Saktiandi Supaat on Insurance (Amendment) Bill

“I do not think there are many countries, if any, which can do what we have done in Singapore” when it comes to what has transpired on the Income-Allianz deal, said MP Saktiandi Supaat. That is, for parliamentarians to be able to raise issues on an ongoing regulatory application, invite the Government to scrutinise the deal and ask for more information in the public interest, and for the Government to be “open, transparent and adjust its stance based on new information obtained”. At the same time, he said this is a power that must be used extremely sparingly, lest Singapore’s legal and business environments are perceived to be uncertain and unpredictable. Mr Saktiandi raised the following clarifications. How can Singapore ensure that the Government’s ability to enact laws to block commercial transactions does not negatively impact local and foreign investors’ confidence in the country? What steps, if any, have been taken to engage Allianz, as opposed to Income and NTUC Enterprise? What message does the Insurance (Amendment) Bill send to prospective investors considering investments into Singapore - would it affect, for example, existing free trade agreements on activities in the financial services sector? What if “public interest” considerations of other Government ministries become relevant in future transactions; would Singapore have to separately legislate on an urgent basis again? Instead of enacting the amendment in this proposed Bill, could the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth impose relevant conditions in the exemption that was given to Income which allowed it to carry over a S$2 billion surplus to its new corporate entity? Mr Saktiandi spoke in Parliament on Wednesday (Oct 16).