The Controversy of Tapera

Public Housing Savings (Tapera) is a deposit made by participants periodically within a certain period of time that can only be used for housing financing and/or returned along with the proceeds after membership ends. Tapera was created with the aim of collecting and providing low-cost, long-term sustainable funds for housing financing in order to meet the needs of decent and affordable housing for participants, with the principle of mutual cooperation.

The implementation of Tabungan Perumahan Rakyat (Tapera) has sparked widespread debate in Indonesia. Tapera is a mandatory savings program for housing finance that aims to assist citizens in acquiring affordable housing. However, the policy has received both support and opposition. This discussion will look at the arguments for and against Tapera, with a particular emphasis on critics' points of contention.

Tapera proponents argue that the program provides significant benefits. Basuki Hadimuljono, Minister of Public Works and Housing, believes Tapera provides a financial safety net, making it easier for people to buy homes. He emphasizes that monthly contributions are an investment in one's future, rather than a waste of money. 

Additionally, Airlangga Hartarto, the Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs, emphasizes that the 3% salary deduction for Tapera may benefit workers by allowing them to save for home purchases or renovations. Former Vice President Jusuf Kalla also supports Tapera, claiming that it allows low-income people to afford housing. Furthermore, economist Fithra Faisal believes Tapera could have a multiplier effect on the economy, creating jobs and boosting economic growth. According to Ari Tri Priyono of Dewan Pengurus Pusat Himpura, Tapera addresses the housing shortage and can be considered an investment.

Despite these positive perspectives, there are strong arguments against Tapera. Bambang Soesatyo, Chairman of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), claims that the policy is burdensome for workers, particularly in the private sector. He suggests that the government reconsider the regulation and hold an open dialogue with workers and experts to improve its implementation. 

Similarly, Muhaimin Iskandar, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, criticizes the timing of Tapera's implementation, due to the current economic hardships experienced by many Indonesians. He intends to ask the government to explain the regulations and assess the policy's feasibility.

Shinta Khamdani, the Chairwoman of the Indonesian Employers Association (APINDO), points out that Tapera imposes additional financial strain on both employees and employers. She points out that workers already make significant contributions to the national health insurance scheme (BPJS), and Tapera's added burden may be excessive. Shinta believes that the existing Jaminan Hari Tua (JHT) program could be better suited to meeting housing needs.

Furthermore, Tamil Selvan, a political and legal analyst, argues that Tapera violates the Indonesian Constitution. He cites Article 28H Paragraph 1, which guarantees citizens the right to adequate housing, and contends that the government is overstepping by making Tapera mandatory. According to Selvan, the policy should be declared legally invalid if Indonesia is to uphold its constitutional principles.

In short, while Tapera's goal is to help Indonesians find affordable house, the policy's current implementation raises several concerns. It puts financial pressure on workers and employers, is unnecessary given the current economic climate, and may even violate constitutional rights. 

As a result, the government must carefully consider the Tapera regulations. It should hold open discussions with stakeholders to address these issues and look into alternative solutions that do not disproportionately burden the workforce. By doing so, the government can ensure that housing policies are effective and equitable for all citizens.