Thursday, August 11, 2011

Pivatisation of NTUC Income


The media had recently reported on Mr Tan Kin Lian's comments regarding his departure from NTUC Income. While it is not the policy of NTUC Income to publicly comment on staff matters, an exception has to be made in this instance so as to set the record straight.
In addressing his departure from NTUC Income in September 2006, Mr Tan had reportedly said that he 'fought suggestions (by the Board) that NTUC Income be privatised' and alluded to this as the reason for the Board asking him to leave.  The Board had no intention then and has no intention now to privatise NTUC Income.
Suffice to say, Mr Tan was asked to leave for other reasons. We do not think that it would be appropriate to disclose these reasons in the public domain.

I welcome the statement by the board of NTUC Income that they do not intend to privatise NTUC Income. In my earlier statement, I had said that there were a few occasions during the past 15 years, when this issue was raised and discussed. As to the reason for my departure, NTUC Income had earlier issued a statement that the board wanted "to professionalise" the managment. It is the prerogative of the board to decide on the business strategy of the cooperative and I wish them all the best.


Anonymous said...

income is sick to say this kind of thing regarding TKL when he actually the limits of share ownership of policy holders.

Anonymous said...

The main reason was complaint to the board by insurance agents that he was cutting their commission and many left because of commission. The truth is Mr. Tan KL was helping these salesmen to get business by pulling in business for them, ie cutting the agents' commission to reward the customers. Frankly speaking the agents were having difficulties; they were not qualified and still are not; Mr.Tan was too pro customers. Mr. Tan made a mistake, he didn't know that salesmen were greedy, they didn't know they were not competent although the products were good. If the products were like other companies the agents would have to eat grass because NTUC Income was a household name known for affordability and good value and the products were selling by themselves, no need the don't know die agents.Till today the household name is trusted and that is why so many agents who left the company came crawling back. What does it show? These salesmen need NTUC's name to sell for them and they are not even good as salesmen let alone being financial advisers.
Knowing these facts, the new management exploited their weaknesses. The agents' weakness are 1)they want high commission with incentives 2)they are incompetent 3) they are only good as salesmen .that is why the management conferred on them the sales champion title to make them feel great. I beleive this too.That is what at best they are and NOT the title Financial Consultant which none fits the title.4) throw in lots of incentives to goad them to push products with high commission, a win win strategy for the salesmen and the company.At every training the best news is always told last and that is the commission..
That is what 'to professionalise' means to TSS. Is ntuc more professional , with these changes other than the NEW CLOTHINGS and COLOR and to give their salesmen fierce titles that misrepresent?
Think again. At best it is new packaging with lots of frills and marketing semantics to con the public.Beneath them is an army of salesmen, incompetent in finance but fantastic koyok peddlers.

The Whistle Blower

Anonymous said...

It is not privatized but commercialized and that is bad. What does it mean by 'commercialize'? To behave like the other companies with profit as the goal so that the senior management can be paid 6 to 7 figure salary.And don't forget the board, higher allowances. Don't beleive the 'people before profit' crap. It is a diversion.
If it is still a cooperative why the products are only marginally better than other companies despite so many concessions enjoyed by cooperatives. Why the savings from these concessions not translated into better bonuses and return for policyholders? Where has the money gone to? The answer is the cost has sky rocketed since the new management took over. The expense ratio has gone up but the absolute is more conspicuos.
Are policyholders better off? has deviated from the original objectives.

Anonymous said...

What is Pivatisation?

Hannah Gan said...

How do the whistle blower know the reasons why INCOME ask TKL to leave. Is he a former NTUC Income staff

Anonymous said...

it's good to hear that board of NTUC income do not intend to privatise NTUC Income. this should be kept on record.

Joseph said...

NTUC replied in writing that TKL "was asked to leave for other reasons". The ball is now in TKL court to rebut or clarify what are the other reasons or else it leaves a bad taste in the minds of voters. This is a serious matter concerning the character of EP and cannot be left unanswered.

C H Yak said...

Quote from TODAY :-

"Labour Chief Lim Swee Say says the Singapore economy should stay on course even as the global economy heads for another storm."

"Mr Lim, who's also the Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, stressed that Singapore's drive towards a cheaper, better and faster economy must continue.

"He's confident that Singapore workers can "do it again", in the same way they overcame the economic downturn in 2009.

While Dr TT Tan & DPM Tharman are also warning about the same "storm" ahead ...

Don't forget Dr TT would support a CPF and wage cut ... The NTUC Chief is "confident that Singapore workers can "do it again" ... LOL. But goodness ... would CPF be cut again? I wonder if DPM Tharman's definition of "fairness" is same as what TKL is talking about ...

When TKL left NTUC Income, it was before the Lehman Bros Crisis...certainly the NTUC management would still believe in "professional management then" whther or not it would work ... was NTUC's investment hit by the 2008 crisis just after TKL left? If not, who was the CEO who made the long-term investments before before the crisis. I know they would argue the Board must be smarter than the CEO. I wonder. LOL.

They really know how to cajole! This must be the gist of what this N-Day Rally would be all about.

Better believe in "Voice of the People".

Anonymous said...

1. Should NTUC be "more professional"? (Whatever this means)

2. Should NTUC be "privatized"?

These questions can only be answered within the context of values.

What values does NTUC stand for?
After answering this question, then you answer the questions of "professionalize" and "privatize"

I fully agree with Mr TKL's emphasis on values.

Without values as a moral compass guiding us towards our "true NORTH", we will be lost. Constantly jumping from one management theory to another.

I have no idea how much it cost to change the corporate logo and colours of NTUC INCOME.

But if anybody thinks this will work wonders, then maybe changing our national flag with a few tweaks can:
give us an additional 3% GDP growth;
break-even in our sovereign funds and;
unite all Singaporeans.

Anonymous said...

Hannah Gan,
I was and I am.


Anonymous said...

Does changing the title of their insurance salesmen make them more professional? Do you know they are called financial Consultants, some even have prefix like 'Senior' or Executive' Big deal.!!If changing the titles of these salesmen make them become financial experts in insurance and investment why are they still koyok peddlers?
TSS maybe deaf but surely not blind.
Or is he conned by the baord?

Anonymous said...

Many from the new management team left. They are senior managers like VPs and GMs. Why? they realised they were being used and exploited for those thing s they don't beleive.

Anonymous said...

I think I know the reason for Mr Tan being asked to leave. I recall I was having lunch at a coffeshop near an NTUC Income branch and a group of Income salesmen were also having lunch there. They were talking loudly, cursing and swearing and I heard Mr Tan's name being mentioned. It appeared that they were agitated over something that happened that morning and I heard a middle-aged salesman boasting that he has connections up there and he would see to it that Mr. Tan would get kicked out of Income.
Some months later, I saw in the papers that Mr. Tan has left Income suddenly.

Anonymous said...

The new NTUC Income sucks; their products suck; their salesmen even more suck.
Their customers are suckers.

Anonymous said...

Anon August 13, 2011 5:49 PM,

I agree. The ungrateful salesmen were part of the cause. This gave the board the excuse. The ungrateful ntuc agents forgot that it was an opportunity given By Mr. Tan KL to help them earning a living with products that could sell themselves. Those products were well known household brands with low premium and high return.They forgot that they were not qualified and incompetent even as salesmen let alone financial consultants.They forgot that they could send their children to the U; they could live in condo and landed property, all came from ntuc during Mr. Tan's help.
I know many who left ntuc came crawling between the new management legs realising that they could 'only sell' ntuc products because their clients prefer ntuc.These ingrates thought they were good salesmen or good managers but the naked truth they found they were incompetent and that ntuc products sell by themselves......Unfortunately, consumers still think that under NEW management the products are still as good as the old ones by Mr.TanKL. They are far from the old ones in terms of protection value and return. Worse, the consumers kenna conned by the 'good return advertisment' thinking that these new products will deliver the same value as under TKL and NOT knowing that those return they see are actually from products of old. It is like using TKL's backside skin for thier face.Anyway they are unashamed. They will do and say anything to con , eg like people before profit.Is it true? Rubbish. Just find out from your ntuc agent friends whether there was anything
mentioned that they should put your interest first.None...everything was about how to make you buy.It is as good as saying the agents learn about how to con the consumers, to open their wallets, to exploit their emotion etc and nothing about how to help the customers meet their goals.Surprised?..what you saw in the last few years should convince you that these salesmen disguised as Executive financial consultants are salesmen out to make a sale and high commission out of you.full stop.

The Insider

Anonymous said...

Investment loss is not uncommon in the Cooperative family...For instance, Fairprice suffered losses in the overseas venture, Foodfare also suffered losses in their 'coffee-shop-chain operation' in the late 1990s.

However, if one is able to learn from the mistakes and move on, tomorrow would probably be another good day.

I supposed this theory is applicable to both Temasek Holdings and GIC.

Mr Tan, you always have our support. Between statement given by Income and you, i would take yours.

yujuan said...

Yes, the new NTUC INcome sucks. I've terminated by Living Policy, and my children are considering the same.
The products they peddle now reflect the motive as any other Insurance companies. Why pretend to be a cooperative, go on and privatize it, or make a wholly commercial Entity as the others in the market.
Pretence is a hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

It is getting more cunning. Talk about people before profit but on the sly peddle useless products with high commission and APIs. Give their salesmen titles which mislead and con the concumers.

Blog Archive