Tapera Polemic: New Solutions Or Burden For Workers And Entrepreneurs?

Public Housing Savings or Tapera have received rejection from many parties. (Antara)

The Public Housing Savings Program (Tapera) launched by the government has caused various controversies. On the one hand, Tapera aims to overcome the housing backlog and help workers own a house with low installments and flat interest. However, on the other hand, this program is considered to be burdensome for both workers and entrepreneurs.

Tapera is a program that requires workers to set aside part of their salary for housing savings. This program is managed by BP Tapera, which claims Tapera investments are more profitable than deposits, with the majority of funds placed in bonds to guarantee stable profits. The Tapera policy is contained in Government Regulation (PP) Number 21 of 2024 concerning Amendments to PP Number 25 of 2020 concerning the Implementation of Tapera, which was stipulated on 20 May 2024.

In these regulations, it is explained that Tapera is savings made by participants periodically over a certain period of time. This storage can only be used for housing financing and/or returned along with the fertilization proceeds after the agreement ends.

Even though it has good intentions, the implementation of Tapera sparked protests from various parties. The General Chair of the Indonesian Employers' Association (Apindo), Shinta W. Kamdani, strongly criticized this policy. According to her, Tapera is burdensome for entrepreneurs who are already burdened with various other labor regulations. Shinta also highlighted that this program does not provide guaranteed certainty of home ownership for workers, so it is considered less effective.

The President of the Confederation of Indonesian Trade Unions (KSPI), Said Iqbal, explained that Tapera contributions must be social savings, not commercial savings. For participants who already own a house, these social savings can be withdrawn in cash at the end of retirement to repair or enlarge the house they already own. He refuses to implement the Tapera program at this time because it will further burden the economic conditions of workers, civil servants, TNI, Polri and other Tapera participants.

Minister of Finance Sri Mulyani and Minister of PUPR Basuki Hadimuljono, who are members of the Tapera committee, confirmed that Tapera funds would not be used for government spending. They also stated that fiscal policy evaluations continue to be carried out to ensure the success of this program.

Former Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs Mahfud MD criticized Tapera, especially regarding the economic calculations of this program. According to him, without government guarantees, housing savings through Tapera do not make mathematical sense. He explained that someone with a salary of IDR 5 million per month who saves 3% of his salary for 30 years will only collect around IDR 100 million. Currently, that amount of money is not enough to buy a house, let alone 30 years from now. According to Mahfud, for workers with a salary of IDR 15 million, it is better to take out a Home Ownership Credit (KPR) directly through a government bank because it is cheaper than saving 3% per month.

General Chair of the Indonesian Real Estate DPP (REI) Joko Suranto advised Indonesia to imitate Singapore's concept in managing public housing funds. Currently, Singapore has a Central Provident Fund (CPF) institution which not only manages housing provision funds, but combines them in one account with other social security funds, such as pension funds, health facilities as well as children's education and life insurance for workers.

The Tapera polemic reflects the dilemma between the government's good intentions and the reality on the ground. Even though it aims to overcome the housing backlog, this program is faced with various challenges ranging from employer resistance, labor unrest, to transparency issues.

As stated by the Chief of Presidential Staff (KSP) Moeldoko, the Tapera Committee must manage the savings funds for this program well, accountably and transparently to avoid problems like what happened to Asabri. Management that is not transparent and the occurrence of corruption cases in institutions such as Asabri raises reasonable concerns among the public.

The government needs to provide more concrete guarantees regarding the benefits of Tapera. Only with a more inclusive and transparent approach can Tapera be accepted as a desired solution, not as a new burden for workers and employers. In this situation, the government and all authorities must listen and sit together to find a mutually beneficial solution. This is important to ensure that the program's objectives are truly achieved without causing significant negative impacts. As Mahfud MD said, if KPR is more profitable, why should there be Tapera?