In their criticism of the handling of the Income-Allianz deal, Monetary Authority of Singapore ( MAS ) deputy chairman Chee Hong Tat accused opposition lawmakers Associate Professor Jamus Lim and Mr. Leong Mun Wai of trying to” throw our public officers under the bus” during the parliamentary debate on the insurance ( Amendment ) Bill on October 16.
Mr. Chee, who also serves as the second minister for banking and as the transport minister, requested that Mr. Leong and Assoc. Prof. Lim of the Workers ‘ Party retract their statements.
Assoc Prof Lim highlights” contact break” exposing deficiencies in Govt’s data sharing
Earlier, Assoc Prof Lim had described the show as a” contact break” that probably exposed” disturbing disorders” in the way the federal shares info internally and with the public.
He questioned whether MAS officials had the opportunity to conduct a “holistic assessment” of the acquisition in the short amount of time available since mid-July, and why the connection between the proposed deal and the Section 88 exemption had n’t been made public sooner.
” I wonder if it’s only me that I find it troubling that there was n’t a coordinated discussion between the two main, important regulators, MAS and MCCY, prior to the proposed deal,” he said.
Assoc Prof. Lim also questioned whether the civil service is” therefore siloed” that no joint working group was created to maintain adequate knowledge exchange prior to events when even for matters of significant importance.
LMW criticises Allianz-Income offer as” an asset-stripping training” favouring big owners
Similar problems were echoed by Mr. Leong, who stated that” the government has been left with the impression that our government agencies are fragmented, and cooperation within the state is bad.”
” Or to put it simply, the left hand does certainly know what the right side is doing”.
He argued that the suggested deal’s cash reduction program” may have sounded alarm bells at MAS.”
While we trust that MAS officers are very professional and have examined the transaction thoroughly from a regulatory perspective, the minister could further explain why MAS does not have any additional regulatory concerns, especially given NTUC Enterprise’s history of having to add money to earnings over the years?
Mr Leong more described the Income-Allianz offer as” an asset-stripping training that favours the owners, especially NTUC Enterprise and Allianz”.
Mr. Chee accuses opposition Members of making major complaints against police officers.
Mr. Chee claimed in his final statement that Assoc Prof. Lim and Mr. Leong had made” major allegations” against public officers and organizations before the amendment was passed.
Why do Mr. Leong and Associate Professor Lim need to continue to call on the authorities to remove our common soldiers? he asked.
Mr. Chee explained that MAS officers were originally unaware of the obligations and terms governing Income’s Part 88 deduction.
It was only after the 6 August political debate on the suggested package that officials, with a “fuller knowledge” of the condition, realised there could be a connection.
He expressed wish that the two opposition politicians will offer MAS soldiers” some record.”
” They were certainly trying to do something wrong, or as Professor Lim mentioned, to lead to many failures of connections or to operate in a fragmented way”, said the chancellor.
” There’s definitely not what they were trying to do. They made every effort to deliver their job. And when they saw that there was a website, they shared the information”.
During conversation, Assistant Prof. Prof. Lim advises Mr. Chee against using legal servants as “pawns in a social discussion.”
During corrections, Assoc Prof Lim refuted Mr Chee’s claims, affirming his profound respect for civil workers and clarifying that his analysis was aimed at the program, not at specific soldiers.
He told Mr. Chee,” I do n’t believe it’s useful to use the civil servants as pawns in a political debate.”
He felt it was “imperative” to point out instances where the system under which the civil service operates —”overseen by this government” —is problematic.
” Because our civil servants can only do what they can within the limitations of the current government,” he said.
In response, Mr Chee urged Assoc Prof Lim not to mischaracterize his statements, insisting that he did not refer to public officers as pawns. He claimed that there was a great deal of admiration for public officers and commended their hard work.
Chee remarked that if Assoc Prof. Lim was criticizing the system, he had previously explained why MAS did not share information with other agencies in this case.
He questioned whether Lim was suggesting that MAS should disclose all information received, citing concerns that this might have on investor confidence.
He requested that Assoc Prof. Lim withdraw what he deemed to be “unfounded allegations” and asked him to produce proof for his claims that public officials are subject to restrictions from the government regarding information sharing.
Mr Chee underscores NTUC Income’s “right intent” and” good faith” in pursuing the deal to bolster financial stability
Mr Chee also objected to Mr Leong’s description of the proposed deal as “asset-stripping”, stating that this was an unfair characterisation.
” I believe Mr. Leong purposefully chose that term.” And this is not the first time Mr. Leong has addressed NTUC in a disparaging way,” he said.
He further emphasised that NTUC Income had entered the deal with” the right intent” and “acted in good faith” to enhance the company’s financial stability.
During the clarifications, Mr Leong stood by his use of the term “asset-stripping”, asserting:” Nobody with some knowledge about finance would disagree with me. It’s a fact. It has nothing to do with the intent”.
” You can intend, your intentions can be good. But the plan that you put up is actually not so good, you can even say detrimental”.
Mr. Leong also expressed his frustration over the earlier parliamentary debate on August 6 and called it “quite a waste of time” because the discussions took place “without complete information.”
Minister Chee expressed disappointment in Mr. Leong’s description of the 6 August discussion as a “waste of time,” stressing that the session had provided a crucial forum for members to ask questions and for MCCY and MAS to clarify the situation.
Chee challenged Leong’s assertion that the exercise was negatively characterized, pointing out that capital optimization is a common practice among financial institutions.
He explained that MAS first weighed the capital reduction against a prudence standpoint to make sure the company could meet its capital adequacy ratios.
