• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

NTUC Enterprise whack former CEO Tan Suee Chieh liao

Taylorshit

Alfrescian
Loyal
1722788421438.png

SINGAPORE: NTUC Enterprise and Income Insurance on Sunday night (Aug 4) rebutted an open letter by their former CEO Tan Suee Chieh, who raised objections to the Income-Allianz deal.


On Friday, Mr Tan posted on Facebook an open letter to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) chairman Gan Kim Yong asking government regulators to step in. He also criticised several aspects of the deal.

But in raising his objections, he has "cast aspersions on the stakeholders in relation to this proposed transaction", said NTUC Enterprise and Income in a joint statement.


"These aspersions are not well-founded and, indeed, unfair. It is important that we set out the context and full facts accurately," they added.


Germany's Allianz announced on Jul 17 that it was planning to buy a majority stake in Income Insurance for about US$1.6 billion.


It said it would offer S$40.58 per share for a transaction value of S$2.2 billion (US$1.66 billion), for 51 per cent of the shares in Income Insurance.


NTUC Enterprise currently has a 72.8 per cent stake in Income. It will remain a substantial shareholder if the sale goes through.


In a Facebook post on Sunday, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong noted that questions have surfaced recently about the corporatisation of Income in 2022.


This matter was raised previously to the Registry of Co-operative Societies (RCS) under the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY).


"The RCS had then advised all parties that this was a matter for NTUC Income and its members to collectively determine and resolve," wrote Mr Tong.


"What was important was the need to be transparent about the arrangements and to allow Income’s members to decide whether or not to proceed with corporatisation."


The ministry noted that NTUC Income had done so at that time, through consultation with its members at meetings. It provided the necessary disclosures to members and gave ample opportunities for them to seek clarification then.


"Eventually, members voted overwhelmingly in favour of corporatisation," said Mr Tong.


"From a regulatory perspective, therefore, RCS is satisfied that due process was followed in that corporatisation exercise."

The minister said several parliamentary questions have been raised about the proposed deal and that they would be answered when parliament meets later this week.

VALUE OF SHARES


Mr Tan was CEO of NTUC Income from 2007 to 2013, before he became Group CEO of NTUC Enterprise from 2013 to 2017.


In his open letter, Mr Tan raised an "important serious corporate governance issue which needs urgent attention".


He noted that NTUC Enterprise injected S$630 million from NTUC Income from 2015 to 2020 in return for shares at a par value of S$10 per share. It did not pay the true market or economic value of those shares, he added.


"The consequence of those capital injections was that NTUC minority shareholders at the time had their shares diluted," said Mr Tan.


In their joint statement, NTUC Enterprise and Income said co-operative shares are purchased and redeemed at their par value and that they are not equity shares.


In the case of NTUC Income, all institutional and ordinary shareholders enter and exit the co-op at par, which was S$10 per share.


Co-op shares are not traded in the open market and do not hold a "market value".


"The value of the co-operative shares of NTUC Income (was) valued at par (S$10 per share) when its ordinary members infused capital between 1995 and 2004 and also when NTUC Enterprise made its capital injections totalling S$630 million in NTUC Income between 2015 and 2020," said the joint statement.

Prior to the period between 1995 to 2004, when ordinary members infused capital into NTUC Income, NTUC was the majority shareholder of NTUC Income.


"Thus, it is inaccurate for Mr Tan to claim, without proper context, that NTUC Enterprise had obtained shares that were worth more than their par value when it made its capital injections in NTUC Income," they said.


In his open letter, Mr Tan also said that with NTUC Enterprise's increased shareholding in NTUC Income, it would have "greater moral authority to prevent mission drift by the social enterprise".


He also noted NTUC Enterprise's commitment "not to redeem the shares in perpetuity" and that this assurance helped NTUC Enterprise increase its shareholding in NTUC Income to 70 per cent.


But in their joint statement, NTUC Enterprise and Income said this claim is "erroneous".


"Against the backdrop of greater demand for capitalisation, NTUC Enterprise issued a letter of responsibility to the MAS in 2012 (at a time when Mr Tan was NTUC Income’s CEO), indicating that it would ensure that NTUC Income always maintained a sound liquidity and financial position by supporting the co-operative’s present and future obligations and liabilities, including any liquidity shortfall," they said.


"NTUC Enterprise also offered not to redeem its shares via a letter of undertaking to the authorities to provide an expedient solution to have NTUC Enterprise’s capital contribution recognised as capital (instead of liability) that counted towards NTUC Income’s capital adequacy and solvency position."


Based on the extract from the minutes of NTUC Income's board meeting on Nov 21, 2014, at which Mr Tan was present, it stated that NTUC Enterprise is willing to "give an undertaking not to redeem the shares for at least 10 years".


This makes it clear that NTUC Enterprise's commitment was not for an indefinite period, said the joint statement.

More at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...t-statement-former-ceo-tan-suee-chieh-4525766
 

laksaboy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Bet those SPH/CNA/Mothershit presstitutes will not give coverage to this. :wink:




The state has been captured by the elites and big business.

The issue of the proposed sale of NTUC Income to Allianz is not so much the stripping off of the nation’s assets, but rather, that some elites and big business are benefiting unethically from the sale.

I have no issue with the proposed sale per se. With the financial muscle and expertise of Allianz, Income can probably scale greater heights.

Besides, NTUC, being closely linked to the government, should not be running a business. There is no greater conflict of interest than the government setting the rules on how business should be run and itself partaking in business.

Perhaps, there may have been a case for Income as a co-operative in the early days of our founding when there was no viable insurance for workers, but those days have long gone. Income has become just another profit maximizing business. Its policies are not, and have not been for a long time, the most affordable in the market.

Ideally, all businesses should be competing freely, without undue protection from the state or engaging in anti-competitive monopolistic behaviors.

The stink of the proposed sale, however, is that NTUC, and some elites, seeing immense value in Income if it were eventually corporatized and sold to the highest bidder, rushed in to grab shares at par, before the sale.

As it is, NTUC Enterprise, a holding company that buy shares in other businesses for the purpose of control, bought $630m worth of Income shares at par, i.e., $10 a share between 2015 and 2020, which was cleverly reported as "injecting capital" despite Income not being financially distressed. With Allianz offering $40.58 per share, that $630m has now ballooned to $2.56 billion.

Bear in mind that between 2015 and 2020, members of the public would have found it next to impossible to buy any Income share. NTUC Enterprise was able to because it promised not to sell the shares and thus profit from it, and that it was doing so to inject capital, and more pertinently, it being the majority shareholder with the purchase, will ensure that Income will not drift away from its social mission.

When Income was corporatized in 2022, Mr Tan Suee Chieh, Income’s CEO from 2007 to 2013, smelling a rat, wrote to Income for assurance that NTUC Enterprise would not sell its share in Income as promised. He, as well as the public, were duly assured that no such thing would happen. And yet, barely 2 years later, Allianz announced it would buy at least 51% of Income.

Given the events, it is hard not to believe that NTUC Enterprise had an inkling that it would sell its shares of Income eventually to reap a windfall, rendering its promises otherwise, extremely unethical, on par, if not exceeding, the stink of insider trading.

MAS now has to approve the sale. If it approves, it has to explain how NTUC Enterprise had bought the shares of Income in good faith but that circumstances has forced it to sell its share. It cannot sweep it under the carpet and still approve the sale because it will reinforce the notion that the elites and big business have indeed captured the state, further eroding trust in institutions and the government.

(Attached photos from Mr Tan Suee Chieh and The Online Citizen’s posts).
 
Top