How do you rate the work of the various ministries in Singapore?
Here are the survey results.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Motor insurance - regulator can play a part
14 March 2009
Editor
Forum Page
Straits Times
I refer to the letters by Raganathan Vivek “Why should we pay for insurer’s laxity” and Sia Chong Yew “It’s high time motor insurers put their house in order”.
I agree with the views of these writers. Motor insurers should be more active in combating inflated claims instead of passing the higher cost to consumers through premium increases.
During the 30 years that I headed NTUC Income, my colleagues paid special attention to deal with the inflated claims. We were able to keep the premiums at a more affordable level. We considered it to be our duty to the consumers and be profitable at the same time.
I wish to point out that, apart from the motor insurers, the regulatory authority can play a part as well. Most inflated claims are made by third parties claiming for the repair cost, injury and medical expenses. These claims are lodged with the insurance company a long time after the accident, making it difficult for the claim adjustor to assess the actual and fair amounts of compensation.
To make matters worse, the claims are lodged through lawyers, which increased the total claim payments by an estimated 30%.
This matter can be resolved by a simpler regulatory change. Make it compulsory for a third party to lodge the third party claim with the insurance company within 24 hours of the accident. The insurance company should be given the opportunity to inspect the vehicle and settle the claim directly and promptly. The third party should engage a lawyer only in the event of a dispute on liability.
This practice is adopted in many countries, either as a regulator requirement or as a market practice. It is surprising that Singapore continues to have many third party claims settled in an inefficient and expensive manner through the legal system.
I hope that the relevant authority, i.e. the Monetary Authority of Singapore or the Land Transport Authority, will make the necessary change to the regulation to address this problem. This will reduce the inflated claims by several hundred millions of dollars and lower the cost of motor insurance to consumers.
Tan Kin Lian
Editor
Forum Page
Straits Times
I refer to the letters by Raganathan Vivek “Why should we pay for insurer’s laxity” and Sia Chong Yew “It’s high time motor insurers put their house in order”.
I agree with the views of these writers. Motor insurers should be more active in combating inflated claims instead of passing the higher cost to consumers through premium increases.
During the 30 years that I headed NTUC Income, my colleagues paid special attention to deal with the inflated claims. We were able to keep the premiums at a more affordable level. We considered it to be our duty to the consumers and be profitable at the same time.
I wish to point out that, apart from the motor insurers, the regulatory authority can play a part as well. Most inflated claims are made by third parties claiming for the repair cost, injury and medical expenses. These claims are lodged with the insurance company a long time after the accident, making it difficult for the claim adjustor to assess the actual and fair amounts of compensation.
To make matters worse, the claims are lodged through lawyers, which increased the total claim payments by an estimated 30%.
This matter can be resolved by a simpler regulatory change. Make it compulsory for a third party to lodge the third party claim with the insurance company within 24 hours of the accident. The insurance company should be given the opportunity to inspect the vehicle and settle the claim directly and promptly. The third party should engage a lawyer only in the event of a dispute on liability.
This practice is adopted in many countries, either as a regulator requirement or as a market practice. It is surprising that Singapore continues to have many third party claims settled in an inefficient and expensive manner through the legal system.
I hope that the relevant authority, i.e. the Monetary Authority of Singapore or the Land Transport Authority, will make the necessary change to the regulation to address this problem. This will reduce the inflated claims by several hundred millions of dollars and lower the cost of motor insurance to consumers.
Tan Kin Lian
Motor Insurance premiums set to rise
Last week, it was reported that the motor insurers lost more than $200 million in 2008 and that the insurance premiums are set to rise significantly in 2009.
Last May, the General Insurance Association of Singapore announced bold measures to tackle this matter. They involved measures that could cause much inconvenience to motorists, but the Association promised that these measures would arrest the problem.
Today Paper asked me to write an article on this matter last May. It is published in the paper. I was sceptical about the masures. Perhaps, someone can asked the Assocation to comment on the failure of their measures?
Tan Kin Lian
Bird Nest Stadium in Beijing
The Beijing National Stadium, more commonly described as the Bird Nest, cost USD 423 million to build.
Someone commented that the stadium was not used after the Beijing Olympics. Is this wasteful?
What could China do with the same money?
1. Invest in US Treasuries to earn interest at 4%?
2. Build houses for the people in China to live in?
3. Give the money to third world countries as aid?
I believe that the money is well spent, as it builds the infrastructure that can be used for the next 30 years. It also gave jobs for the workers who are involved in the construction. If not, these workers might be idle.
Of course, the workers can be used to build houses for the people to live in, but this is already catered by the private sector. I believe that it is the duty of the Government to build the long term infrastructure of the country.
Someone commented that the stadium was not used after the Beijing Olympics. Is this wasteful?
What could China do with the same money?
1. Invest in US Treasuries to earn interest at 4%?
2. Build houses for the people in China to live in?
3. Give the money to third world countries as aid?
I believe that the money is well spent, as it builds the infrastructure that can be used for the next 30 years. It also gave jobs for the workers who are involved in the construction. If not, these workers might be idle.
Of course, the workers can be used to build houses for the people to live in, but this is already catered by the private sector. I believe that it is the duty of the Government to build the long term infrastructure of the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)