காங்கிரஸ் கட்சி மக்களவைத் தேர்தலில் அடைந்த
படுதோல்விக்கு முக்கியமான காரணம் அதன் மோசமான உலகமயப் பொருளாதாரக் கொள்கைகள்தான்.
மோடியும் அதே நாசகரப் பாதையில்தான் சென்று
கொண்டிருக்கிறார். எங்கள் வழியில்தான் பாஜகவும் செல்கிறது என்று சிவகங்கைச் சீமான்
உள்ளிட்ட காங்கிரசிற்கு பாடை கட்டிய பெரிய மனிதர்கள் பீற்றிக்
கொண்டிருக்கிறார்கள்.
இன்சூரன்ஸ் துறையில் அன்னிய மூலதன வரம்பை
உயர்த்துவது அபாயகரமானது, அதற்கு ஆதரவாக காங்கிரஸ் தலைவர்கள் பேசுவது அபத்தமானது
என்று சுட்டிக்காட்டி எங்கள் அகில இந்திய இன்சூரன்ஸ் ஊழியர் சங்கத்தின் தலைவர்
தோழர் அமானுல்லாகான் காங்கிரஸ் கட்சியின் தலைவர் திருமதி சோனியா காந்திக்கு ஒரு
நீண்ட கடிதம் அளித்துள்ளார்.
அதைப் படித்து அதிலுள்ள விபரங்களை புரிந்து கொண்டு
தனது திசையை மாற்றினால் காங்கிரஸ் கட்சிக்கு நல்லது. இல்லையென்றால் அக்கட்சி
சவக்குழிக்குள் அடக்கமாவதை யாராலும் தடுக்க முடியாது.
தோழர் அமானுல்லாகான் அனுப்பிய கடிதத்தின் நகலை கீழே
அளித்துள்ளேன். நேரம் இல்லாமையால் தமிழில் மொழி பெயர்க்க முடியவில்லை.
மன்னிக்கவும்.
Smt. Sonia
Gandhi, July
28, 2014
President,
Indian
National Congress,
10, Janpath,
New Delhi-110011
Dear Madam,
FDI HIKE IN INSURANCE
The
All India
Insurance Employees’ Association is the biggest and oldest trade union of
insurance employees. We have been
playing a very constructive role in the growth of the public sector insurance
industry with a clear understanding of its role in the national economy. We have been agitating against the FDI hike
in the insurance sector from 26 percent to 49 percent. Our opposition is not based on any partisan
reasons but on the grounds of its impact on the national economy. We firmly
believe that financial sector is the key to national development and
liberalization of this sector is fraught with dangerous consequences. The
global financial meltdown and the consequent economic crisis vindicate our
understanding. Therefore, we are disturbed by the statements of the important
functionaries of the Indian National Congress in support of the decision of the
NDA government to hike the FDI and steps towards privatization of the public
sector general insurance companies. We,
therefore, wish to place our views on the subject and request you to reconsider
the support to Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill.
The
global insurance scenario is not very happy. Since the financial crisis in
2008, the advanced industrialized nations are experiencing stagnation in
premium income. The annual growth rate in North American is (-) 2.9%, Oceania
(-) 3.7% and Western Europe (-) 0.6%. (Sigma
Report 3/2014). Moreover the demography has made insurance a difficult business
to operate in these markets. Therefore, it is natural for the multinational
companies to demand further opening up of the insurance sector in India
which is very promising with a young population. But we need to carefully
analyse the consequences of higher FDI limit and the benefits or otherwise to
our national economy. Today there is a consensus world over that domestic
savings play a large role in capital formation and economic development and
therefore it is not prudent to allow the foreign capital greater access and
control over the domestic savings by increasing the FDI limit.
The
two major arguments in favour of increase in the foreign equity limits are:
(1) The private insurance companies are starved of
funds and it has become inevitable to increase the FDI limit; and
(2) The increase in the FDI limits will help
deepening the insurance market and increase the levels of penetration. The resources so generated will help funding
of long term infrastructure projects.
We
are not in a position to agree with both these arguments on the basis of the
existing realities. The reasons for our disagreement are:
a)
Insurance Sector unlike manufacturing is not
capital intensive. In many countries the start-up capital for an insurance
company is much lower than in India.
The high solvency margin and other regulations are so framed as to make it look
that an insurance company cannot do business without FDI. (FDI in insurance –
R.Ramakrishna – Actuary).
b)
There are
around 50 joint venture companies operating in the country both in life and
non-life segments. The Indian promoters of these companies are big industrial
and financial houses. They have enough resources including easy access to funds
for deployment in case of need. They
also have the option of raising resources through initial public offerings.
It is not
possible to accept that they lack resources for investment in their insurance
ventures.
c)
There is no
relationship between the capital employed and the business procured. The
following table justifies our argument. The data is as on 31st March
2013.
|
Slno
|
Name of the Company
|
Total Capital & Reserve (in Crore)
|
Total Premium Income earned (in Crore)
|
|
1
|
Bajaj Alliance
|
4844
|
6893
|
|
2
|
SBI lIFE
|
2710
|
10450
|
|
3
|
Bharathi
AXA
|
1999
|
745
|
|
4
|
HDFC
Standard
|
2204
|
11323
|
|
5
|
LIC
|
100
|
208000
|
d)
The above
table clearly points out that higher capital does not mean higher mobilization
of premium income. What bring increase in premium income is a better trained
agency force and other efficient channels of distribution.
e)
Insurance
penetration and density depend upon the growth of the national economy and the
disposable income in the hands of the people. Despite poor incomes and very
little disposable incomes, India
has done extremely well in insurance. The World Economic Forum gave Indian Life
Insurance industry the top global ranking and it ranked India number 3 in general insurance
business in terms of density. India’s
global ranking is 11 in volumes of life insurance premium in 2013. (Sigma
Report.)
f)
The
criticism on insurance penetration is unnecessary, though there is a great
possibility for improvement. Life insurance penetration in India at 3.1% compares favourably with 3.2% of United States, 2.9% of Canada and 3.1% in Germany. India has a higher level of
penetration than all the Latin American countries and many of the developed
nations. We can improve upon this if the incomes levels and disposable incomes
increase.
g)
The argument
that entry of private sector has deepened insurance market needs close
scrutiny. We may point out that LIC recorded compound annual growth rate of
19.5% in the nineties. We strongly believe LIC would have continued to grow at
this rate had the sector not been opened. With a 19.5% CAGR the total premium
of LIC would have been Rs.337256 crore for 2013-14. Interestingly the combined
TPI of LIC and the private companies is the same figure for 2013-14. This again
makes it clear that the entry of private companies did not result into
expansion of the market. Rather the private companies tried to capture a share
of the market created by the public sector. It is also a fact that the private
companies concentrated on the big ticket policies with no social obligation for
the poor and disadvantaged.
We are,
therefore, convinced that opening up the sector did not benefit the economy nor
did it benefit the insuring public. The claims that opening up of insurance
sector would open the floodgates for the foreign capital to benefit
infrastructure remain unsubstantiated. The insuring public with high lapsation
ratio and high rate of claim repudiation by the private companies has suffered.
In the face of these realities, it is imprudent to give the foreign capital a
greater space and control over the domestic savings. We have real apprehension that FDI hike will
only succeed in hastening the process of mergers and acquisitions which would
have serious impact on the public sector and consequently the national economy
itself. The claim that even when the foreign equity limit is raised to 49%, the
management and control will remain with the Indians is unconvincing. You are
aware that with 26% equity participation the foreigners are now controlling the
functioning of many of the joint venture companies.
We,
therefore, request you to review your support to the FDI hike. We will be very
happy to answer any clarification required on our assessment. We will also be
happy to meet you personally to explain our stand if it so required.
Thanking
you,
Yours
faithfully,
Sd/- (Amanulla Khan)
President,
A.I.I.E.A
