News

SINGAPORE – The which has sparked much public debate, took up a significant amount of time in Parliament on Aug 6. MPs raised concerns about whether the provision of insurance services would remain inclusive and accessible, and whether Income’s social mission would still be fulfilled. The Aug 6 sitting also included a debate on anti-money laundering legislation and a Bill to ensure safety standards while encouraging food donation. Here are the key takeaways: The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) will hold Income and Allianz to account in ensuring that there will be no change to the terms and conditions of existing insurance contracts, should the regulator approve Allianz’s offer to acquire a controlling stake in Income. “MAS expects Income to fulfil its obligations to all policyholders under the terms of its existing insurance contracts. Allianz has also publicly stated its intent for Income to do so. MAS will hold Income and Allianz to account to these commitments,” said Second Minister for Finance and MAS board member Chee Hong Tat in Parliament. Mr Chee was responding to questions relating to Allianz’s offer to acquire a 51 per cent stake in Income for $40.58 a share, which values a deal at $2.2 billion. The deal is subject to MAS’ approval. Ten MPs filed questions on the deal, which has sparked much public debate since it was announced on July 17. During the sitting, nine MPs raised further questions on the issue, including that of NTUC Enterprise’s and Income’s social mission. Mr Chee said MAS’ regulations and guidance require insurers to maintain sufficient capital reserves and treat customers of participating policies fairly. “MAS protects the interests of policyholders by restricting the ratio of profits allocated to shareholders and the type of expenses insurers may charge to the participating fund,” he said. He added that in assessing the offer, which involves a change in substantial shareholder in a Singapore insurer, MAS will consider Allianz’s track record, financial soundness, reputation, as well as fitness and propriety. If law enforcement agencies want to sell a seized property linked to suspected criminal activities, they are currently required to get consent from all parties involved, including the suspect. Under the Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters Bill passed in Parliament on Aug 6, the Singapore courts will have the power to order the sale of such properties without this consent. Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo said on Aug 6 that the current law is “highly impractical” as the authorities need to continue maintaining seized property if no consensus is reached. With the new amendment, Mrs Teo said, law enforcement agencies will be able to lower the cost of maintaining seized properties and preserve their value as these assets tend to depreciate over time. If the Bill becomes law, the court will be able to order the sale of seized properties if two criteria are met. First, the value of the property must be likely to depreciate, or undue costs be involved in maintaining it. Second, the sale should be in the interests of justice. As at May, the police had spent nearly $650,000 to maintain assets seized or frozen in relation to a $3 billion money laundering case. Singapore’s two casinos collected levies worth about $4.4 million more than was legally allowed between April 4 and May 7, 2024, due to a law that was not renewed. To enter casinos here, Singapore citizens and permanent residents previously needed to pay a daily entry levy of $100 or an annual one of $2,000. The levies were upped to $150 and $3,000, respectively, on April 4, 2019, after the Casino Control (Variation of Entry Levies) Order 2019 came into effect. But the Order was valid only for five years, until April 3, 2024. As the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) overlooked the Order’s expiry date, the casinos collected higher entry levies than were permitted by law. On Aug 6, MHA revealed the oversight in a press release on the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill, which was introduced in Parliament that day. The ministry told The Straits Times that it discovered the lapse after an e-mail query from a member of the public in April. It does not intend to refund any part of the levies collected during the lapse, as it had always intended to continue with the higher entry levies until there was a need to further adjust the rates. The new Bill intends to validate the higher entry levies collected during the one-month lapse. It also proposes to introduce a new offence, which would allow anyone visiting the casino more times than allowed by his family to be jailed for up to a year, or fined up to $10,000. The authorities are reviewing the use of formaldehyde in products such as furniture and adhesives, following recent media reports of people here falling ill due to high formaldehyde levels in their furnishings. Speaking in Parliament on Aug 6, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and the Environment Baey Yam Keng This includes reviewing international best practices, guidelines and regulatory requirements. Mr Baey did not say when the review would be concluded. A new Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill debated on Aug 6 seeks to shield donors from liability for any deaths or health issues resulting from the consumption of food donated under four conditions. Among the conditions is that the food must be safe and suitable for consumption when it leaves the caterer or business. The donor must also provide the recipient with know-how to ensure that the food remains safe – with specific instructions on refrigeration, heating and storage, for example. The debate will continue on Aug 7, with a total of 16 MPs expected to speak across both days.