, as the financial regulator, would have had to approve the deal.
Mr Gan said on Tuesday that he was “surprised” that the opposition party reiterated their questions on the subject in its rally the day before, adding that the WP had its chance to do so and seek answers on the matter last year.
“I would have taken that they understood the issue, they accepted the issue,” said Mr Gan, who spoke to reporters in Punggol, where he is leading a four-member People's Action Party (PAP) in the contest against a WP team.
The proposed deal, which was announced last July, was first discussed in parliament on Aug 6 last year, with questions to two political office holders filed by five People’s Action Party MPs, one WP MP, one Non-constituency MP and a Nominated MP.
The WP had eight MPs in parliament at the time.
“We talked about the deal, and that was the time when we said that we had a relatively positive attitude towards the deal. We want to support the deal, because it will help Income. But when more details were furnished, we decided to have to stop the deal,” said Mr Gan.
After the deal was blocked, parliament again discussed it on Oct 16 during the debate on the Insurance (Amendment) Bill, which was tabled to allow the government to block the acquisition. The debate lasted close to four hours and involved nearly 20 MPs from both sides of the House.
The Bill was eventually passed with seven abstentions from the WP.
Related:
OPPORTUNITIES TO RAISE IT IN PARLIAMENT
Mr Gan told reporters he found it strange that the WP never raised their concerns in parliament last year when they had the chance to.
“It is strange, because if they have such concerns, they ought to have raised them in parliament. They had opportunities to raise it in parliament, and whatever questions they have raised, the parliament will address them. If they are not happy with the answer, they could raise the questions again, even in subsequent parliament sittings,” he said.
“They have done none of this.”
Mr Gan said the WP objected to the Insurance (Amendment) Bill because, as Ms He Ting Ru had explained, it was seen as retrospective. He hence explained to Ms He after the sitting that the deal had not been approved in the first place, as he thought she did not understand.
“Perhaps then, did they raise such issues, and if they did, were they not happy with the answer? If they were not happy with the answer, did they not raise it further? Or if they cannot raise these questions before, why did they not? I think these are the questions probably only the Workers’ Party can answer,” said Mr Gan.
Mr Gan has been MAS chairman since May 15 last year.
He said that the deal was subject to MAS approval, and when an open letter was written by former NTUC Income chief Tan Suee Chieh to MAS and several Cabinet ministers, Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam engaged with Mr Tan on behalf of the government, then shared his concerns with the Cabinet.
The deal was subject to MAS’ regulatory green light and had to be approved under the Insurance Act as well.
“In assessing and evaluating any applications of that nature, MAS will have to consider prudential practice to make sure that the transaction will continue to be viable and feasible, to continue to protect the interests of the insurance policy holders, to make sure that the company will continue to remain liquid, something that is part and parcel of MAS’ work in assessing such applications,” said Mr Gan.
When the deal first surfaced, the government and relevant agencies all took “a positive approach” into parliament, on the basis that Income needed the deal to strengthen its capital base to move forward, said Mr Gan.
Related:
DEAL HAD TO BE BLOCKED WITH LEGAL BASIS
When more details later surfaced, the government had concerns over how a new entity could fulfil Income's social mission under assurances provided to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth.
“Therefore, the two agencies came together to discuss how do we square both sides’ obligations, and then we presented the case to the Cabinet. The Cabinet discussed and decided that, given the conflicting interests both from the insurance point of view as well as from a social mission point of view, the deal could not go through. It has to be blocked,” said Mr Gan.
As such, the decision was made to amend the Insurance Act to give MAS the legal basis to block the Income-Allianz deal.
“We had a full debate on both parliament sittings, and even after the parliament sittings, MPs were at liberty to raise further parliamentary questions on this deal, if so, if necessary. I think there was ample opportunity for MPs to raise questions, and the debate was very comprehensive, quite a long debate, with many MPs raising questions, and we answered all the questions,” said Mr Gan.
“So I think the whole process was transparent and upfront, and we had opportunities for MPs to ask questions on all aspects of the deal, and I think we had settled the details there. And once the details were settled, we passed the Bill, and for reasons that the Workers’ Party have explained in parliament, they decided to abstain from the voting.”
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also said that while the WP talked about the Income-Allianz deal in its rally the evening before, it was ultimately the government that stopped the deal, with MAS, chaired by his deputy Mr Gan, which proposed new legislation that enabled the government to stop the deal.
While ex-NTUC Income chief Tan Suee Chieh credited him and the government for the move, Mr Wong said “Actually he shouldn’t be crediting me”.
“He should be crediting Gan Kim Yong and MAS, because they amended the Insurance Act, in order that we have the legislative put a stop to the deal,” he said.
“So we are the ones who stopped the deal. We are the ones who ensured it didn't happen. And we had a full debate in parliament on this, explaining the circumstances, explaining why we had to do what we did.”
Related:
Continue reading...