Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Complaint to the regulator

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Complaint to the regulator

A friend asked me for the reason why I decided to set aside the Collective Protest. He said that there was a rumour that I was threatened by Mr. Lim Boon Heng and Mr. Matthias Yao.

I replied that the main reason for my action was the assurance that I have received from Mr. Lim and Mr. Yao on fair treatment of policyholders. This was subsequently stated by Mr. Ng Kee Choe in his address in his address to the Annual General Meeting.

The first two assurances relate to the restructuring of the bonus. I felt that the assurance was adequate in ensuring that policyholders would not be placed in a worse off position. The third assurance, which I asked for, was more important - that "policyholders will receive bonuses that reflect the actual experience".

I have subsequently pointed out to Mr. Lim and Mr. Matthias Yao that the bonuses declared were too low, and did not reflect the actual experience. Mr. Ken Ng (the chief actuary) replied to me that this will be adjusted in 2009 and later years.

I pointed out to Mr. Ken Ng that policies maturing in 2008 would be receiving a maturity value that was far less than the "actual experience". This would be unfair to the policyholders. I quoted the specific case of the Growth policy taken by my wife. I asked for this matter to be reviewed to give a fair payout on the policies that are maturing this year.

After two weeks, I have not received a satisfactory reply from NTUC Income. I intend to lodge a complaint on this matter with the regulator. I am quite disappointed that, after receiving the assurance that the bonuses will reflect the actual exprience, nothing is being done for the policyholders of the maturing policyholders.

I have two policies affecting by the bonus restructuring. The bonuses declared in the past and the cash values are significantly less than the values that reflect "the actual experience". As these policies will not be maturing this year, I am prepared to wait for one or two more years for the bonuses and cash values to be adjusted to reflect "the actual experience". So far, I have not received any indication that this will be done.

7 comments:

zhummmeng said...: It is time the regulator wake up. This is only the tip of the iceberge. If the regulator continues to sweep under the carpet and pretends the matter is isolated they will be in for a big shock. Consumers will lose confidence and distrust the financial
institutions.
The IndyMAC bank is a good example of little regulation. Fannie and Freddie will soon come under the microscope. I am not surprised a lot of hanky panky will be uncovered.
I think consumers should 'take the law into their own hand' and form an association to deal with insurers and the unethical insurance agents.
We need the people's power and number is power. We can take class actions against ntuc and the agents
for breaching the contract and misrepresentation.
Waiting for them, MAS and the insurers to take action? TKK, my firends; July 13, 2008 3:14 PM
Falcon said...: So can we start a new collective protest on this? I too have two policies maturing this year and so will miss out on any "actual experience". The fact that policies maturing this year have been left out is reason enough for a lawsuit since it has been promised that it should be met. I am prepared to pay 10% or up to $2,000 for a collective lawsuit headed by Mr. Tan for this. I have enough of waiting for NTUC Income to get their priorities right. If I am not mistaken, they have just spent half a million dollars on sending out that letter by their cEO to trust him. I do not trust him one bit and he should stop wasting our money for his own image. It is not working. If he had used the money to pay policyholders their rightful share of their investments then I will have more respect for him. Respect must be earned and he has not earned any. In fact, he has withered away our trust in the last one and a half years and still talking cheap to ask us for more! enough is enough.; July 13, 2008 4:50 PM
David said...: I think the regulators in Singapore, whatever their shortcomings, know what they are doing or what really matters. So if the people feel not enough is being done about certain things despite feedback, it means these things do not really matter as much to the regulator as the people want it to be. But I still believe in the MAS, Singapore banks and Sing dollar. The IndyMac thing won't happen here because that will be a deadly economic matter for tiny Singapore, unlike giant USA.
Life may be tougher but not to worry so much because worry also no use, right?; July 13, 2008 6:19 PM
Falcon said...: We are not worrying. Income should be the one worrying. We are calling for action. What makes David thinks we are worrying? So what if David believes in MAS. Many people believe in spirits, tree-god, mediums etc. Many people also did not believe that IndyMac can go under. Our government also did not believe that Citibank can go below what they paid for it. So what? There are three types of people in this world, those who make things happen, those who wait for things to happen and those who do not know what is happening because they believe all is well, typical frogs in the well.
So I repeat, we are not worried, we just want some action to ensure that we policyholders are not short-changed. We want to take action to protect our interests and not wait until Income collapses. We certainly know what is happening and are taking steps to safeguard policyholders interests.; July 13, 2008 9:35 PM
zhummmeng said...: NTUc's open letter to 310000 policyholders has nothing new to offer. It is the same old broken record playing the 'jelak' tune.
It is assurance and assurance but we want see our money fast.If NTUC is not profit oreinted then is it insurance agents' pocket oriented?
How can NTUC say it is a social enterprise when the products are NOT suitable for the man in the street? Is revosave suitable for the 'apek, aunties and old women at fast food outlets? Why these people are dumped with this product? It is going to kill them in the long run.
Is revosave suitable for others, encouraging them to save? No!!!There are better products in NTUC too, i am sure..
Come on, you are outdated and sleeping. You only know how to con the ordinary man in the street with an army of trained liars and product pushers. The poor ignorant consumers are being dumped. I remember when PRU launched the prucash NTUC agents condemned the product as shit and telling us not to touch this PRu cash , running down the product as conned worthless scam. Now these same agents are telling and singing a different tune. What shameless and despicable greedy liars they are. You can see the conspiracy between them,.Money or commission works wonder, right? So you see, how can the product benefit the man in the street. It is a big bullshit
We want an option. The new reshaped
is not suitable for us. We have no trust and confidence in NTUC anymore.; July 14, 2008 1:58 PM
Khiat Han Hwee Adrian said...: Why not start a collective protest against all insurance companies in Singapore with MAS? Why only NTUC Income?

TM Asialife average returns around 10%, Manulife around 8%. Their policy yields should all give near that rate too. Why are they still projecting at 5.25%? They seems to be cheating us.; July 16, 2008 1:47 AM
zhummmeng said...: Why? because we all are NTUC policyholders and we are disgusted that our money is snatched right out below our nose just because some smart aleks want to be like others. These smart aleks are still relying on some old outdated British actuary textbooks.; July 16, 2008 12:40 PM