The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has declined a meeting request from former NTUC Income chief executive Tan Suee Chieh regarding the failed S$2.2 billion acquisition of Income Insurance by German insurer Allianz.
In a public statement issued late on 23 June 2025, MAS reiterated that all relevant regulatory matters had already been addressed in Parliament and reaffirmed its position on the deal.
The move follows months of political scrutiny and a recent surge in public discourse on the issue, especially during Singapore’s 2025 General Election campaign period. MAS’s statement, released a day before Income’s annual general meeting, sets out a detailed sequence of events and clarifies the regulator’s assessment of the deal.
According to MAS, Allianz and NTUC Enterprise were granted approval in July 2024 under Section 27(2) of the Insurance Act, allowing them to act together to acquire more than 5 per cent of Income’s voting shares.
However, this approval did not equate to formal consent for Allianz to become a substantial shareholder.
That, MAS explained, would have required a separate and more detailed application, which was never submitted.
MAS noted that it received Allianz’s preliminary business plan in mid-July 2024. The plan included a proposal for Income to return S$1.85 billion in cash to shareholders within three years. MAS did not approve this capital reduction plan, nor was an application submitted for such approval.
The regulator clarified that any reduction of capital would require a separate regulatory process, which had not been initiated.
In Parliament, then MAS deputy chairman and Second Minister for Finance Chee Hong Tat had said on 6 August 2024 that “due process” was still underway, and on 16 October reaffirmed that Allianz had not formally applied to gain effective control of Income.
While MAS found no prudential objections based on Allianz’s financial strength or Income’s post-deal capital adequacy, it later shared the capital reduction plan with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY).
This action followed concerns that the proposed cash extraction might conflict with assurances Income made during its 2022 corporatisation, particularly about preserving a S$2 billion surplus for public benefit.
MAS stated that it only became aware of Income’s representations to MCCY after the initial parliamentary debate in August 2024. Once the information was shared, the Government moved quickly to block the transaction.
On 16 October 2024, Parliament passed amendments to the Insurance Act under a Certificate of Urgency, granting MAS formal authority to consider MCCY’s views when assessing similar applications in the future. Allianz subsequently withdrew its offer in December 2024.
Questions from former NTUC Income CEO
Despite these developments, Tan Suee Chieh, a former Group CEO of NTUC Enterprise, renewed public focus on the deal during the general election campaign.
On 28 April 2025, he published a widely shared open letter calling on Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong—who is also Chairman of MAS—to clarify his role in the failed transaction and address broader concerns of governance and accountability.
Tan alleged that the Allianz-Income saga exposed systemic gaps in oversight and communication. He questioned how a deal with such significant financial and social implications could have progressed without broader scrutiny or clear safeguards for Income’s public mission.
He also highlighted Gan’s previous positions as MAS chairman and chairman of the Singapore Labour Foundation, arguing that Gan was uniquely placed to explain the shift in NTUC’s strategic direction.
Tan raised pointed questions about why MAS did not require Allianz to inject new capital as part of the deal, and whether the regulator knowingly permitted a plan that would have stripped S$1.85 billion in reserves from Income.
He expressed concern over what he saw as a lack of engagement with public queries, noting that earlier letters sent between August and September 2024 had gone unanswered.
He further queried the dilution of the Singapore Labour Foundation’s stake in NTUC Enterprise from 30 per cent to 20 per cent in 2021, suggesting this may have weakened state oversight.
The broader concern, he said, was how such a transaction was considered without deeper reflection on the social mission and systemic role of Income in Singapore’s insurance sector.
Tan’s letter also warned of excessive concentration of power and potential conflicts of interest, with key leaders occupying multiple influential roles across NTUC entities. He called for structural reforms to enhance transparency, accountability, and independence in decision-making.
Addressing citizens directly, Tan urged voters—especially those in Punggol GRC, where Gan was leading the People’s Action Party team—to reflect on these governance issues as they cast their votes. He maintained that his appeal was not politically motivated but a matter of democratic principle and public trust.
A day earlier, on 27 April, Tan had also encouraged voters in Jalan Kayu to examine the role of NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng in the saga, who publicly endorsed the deal.
Speaking at a campaign rally, Ng defended his conduct, asserting that the deal had been pursued in good faith and that lessons were being drawn. He said a review had been initiated within NTUC Enterprise following the Government’s intervention.
“I’ve initiated a review in NTUC Enterprise so that we can learn the right lessons humbly and do better for fellow Singaporeans,” Ng said.
However, Ng did not directly address the most contentious element of the deal: the capital extraction clause. According to disclosures during the parliamentary debates, NTUC’s Central Committee—its highest decision-making body—was not aware of this clause until October 2024.
This omission was widely seen as pivotal in the Government’s decision to intervene, as it revealed a significant misalignment between what was known internally and what had been presented to stakeholders.
Tan highlighted this gap in his letter, asking why key details were not disclosed to NTUC leaders and whether oversight processes had failed. He further questioned how a transaction with such far-reaching implications could proceed without clearer internal checks and public communication.
Key questions remain unanswered
MAS, in its 23 June statement, reasserted that it had engaged appropriately with relevant parties and that the transaction was never approved. While it declined Tan’s request for a meeting, it acknowledged his continued engagement and stated that any further feedback would be duly considered.
However, MAS did not address several of the broader concerns raised by Tan. While the regulator reiterated that the transaction was still under review and no formal application for control had been submitted, it did not engage with questions such as why there was no requirement for Allianz to inject new capital, or how the proposed capital extraction plan aligned with Income’s social mission. It also left unclear whether there were communication gaps between MAS, other ministries, and NTUC’s leadership, or why Tan’s earlier letters were not acknowledged during the period when public concern was mounting.
The controversy surrounding the failed deal has prompted broader questions about how cooperative-linked entities are governed, the transparency of regulatory institutions, and the intersection of public policy with private capital strategies.
Rather than closing a chapter, MAS’s latest response may mark the beginning of a new phase of scrutiny—focused not just on past decisions, but on the adequacy of current oversight frameworks and how future transactions involving public-interest entities will be managed.
The post MAS rebuffs meeting request from ex-NTUC Income CEO, outlines regulatory stance on Allianz bid appeared first on The Online Citizen.
