Newsletter April 2016
When I first started out with developing the contracting support business in Asia Pacific 15 years ago, my approaches were often received with a blank look. Whilst it was a relatively well known workforce model in Europe and Australia, it was not the case for most of Asia.
Asia was more familiar with the Japanese style "Iron rice bowl" model where the employee was employed for life and the employer had that moral responsibility to care for the employees as a long term commitment.
Nevertheless, things were fast changing. With western multinational companies leading the charge, the workforce model began changing. The various financial crises since the late nineties meant that the notion of permanence became more and more a distant ideal. Corporations restructured themselves to be more flexible and the form of fixed term contracting that has evolved within Asia Pacific seems set to stay.
Harry… on behalf of the Innovare Team
Asia Centric Model
Those familiar with the “limited company” type model we see in Europe might find it quite a lot more complicated in Asia Pacific. Here, we dwell on the more common form of contracting in Asia Pacific sometimes referred to as the Employee of Record (EOR) model. Some of the characteristics are elaborated below:
Immigration laws in most countries in Asia Pac often holds a local entity responsible for the entry, wellbeing, good behaviour and eventual exit of the individual. This also ensures that local immigration and employment laws are adhered to. This host company will be the technical employer of the individual.
The starting point is usually a host company or sponsor. At the most basic form, the sponsor has to be a registered company in the country where the services are rendered. In reality, it’s not as simple. Some frequently encountered hindrances are:
A. General Protectionist trend
In a slowing global economy, it becomes more and more common for governments to give job priorities to locals, where relevant skills exist. This manifest itself in the form of local to foreign quota (eg Indonesia and Thailand), more stringent qualifications for expatriates (eg Singapore), compulsory local training budgets (Australia) and use of local compulsory jobsites (eg. Singapore), amongst others. Companies bringing in expatriates are required to meet one or more of these criteria, some of which, are not necessarily officially expressed but rather, enforced in practice.
B. Track record of the sponsor plays a part in the ease of a work pass approval.
In Singapore, we sometimes find new companies having difficulty justifying the sponsorship of a highly paid expatriate. Immigration tend to trust a sponsor who has a good track record of approvals and the absence of labour issues.
C. Licencing is sometimes required for effective outsourcing.
For example, companies in Japan wishing to hire and outsource individuals to end clients need to have the Haken (“dispatch”) licence. Licence holders are subject to regular audits to ensure that the outsourcing terms are fair to the dispatched workers. Hence, such licences are getting harder to obtain and maintain.
Payroll & Tax Administration
The employer is then expected to administer the payroll of the individual and in some jurisdictions, deduct the tax and social security, where applicable.
Salary and tax accountability are required annually or upon completion of the term whichever is sooner. In some jurisdictions like Japan, Indonesia and Australia, a monthly tax deduction is required. This is similar to the practices in the UK.
Immigration and taxes
In more advanced countries eg Singapore, the Immigration and Inland Revenue departments are well linked so that applications made for entry purposes need to tie in with the contracts and the amounts eventually paid as taxes.
This sometimes poses a challenge for contractors as they are typically time based and pay-outs vary from month to month. This goes against the grain of a fixed pay understanding which is more familiar to immigration officers. Hence, contracts need to be properly drafted for consistency as well as to meet prerequisites of the immigration and tax departments.
The typical contracting model often involves an "all-in rate" where the contractor is given a total sum that encompasses all social security, taxes and benefits.
The applicability of an all-in rate becomes tricky when the law under the EOR model requires the employer to be responsible for the employer portion. It is a cost often overlooked by the contracting companies and has to be addressed in the cost structures, rates and contracts.
Benefits & Labour Law
In the same way, the all-in rate approach makes the handling of benefits a thin line to thread. It is often overlooked that the provision of benefits is required by law in some jurisdictions and agencies/clients are often caught by surprise when there is a claim. It is thus essential to be aware of these potential costs as well as to address then in formulating the transaction.
The so- called “arm’s length” relationship assumed in most Western based model cease to provide adequate protection for the sponsor. Most of the jurisdictions will favour the contractor when it comes to the labour tribunal. This is in spite of the all-encompassing pay rate paid to the contractor as common law seems to triumph. Hence, there has to be mechanisms in place to protect the sponsors.
Certain jurisdictions like Singapore tend to lean towards the contract and might uphold the "all-inclusive rate" relationship if properly stipulated in the contract. The emphasis here is that it needs to be properly stipulated... hence, a balance of clarity and the absence of contradictions within the contract need to exist.
It takes time and practice to familiarise with these unique features in Asia Pacific. Nevertheless, once the “tuition fees” are paid, the benefits to be reaped are plentiful. Definitely worth a look for the enterprising!
Should you need assistance in Asia Pacific, we would be pleased to hear from you.
Click here to view the original newsletter.