The uproar over the sale of Income Insurance to Allianz is about more than just poor communication. It reflects a deeper lack of understanding of public concerns, writes former veteran editor Han Fook Kwang.
SINGAPORE: The widespread public reaction to the sale of Income Insurance to German financial giant Allianz highlights critical lessons about public sentiment and the challenges of communicating transformative changes. The controversy raises four key issues worth unpacking:
1. A Betrayal of Founding Values?
The sale has been perceived by many as a departure from the original vision of Income, established in 1970 by the late Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee. As a co-operative, it aimed to provide affordable insurance for low-income workers while modernizing the labour movement.
Dr. Goh’s foresight led to the creation of several co-operatives, including Income, Comfort (now ComfortDelGro), and NTUC FairPrice. These entities were not only designed to meet urgent societal needs but also to keep the labour movement relevant and impactful.
While corporatising Income in 2022 to better compete in a globalized insurance market was arguably necessary, selling a majority stake to a foreign company has struck many as a step too far. It raises concerns about whether the original mission of serving ordinary Singaporeans will endure under new ownership.
2. Responsibility to Long-Term Customers
Income is more than just an insurer. Like POSB, NTUC FairPrice, and Singapore Airlines, it grew alongside the nation and became a trusted institution for millions of Singaporeans. For many, Income represents an enduring social contract forged during Singapore’s formative years.
For instance, initiatives like ElderShield entrusted Income with delivering critical support for Singapore’s aging population. Such history fosters high expectations for the company to uphold its original mission, regardless of ownership changes.
This sentiment isn’t about clinging to the past but about celebrating institutions that resonate deeply with Singapore’s identity. Maintaining this connection strengthens public trust and pride in the country’s achievements.
3. Sale to a Foreign Company Stokes Concerns
The decision to sell to Allianz, a foreign entity, has been the most contentious issue. Many Singaporeans question why a domestic buyer wasn’t considered, especially given Income’s strong financial health.
Even if Allianz’s resources can enhance Income’s competitiveness, public trust hinges on whether the sale aligns with Income’s original social mission. Comparisons to other national icons like DBS or Singtel prompt the question: Should Singapore’s cornerstone institutions be sold off, even if the financial rationale is sound?
A Singaporean buyer might have allayed fears about fundamental changes to Income’s mission. Now, a binding commitment to maintaining the affordability and accessibility of its services will be crucial.
4. Lessons in Communicating Major Changes
The controversy underscores the need for a robust communication strategy when introducing significant changes to a beloved institution. Both NTUC Enterprise and Income missed opportunities to engage stakeholders and address public concerns.
Rather than consulting stakeholders or explaining the challenges driving these decisions, the sale was presented as a fait accompli. This lack of transparency alienated the very people who had supported the organization for decades.
The 2022 corporatisation announcement followed a similar pattern, with minimal public discourse. When questioned in Parliament, the government’s brief response failed to clarify how the move would preserve Income’s social mission.
A Broader Disconnect with Public Sentiment
The government has faced collateral backlash due to its close association with the labour movement and NTUC Enterprise. While the sale of Income may seem like a purely corporate matter, it taps into deeper concerns about safeguarding Singapore’s social fabric.
More than a lesson in better communication, this saga reveals a worrying disconnect with public sentiment—a gap that no amount of financial resources or corporate restructuring can easily bridge.
