Diversification is well and good, but really must see people's capabilities (financial and understanding wise).

My retired parents, just put in EPF 100%. At that age if they try any sort of diversification super high chance kena scam (had to talk them out of durian farm 'investment' couple of years back for example).

For those still working and some time more to retirement, 100% EPF is a horrible idea, and foreign some percentage is (IMO) necessary. But again some just cannot brain it, and at least have bursa holdings etc. If really wanna put zero thought then EPF is not the worst idea.

Then again this assumes you have spare liquidity. Vast majority of Malaysian workers don't.It isn't geographical diversification. Malaysia lingkup EPF lingkup (and vice versa). Most of those discussing here are of the socioeconomic class where if things start burning they plan to get on a plane and leave. EPF is unsuitable for that scenario.

This post has been edited by LostAndFound: May 31 2025, 11:43 AM

The geographical diversification is partly about ringgit, but mostly about the risk inherent in Malaysia as a nation. This is where the coffeeshop rumours about EPF having been sucked dry by 'corruption' becomes relevant, not because its necessarily true right now, but because it could be true with the right (well, actually wrong) political leadership.

There's really no protection from 'those running the EPF decide you don't get anything' unfortunately.

And I don't think anyone was doing that.

Not to disagree with your main point, but... the total withdrawn was actually around RM145 billion (source: https://www.mof.gov.my/portal/en/news/press...wal-programmes). Not a trivial amount at all.

This post has been edited by LostAndFound: May 31 2025, 09:21 PM

What 'asian values' is this? Death over dishonour is also asian value, in fact its mainly the more conservative religious ang mou who is very against it. Harakiri is an Asian practice too.

Whether current political situation allows is a different thing, but this is more because of conservatism (imported from middle east/westerner) rather than our 'asian values'.

I don't think it has much impact on EPF though since even if implemented the access will be limited to those with means and agency (which is not the ones who are most suffering from no EPF).

Then whether 1 million or 1.3 million doesn't matter to those members right? Those who are complaining here about the limit raising are those who believe they will be impacted. If I have 2 million in EPF I got nothing to complain about.

If you contribute 100k per year for 10 years straight then confirm will have more than the amount =)

Eh, as soon as the employer has contributed it it does become your money, in the same way your salary becomes your money. It's held in trust by KWSP, but isn't any less yours.

The terms of that trust may be changing, but that doesn't change the ultimate ownership of the funds.

Who is this 'laymen' actually? Definitely those posting here aren't.

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".

Simple question - where do you think opportunity comes from? Does the wealth of the family at all affect the opportunity someone has, for example?

If we want to be pragmatic then yes.

EPF has a social purpose, as long as those in charge remember that then I'm fine to pump even if I have to wait longer to access my funds (most of which is likely to be handed down to my kids anyway). If EPF listens to the complainants here then that's when I'd start being worried. Burning country means my ringgit becomes worthless.

*explains in detail why it is good actually for society as a whole to take care of all its people*

"Is this communism?"

Technically what I am talking about falls more under socialism. But anyone who would read all that and say 'communism', then I guess yes its the same thing for that level of discourse.

If you are 30 years old and already have 1 million in EPF, how much is your salary I wonder? Don't think it will mean much also. Very hard to reach that amount at 30.

Very hard is not impossible.

And she is obviously not affected at all by limit raising from 1 million to 1.3 million (or even further).

My point is anyone whose salary is so high that EPF can hit 1 million at age 30 (can't be much more than 10 years working, probably less) will easily hit 1.3 million in a short period of time. Hardly affected at all.