Currently the pricing of the unit to pay for the management fee is based on average daily market price.
The daily market price could be 30% of the net asset value of the unit when market for REIT is very low, and the number of units issued to pay for the management fee could be more than 3% of total number of unit, this will cause the dilution of the unit.
I suggest that the trust deed be amended. The pricing could be based on the net asset value of the unit instead of average market price when computing the number of units to be issued for Management Fee.

I suspect that this lifestyle applies to the rural areas. In the cities, it is probably common for people to spend up to three hours daily in commuting.

It seems that city life is not well organised. We need to find a better way to re-organise city life, so that the quality of life can be improved.

I like your ideas. Getting a bus and renting a flat are two of most frustrating things a person can do in Singapore. They’re somewhat similar, too – a long, sweaty wait, followed by an uncomfortable and pricey ride.

Looking at Singapore and its public transportation network, what strikes me the most is how much this city is spread out. Despite our obsessive belief that “land is scarce”, urban density in Singapore is remarkably low. One of the side effects of HDB’s success is that Singapore today has become an agglomeration of satellite towns, a cluster of suburbs without a real core.

Without a rethink of the way this city is planned, improvements to our public transportation system can only be limited. Addressing the issue of fiscal disincentives to renting would be a good start.

I get the feeling that private developers can also play a part in making renting more affordable. There’s a lot of demand for low-cost rental housing, from individuals and families who are willing to settle for smaller living spaces, and who don’t necessarily want the luxurious frills and fittings that accompany most condominiums. Private property doesn’t need to be luxurious.

Improving public transport involves re-thinking our notions of urban planning, of housing policy, of public service. Fundamentally, it involves accepting that public transport is more than just a matter of bringing people from point A to point B – it’s about letting them get on with the more enjoyable parts of living in the city.

http://void-deck.blogspot.com/2008/08/world-class-public-transportation.html

Perhaps we should get many people to petition for the removal of the stamp duty. This will encourage flat swapping to be close to the place of work. Perhaps, someone can organise an online petition?

I support your idea of reducing communting time for work. On top of the reasons you have given for your suggestion, I would like to add that reduce travel would greatly reduce our carbon foot print too.
I remember HDB in the early 1980s use to support flat swapping by publishing ads in their monthly magazine. I know flat swapping does have its own set of problems but reduce travel, reduce stress and being more responsible to our environment may out weight any disadvantages flat swapping may have. Perhaps HDB and NTUC should start a portal to encourage flat swapping

By removing the stamp duty, some people may be encouraged to move their home to be closer to their place of work. They can save a lot of money and time on their commuting, and improve the quality of life.

It is also time to simplify the process of buying a house. There is no need to use a lawyer to check on title deeds (which was a legacy from several hundred years ago). Brokerage for property agents on property transactions should also fall. This can be achieved through a property portal to allow buyers and sellers to transact directly.

I hope that Singapore can take the lead in this strategy to reduce commuting.

Thanks for raising this issue in such a concise manner.

The only real alternative to sustainability is to reduce consumption. Reducing commuting is a big part of that. Just imagine the millions of man-hours and petrol being wasted every year, sitting in idle traffic.

I’ve linked to you from http://www.starbamboo.com, great job everyone.

The Spore Govt policy of “home ownership” for the people has its advantages and pitfalls. It is not all advantages. It reduces flexibility and did not take care of the group that needs rented properties.

I hope that we can have both options (i.e. ownership and rented properties) to cater to differeng groups of people.

One of the panel members, who comes from overseas, said that a study was made on the high economic cost of commuting. The commuting time takes away a large part of the available working hours.

Actually, this is quite easy to calculate. If a person spends 3 hours in commuting and works 8 hours a day, the cost of commuting adds to 27% of the economic cost.

If the person can reduce the commuting time to 1 hour, for example, by working closer to the home or in the same town, this can add 2 hours to the working time, and increase the productivity by 20%.

If it is not spend in working, it can improve the quality of life by 20% (i.e. the time that is available to spend with the family, on leisure, or self improvement).

I did some research and found this statement from Comfort. It looks like the diesel surcharge will continue for quite a long time:

http://en.china.cn/content/d343963,7ba501,1912_6577.html

You asked, “is our growth sustainable”?

In my view, it is not sustainable. The growth was achieved by importing many foreign workers to build our integrated resorts and MRT. The foreign workers add to the congestion in our public transport, health facilities and living space.

I welcome the foreign workers, but it is not sustainable to have an over-supply at the same time. They should be spaced out.

I also wish that we can treat our foreign workers with better living conditions and respect. Give them a good impression of Singapore as a nice place, rather than a place to sweat for a few dollars.

I agree that most of the suggestions will not be considered by the Government. They have their own ideas, and will claim that they have thought through these issues before.

We should debate the concept separately among other circles. Maybe, someone else will listen one day.

I agree on your suggestions about:

> stagger working hours
> stagger schooling hours
> more childcare facilities near homes and workplaces.

We need many approaches to create a sustainable lifestyle.

Last time, GDP choing, who is so proud that they have done it?
Now time, GDP is not so great, can I say its due to globalization and oil? Maybe its just bad luck?

nowtime, I got so many things to think about.

It is also important to reduce the cost of moving a house. For example, if I live in Woodlands, and wish to take up work in Tampines, I should be able to sell my home in Woodlands and buy a new home in Tampines, without having to pay a heavy cost in stamp duty and legal fees, which adds up to 5% of the purchase price of my new home.

Alternatively, if I decide to rent out my home in Woodlands and to rent a new place in Tampines, I should be put in the same position as before, and not penalised two times through higher property tax on both non-owner occupied property. The penalty on property tax will translate into higher rental rates.

It is important for this matter to be addressed in a holistic manner, so that more people will be encouraged to live near their place of work.

Have you visited the current exhibition at the URA Gallery about Singapore’s Masterplan of development for the next 10-15 years?

It seems to be that in many regions, more space has been allocated for office/industrial use, to facilitate greater employment in areas closer to people’s homes.

This is probably in line with your suggestion to reduce the need for commuting.

You have quoted some examples of countries where the people do not take care of the rented properties. They tend to be from the poorer people, renting public property.

If the people are more well off, they tend to take better care of the property. This has been the experience of private property in Singapore rented to expatriates.

This is also the experience in Switzerland, where the tenants take care of the property (just my guess).

I like to offer this choice for some people, especially the younger ones, who are not ready to commit to a specific property. It is better that they rent a property that is closer to their place of work.

Some peole fear that the rental rate may fluctuate sharply. This can be avoided by signing a longer term lease. If there is a large pool of rented property that is rented for the longer term, the rental rates will be more stable.

I hope that this new concept is explored by the Government, and that renting should be given similar incentives as home ownership.

If everyone is paid decently, by all means improve. But can you assured ministerial kind of pay for all in order to attain the kind of standard of living envisioned by those who can afford the ‘good life’?

We all need a trip to Bhutan to relearn how to think.