SNPF, SAMOA OBSERVER & FAKE NEWS
SNPF Chief Executive has labelled a front page Samoa Observer published this week “Fake News” in a Letter to the Editor. Also published is a follow up Q&A between the Fund’s Chief Executive and the reporter who authored the article.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR;
Editor
Samoa Observer
Vaitele
31st August 2020
RE; Front Page article headlined; S.N.P.F. on the radar for farewell parties, staff uniforms written by Joyetter Feagaimaali’i
I write to correct the fake news in your newspaper today;
1. “The loss of over half a million tala”. There was never any loss at all. This specifically refers to the accounts of the Samoa Senior Citizens Benefit Fund (SCBF) whose budget is allocated from the MoF. For this particular year in question, the SCBF spent more than was allocated from the Treasury – simple as that. We cannot stop our services to our elderly community simply because the budget allocation has run out – it’s a matter of common sense. Since then, we have rectified this problem by securing a more substantial allocation for SCBF from the MoF – $28 million tala approved for the new FY 20-21 – a 40% increase from previous years signifying the government’s ongoing commitment to the wellbeing of our elderly and retired ua afu le tautua mo le atunuu.
2. “Purchase of Uniforms”. FK (15) 13 allows the funding of uniforms for special purposes and occasions. However, the Fund has always paid only 50% of the cost while the other 50% is funded by the employee. In 2017, we had a uniform for the 55th Independence celebrations on which occasion the entire staff marched in triumphant commemoration.
3. “Farewell parties”. The fact that you put this in the plural when the audit report only indicates one Board-approved farewell function demonstrates your newspaper’s ever-increasing fondness for fake news! Anyway, the management response was noted in your article.
The above and all the other matters raised have already been clarified with the Audit Office and in front of relevant parliamentary committees as is the usual process year-on-year. Next time you should ask the Audit Office for a clarification instead of rushing to conclusions in an attempt to put a negative light on the Fund.
Soifua
Pauli Prince Suhren
Chief Executive Officer
SAMOA NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND.
RE; PAULI RESPONSE TO FEGAIMALI’I”S INQUIRIES (1st September 2020):
FEGAIMALI’I; Are you suggesting the Auditor General has made a mistake? If so, how did this happen and why did you not take the opportunity to correct him when it was presented as part of the audit process?
PAULI; This is what happens when you jump the gun and print a report that has not even been tabled in parliament – making you stand likely in breach of parliamentary standing orders. So let me educate you; the report you printed is strictly for internal processes only i.e. between the audit office, parliament and the government. The audit office reports to parliament. Parliament scrutinizes these reports and holds the government (SNPF included) to account. Within that process is an intricate web of meetings, reports, counter reports, more meetings and ends when the audit report is tabled by the relevant committee in parliament and the government has a final chance to respond. Only then is the report made public because by then all the matters raised by the audit will have either been sufficiently clarified or remedial action is taken by the government as a result.
However, instead of waiting for the final report as I have tried to explain above, you have gone ahead and published something that is only partially complete because the process of scrutiny is still ongoing.
So to answer your question; the Auditor General is doing his job and a fine one at that. The relevant parliamentary committee(s) is doing its job. We are doing our job. When all that is done, you will have a clearer understanding of the issues.
ii) You seek to draw a distinction between the Samoa Senior Citizens Benefit Fund (S.S.C.B.F.) and the NPF. According to information provided by the Government of Samoa to the International Labour Organisation the S.S.C.B.F. is:
The benefits and administrative costs are funded by the government and the Samoa National Provident Fund Board is also responsible for the management and operations of the program. SNPF vehicles are used each month to transport pay teams around the country to deliver the cash payments. Staff support, audit and information technology services are also provided by the SNPF as part of its corporate responsibility to the community.
FEGAIMALI’I; Do you deny administrative responsibility for the S.S.C.B.F.? Are you implying it is the Ministry of Finance that is responsible for the S.S.C.B.F.? If so, when did these arrangements change?
PAULI; Joyetter – I am disappointed. You know why? You are the so called Chief Reporter of the award-winning Samoa Observer and yet it seems that everyone knows the distinction between the SNPF, the SCBF and the PPS except for you. So allow me to enlighten you once again; the three are separate entities with separate funding. The only thing linking them together is the fact that they are all under my command and share the same Minister. Other than that, they are as distinct as the moon is from the sun and the stars.
SNPF is self-funding. PPS (the Parliamentary Pension Scheme) is funded in the main by the contributions of members of parliament. SCBF (Senior Citizens Benefit Fund) is funded directly and fully from the MoF budget.
Therefore, while it is correct to say that all three are SNPF related – the fact remains they are 3 separate entities.
Finally, show me where in my previous response I denied responsibility for the SCBF? For the record and on the contrary, I take full responsibility for all three entities.
FEGAIMALI’I; Have you written to the Auditor to correct what you argue are the errors in his report? If so, when did you do so? Can you provide a copy of the correspondence?
PAULI; I refer you to my previous response below.
The above and all the other matters raised have already been clarified with the Audit Office and in front of relevant parliamentary committees as is the usual process year-on-year.
