Why penalise flat owners who genuinely need to move?

Currently, the five-year Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) is imposed on resale flats bought from the open market with Central Provident Fund housing grants. I can understand why, as these buyers are normally first-timers consuming the public housing supply.

Those who buy resale flats without CPF housing grants are also subjected to this MOP, which I find does not serve a specific purpose.

Many such buyers are second-timers, who already own a flat and are not taking away supply from the open market as they must sell their current flat, whose MOP they would have fulfilled before buying another. So, why penalise them with another MOP for their next purchase?

This policy is disruptive to the planning of second-timers, normally in the middle-age bracket, when work and family commitments come more into play. Some might need to move within five years for various reasons: To move closer to a new workplace, closer to their children’s schools or closer to ageing parents.

If the MOP is imposed for resale flats bought without housing grants in order to prevent owners from renting out the units immediately, then there should be more distinct policies, rather than a blanket policy.

Likewise, the five-year MOP can remain for those who sell their private property and buy a resale flat, as this takes away the supply of public housing.

The cooling measures over the last two years have stabilised resale flat prices and profiting from selling resale flats is now a thing of the past.

The authorities should review this policy. These buyers want a resale flat for genuine occupation after selling their MOP-fulfilled flat.