At the moment, all Pre-natal plans are only sold via ILP.

Ok thank you. that makes sense with the higher premium charges

That is just your excuse for your perceived assumption that i was refering to other posts,

I stated clearly by highlighted about what I replied in that post 5896.

I hv been believing what I was told by my agent. And that 2 posts with that highlighted info did reinforced what I had been believing.

So now , thank for not disputing my belief as posted in post 5896 and concluded that your post 5897 is not right to begin with.

It just means that you don't have to go through the hassle of getting grant of probate or letter of administration. You can still have other nominees in a trust policy. The trust nominee, is still subjected to the will of the deceased. That is my understanding. Same thing for non trust nominees, don't have to go through grant of probate / letter of admin. You will be executor of estate but only difference being estate can be kacaued by creditor

That is why they use the term trustee for trust nominee as opposed to beneficiary. The trust nominee may be the beneficiary, but not automatic sole beneficiary

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 19 2024, 12:32 PM

But my understanding is otherwise, ...



Attached thumbnail(s)

As pointed out earlier by one of the other posters. Will does not override nomination and nomination does not override will. They both coexist peacefully. Hope you understand. It is the beneficiary aspect that needs clarification. Who benefits? Up to the will and distribution act.

Googled and found a sample of the nomination form...
The person making the nomination are expected to hv read and understand the TnC ....

Something about creation of trust policy if and when, ...
Nominee will be just an executor, if and when,
If you want your nominee to receive the policy benefits beneficiary but not as an executor, ....
Etc etc

This just just an example, not sure if it s still valid or applicable for use.


Attached thumbnail(s)

But according to this,
money from conventional insurance policy received by nomination will over write a will, ...





Attached thumbnail(s)

Where does it say that "nomination will override will"?

The highlighted??

Refer to also, ...I did mentioned insurance policy



This post has been edited by MUM: Jun 19 2024, 01:14 PM

It doesn't say that. You are implying it.


And that is why your understanding in post 5886 and reinforced by post 5888 is wrong

Refer to also, ...I did mentioned insurance policy in my earlier post...

You are purposely excluded that sentence

This post has been edited by MUM: Jun 19 2024, 01:17 PM


Attached thumbnail(s)

According to my limited knowledge of other companies' offerings, yes.

This post has been edited by JIUHWEI: Jun 19 2024, 01:24 PM

You edited your reply and included a new component on 1.14 and are now saying I'm excluding it when I sent my post on 1.13. What a sneaky character. You clearly are not here to have a good faith discussion.

In any case, there is nothing within the Thomas Philip screenshot or the screenshot of an insurance policy in post 5925 that expressly said or implied that the nomination overrides the will

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 19 2024, 01:25 PM

Welcome to the world bro.

Life Insurance nomination proceeds do not fall within the assets of a deceased to be distributed either by a will or distribution act.

The person receiving the Life Insurance proceeds will then have to be identified to understand if they are receiving the monies as the ultimate beneficiary or as an executor.
And more than enough examples have been provided by our friends here in posts prior to this, so I shall not dive in further.

Frankly, I am not interested if the current practice is correct to your satisfaction.
I just need to make sure that things work accordingly to how I (and my clients) want it to work.

As far as why don't we do things in whichever way leh... who are you to think that you are involved?

Whe you replied to me...that "insurance policy" sentence was already there...
It is just that you purposely refused to see it.

Now who is the real "What a sneaky character. You clearly are not here to have a good faith discussion."


For your that post, .." In any case, there is nothing within the Thomas Philip screenshot or the screenshot of an insurance policy in post 5925 that expressly said or implied that the nomination overrides the will"..
It is just your perception....not all are in agreement with your perception.

BTW, if still need clarification for confirmation, ...contact Thomas Philip for confirmation?

This post has been edited by MUM: Jun 19 2024, 01:43 PM


Attached thumbnail(s)

In one sentence you will say "Life Insurance nomination proceeds do not fall within the assets of a deceased to be distributed either by a will or distribution act." and in the next sentence you will contradict yourself by saying "person receiving the Life Insurance proceeds will then have to be identified to understand if they are receiving the monies as the ultimate beneficiary or as an executor." Executor of what if not of the estate/will?

Anyways, I'm not sure why you think I'm involved. I just know that agents can be held liable for misinformation or giving false information to clients

It just says, "your will cannot override nomination". That does not imply that the "nomination will override the will". They both coexist. And FSA already says that you are either a "trust nominee" or "executor nominee". That is it.

And I did not alter your quote. I replied to it verbatim. It appeared as it is. Whereas there is a time stamp indicating edit in yours.

This post has been edited by hafizmamak85: Jun 19 2024, 01:54 PM

No happy then contact Thomas Philip to have them spell it out clearly...

If it was just about arguing,....then I have to stop now
But, You on the other hand can still continue to argue all you want.



Attached thumbnail(s)

i was having the same misconception that nominee designated as beneficiary
will get the insurance payout just like what Mum had believed in earlier ie
nominee get the money to spend for herself ,no need transfer money to the estate.

but after reading and from adele and holocene it said clearly sister as nominee would not get the payout for own use,
she must must put back to the estate.

not just sister,
brothers and everyone else also (besides parents spouse children) cannot get that money to spend,
they must put the money back in the estate


so i am surprised to read what lifebalance post below...
is he saying yes nominee get the money to spend no need put back into the estate
why lah not qualified it by saying nominee must be parents spouse children?
sister also same??

worse mum use that post to say lifebalance has confirmed and even enhanced what she had been believing in..
that is nominee like sister can get to spend the money, she no need put the money back into estate?

ini betul kah salah??


which one is correct now?

semua insurance nominee can get the pay out to spend ???


to those who had the habits of not posting clearly please lah..
you guys can reduce the amount of unneccesary replies and rebuttals.

This post has been edited by guy3288: Jun 19 2024, 02:02 PM