I have read before in this forum comments from private property owners that HDB owners complained too much about asset inflation, and now they deserved it as HDB prices have been largely contained by the Govt.
Would like to places these questions for those who proclaim fairness by barring the renting of HDBs for those who own both HDB and private property:
1. How sure are you that many of these owners will not choose to
a. Go back to live in HDB and sell off the private?
b. Sell both properties and migrate?
The consequences of both are a sudden glut in supply side which strikes at the heart of an already weak private market. Private property owners might be getting much more than what they bargained for. Who are the sole beneficiaries? Those who do not have any assets to begin with and are waiting for price dips!
2. Is the new arrangement also fair to HDB owners who have served the MOP period owning only a HDB (subsidised housing which is curbed from excessive prices), and at the same time tahan and tahan while the private property rose greatly during 2008-2014, but can do nothing about it? Personally, I read the MOP period (owning only a single subsidised housing and living in it for 3-5 years) as a penalty for receiving the subsidised housing, nothing more and nothing less.
Private property owners during that same period did not generally have to serve MOP, with many buying and selling and buying and selling, remortgaging and releveraging, but are now proposed to be the sole group beneficial and privy to the huge price increase during the period.
Will this sudden penalty be then fair to those who have conscientiously served or are serving the MOP?
The three laws of Kelonguni:
Where there is kelong, there is guni.
No kelong no guni.
More kelong = more guni.