What Our Clients
Have Found Helpful

The Challenge

The client, a former production manager, discovered through an EPF statement review that contributions from his final four years of employment had been calculated on a base salary figure that excluded allowances that were, by law, included in EPF-eligible wages. The total shortfall was approximately RM 18,000 in contributions and investment returns.

What We Did

We obtained the client's employment contract and payslip records, calculated the correct contribution basis, and issued formal correspondence to the former employer. When the employer's initial response disputed the calculation methodology, we prepared a detailed legal analysis referencing relevant EPF Act provisions and submitted a formal complaint to KWSP's enforcement division.

The Outcome

KWSP conducted its own investigation following the complaint and directed the employer to remit the correct contributions with applicable charges. The matter was resolved within approximately eight months. The client's EPF balance was adjusted accordingly. The client noted that the process, while longer than hoped, proceeded in an orderly and understandable manner.

The Situation

The client had spent 12 years in the civil service followed by 15 years in the private sector, with a period of secondment to a GLC. Her pension position involved a civil service entitlement under the Pensions Act, a substantial EPF Account 1 balance from her private sector years, and a small PRS account set up during the GLC period. Her family also had a property holding company with staff EPF obligations.

The Arrangement

The client engaged Bestari's long-horizon retainer. Annual reviews document the evolving position across all three pension frameworks. We also assist with nomination document reviews each year, coordinate occasionally with her financial planner on EPF Account 1 withdrawal timing, and have provided guidance to the family company on its EPF contribution obligations.

The Value

Over three years of the retainer, we have updated nominations twice in response to family changes, identified one instance of an incorrect civil service pension adjustment that was corrected through administrative correspondence, and provided the family company with a written opinion on EPF scope that prevented a potential compliance issue. The client considers the annual fee well within the value of services delivered.

The Background

A client approaching 55 wanted to understand the full picture of his EPF withdrawal options before making any decisions. He had received conflicting information from colleagues about Account 1 withdrawal timing, the implications of choosing a lump sum versus phased withdrawal, and how his wife's nomination on his account would operate if he predeceased her.

The Session

The orientation covered each of his specific questions: the current withdrawal eligibility rules under the EPF Act, the practical considerations of lump sum versus instalment withdrawal from a legal (not financial) standpoint, and how nomination operates under EPF law — including the distinction between EPF nominations and wills. His wife attended and was included in the discussion.

The Result

The client left with a written session note covering all the points discussed. He chose not to engage further legal services at that stage, and none were recommended — the orientation had addressed what he needed. He returned the following year for a brief update session following a change in EPF regulations, and referred two colleagues to Bestari for their own orientation sessions.