I find the S.N.P.F.’s response unacceptable

Dear Editor,

Congratulations and well done, King W, for your informative enquiry into the properties belonging to all N.P.F contributors, supposedly to be managed by N.P.F in a fair and just system for all members and not for only a few elite. 

According to the Prime Minister last week, he labelled you, the writer of this letter as jealous and ignorant. Woops! 

Now we all know that our Prime Minister is always defensive when we criticise the actions of his so called “H.R.P.P friends”. But don’t you worry King W., God is watching and we all know where these people will end up. 

At least something good has come out of it. The Rugby Union had received some much-needed money. We are also grateful that the Samoa Observer is standing up with us against these evil dealings. As long as we believe that the “pen and paper are mightier than the sword” we will survive. 

Anyway, let us go back to N.P.F Chief’s response. 

Poor C.E.O is struggling to cover up such an unprofessional act in handling this case. She responded in a merry go round explanation, by saying that it is policy to publicly tender all assets. 

In her explanation, she said that N.P.F lands are segregated into some lands identified for lease, which are then advertised and leased out. There are other lands (probably sacred ones) which are part of some sort of arrangement and therefore Management has the prerogative to award these leases on a case by case basis. 

What a load of rubbish. Once a policy is in place, it should apply to all N.P.F assets/lands? This is discriminatory and racist, meaning the “haves and have nots” are grouped separately. 

People with money and people with no money. Those with little or no money will continue to be slaves of well off people. 

Is this what we mean by the recent amendment to the constitution, that Samoa is a ‘Christian Nation? Introduced by a very Christian Prime Minister? 

God Almighty must be wondering and pondering about our leaders behaviour.

Perhaps their action are guided by the simple rule of “Do as I say but don’t practise what I’m doing”. 

To sum up the first half of my friend C.E.O’s reply, she did not admit that the lands were actually advertised, nor being submitted to the Board for approval, which I thought that a policy should have been a Board business, whilst the implementation/administration is Management’s discretion. 

At the outset she said that the two properties in question are leased out to two different entities in the private sector. She failed to disclose the identities of these two entities. 

However don’t you worry Ms. C.E.O, that information is available from M.N.R.E. for the lessees’ names and the shareholders of these entities are available at M.C.I.L. 

The amazing common element is that, the shareholders of these entities are all closely blood related. So, no matter how hard the Commander in Chief tries to conceal the two existing entities identities and self-denial of any wrong doing, the registration sources are there for the public to see. 

It reminds us that of a Samoan saying, “E fiu lava e faapulou le tama’i moa, ae ioio mai lava” tulou. 

Last but not least, she went on to highlight how the conflict of interest is being taken care of in the N.P.F Board room. 

Malo lava. Your explanation is fine but, there is more to do than just simple declaration of a Directors C.O.I and abstention from voting and leaving the meeting. 

Have you heard about collusion and Buddy’s favouritism? 

If your Directors have been meeting several times and supporting each other over the years, how dare can you say that check and balance are in place where Directors disclose their interest, and then leave the Board meeting when such matter is discussed? 

Directors are human beings, and they tend to support their buddy’s cases, in this case the lands under scrutiny. 

Ladies and gentlemen, you can see my point why a simple disclosure of conflict of interest and abstaining from voting is well short of a perceived justice being done. 

My honest opinion in the treatment of C.O.I in this case is “disqualification of the Directors” family bid. This is a very similar example to a Director applying for a Corporation Consultancy Work, when she/he is a Director of the same Corporation. He/she either resigns as Director and allow his/her application to be considered along with all others, or to hang on to his/her directorship and stay out of the race. 

Having said that, I find the Chief Executive Officer’s response pathetic, superficial, misleading and unacceptable. 


Lotolelei Faimeasa’o 

Trending Stories

Samoa Observer

Upgrade to Premium

Subscribe to
Samoa Observer Online

Enjoy access to over a thousand articles per month, on any device.

Ready to signup?