DPM Gan: 'Strange' that WP didn't raise Income-Allianz concerns in Parliament last year

The Income-Allianz deal has proved a hot-button issue in the 2025 General Election, with People's Action Party (PAP) and Workers' Party (WP) candidates taking aim at either side for their handling of the issue.

First, WP secretary-general Pritam Singh said at a rally that "not a single" PAP Labour MP raised questions about the deal when it was first raised in Parliament in August 2024.

Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong shot back by saying six PAP MPs did ask questions — even if they weren't part of the Labour movement — while only one WP member did.

He added that WP also abstained from voting on the amendment of a bill that would have allowed the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to block the deal.

In response, Sengkang candidate He Ting Ru explained that the party did so because it had concerns about the bill being "rushed and retrospective legislation making".

"Strange" that it wasn't raised earlier

Continuing the thread, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong said he found it "strange" that the WP didn't raise these concerns in Parliament.

Speaking on the sidelines of a visit to One Punggol Hawker Centre on Apr. 29, Gan said that if the WP were unhappy with the government's response, they could have raised the questions again.

"They have done none of this, so I would have taken that they understood the issue, they accepted the issue," he said.

He pointed out that WP only objected to one thing — the amendment to the bill that was proposed to block the sale of Income to Allianz.

Gan also said he had explained to He his perspective on why the bill was not retrospective in nature, after the parliamentary sitting.

As the deal had not been approved at that point, it could not have been retrospective, he said.

"Certainly that was one critical consideration. But all the other issues, the Workers' Party had all the opportunities to raise them.

So I'm surprised that they reiterated these questions in the rally."

He also asked reporters to question the WP on whether they raised the issues in Parliament, and why if not.

MAS blocked the deal

Gan reiterated what Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said previously: That in his role as MAS chairman, he had proposed the legislation that eventually allowed the government to block the deal.

Previously, amid the exchange of fire between the two parties, former NTUC Income CEO Tan Suee Chieh published an open letter to Gan, questioning his role in the saga as chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

Gan explained that when the deal was first surfaced, the government and the various agencies took a "positive approach".

But when more details surfaced, MAS and the Ministry of Community, Culture and Youth (MCCY) were concerned about how the new entity would allow Income to fulfil its social mission.

"So the two agencies came together to discuss, how do we square both sides' obligations? And then we presented the case to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet discussed and decided that, given the conflicting interest...the deal could not go through. It has to be blocked," he explained.

"And therefore we took the decision to amend the Insurance Act, so as to give MAS the legal basis to block the deal from Income."

Gan added that the government has already provided sufficient explanation in Parliament, and that the whole process was "transparent and upfront".

As such, there is "no need to discuss any further", he said.

Top image by Mothership