- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 18,719
- Points
- 0
We have to put the insurance issue into perspective. TKL ran NTUC Income on the ideals founded by GKS, i.e. insurance for the lower income group who're not prospecting targets for commerical agents interested in bigger policies and bigger premiums. If you check out the premium rates and bonus returns from the 1997 to 2007, no other company can beat NTUC Income under TKL. It wasn't a monopoly to army camps or civil service departments, all other insurance companies can arrange talks there too, but they wouldn't, because no point wasting marketing resources fight such cheaper policies. They'd rather charge higher premiums and payout lower bonuses in order to pay agents much higher commissions in open market where policy buyers lack thorough figures to compare. It's allowed too, since the government must allow commercial insurance companies and agents to remain profitable, part and parcel of running an economy. NTUC Income role as a co-operative was to prevent higher commercial premiums from getting too high. TKL was unceremoniously booted out since the government apparently doesn't believe in that anymore. Free market, any price goes, You pay, your business. You overpay, business. You die, your business.
Please don't give the impression that he resigned or retired or that his views were contrary to that of the Govt while he was in NTUC. He only resigned from PAP after being kicked out from NTUC and after a while. TKL did not resign he was booted out. He never ever made any comments expect constantly ask Teo and Goh why he is not an MP.
He got booted out because he could not grow the market outside the govt protected turf. It was the same with DBS.
He wasn't made an MP because of LKY disliking him, not GCT. You're right and in fact agreed with me. He adamantly refused to over-commercialise NTUC premium rates and thereby commission scales to expand the sales turfs, more than half the agents revolted, that's why he was booted out, technically by LSS whom he had heated arguments over with. There's no absolute right or wrong here, just facts versus opinions. Why wouldn't he take the easy way by agreeing to pursue full commercialisation instead of co-operative business principles? Who benefits and who loses?
You're criticising him for exactly the opposite things you're criticising PAP about - profits and profits without care for people in the markets. When he abided by the principles, you damn him for failing to grow the markets.