National Polemic, After UKT Terbitlah Tapera

JAKARTA After the polemic of the increase in Single Lecture Money (UKT), the People's Housing Savings, aka Tapera, were issued. For some reason, recently the government's policies seem to always cause a commotion in the community.

Yes, the Tapera policy creates a new polemic in the public sphere. Although it is titled savings, the fact is that the government requires all workers in Indonesia from ASN, TNI, Polri, formal to informal workers to become Tapera participants.

The Tapera participants had to pay three percent of their salary. For formal workers, companies are required to pay 0.5 percent while the remaining 2.5 percent is borne by employees. Meanwhile, informal workers have to cover the three percent contribution.

For some people, Tapera is considered only a fundraising or public fundraising effort by the government. The reason is, the amount of savings collected is considered not possible to supply the needs of millions of workers' homes in the country.

Senior economist, Didik J Rachbini, sees Tapera as a fatal mistake both in terms of legislation, financial principles and management. According to him, as a Tapera idea, it is good, but in its execution it cannot be treated the same as insurance.

"The issue is that the procurement of houses, but people who save not necessarily can have a house because this is in the long term," he said, Sunday, June 2, 2024.

He stated, if Tapera is indeed a savings account, the government should be able to imitate the savings of hajj funds, where those who save are of course people who intend to go on a pilgrimage. Tapera, continued Didik, actually this can be applied to ASN because it is still within the scope of government to help each other.

"But it's not necessarily possible to apply it to the private sector. So this is like the principle of insurance being applied in savings. This is a basic principle error. Not to mention we are talking about the level of public trust. Because Tapera is a very dangerous form of fundraising. Moreover, people have not forgotten cases of misappropriation of the collection of funds in Asabri and Jiwasraya, "explained Didik.

He emphasized that the government should have taken the experience of the funds that have been collected by the Civil Servant Housing Savings Advisory Agency (Bapertarum PNS) first. After all, the funds are almost useless because they cannot supply housing needs.

If this is expanded to all workers, it is the same as raising funds, but still cannot provide a house. Just try to check how many houses have been provided by the Civil Servant Bapertarum when compared to private developers," added Didik.

Rules Are Implemented After Discusing, Not The Other Way Around

Public Policy Observer, Agus Pambagio said, the government should have held a public consultation before deciding the implementation of Tapera, not the other way around, when the regulations had just conducted socialization to the public.

He revealed, if you look at the contents of Government Regulation No. 21 of 2024, Tapera is not useful for its participants because it is unclear. According to him, if Tapera wants to be useful, of course there must still be subsidies from the government because it is impossible to rely on Tapera to own a house.

"BP Tapera must develop the collected money such as embedding the money in the stock exchange or others so that it can really provide a house for workers. But this is where the vulnerabilities of public fundraising are. Reflecting on the Jiwasraya case, of course there is the potential for Tapera to experience the same thing," said Agus.

"It's natural that concerns arise because the mindset embedded in the public is that the majority of officials in Indonesia are corrupt. So the potential for Tapera to have the fate of Jiwasraya can reach 90 percent. Especially if the pattern is similar to Jiwasraya, Asabri. In the end, people will be harmed," he continued.

Before the Tapera polemic emerged, people's memories of course had not forgotten the misappropriation of the public funds collected. PT Taspen (Persero), which is the management institution for retired ASN funds, was dragged into a fictitious investment corruption case. In this case, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is investigating fictitious investment funds that have been misappropriated to reach Rp1 trillion. In addition, state losses in this case are estimated to reach hundreds of billions of rupiah.

Next there is a megaskandal PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero). In this case, the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) stated that the potential loss to the state reached Rp. 16.8 trillion, originating from an investigation into files for ten years, from 2008 to 2018. Furthermore, there was the Asabri corruption case. The Attorney General's Office suspects that the corruption scandal in Asabri cost the state up to Rp22 trillion.

Tapera Policy Makes It Difficult For Workers

So, is Tapera really a solution for workers who dream of owning a house? Unair economist Ni Made Sukartini believes that Tapera may be more suitable to apply to formal worker groups and workers who are regulated in industrial relations, such as ASN, TNI, Polri, BUMN workers, or the private sector.

However, this policy will make it difficult for informal workers or independent workers. Because they have an irregular wage payment system. The problem is that the number of informal worker groups in Indonesia is more than formal workers. So that the Tapera policy needs to be considered further the impact in the future.

The problem lies in the incompatibility of informal worker relationships. Please note, that the number of informal worker groups is more than formal workers in Indonesia. This has an impact on imbalance in treatment for workers in Indonesia," said Made Sukartini in a press statement, Sunday, June 2, 2024.

He acknowledged that the government's steps to overcome the difficulty of people buying houses were quite good. However, it is necessary to socialize well related to this policy. Both from ensuring the professionalism of the institutional system that manages savings, accountability, transparency and must learn from similar policies such as pension funds, BPJS Health and Employment.

Therefore, if it runs in the end, Tapera must be closely monitored. Do not let this policy become a residential business field and the price of the house is increasingly unaffordable. For example, formal and middle class workers who own Tapera and are able to own a house instead sell the houses they buy.

So that later the cycle will be shaped like a vicious circle. A policy can be said to be right on target if those who are targeted to be be beneficiaries are met. This means that in the Tapera policy, they must re-examine it to provide benefits for the community," said Made Sukartini.