Job applicant claims company listed EPF, SOCSO as perks despite being legal requirements, igniting debate on fair employment practices in Malaysia.
UNDER Malaysian law, it is mandatory for employers to provide Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and Social Security Organisation (Socso) contributions for citizens in both the public and private sectors.
However, a local woman’s recent experience has highlighted a troubling trend of companies misrepresenting these statutory requirements as “perks”.
The woman took to the social media platform Threads to allege that a company she had applied to listed these legal obligations as part of its employee benefits package.
According to the applicant, the initial job listing was notably vague, failing to mention any specific benefits, perks, or even standard working hours. The situation reportedly became more confusing during the interview stage.
READ MORE: M’sian worker claims employer failed to pay EPF for four out of six years of employment
“The company claimed to provide medical leave (MC), public holidays, and ‘occasional’ bonuses. They assured me these would be detailed in the offer letter,” she recounted.
However, upon receiving the formal offer, the woman was surprised to find that the document only specified claimable medical leave and a mere eight days of annual leave for the first two years of service.
“It felt as though there were no actual benefits included at all,” she said.
When the applicant sought clarification regarding the missing perks, the company reportedly provided a revised list. To her astonishment, the “benefits” included: EPF and Socso (mandatory contributions), alternate Sundays off (working conditions) and medical leave (MC) claims (standard leave).
The post quickly went viral, with netizens expressing disbelief that a company would attempt to frame legal necessities as added value.
Netizens were quick to point out that EPF and Socso are not optional incentives but are governed by the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 and the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991.
“These are not benefits. This is the bare minimum required by law,” one user remarked. Another commenter urged the woman to take formal action: “Report them to the authorities. Since when have statutory requirements been classified as job benefits?”