HwangIM : 0% sales charge, 1.8% annual management fee, 0.04% annual trustee fee, 0.04% PPA fee = total 1.88% pa
PM: 3% sales charge, 1.5% annual management fee, 0.06% annual trustee fee, 0.04% PPA fee = total 1.6% pa

Difference pa is 0.28%, but with PM you have a disadvantage of -3% at the beginning. My reasoning:

1. If I think PM will give me better returns than HwangIM over 10 years, then I'll go for PM cause after about 11 years, PM's extra sales charge would be equalized by HwangIM's higher annual fees.
2. If you have a long way to go to retirement, e.g. >15 years, maybe can consider PM cause in the long run it is cheaper than HwangIM. Remember whatever $ you put in cannot be touched till 55 so the lower the fee the better - this is assuming the sales charge/annual management fee remains the same for the next >15 years.
3. Having said the above, you can also switch anytime to different providers subject to RM25 (HwangIM/PM) +RM25 (PPA).

Personally I'll go for HwangIM for now - hopefully this can pressure PM and other providers to lower their sales charge and also hopefully HwangIM will lower their management fee in future

Disclaimer: I am NOT a financial expert or consultant. These are just based on my layman understanding.

The annual management fee difference is marginal. U should consider which fund u think will bring better returns. Considering all equal n management fee is yr sole concern, then u should buy hwang in the first year, then switch to another fund with lower fees, eg public mutual in year two. With this u only pay rm25 extra transfer fee but u have saved much more in entrance fees. 

i tot the management fees that need to be paid yearly is for the PRS, should not include the masterfund? anyway, i am interested to investment in CIMB PRS Asia ex Japan as well since the masterfund seems to be doing quite well last year. And the sales charge and management fees is much lower.

question: how we do qualify for Class C investor?

eh.. but this article about feeder fund talks elaborate differently. It says we only pay the management fees at the feeder fund, fund manager of the feeder fund will use a portion of the fees collected to pay the management fees of the target fund. a bit confused now.

http://www.cimb-principal.com.my/upload/Sh...der%20Funds.pdf

EPF, we know principal is secured, as well as return (just matter how much, low or high), but with UT, principal is not guaranteed, it can make a good profit as well as loss one.

What if, when retired time, UT register a huge loss?

hwang peform better
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/HWPRSSF:MK
Hwang ytd = +16.36%

i) if no rebound, wait until die? 
ii) What is your feel, if you have contribute 20-30 years every month into a so called "retirement fund", then ended the money worth less than what you have put in?

i) Another 20 years? Many may not have this. Time doesn't guarantee a fund will rebound. Some funds may remain poor throughout.

ii) That's why I said, if buying UT can consider as "retirement fund", then many already have it. So now I own some equities, this is also my "retirement fund"?

PRS invest in UT.
UT invest in equities.

So invest in equities = retirement fund? 

i) if the fund doesn't recover, it just means "double down" the loss.
Not every fund must be making profit over the long term.
Typically example, those local funds that offers China related UT.
Many average down, and double average down, and now what happen?

Buy more when the fund fall 50%, isn't it like "play fire" with retirement money? 

ii) the tax relief is not unlimited. In fact only Rm3000, even at highest tax bracket 26%, it is Rm780 only. 10 years Rm7800.

Like that (if invest in equities aims to get passive income), then many do have retirement fund already, that's why I do not see much attractiveness in PRS.

In fact, for me, EPF is better choice.
Guaranteed principal + return (may not as high as UT but it guaranteed the capital and return)