15/09/2021
We were surprised to read in the press release to SPH, that we refused to make payment and that action would be taken against parties associated with SAA. For avoidance of doubt, we are also prepared to tender immediate payment to the MOM to be paid on to the vaccinators who have lodged TADM claims, on the basis that the payment will be calculated on the basis that they are contractors but in the event CPF is subsequently payable, MOM will recover the 20% employee’s CPF contribution from these vaccinators.
We feel the public should understand the full story and be allowed to judge for itself whether SAA is truly in the wrong.
The background to the matter is that Parkway Shenton had contracted MMP who sub-contracted SAA for provision of the vaccinators. On 23rd July 2021, SAA informed MOM that the project funds due to SAA had been withheld which impeded our cash flow and delayed payment to the vaccinators. The funds were initially withheld by MMP due to delay by Parkway Shenton in making payment and subsequently due to a payment dispute between MMP and SAA.
On 23rd July 2021 SAA had through the assistance of solicitors, prevailed upon MMP to advance funds received by MMP from Parkway Shenton without prejudice to any payment dispute between SAA and MMP to facilitate payment to the vaccination contractors.
On 2nd August 2021, SAA had promptly announced on our page that the funds had been received and had commenced payment to the vaccinators through the project accountant. See copy enclosed. MOM was fully aware of this.
On 23rd August 2021, SAA had informed that payment to the vaccinators had been interrupted briefly due to hospitalisation of the project accountant arising from COVID-19. MOM was reassured that payments would resume shortly upon the expiration of the hospitalisation leave issued to the project accountant. The payments have in fact resumed for the majority of the vaccinators.
There was however a complication in relation to a minority of contractors who had lodged claims with the TADM on the basis that they were employees although they were retained as contractors. This created an issue as to whether CPF requirements applied. SAA took the view that TADM was not the appropriate forum for the vaccinators but nonetheless tried to iron out the complications created.
SAA had explained the difficulty to MOM and repeatedly requested MOM to make a determination as to whether the TADM complainants were employees or contractors, so that SAA could resolve the issue of whether to withhold employee’s CPF contributions and make payment accordingly. SAA had also proposed that if MOM preferred not to escalate the matter for determination, MOM’s confirmation that no CPF would be payable would suffice.
To date, none of the claims were escalated to the Employment Claims Tribunal for a determination of the issue. Nor did MOM confirm the CPF issue. Instead, MOM continued to instruct SAA to make payment to the TADM complainants, ignoring the issue of whether CPF was payable or had to be withheld for employee CPF contribution.
SAA repeatedly engaged MOM on this issue. As recently as 14th September 2021 SAA expressly proposed that if MOM is not prepared to determine the issue of whether CPF is payable, SAA would nonetheless make payment on the same basis as the other vaccinators contractors and offered to do so on the spot at the MOM premises. See copy enclosed.
MOM responded instead that SAA of SAA wishes to make payment to the vaccinators, it should contact them directly and immediately to make the payment and that neither MOM nor TADM will facilitate this. See copy enclosed.
Hence, the public should be aware of the real issue – that MOM delayed making any determination despite SAA requesting them to do so. Having delayed this for months, MOM issued a press release and enlisted other parties to make payment to the contractors instead, and then accused SAA of failing to make payment.
We remain committed to making payment to all contractors including the TADM complainants and would request them to approach us directly to receive payment. We would also request the other parties who have been approached to make payment, to allow us to fulfil the payment obligations instead, rather than complicate the issue. We repeat that we are alternatively prepared to tender immediate payment to the MOM to be paid on to the vaccinators who have lodged TADM claims, on the basis that the payment will be calculated on the basis that they are contractors but in the event CPF is subsequently payable, MOM will recover the 20% employee contribution from these vaccinators and we will be absolved from not withholding the 20% employee’s contribution if this becomes an issue subsequently.
We also enclose our letter to MOM which was sent out today, along the above lines.
