EPF got its priority morally wrong
Gravely ill former manager in dire straits after High Court ruling
Outside the courthouse, his counsel Ranjit Singh lamented his client's position.
“Where can he turn to?” he asked.
“Even if it is true that Lau will be able to work again, he needs money to seek treatment first, before he could get employment and continue to contribute to EPF.”
“In the meantime, where is he to get the funds?” asked Ranjit.
“Unless, he is to desperately turn to Ah Long for a loan.”
Ranjit said it was sad that Lau, who had contributed to EPF since early 1980, could not get at least part of his contributions to pay for medical expenses.
Lau's application to compel the EPF to release his contributions
was rejected on the grounds that he would be able to work again after his surgery.
Lau had last year made an application to withdraw funds under Section 54(1) of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 because he was incapacitated and unable to work, which an EPF Medical Board rejected.
His subsequent appeal against the decision was also rejected.
In court, Ranjit, in applying for a judicial review of the decision, argued that the requirement for consent from three medical practitioners on the EPF Medical Board was illegal, since only two were needed for consent.
However, the judge disagreed, finding that the medical board was legally convened and its decision was correct.
Lau was diagnosed in July, last year, with hepatome hepatomegaly (enlarged liver) and was subsequently diagnosed with isohemic heart disease, liver cirrhosis and diabetes mellitus.
According to his consultant physician and cardiologist, he was in a dire need of a liver transplant and was medically certified as incapacitated physically from engaging in employment.
As a result, Lau applied to the EPF to withdraw his contributions to pay for surgery.
As a result, Lau applied to the EPF to withdraw his contributions to pay for surgery.
****************************************
What is Employees Provident Fund?
A retirement plan for the private and public sectors in Malaysia, enacted by the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) Act of 1991, intended to help employees save a portion of their salary in the event of retirement, disability, sickness or unemployment. As of 2007, employees are required to contribute at least 11% of their paycheck, with their employers contributing at least an additional 12%. The savings can then be used by the EPF for a wide variety of investments, and the participating employees are repaid through reinvested dividends. Employees may withdraw 30% of their accumulated EPF savings at age 50, and 100% at age 55.
It says clearly for disability, sickness or unemployment.
Lau is sick and he cannot work till he gets a surgery. He needs money and the only hope is from his EPF. He was rejected on the ground that in the future (if there is any hope given since he cannot get his EPF money) HE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK.
A vicious cycle of HE CANNOT GET TREATMENT UNLESS HE GETS HIS EPF MONEY. MEANING THERE IS NO HOPE OF HIM GETTING A JOB IN THE FUTURE. EPF REJECTS ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE FUTURE HE WILL BE ABLE TO WORK.
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST CASE AND WILL NEVER BE THE LAST THAT EPF REJECTS CONTRIBUTORS ON MEDICAL GROUND.
SINCE 2000 I HAVE FRIENDS WHO WERE BED RIDDEN, LEG CUT OFF, CANCER IN THE LUNG AND OTHERS. TILL THEIR DEATH, EPF HAVE REJECTED ALL OF THEM GIVING THE SAME EXCUSE.
EPF IS A ONE WAY PATH, ONLY THE LUCKY ONES RECEIVE THEIR SAVING IN FULL AT THE AGE OF 55. EVEN AT 53 OR 54 EPF WILL NEVER ALLOW ANYONE TO WITHDRAW ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND.
BUT IT IS OKAY FOR EPF TO GIVE MONEY TO 1MDB AND BEFORE THAT FOR FOREX TRADING WHICH NEVER SAW ANY RETURNS.
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/epf-loaned-rm25-billion-to-debt-ridden-pembinaan-pfi
Comments