The calculation of salary deductions for the People’s Housing Savings (Tapera) contribution is under scrutiny. The government officially enacted Government Regulation (PP) No. 21 of 2024, amending PP No. 25 of 2020 on Tapera, effective May 20, 2024. Employees, self-employed workers, and employers must pay these contributions monthly.
Dr. Qisha Quarina, a researcher in the Microeconomics Dashboard (Micdash) field at the UGM Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB UGM), believes that the management of the Tapera program must be conducted transparently. The Tapera policy can succeed if there is transparency and a good mechanism.
“Tapera policy can be successful if there is transparency and a good mechanism. In addition, periodic supervision and evaluation are also required,” she explained in a written statement received on Monday (Jun. 3).
Dr. Quarina emphasized that Tapera’s success must be followed by regular supervision and evaluation. This is especially important regarding the management of customer funds.
According to her, these steps are necessary to avoid mismanagement or misuse of funds and to encourage the utilization of funds to help low-income communities (MBR) access decent housing.
Regarding whether Tapera is the right solution, Dr. Quarina stated that the presence of Tapera aims to collect and provide long-term, sustainable, low-cost funds for housing financing to meet the needs for decent housing, especially for low-income communities.
Tapera participants consist of employees and self-employed workers earning at least the minimum wage, with a savings contribution of 3% of their reported monthly income.
Unfortunately, the enactment of the Tapera policy has sparked much controversy and opposition, particularly from business associations and workers directly affected by the regulations.
Dr. Quarina reiterated that Tapera is intended as a collective fund to help low-income workers with housing financing. However, due to the contributions, the program is seen as a burden on employers and workers.
“Meanwhile, the main issue in the housing sector in Indonesia is not only the high cost of houses and low income of the people. The housing sector problems in Indonesia also involve substandard housing and a housing backlog due to an imbalance between supply and demand,” she explained.
Raniah Salsabila, another Micdash researcher, views the Tapera program as having a noble goal of providing access to decent housing for low-income communities. However, the Tapera regulations do not specify the quota for the number of people who can benefit from Tapera.
Workers must meet several requirements to access Housing Ownership Credit (KPR), Housing Construction Credit (KBR), and Housing Renovation Credit (KRR). One key requirement is the participant’s inclusion in the annual Tapera benefit recipient quota.
However, low-income Tapera participants who do not receive a quota must wait indefinitely. Therefore, the government must demonstrate transparency regarding the selection process for participants in the annual quota and the ranking mechanism.
“This is done to increase public trust in the government, especially in the Tapera program itself,” she said.
Salsabila considers the Tapera program’s benefit scheme to lack transparency and tends to overlook middle-income workers. Middle-income people and those who already own homes are not given special attention.
PP No. 25 of 2020 states that non-MBR participants will receive a refund of their savings and their accumulation at the end of their participation. The end of Tapera participation can be due to the end of employment or retirement at 58 years old for self-employed workers, death, or not meeting the criteria as participants for five consecutive years.
The returned savings will be added, with an accumulation result of 4.5%- 4.8%. However, the government is considered to be paying insufficient attention to middle-income people, as this group often does not receive priority because they can meet their living needs.
“With the obligation to pay monthly contributions of 2.5% or 3% for self-employed workers, middle-income people could use that money for other investments. The government should give attention to middle-income people and provide alternative means for improving their economic welfare,” she concluded.
Source: Micdash
Editor: Kurnia Ekaptiningrum
Photo: Rumah123