Dukung TAPERA, Program JENIUS Pemerintah

Summary

This video script discusses Indonesia’s TAPERA program, a mandatory housing savings scheme, highlighting both its potential and flaws. The speaker argues that while TAPERA’s goal of providing affordable housing for low-income citizens is commendable, its implementation has significant issues. These include limited benefits for higher earners, overlapping with other social programs, and a general lack of trust in government due to past corruption scandals. The speaker compares TAPERA with similar systems in neighboring countries, particularly the Philippines, and suggests that TAPERA could be improved by streamlining the system, ensuring transparency, and rebuilding public trust.

Takeaways

• 😀 TAPERA is a government program in Indonesia designed to help low-income workers (under Rp 8 million/month) buy their first home with subsidized loans.
• 😀 The program requires a 3% contribution from workers' income, which is used to fund housing loans with a low interest rate of 5% for up to 30 years.
• 😀 The main benefit of TAPERA is limited to those earning below Rp 8 million, and only for their first home. Higher earners or those who already own a home do not benefit directly.
• 😀 TAPERA is mandatory for all workers, including freelancers, which has led to criticism from those who are required to contribute but cannot access the benefits.
• 😀 The implementation of TAPERA faces challenges such as inefficiency, with funds often being inaccessible, as seen in the case of 100,000 participants whose funds were frozen.
• 😀 There is widespread distrust in the government’s ability to manage the funds due to past corruption scandals, such as those involving Jiwasraya and Asabri.
• 😀 The program’s execution is criticized for overlapping with other social security programs, like JHT, leading to confusion and a sense of redundancy.
• 😀 International examples from the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore highlight successful models of compulsory savings for housing that could serve as lessons for Indonesia.
• 😀 In countries like the Philippines, compulsory housing savings have a higher satisfaction rate due to better management, faster processing times, and more inclusive eligibility criteria.
• 😀 The Indonesian version of TAPERA is seen as restrictive, as it limits access to subsidized housing and puts a cap on loan amounts, whereas other countries offer more flexibility.
• 😀 For TAPERA to succeed, the government must rebuild trust through transparency, better fund management, and eliminating inefficiencies to make the program beneficial for all Indonesians.

Q & A

What is TAPERA and who does it benefit?

TAPERA (Tabungan Perumahan Rakyat) is a mandatory government program designed to help low-income individuals, particularly those earning below IDR 8 million per month, to afford subsidized housing. Participants contribute 3% of their income annually, which is managed by a fund to provide affordable housing loans with low interest rates.

What is the main criticism of the TAPERA program in Indonesia?

The main criticism is that the implementation of TAPERA is seen as problematic due to issues with trust in the government, poor execution, and overlapping programs like JHT (Jaminan Hari Tua), which already offer pension and insurance benefits. Many feel the program imposes additional financial burden without offering clear benefits, especially for those above the income threshold of IDR 8 million.

How does the TAPERA program compare to similar programs in other countries like the Philippines?

The TAPERA program in Indonesia is similar to the Philippines' Pag-Ibig Fund, but the Philippines' model has seen more success. In the Philippines, contributions are mandatory but not overly restrictive, and the program has a high satisfaction rate of 83%. In contrast, TAPERA in Indonesia has more limitations, such as being restricted to first-time homebuyers and those earning below IDR 8 million, which causes frustration among higher-income groups.

What are the potential benefits of a 'compulsory saving' program like TAPERA?

A compulsory savings program like TAPERA can help individuals, especially those with low incomes, save for housing and retirement, providing them with long-term financial security. It can also stimulate economic development by channeling saved funds into housing projects and other national infrastructure, as seen in successful programs in countries like Singapore and Malaysia.

Why is trust in the government a critical issue for the success of TAPERA?

Trust in the government is crucial because many Indonesians are skeptical about how the funds will be managed. Past corruption scandals, such as those involving state-run companies like Jiwasraya and Taspen, have led to widespread mistrust. To succeed, TAPERA needs transparency and accountability to assure the public that their money is being managed properly and not being misused.

What is the key difference between TAPERA in Indonesia and the Philippines' Pag-Ibig Fund?

The key difference is that the Philippines' Pag-Ibig Fund offers more flexibility. It allows individuals to purchase multiple homes, not just their first home, and provides higher loan limits. Additionally, the Pag-Ibig Fund has a better reputation for effective management and a higher satisfaction rate among participants.

How does TAPERA affect people with incomes above IDR 8 million?

For individuals earning above IDR 8 million, TAPERA is less beneficial because they are still required to contribute, but they are not eligible for the housing loan benefits. The program essentially acts as a forced savings plan, where the money is only returned upon retirement, making it feel more like a tax rather than a helpful service.

What has been the impact of TAPERA on people already nearing retirement?

For individuals close to retirement, TAPERA is seen as less relevant since they may not have enough time to benefit from the program before they retire. Additionally, there have been cases where funds have not been disbursed due to bureaucratic issues, adding to frustrations among participants.

What does the speaker suggest could improve the TAPERA program?

The speaker suggests that TAPERA could be improved by making it optional for those who do not benefit from the program, such as those with higher incomes or those who already own homes. Additionally, the program's execution needs to be transparent, accountable, and free from corruption, similar to successful models in other countries.

What lessons can Indonesia learn from countries like Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines regarding compulsory saving programs?

Indonesia can learn that a well-structured compulsory saving program can work effectively if it is transparent, flexible, and benefits all income groups. These countries have integrated housing, healthcare, and pension benefits into their saving systems, ensuring that the public receives clear, tangible benefits in return for their contributions.