I don't think this is the right way to categorise the level of wealth in EPF. Age contributes an crucial factor. An individual with 100k at the age of 30 is not the same as individual with 100k at age of 50.

I wanted to confirm with everyone in lowyat forum... Because the letter article is misleading.... Don't know how many people believe what written there.... Spreading fake news & information around....

Don't know why I find all this discussion was pre plan -
1. World bank published article
2. Local news pick it up and everyone of the news outlets misinterpreted the information - not one interpreted it correctly
3. Telling public that retirement age should be 70 and we Malaysia retire too early and can deplete our retirement saving and also the ageing population
4. World bank published a statement to clarify their article
5. Then now experts start to say 60 years old retirement is fair and 60 years old full withdrawal is fair

Anyway if can I would want to retire even now

This sort of comment is why I know most here are T5. We live in a society and government represents all citizens.

Those who have more is not JUST because of ability and hard work. There are communal structures and public investments which contribute to your ability to generate and grow wealth. It is in EVERYONE's interest that we don't have dirt poor and starving people anywhere in Malaysia, ESPECIALLY for those who are well off, because there is more to lose from discontent and violence. This isn't even about ethics (you choose your own for that) - its just pragmatic that every person, whether capable or not, whether smart or not, whether wasteful or not, does not go hungry or go without. What do you think will happen when vast majority of the people living here are struggling to get by and they see you getting wealthier and wealthier, and a government who exists just to defend your interests/profits while ignoring them?

Capitalism unconstrained will lead to social collapse (and, ironically, possibly communism). It's in all our interests for those who don't have much to still have some private funds when they retire, and if the cost of that is a bit of inconvenience to those of us who have more than enough, I think its a worthwhile trade-off. I don't think there's anyone who has 1 million plus in who doesn't have other investments anyway so most are just complaining about not having FULL access to their liquidity.

Equality in outcome is always desirable, because inequality leads to violence. See... all of history.

Also because there is no equality in opportunity (primary predictor for economic success is still inherited wealth). Improving equality in outcome means equality in opportunity, and allows us to actually have people succeed due to their hardwork and ability rather than because they were privileged. We already do this through publicly funded education for example. But suddenly when it comes to EPF measures we complain when the government trying to adjust.

For me the complaint is that government should do their job and support/assist rather than 'help' people from their retirement savings. But it seems more of the complaints here is targetted at "why these people no money, they must be lazy/stupid".

i always trust epf even till the point if they say have to convert to model similar to CPF
anyway this is for our own good as a lot of old ppl dont really know how to manage their financial
someone who is a teacher also will get scam can you believe it?
some doctors, some engineers - all also possible to get scam
those reported on news we know, those cases not on news we dont knw

...

so i am all for lock up a portion of our EPF money and slowly give it to us

1. old members optional and if the opt in give them some benefits
2. not base on % but is base on RIA Framework and in the lasted RIA Framework the amount is 390k so lock this amount up and slowly pay you the next 20 years
3. if u die before the amount 390k is used up then it goes to your beneficiaries
4. if u survive after 20 years then gov will continue to pay you even your money is zero, which is very similar concept like CPF Life annuity plan

that is why i dont mind having 390k lock up as monthly i will get like 2.7k for the next 20 years and if so happen i die after 30 years i gain lo.. if i die in the first 5 years, my beneficiaries still have money to take back... and by opting to this option i can ensure that monthly i have 2.7k and the money is not possible to be scam by family members, uncle, sister, brother, cousin, good friend, stupid friend or anyone else

again this is purely my own personal opinion
gov is being really respectful since our gov already said if anything new introduce will only impact future contributors
Lim Hui Ying (Deputy Finance Minister) has clarified a key point: the reforms would only apply to new contributors/members, while existing contributors’ rights remain largely unchanged.

https://www.mof.gov.my/portal/en/news/press...ent-withdrawals

Unker agree to the suggestion to increase retirement age to 70 years old for those who didn't have enough money in their EPF. Those who have less than RM 10K in EPF should extend retirement age to 85 years old because they didn't have enough to retire.

For those who have achieved certain minimum savings in EPF, they should cut their retirement age to allow withdrawal. This group have demonstrated that they're able to save for themselves and don't need nagging government to decide for them.

Unker called this suggestion,"Dynamic retirement age and withdrawal rules". You can't apply blanket retirement age to everyone. This could be seen as a deterrent for savings more into EPF in the future.

It’s not bad per say, they need to take the money and invest it for 10 years (when prrson is 55) before releasing it back to singaporens when they are 65, for sustained period of return

Can't fire them. Then it will become this group of people can do nothing in the company and get free salary every month, nothing company can do to them since can't fire them.

If this policy in effect, first thing company will do when hiring new staff = check the staff's EPF info to make sure they have min 390k before hiring them. Those already >40 and without 390k in epf, if they looking for new job, i guess the chance to be hired is even lower, company has 1 more reason not to hire them.

And also, need to know not all companies have strong financial backup, forcing companies to continue hire these extra staff = indirectly ask them to close the companies.

But due to the suggested plan is can't fire them, so basically once they are hired, these people can just snaking whole day and wait for salary 

And lots of MCs and hospitalisation leave.

Contribution rate should also be changed following cpf model employer 17% employee 20% . One shot changed all the grouses about low epf balances. No other policies can do it.

Unker 100% agreed on your thorough assessment.

That's why Unker setuju 100% to implement new balance policy for NEW EPF account.

Meanwhile, old promises made by the government must be fulfilled to old contributors. Trust build confidence. That's how you strengthen EPF

Yeah dividend also must same as cpf 2024 2.5%

So many say cpf good so must follow everything. Think where the subsidy came from ?

What subsidy?

See if you can find how CPF returns are calculated every year.
In epf we can see the annual earnings.

In life, resources is always limited. We should pay more attention on those who still have chance to grow their retirement fund. Those who have very little in their retirement account at the age of 60 basically running out of time and opportunity to make it up. Reality and maths is painful to swallow but someone got to deliver the bad news.

Focus our resources on those who still have chance especially new young EPF members. Make good policy for them.

Old promises got to be delivered no matter what.... Failure to do so will ignite the collapse of trust and confidence, which may result in negative consequences in the future

All of us are suffering from the negative impact of the series of withdrawal during COVID. It's unfair to those who are prudent to top up voluntarily after COVID to get their retirement age withdrawal extended further than promised.