Property, Permanence, and the Myth of Ownership: A Reflection from Singapore

Singapore teaches us that home is both a civic performance and a financial choreography. We buy public housing with CPF — our savings locked into the walls we inhabit — knowing that these walls won’t outlive us. A 99-year lease isn't permanence. It’s a prepaid contract with time.

In my recent reflections, housing appears less like ownership and more like stewardship. Each purchase isn’t a statement of permanence but a vote of confidence in a national system that turns shelter into security, and security into retirement. Appreciation isn’t just capital gain — it’s a quiet hedge against inflation, a promise that today’s sacrifices will hold value tomorrow.

But this system is not immune. As leases decay and demographics shift, pressure mounts. Will aging flats become financial ghosts? Will younger Singaporeans, like Gek and Dik one day, see homeownership as a right, a burden, or merely a phase? Perhaps housing was always less about bricks and more about identity and belonging — a spatial script that says, “You’re part of something.”

Global models teach us that renting can be dignified and permanent, that community can be built in flexibility, not just ownership. But Singapore still trades in optimism: that everyone can own, upgrade, and contribute. That narrative, held in policy and planning, is as powerful as any title deed.

So should I move house soon?

Perhaps. But not for capital gain or escape. I’d move if the new space allowed my family to grow stories, not just portfolios. If the walls invited more laughter, more debates between Gek and Dik about what it means to belong. If the physical space could better serve the values we live by — then yes, I’d move. Because home isn’t where the asset appreciates. It’s where meaning accumulates.