Hi Kin Lian,
Just to share with you my personal experience on the above. Faithfully, I drive safely for my personal and passengers' safety and earn no claim discount on my insurance premium. It reached the maximum of 50% within the first few years of owning/driving a car.
After 25 years of paying insurance premium, I feel like one of the loyal contributors to the pool for the sake of other not-so careful motorists and unfortunate injured persons. Insurers love to have us as we just pay and don't have to claim. But they don't differentiate us from other motorists.
Insurers made losses from motor insurance of which I did not have anything to do with it, yet I have to bear with adjustments in premium that they enforce to all insured parties.
Beside giving up owning a car, do you have any advice for me to look into for the sake of saving in motor insurance premium?
PT
REPLY
If your insurer increase the premium, you can look for another insurer who may be able to offer you a lower premium. The hotline numbers are shown in the FAQ:
http://www.tankinlian.com/faq/motord.html
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Suggestions are not welcomed
I wish Singaporeans to be more open to new ideas. They should be comfortable about interacting with other people who gives suggestions.
Why are Singaporeans so afraid of new ideas? How can they be overcomed? You can read my views in
www.theonlinecitizen.com
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/06/suggestions-are-not-welcomed/#comment-12182
Why are Singaporeans so afraid of new ideas? How can they be overcomed? You can read my views in
www.theonlinecitizen.com
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/06/suggestions-are-not-welcomed/#comment-12182
Out of the Box
I write an article each week in the Online Citizen, www.theonlinecitizen.com. It appears in the column, "Out of the Box" You can visit this website to read about my views on life in Singapore..
Someone suggested that I should print a book of my articles. I am considering this suggestion.
Someone suggested that I should print a book of my articles. I am considering this suggestion.
Harassment by third party lawyers - action by CASE
Many motorists have received letters from third party lawyers that can be considered to be "harassing". The letters were written in legal language and were threatening. As the motorists have reported the accident to their insurance company, there is no need for the third party lawyer to harrass the motorist. They should write to the insurance company directly and sort out the claim.
I am a life member of Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE). I have asked CASE to take it up with the Law Society and they agreed. I hope that CASE and the Law Society can work out a protocol, so that the ordinary motorists will not be unnecessarily harrassed on third party claims in the future.
I am a life member of Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE). I have asked CASE to take it up with the Law Society and they agreed. I hope that CASE and the Law Society can work out a protocol, so that the ordinary motorists will not be unnecessarily harrassed on third party claims in the future.
Bonus should be based on actual experience
Dear Mr. Tan,
Sorry if my posting seem to attack you, but i just want to clear the issue of the statement you said about me of " taking consumer for a ride".
I did mention that as a consumer, if the insurance company can provide me the projected maturity return at the end, I will be happy. (Higher return seem like a dream, lower return I will not trust that company anymore).
I do not support the insurance companies but accept that it thing we can't change. I never bought growth plan from ntuc income before, therefore want to find out whether did you previously as CEO of NTUC provide consumer higher than the projected return. (I know you gave good return for regular endowment).
Finally, I'm not an agent or manager from Income, but ex-agent from your competitor.
vfocus
REPLY
During my 30 years as CEO, Income give a good return to policyholders as follows:
> expenses are kept low
> 98% of the surplus are distributed as annual and special bonus to policyholders
During the 1980s and early 1990s, the bonus rates were increased every few years - made possible by the good investment yield. From 1998 to 2003, the bonus rates were reduced due to the low interest rate environment and two financial crisis.
Since 2004, the investment yields have been exceptionally good. In my view, the surplus is more than adequate to restore the bonus cuts in recent years.
This approach should be applied to all participating policies, i.e. regular and single premium policies. All participating policies should be treated fairly.
Sorry if my posting seem to attack you, but i just want to clear the issue of the statement you said about me of " taking consumer for a ride".
I did mention that as a consumer, if the insurance company can provide me the projected maturity return at the end, I will be happy. (Higher return seem like a dream, lower return I will not trust that company anymore).
I do not support the insurance companies but accept that it thing we can't change. I never bought growth plan from ntuc income before, therefore want to find out whether did you previously as CEO of NTUC provide consumer higher than the projected return. (I know you gave good return for regular endowment).
Finally, I'm not an agent or manager from Income, but ex-agent from your competitor.
vfocus
REPLY
During my 30 years as CEO, Income give a good return to policyholders as follows:
> expenses are kept low
> 98% of the surplus are distributed as annual and special bonus to policyholders
During the 1980s and early 1990s, the bonus rates were increased every few years - made possible by the good investment yield. From 1998 to 2003, the bonus rates were reduced due to the low interest rate environment and two financial crisis.
Since 2004, the investment yields have been exceptionally good. In my view, the surplus is more than adequate to restore the bonus cuts in recent years.
This approach should be applied to all participating policies, i.e. regular and single premium policies. All participating policies should be treated fairly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)