In Singapore, the gap between rich and poor shows up starkly in housing. Wealthy private property owners have tools to protect and even grow their wealth — they can renew their land leases, top them up, or sell collectively through en bloc deals. But ordinary Singaporeans who poured their life savings into an HDB flat face a very different reality: after 99 years, their flat reverts to the State, and its value drops to zero.
For many, their HDB flat is their largest investment, their retirement plan, and their home for life. Yet under the current system, this security is temporary, with no right to extend the lease or preserve value once it expires. The dream of “home ownership” starts to look more like a long-term lease dressed up as an asset.
In contrast, other developed countries handle public housing very differently:
Hong Kong
Under the Home Ownership Scheme (HOS), public flats come with 99-year leases — but the government routinely renews these leases at little or no cost. Homeowners don’t face the threat of their property becoming worthless.
United Kingdom
Public housing is primarily rental-based, with long-term, renewable tenancies. Residents enjoy stable housing without worrying about expiring leases.
Japan and 
Australia
Public housing operates as rental as well, offering long-term security and renewable tenancy agreements. There’s no equivalent of a 99-year cliff where homes lose all value.
Only in Singapore do millions of public housing owners — who bought their homes with hard-earned savings — face the prospect of their asset becoming worthless.
If public housing is meant to provide long-term security and dignity, it’s time to confront the inequality built into Singapore’s housing policies. The current system leaves ordinary Singaporeans vulnerable while the wealthy enjoy protections and privileges. True “home ownership” should mean lasting security, not just a ticking clock on a 99-year lease.