<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: EPF Act to be amended (again)</title>
	<link>http://chow.blogsome.com/2007/04/05/epf-act-to-be-amended-again/</link>
	<description>Tanjong</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 02:35:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Mimi Lim</title>
		<link>http://chow.blogsome.com/2007/04/05/epf-act-to-be-amended-again/#comment-206</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:52:00 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://chow.blogsome.com/2007/04/05/epf-act-to-be-amended-again/#comment-206</guid>
					<description>Housing/reduction of loan withdrawal is limited to 2 houses, why not expand it, as this info was never cascaded to contributors &amp;amp; only will find out when too late. T &amp;amp; C is always required to be declared under any investment schemes but for EPF no proper T &amp;amp;C given except to ensure contribution, which is not fair. With the revision of act, I would think that they will re-look at the limitation on withdrawal, but it seems to act more for them to have more money with them</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Housing/reduction of loan withdrawal is limited to 2 houses, why not expand it, as this info was never cascaded to contributors &amp; only will find out when too late. T &amp; C is always required to be declared under any investment schemes but for EPF no proper T &amp;C given except to ensure contribution, which is not fair. With the revision of act, I would think that they will re-look at the limitation on withdrawal, but it seems to act more for them to have more money with them
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
