Home > ST Forum(13Mar09) > Story
Too early to gauge new scheme's impact on motor claim costs
I THANK Mr Daniel Choy for last Friday's letter, 'Motor Claims Framework: Why no cut in premium?'
As the Motor Claims Framework was implemented nine months ago, it is still too early to assess its full impact on containing claim costs.
The General Insurance Association firmly believes that in the middle to long term, there will be a positive and sustained impact.
Already our member insurers have seen a significant 24 per cent increase in accident reports being filed since the framework was implemented.
We believe that such timely reporting will go some way in containing and curbing rising claims, a key determinant in the need for insurers to raise motor premiums.
To better assess the effectiveness of the framework, the General Insurance Association will conduct a national survey in May to gather feedback from motorists on their reporting and claims experiences, and make further improvements.
The issue of inflated third party claims, as raised by the writer, is a very real one.
The General Insurance Association is currently studying various other options to address this crucial area as well.
Mark Lim
Executive Director
General Insurance Association
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_349457.html
Friday, March 13, 2009
It's high time motor insurers put their house in order
Home > ST Forum (14Mar09) > Story
It's high time motor insurers put their house in order
WHEN I saw yesterday's headline, 'Motor insurance set to cost more', my first reaction was, 'No, not again'.
Without having to read the report, I could guess what the insurers were going to say to justify their impending premium increase. More accidents reported and higher injury claims are reasons which they cite ad nauseam.
It is the same old yarn: If insurers must pay out more, policyholders will just have to carry the burden - so easy to pass the buck.
After bearing the burden of increasing premiums for so many years, I would now like to ask the insurers whether it is time for them to put their own house in order.
For example, if there were rampant fraudulent claims, why are they not making a greater effort to bring the culprits to book?
Surely it would have helped to reduce the numbers if they had been more diligent in cracking down on such fraud. Could it be that because it is so convenient to increase premiums each year, there is no real urgency in investigating accident cases more thoroughly?
If my recent experience is any guide to the way insurers are conducting themselves, I shudder to think of what lies ahead for the motoring public.
I was involved in a motor accident early last year. I took photographs of the scene and reported quite comprehensively on what happened.
Then I told my insurer that on no account should they settle the case without referring to me as I believe I was not to blame.
Imagine my chagrin when I found out months later that my insurer had gone ahead and admitted 90 per cent liability without informing me.
But what takes the cake is this: My insurer had given the wrong location of my accident in the settlement letter but nevertheless, it was signed and sealed.
My attempt to unravel the whole nightmare is another story in itself but I will leave it until I have seen some light.
Sia Cheong Yew
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_349878.html
It's high time motor insurers put their house in order
WHEN I saw yesterday's headline, 'Motor insurance set to cost more', my first reaction was, 'No, not again'.
Without having to read the report, I could guess what the insurers were going to say to justify their impending premium increase. More accidents reported and higher injury claims are reasons which they cite ad nauseam.
It is the same old yarn: If insurers must pay out more, policyholders will just have to carry the burden - so easy to pass the buck.
After bearing the burden of increasing premiums for so many years, I would now like to ask the insurers whether it is time for them to put their own house in order.
For example, if there were rampant fraudulent claims, why are they not making a greater effort to bring the culprits to book?
Surely it would have helped to reduce the numbers if they had been more diligent in cracking down on such fraud. Could it be that because it is so convenient to increase premiums each year, there is no real urgency in investigating accident cases more thoroughly?
If my recent experience is any guide to the way insurers are conducting themselves, I shudder to think of what lies ahead for the motoring public.
I was involved in a motor accident early last year. I took photographs of the scene and reported quite comprehensively on what happened.
Then I told my insurer that on no account should they settle the case without referring to me as I believe I was not to blame.
Imagine my chagrin when I found out months later that my insurer had gone ahead and admitted 90 per cent liability without informing me.
But what takes the cake is this: My insurer had given the wrong location of my accident in the settlement letter but nevertheless, it was signed and sealed.
My attempt to unravel the whole nightmare is another story in itself but I will leave it until I have seen some light.
Sia Cheong Yew
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_349878.html
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
SAF: Stingy and Fumbling?
SAF: Stingy and Fumbling?
Objective:
To provide NSmen a more equitable remuneration/ allowance package as the current package is outdated, antiquated and thus plain unfair to unemployed NSmen.
Background:
According to 'http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/nsmen/admin/PayMatters.html',
“As an Operationally Ready NSman, you will receive Service Pay for the entire period of NS activity that you attend. An NSman who suffers a loss in his civilian income as a result of having to attend NS activities can claim make-up pay (MUP) (i.e. the difference between employment income and service pay) from MINDEF.”
However, I believe that this policy is flawed in that it excessively penalizes certain groups of NSmen such as:
'NSman who is employed and on leave/no pay leave during NS training.'
'NSman who is unemployed or is a student.'
SAF's argument being:
“NSman is not eligible to claim make-up pay, as he does not suffer any loss in civilian income during the period of his NS training. He will be paid service pay.”
The Flaw:
The flaw being the omitted balance between the fact that reservist activities are by nature interruptive, restrictive and demanding both physically and mentally, and the fact that private employment income is often a flawed estimate of the NSman's worth/ contribution.
Many thus end up underpaid/ overpaid simply by virtue of their life circumstance. This is plain unfair given the fact that all NSmen need comply to the same, exacting physical and mental requirements.
Evidence of the NSmen's demoralization, dissatisfaction with the current system is plain to see on the internet. Public forums that reflect popular mentality towards seeking medical excuse towards 'earning' vocation and deployment downgrades remain an embarrassment.
'Medical FAQs', http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1390/topics/79306 , with over 1,800 posts since 2004 exists to help the poor, uninformed NSman navigate his way the ever onerous and demanding 'National Service Training System (NSTS)':
National Service Training System http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/nsmen/opsready/NSTS.html:
“Before each ICT, you should train yourself up physically and be mentally prepared for the tough training that you are to undergo. If you fail to meet the required performance standards, you will be subjected to corrective training e.g. Your Unit Commander may decide to serve you additional NS call-up for Make-up Training (MUT).... ”
- Need I say more?
'In Defense of Defense' http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=16842.1: details a citizen soldier's experiences and observations. (Jan09)
On national service : http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=12474.1 – reflections upon completion of one's NS training cycle. (Nov08)
'What the Gahmen owes you for NS' : http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=16842.1 a tongue in cheek description of 'list of NSF jobs and their real world equivalent'. (Nov08)
My Suggestion:
The Service pay of NSmen should equal what regulars of similar rank , vocation and appointment should earn (pro-rata) as the rigors of reservist training equal or exceed that which a regular soldier in such vocation faces. One might argue for MUP to be reduced for high income earners to balance costs but rumor I last heard was that SAF tries not to recall high income NSmen anyway.
Conclusions:
Sure, defense budget may go up, but our gov has never been one to stint on it any way; maybe the way out is for regular officers to improve their leadership and communication abilities, so reservist's training can be more effectively run.
Perhaps more a carrot then a stick approach should be used now that NSmen and their families are more aware of their rights and responsibilities as a recent parliamentary debates and court rulings show (below); fair reimbursement shouldn't only apply to dead or injured servicemen.
At least, such a peg method for 'service pay' will motivate more low education holders to strive during their NSF period, knowing that they won't be prejudiced against when called up during their later study/ work periods. It might in fact mean more work and more pay for their 2 weeks reservist stint, a welcome break to celebrate one's citizenry responsibilities. (**Failure to perform to standard would entail MUT paid at NSF service pay rates**).
Reply by Minister Teo Chee Hean on Compensation for Dead and Injured Servicemen: http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2007/jul/17jul07_nr.html : “For the additional lump sum compensation, MINDEF uses the principles applied by civil courts to determine compensation amounts. This is a fair system based on prevailing practices and awards. ”
Parents: It was our last resort (TNP:23.2.09): http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20090223-123888.html, 'Many people have told us that we're very brave to sue the Government,' Madam Hor, a bank teller, said in Mandarin, 'especially when we're not rich. But I believe anyone in our position would have done the same.
Have a nice day :).
Adapted from http://www.youngpap.org.sg/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=24863 ,
Objective:
To provide NSmen a more equitable remuneration/ allowance package as the current package is outdated, antiquated and thus plain unfair to unemployed NSmen.
Background:
According to 'http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/nsmen/admin/PayMatters.html',
“As an Operationally Ready NSman, you will receive Service Pay for the entire period of NS activity that you attend. An NSman who suffers a loss in his civilian income as a result of having to attend NS activities can claim make-up pay (MUP) (i.e. the difference between employment income and service pay) from MINDEF.”
However, I believe that this policy is flawed in that it excessively penalizes certain groups of NSmen such as:
'NSman who is employed and on leave/no pay leave during NS training.'
'NSman who is unemployed or is a student.'
SAF's argument being:
“NSman is not eligible to claim make-up pay, as he does not suffer any loss in civilian income during the period of his NS training. He will be paid service pay.”
The Flaw:
The flaw being the omitted balance between the fact that reservist activities are by nature interruptive, restrictive and demanding both physically and mentally, and the fact that private employment income is often a flawed estimate of the NSman's worth/ contribution.
Many thus end up underpaid/ overpaid simply by virtue of their life circumstance. This is plain unfair given the fact that all NSmen need comply to the same, exacting physical and mental requirements.
Evidence of the NSmen's demoralization, dissatisfaction with the current system is plain to see on the internet. Public forums that reflect popular mentality towards seeking medical excuse towards 'earning' vocation and deployment downgrades remain an embarrassment.
'Medical FAQs', http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1390/topics/79306 , with over 1,800 posts since 2004 exists to help the poor, uninformed NSman navigate his way the ever onerous and demanding 'National Service Training System (NSTS)':
National Service Training System http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/nsmen/opsready/NSTS.html:
“Before each ICT, you should train yourself up physically and be mentally prepared for the tough training that you are to undergo. If you fail to meet the required performance standards, you will be subjected to corrective training e.g. Your Unit Commander may decide to serve you additional NS call-up for Make-up Training (MUT).... ”
- Need I say more?
'In Defense of Defense' http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=16842.1: details a citizen soldier's experiences and observations. (Jan09)
On national service : http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=12474.1 – reflections upon completion of one's NS training cycle. (Nov08)
'What the Gahmen owes you for NS' : http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=16842.1 a tongue in cheek description of 'list of NSF jobs and their real world equivalent'. (Nov08)
My Suggestion:
The Service pay of NSmen should equal what regulars of similar rank , vocation and appointment should earn (pro-rata) as the rigors of reservist training equal or exceed that which a regular soldier in such vocation faces. One might argue for MUP to be reduced for high income earners to balance costs but rumor I last heard was that SAF tries not to recall high income NSmen anyway.
Conclusions:
Sure, defense budget may go up, but our gov has never been one to stint on it any way; maybe the way out is for regular officers to improve their leadership and communication abilities, so reservist's training can be more effectively run.
Perhaps more a carrot then a stick approach should be used now that NSmen and their families are more aware of their rights and responsibilities as a recent parliamentary debates and court rulings show (below); fair reimbursement shouldn't only apply to dead or injured servicemen.
At least, such a peg method for 'service pay' will motivate more low education holders to strive during their NSF period, knowing that they won't be prejudiced against when called up during their later study/ work periods. It might in fact mean more work and more pay for their 2 weeks reservist stint, a welcome break to celebrate one's citizenry responsibilities. (**Failure to perform to standard would entail MUT paid at NSF service pay rates**).
Reply by Minister Teo Chee Hean on Compensation for Dead and Injured Servicemen: http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2007/jul/17jul07_nr.html : “For the additional lump sum compensation, MINDEF uses the principles applied by civil courts to determine compensation amounts. This is a fair system based on prevailing practices and awards. ”
Parents: It was our last resort (TNP:23.2.09): http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20090223-123888.html, 'Many people have told us that we're very brave to sue the Government,' Madam Hor, a bank teller, said in Mandarin, 'especially when we're not rich. But I believe anyone in our position would have done the same.
Have a nice day :).
Adapted from http://www.youngpap.org.sg/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=24863 ,
Sunday, February 8, 2009
SAF: Beacon of progress or definition of excess?
SAF: Beacon of progress or definition of excess?
I suggest that SAF peg its reservist pay to the higher of 1/2 to 2/3 of regular svc man salary for rank/ vocation OR svc man's regular civilian salary.
Currently:
(see NS portal: http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/nsmen/admin/PayMatters.html for details)
“The following categories of NSmen are NOT eligible to claim make-up pay:
NSman who is employed and on leave/no pay leave during NS training
NSman is not eligible to claim make-up pay, as he does not suffer any loss in civilian income during the period of his NS training. He will be paid service pay.
NSman who is unemployed or is a student
NSman is not eligible to claim make-up pay, as he does not suffer any loss in civilian income during his period of NS training. He will be paid service pay.
This policy improvement is crucial to raise the overall profile of SAF as a formidable force through fair and progressive human resource practises.
Greater soldier loyalty and morale of NS men can only be attained through soldier perception of SAF as a fair and committed 'employer'.
Such equitable policy changes would also result in costs savings through better soldier performance due to their respect and faith in the improved organizational practises.
An urgent boost to the morale of our NS men during these difficult economic times is crucial to the continued credibility of our fighting forces, to this end, the perception of organizational fairness , leadership and integrity is integral.
NS men who are retrenched, unemployed, a student or engaging in relatively lesser paid jobs would certainly feel disgruntled by low NS pay considering that they are already already fully trained and completed their 2-2.5 yr NSF liability. The feeling of being exploited by virtue of their unfortunate circumstance is stressful. The reservist training period deprives one the opportunity of better employment, study and personal time by virtue of it's committed and restrictive nature.
Disgruntled soldiers can only be a detriment to the organization considering the insidious damage caused. Failing morale, lack of attentiveness to safety and detail, unfair human resources practises and personal interest would surely lead to the downfall of the Singapore armed forces.
May not just a dead soldier enjoy a regular soldier's privileges.
http://www.getformesingapore.com/previous2007/220707_compensationfordeadandinjuredsafservicemen.htm - “Minister Teo: I thank Mr Siew Kum Hong for his questions on compensation as it allows MINDEF to clarify our compensation framework. MINDEF applies similar principles and practices used by the civil courts or the Workmen's Compensation Act (WCA) to determine compensation for deaths and injuries due to service. Based on these principles, MINDEF's compensation framework for death consists of up to three components. The first …
… . The second component is a lump sum death gratuity. For NSFs and NSmen, MINDEF treats them like regulars and gives a minimum of one year's basic pay for a regular of the same rank. … ...”
In this day and age of change, strength lies not just in numbers.
May the policy change :).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+Monkey+cut.jpg)