The recent proposal by the Employees' Provident Fund to limit contributors' withdrawals at the age of 55 raises more questions than answers as to the motives of the move.

The EPF explained that its policy change is because most of the contributors managed to spend it all within a few years of withdrawal. Is this 'phenomenon' as widespread as we are made to believe, or are these cases the exception to the norm? Are there figures to back this claim? I very much doubt so since EPF has no business to monitor contributors spending patterns after withdrawal.

Which therefore leads to cynics like me to conclude that the money has to be kept in EPF in order to finance government projects, prop up the stock market, invest in companies which do not give dividends in the medium to short term or any at all - functions of which the EPF was not set up for.

Also perhaps the EPF has realised that in the near future, a high percentage of contribution will reach maturity and the mass withdrawal of funds will affect their ability to maintain a satisfactory rate of dividend.

Rather than trying to hide behind this false facade of 'all is well we are only trying to help you', and 'stretching' the problem, may I respectfully request that EPF face its shortcomings and make the necessary changes, not to the detriment of the contributors.

When we all started work, for some many years ago, there was a social contract that gave us the right to withdraw all our contributions upon maturity. From the lowest paid tea lady to the highest paid CEO, every month a portion of our salaries had been set aside with the belief that one day God willing, we will be able to have it all albeit perhaps for some a short time. It is something that we inevitably plan for, a manifestation of reward for all the years of labour, an end which promises a new beginning.

I would think that the only people who do not see it this way are the ones working in EPF. Now, to add salt to the injury, they are telling a bunch of 55 year olds that they do not know how to manage their finances. Perhaps there are some who would like it to be kept in the EPF, but keep the option open rather than compulsory, for once you change the contract terms, there will be the inevitable social ramifications and backlash.