I refer to Mrs Joanne Tan’s letter “Retirees with property have other options besides HDB flats” (Nov 21).
Rich retirees obviously have options. In fact, they have many options, as pointed out by Mrs Tan. But not every retiree comes under that category. We must bear in mind that the majority of retirees in their 60s have no income and are probably unable to secure a housing loan to buy a second condominium as suggested.
Most retirees have worked hard for decades and contributed years of taxes to help provide for subsidised housing here.
It is a shame that private property owners are not able to buy a HDB flat and keep their private property, when many HDB dwellers are owners of multiple properties.
Some have flipped their Build-to-Order flats twice and made some big gains out of their subsidised housing.
I am not against HDB flat owners capitalising on rental income in their retirement years from multiple properties after they have met the Minimum Occupation Period requirement. But why the inequity against the group of retirees who had bought private property first, but are not allowed to retain ownership if they want to purchase a HDB flat?
If Mrs Tan is arguing that public housing be reserved for those with real housing needs, and retirees should have to sell their private property to stay in a HDB flat, the same policy should be applied fairly to other groups. Anyone who owns private property should not be allowed to own a HDB flat at the same time.
Benjamin Chow
*Article first appeared on Today Voices (28 November 2014)