The Singapore Court recognised the CPF as matrimonial assets for the reason that if the CPF contributions were not deducted from the wages or salary of a worker, they would have gone to providing for himself and the family. The asset is accumulated by the sole effort of one party to the marriage¹⁶.

The court also emphasised that section 51 of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991¹⁷ only prevents the money from being attached while it is still standing to the credit of the employee. The court has no power to order any part of the fund to the paid to the wife, where the husband has no legal capacity to withdraw it. However, the legal capacity to use the fund has nothing to do with its legal nature as an asset of the marriage¹⁸. Therefore, there is no reason why the court may not take into account the value of the money in dividing the matrimonial property.

The same decision also has been upheld by the Malaysian court in the case of of Ching Seng Woah V. Lim Shook Lin¹⁹ where the court decided that the wife in this case also entitle to the EPF money belong to the husband. Thus, the discussion shows that the EPF money is recognized as a matrimonial property in the Civil court. It is considered as a sole effort property of one party to the marriage where the other party has to show that he or she has contributed to the welfare of the family by looking after the home or caring the family as required in section 76 (4) of the LRA.

This issue has been recently highlighted also in the Syariah Court. A wife contested that the husband’s EPF money, which was accumulated during the marriage, should be divided upon divorce. This development, which is considered as new in the Shariah court, has resulted in different reactions. Some states, like Selangor and Terengganu, agreed to recognise EPF money as harta sepencarian while other states such as Negeri Sembilan, refuse to do so²⁰. It is found that the main reason given by the court for not accepting it as harta sepencarian, is that it is a compulsory scheme for all wage earners so as to provide them with some measure of financial protection after their retirement. Thus, it should be perceived as personal property which solely belongs to the worker. It is found that it is on this basis, the Syariah Appeal Court of Negeri Sembilan in the case of Abdul Rahman bin Ayob v. Timah bt. Sulaiman²¹, refused to agreed with the judgement made by the Syariah High Court in that case.

Suwaid Tapah in his research also claimed that EPF money should be viewed as personal property rather than harta sepencarian. Even though in the case of Mariam & Mohamed²² the judgement of the court seems to recognise EPF money as harta sepencarian as it ordered RM18, 000 from the defendant’s EPF account to be given to the plaintiff wife, Suwaid argued that the decision in that case was made based on agreement of both parties rather than establishing a principle pertaining to this issue. Instead Suwaid suggested that the EPF money can be used to settle any claim such as mut’ah, debt or maintenance in the absence of any other property²³.

Thus, from the above discussion, it can be seen that the issue of whether the EPF money can be considered as harta sepencarian is still debatable in the absence of any clear judgement from the decided cases as well as fatwa from the National Fatwa Council. However, whenever there is a claim made by either spouse on the EPF money as harta sepencarian, the practice of the court is to order the officer in charge to tag the money for the purpose of the claim in which the petitioner will be informed once the money in the fund is withdrawn²⁴.