FOR over 30 years, Anthony Jubili has been waiting for money he believed was his.
At 75, he should be enjoying his golden years, spending time with his grandchildren or even playing with his great-grandchildren.
Instead, his days are consumed with worry, while living under the shadow of a retirement fund, he may never see.
“It’s just a matter of time. We’re just waiting to die at this point,” he says bluntly, his words carrying the weight of decades lost in bureaucratic confusion.
Jubili is one of about 300 former employees of the Sabah Ports Authority (SPA) who were part of a retirement scheme designed to secure their old age.
They are now in their 70s and 80s, living across Sabah — from Sandakan to Lahad Datu and Tawau.
According to Jubili, around 30% of his former colleagues have passed on, sadly without receiving their retirement payout, which ranges from RM20,000 to several hundred thousand each.
Most began working at SPA in the late 1960s to early 1970s and served an average of 32 to 35 years before retiring in the early 2000s.
Their hopes were pinned on the Retirement Benefit Scheme (RBS), introduced before the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) system was implemented in Sabah.
Initially, the state port authority contributed 20% of the employees’ salaries, managed by an insurance company under the RBS scheme.
The retirees also received annual Statements of Assurance Benefits as proof that their retirement was secured.
However, when the Harun Commission was introduced in 1975, the RBS was terminated.
The funds were supposed to be transferred to the EPF, which initially was under the government’s directive, allowing retirees to choose between a pension or a lump sum.
However, later under RBS Rule 14, the retirement funds should have been transferred to the EPF.
The rule clearly states that the money would be claimable upon reaching the retirement age of 55 years.
However, SPA made the controversial decision to transfer the funds into The Retirement Fund Inc (Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (KWAP) instead of transferring it to EPF, a move retirees believed violated RBS Rule 14.
It is understood the retirees were not properly informed of this move.
The state port authority’s action resulted in the funds being redirected to KWAP — RM5.8 million in 2012 and another RM1.6 million in 2005, over 10 years after the government directive.
This was what leads to confusion and resentment now.
The controversy revolves around the legal and moral question of whether the retired staff are wrong to ask for EPF after receiving pension and gratuity from KWAP.
Legally, SPA is technically correct in stating that the retirees are not entitled to EPF because they chose the Full Pension Scheme, thus forfeiting EPF contributions.
Statutory regulations under the Pensions Act and Retirement Fund Act state that those who receive pension and gratuity under KWAP cannot also receive EPF.
However, the retirees argue that they are morally justified in demanding EPF because RBS Rule 14 stated that the funds should have been transferred to EPF, giving them a choice between an EPF lump sum payment or pension scheme.
They believe that SPA’s alleged decision to dump the funds into KWAP denied them the choice promised under the RBS.
It seems they were not informed that choosing the pension scheme would result in losing their EPF entitlements.
Legally, the retirees are not entitled to EPF because they opted for the Full Pension Scheme, which forfeited their right to EPF.
Morally and administratively, they have a valid grievance due to alleged mismanagement and poor communication.
RBS Rule 14 promised them a choice that they believe was denied by the state port authority’s decision.
They claim that if Rule 14 had been followed, they would have been able to choose EPF. This conflict between legal technicality and moral expectation is at the heart of the retirees’ continued fight.
Seeking justice, the retirees filed a lawsuit to reclaim their retirement funds.
In 2010, the Kota Kinabalu High Court dismissed their claims, citing the legal principle of ‘res judicata,’ which means the case had been decided and could not be reopened.
The court ruled that they were legally barred from reclaiming the funds, as they had accepted the terms of the pension scheme. It was a devastating blow.
The issue resurfaced in late 2024 when Tuaran MP Datuk Seri Wilfred Madius Tangau raised the matter in Parliament, demanding answers from the Finance Ministry.
The retirees saw this as a glimmer of hope. After years of fighting, their plight was finally being heard at the national level.
In response, the Finance Ministry clarified that the Retirement Benefit Scheme (RBS) was entirely employer-funded at 20%, with no contributions from employees.
The Finance Ministry maintained that the transfer was lawful and final, and no alternative benefits or resolutions would be offered to the retirees.
Efforts to reach out to SPA through the minister in charge, Datuk Shahelmy Yahya, were unsuccessful at the time of writing this story.
Time is running out for many of them. With several already in their 70s and 80s, and others even older.
“It’s heartbreaking to see our friends pass on without ever receiving their retirement money. How much longer do we have to wait?” asks Jubili.
Their fight is about more than just money — it’s a battle for justice, dignity, and the fulfilment of promises made decades ago. - February 28, 2025
