Monday, May 5, 2008

Cut yr salary, give you fat bonus. You want???

There was a lot of comments in my previous posting on the "NTUC Income Change of Bonus System" I like to share my views again on a different perspective.

I can understand why everyone is unhappy about the change. It is just like you are told that your salary will be cut this year and I will give you a fat bonus at the end of the year. Everyone will of course want the high salary and not the fat bonus because we are risk averse and want to see money faster. Fat Bonus or not are not guaranteed and you will surely be afraid that you will never see it.

Now, there is this big boss, willing to stand up and fight for the rights of the workers. As most people are followers, many people will naturally want to follow him since there is a clear leader.
With a clear leader, people will be bolder, speak louder and build their thoughts on one extreme towards their leader's view.

Sometimes we may not know the motive of the leader but sometimes we need to be rationale and think why such a unpopular move is taken. Try to look at 2 sides. Say, if a company cannot sustain the high wages in one year due to a bad patch and went insolvent. Everyone will lose their job. If the company adopt a variable wage system, their variable cost comes down and everyone keep their job.

This is just an analogy, for NTUC Income case, it slightly different. The bonus system need to be changed because the life fund need to be stronger and more resilient to withstand changes in the investment markets better. The correct bonus practice have to be in line with industry practice and for prudent actuarial practice. The investment climate compared to 10-15 yrs ago is totally different. Bonds and equities returns are too far apart that they cannot ignore. If they cannot give the right bonus to policyholders over long term, they will lose business to the others who are able to adopt a higher equity allocation in their investments.

A government can make unpopular decisions like raising minister's salary, plant extra ERPs, raise GST in high inflationary conditions, build casinos, etc As there are no strong oppositions in Singapore, there are practically nothing that Singaporeans can do. Singaporeans generally also trust our leaders, thats why their reactions are not so strong.

NTUC Income is a corporation, not government. They don't have the power to force a legislation down the throat of the people. There was also a lot of mistrust with the company because such mistrust was breeded like Andes Mosquitoes in someone's blog for over 1 year. From observation, the enemies of all the Mosquitoes are towards NTUC Income. Now, a rare opportunity comes, naturally, all the mosquitoes are fully ready to attack the company.

I do not want to say who is right or wrong now. I just like to try putting on a more balanced view towards this issue. Of course, you can have your own views just like I hold on to mine.


Anonymous said...

Are you coming on board to protest against this unilateral declaration of bonus cut? If you are concerned for your clients and not your rice bowl join us this 30th to register
our disgust with NTUC new management.
Together we bring down and sack the team. Unity is strength . With at least 1000 to stomp the AGM we will give the meeting a rousing and unforgettable event.
Adrain , join us and be part of the winning team.

Anonymous said...

I started to read your writings lately, but this article you wrote, I find that you are biased on one side. That is how I feel about it.

Anonymous said...

Did your CEO tell you to write all these? We are disgusted with you CEO. He squandered our money. He is finding ways to cover up.
You are nothing but just a dog of NTUC Income. You don't dare to protest. We want our money in our policies. Do you understand?

Anonymous said...

Did you know that he spent over 1 million on you guys at Ho Chi Ming?Where is the money from? from heaven ? out of his pocket?All the senior managers chipped in to give you guys a good time? The inside story is it is part of the expenses
of the company. Since he came in more than 20 millions were spent to spruce up the building the company and himself. I wonder any golden tap in his office.

Khiat Han Hwee Adrian said...

There are already many postings and comments in cyberspace that write against this scheme. Check it out in ST Forum, CNA Forum, TKL's blog, onlinecitizens blog, etc

I think I'm the only one in Singapore trying to bring out the other side of the story.

You may feel that I'm bias, but I wrote what I sincerely feel.

Anonymous said...

I read your posting in the onlinecitizen and you gave Mr.TanKL a real bashing. You think it was clever of you. You are one of the dogs that bit the hands that fed you.
I want to blast your arse out too.
You accused Mt. Tan of having an agenda to eliminate all those damned stupid cheats out there. He wasn't trying to eliminate all but only those cheats like you find a lot in NTUC. you can say those who appeared in wanted list in the ST sometime ago are cheats of first degree. Come on, if have a heart for clients you make sure they are adequately covered and not to give in because they want whole life or you want high commission. Both are not good because both end up losers. You are trained financial planners and you should keep up the reputation of FP. Like Mr. Tan, agents claim this a noble profession. My foot..but they are cheats and robbers and give this noble profession a bad name.
Adrain, stinging or stinking attack on Mr.Tan isn't going to solve your problems. MAS is watching and is likely to agree with Mr. Tan than yours because yours promotes malpractices whcih MAS wants to stop and it will.Adrain, becuase of Mr.Tan the market will evolve in your favour. You regret suspecting Mr. Tan's motive.


Anonymous said...


We should not waste our precious times on this crook because he cannot even get the basic right by claiming that NTUC Income is a corporation.

Adrian, NTUC Income is an " insurance co-operative ", mind you.

A corporation is governed under the Section 4 (1) of the Companies Act (Cap. 50).

Anonymous said...

Please, terminator, don't be so harsh with your language. Adrian just wanted to give another side of the picture, let him. Now that I know he is working for NTUC Income, let us not make things difficult for him. I don't think Mr Tan would like to see us jeopardize the situation as it is already so unbecoming. Be courteous! That's what Mr Tan wrote in his blog.

Chang said...

If I buy a new policy basing on the new bonus structure ,I will not complain as I have accepted it. But I brought a Policy based on bonus structure , I not ready to accept it especially the change came into effect without the policy holder agreement. In a way , I felt cheated. If the new bonus structure is implemented for new policy, I think people will accept it or at least they have a choice not to buy from income.
That's I am not happy with the changes.

Anonymous said...

You know something , this is latest, hot from the oven news.
Each chair in the board room costs 2 thousands(2K) dollars . This beats the golden tap. There 20 of them.
You got calculator or not.My maths very poor. Any one been inside there . I had but cannot tell you much now.

Khiat Han Hwee Adrian said...

$2k for each chair x 20. I find your posting amusing. Can see the receipt? From which joker you hear this from?

Anonymous said...

please take note that bonous is not cut, it is only restructured.

also on the benefit illustration of the policy there is the "gtd" and "non gtd" column.

in other words... for the "non gtd" portion any insurance company may have the possibility not to declare any bonous.

what is gtd on the benefit illustration it will always be gtd.
in other words, insurance companies may only increase the gtd portion and there is no way they can decrease it.

Bonus resturture only serves to benefit the customer. If it does not change, the worst case scenario is that each and every year there will not be any bonous since it is "not gtd".