Comparative Analysis Between Employees Provident Fund (EPF) & Private Retirement Scheme (PRS) in Malaysia

Nurin Athirah Mohd Alam Shah, M. Nasrul, Devi Seviyana
{"title":"Comparative Analysis Between Employees Provident Fund (EPF) & Private Retirement Scheme (PRS) in Malaysia","authors":"Nurin Athirah Mohd Alam Shah, M. Nasrul, Devi Seviyana","doi":"10.15294/lesrev.v7i2.69847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Employee Provident Fund (EPF) was established Under the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 (EPF Act 1991) as a social security organisation that offers members with trustworthy and efficient savings management, and it is open to both di personnel. In contrast, the Private Pension Administrator (PPA) developed the Private Retirement Scheme (PRS), a retirement programme, to address retiree' insufficient resources for meeting their retirement expenses in light of rising living standards and longer life expectancies. Having to see the similar aspects between EPF and PRS in terms of creating a savings and their importance towards securing certain degree of comfort to retirees , this study seeks to make a comparative analysis between the two. The researcher employs a qualitative approach, by conducting a library-based research on the relevant materials including, but not limited to statutory provisions, case laws, textbooks, journal articles, newspapers, conference proceedings, and seminar papers. The findings show that both are identical in certain regards despite having distinctive features  and could greatly benefit not only the account holder, but also serve as a potential inheritance estate to his beneficiaries, subject to the effect of its nomination. it is believed that efforts should be bolstered by the stakeholders in creating more awareness regarding the importance of  contributing  in EPF or PRS. \n ","PeriodicalId":292299,"journal":{"name":"Lex Scientia Law Review","volume":"57 24","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lex Scientia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15294/lesrev.v7i2.69847","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Employee Provident Fund (EPF) was established Under the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 (EPF Act 1991) as a social security organisation that offers members with trustworthy and efficient savings management, and it is open to both di personnel. In contrast, the Private Pension Administrator (PPA) developed the Private Retirement Scheme (PRS), a retirement programme, to address retiree' insufficient resources for meeting their retirement expenses in light of rising living standards and longer life expectancies. Having to see the similar aspects between EPF and PRS in terms of creating a savings and their importance towards securing certain degree of comfort to retirees , this study seeks to make a comparative analysis between the two. The researcher employs a qualitative approach, by conducting a library-based research on the relevant materials including, but not limited to statutory provisions, case laws, textbooks, journal articles, newspapers, conference proceedings, and seminar papers. The findings show that both are identical in certain regards despite having distinctive features  and could greatly benefit not only the account holder, but also serve as a potential inheritance estate to his beneficiaries, subject to the effect of its nomination. it is believed that efforts should be bolstered by the stakeholders in creating more awareness regarding the importance of  contributing  in EPF or PRS.  
马来西亚雇员公积金(EPF)与私人退休计划(PRS)的比较分析
雇员公积金(EPF)是根据《1991年雇员公积金法》(《1991年雇员公积金法》)成立的一个社会保障组织,为成员提供值得信赖和高效的储蓄管理,并向两种人员开放。相比之下,私人退休金管理人(PPA)制定了私人退休计划(PRS),这是一项退休计划,以解决退休人员在生活水平提高和预期寿命延长的情况下,资源不足以支付退休费用的问题。鉴于EPF和PRS在创造储蓄方面的相似之处,以及它们对确保退休人员获得一定程度的舒适的重要性,本研究试图对两者进行比较分析。研究人员采用定性方法,对相关材料进行基于图书馆的研究,包括但不限于法定规定、判例法、教科书、期刊文章、报纸、会议记录和研讨会论文。调查结果表明,尽管两者具有不同的特征,但在某些方面是相同的,不仅可以极大地造福于账户持有人,而且还可以作为其受益人的潜在继承财产,但取决于其提名的效果。相信利益攸关方应加强努力,使人们更加认识到为紧急方案基金或减贫战略作出贡献的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信