Do We Really Need The Management of Public Housing Savings (Tapera) Money Proposed by The Government?

The Public Housing Savings Management Policy (Tapera) proposed by the government has sparked polemics and generated controversy from various groups. On the one hand, this program was initiated to overcome the housing backlog for low-income people by relying on contributions from workers and entrepreneurs. However, on the other hand, the Tapera scheme is very burdensome and detrimental to both parties, namely employers and workers, triggering strong rejection from various groups.

The 3 percent monthly salary cut for workers has sparked turmoil and criticism from workers and trade unions. Of course, for low-income workers, 3 percent of their salary is not a small amount. This contribution is considered too burdensome for low-income workers who are already struggling with daily living costs and also have to bear cuts to the JKN and Employment Social Security programs. Not only workers, entrepreneurs also criticized this policy which was considered counter-productive because they were burdened with the obligation to cover part of Tapera's contributions. "The contribution burden for companies can reduce their ability to hire new workers or retain existing ones, thereby increasing unemployment. This policy is estimated to cause the loss of around 466 thousand jobs," said the Director of the Center of Economic and Law Studies (Celios), Bhima Yudhistira.

Of course, Tapera offers a mutual cooperation approach that will provide sustainable and fair financing solutions, especially for the younger generation who do not yet own a home. "The need for public housing is an inevitability. Because if it's not done now, if it continues to be delayed, Gen Z will never be able to own a house. I can guarantee that, Gen Z will not be able to own a home if we don't get help from now on with funding." " said Sandiaga in a video on his However, he said the contribution could not only be borne by the government. However, many parties doubt this claim because hundreds of trillions in housing financing subsidies have so far proven to be ineffective in overcoming the deficit due to low people's purchasing power, uneven regional development and inflation in the construction sector. Without addressing the root of the problem, the availability of financing is not an adequate solution.

This policy is expected to increase socio-economic stability and overall community productivity, however the 3 percent contribution actually has the potential to reduce household consumption levels. Public consumption is one of the important pillars of national economic growth. "This policy is estimated to cause a decrease in GDP of IDR 1.21 trillion and a decrease in the business world profit surplus of IDR 1.03 trillion," added Nailul Huda, a figure that sparked concerns about the negative impact of Tapera on the economy.

BP Tapera has the authority to invest managed funds that have the potential to provide added value for participants. However, previous facts about large misappropriations of funds such as the Jiwasraya and Asabri cases have sparked public suspicion. Until the end of 2022, BP Tapera manages funds amounting to IDR 8.12 trillion which are very vulnerable to misuse if not managed transparently and accountably. Corruption cases in other institutions show how vulnerable large funds are to misappropriation. Even though BP Tapera denies that these funds were used for IKN development, this issue has sparked debate and a crisis of confidence in the community considering previous governance problems in similar institutions.

As a consequence, the Tapera policy received rejection from various groups. Even though the initial intention was good, the negative impact on workers, entrepreneurs, people's purchasing power and the national economy was considered too great. This strong rejection sparked demands for the government to completely revise the Tapera scheme, one of which is by reviewing the amount of contributions which are considered too burdensome. Housing financing solutions should be sought through other methods that are more effective and do not burden the community. Only by considering the interests of all parties can we realize better access to housing without sacrificing the national economy.