Dear Editor,
I write to express my deep concern regarding the new policy of the Samoa National Provident Fund (SNPF) requiring members to provide land or other fixed assets as collateral when applying for vehicle loans, despite the small amount of these loans.
What is especially troubling is that this policy was implemented without prior notice or consultation with contributors. Many of us only became aware of this new requirement at the time of submitting our loan applications. This lack of communication has caused significant confusion and inconvenience, particularly for members who do not possess fixed assets but rely on these loan services for essential needs.
While the use of collateral is standard in many lending institutions, the requirement to use freehold land — a valuable long-term asset — raises serious concern. How can it be justified to risk freehold land in order to acquire a vehicle, which is a rapidly depreciating asset?
We are currently repaying our land loan. However, the requirement to use freehold land as collateral for a car loan is unacceptable, as the land is already under mortgage with another financial institution. Once cleared and fully paid off in fifteen or twenty years, this land is what we propose to pass down to our children.
This leads to a deeper and more pressing question: What is the true purpose of our SNPF contributions? Every employed citizen is required to contribute a portion of their salary to the Fund, and we are continually encouraged to view it as a safeguard for our future. These are not gifts or donations; they are deductions taken from our hard-earned wages.
Earlier this year, there was growing public concern and perception that some foreign business people, including Chinese nationals, were able to access larger loans despite not owning freehold land in Samoa or contributing to the SNPF system. This suggests a serious injustice and unfairness in lending policies. Local citizens are required to risk their generational assets, such as land, for small loans, whereas big foreign companies appear free to access large loans without being subject to the strict and unfavorable terms imposed on contributors.
If the mission of SNPF is to extend coverage to all workers and provide efficient and effective services through best practices, where is this mission currently being fulfilled? When will we, the contributors, be entitled to those best services ourselves? Where is the fairness, transparency, and prioritisation of the interests of our own people?
This is not the Samoa National Provident Fund we knew in previous years. I strongly urge the Fund to reconsider this policy and explore more flexible and member-friendly options. Our contributions should be more than sufficient to guarantee our loans without the need for a guarantor or the use of assets — especially when most contributors are borrowing to meet daily fa’alavelave obligations and essential living expenses.
I trust that the Chief Executive Officer and the Management will take appropriate action to address this matter, even as our national leaders remain preoccupied with political affairs.
I hope all other contributors of the Fund read this letter so that they will appreciate the points I am raising and stand together to stop this injustice by the Fund.
Thank you,
Concerned SNPF Contributor (UES)
