 |
| Polemics over the Government's Tapera Idea (Photo: Special) |
The government's policy through Regulation Number 21 of 2024 regarding Tabungan Perumahan Rakyat (Tapera) (trans: Public Housing Savings) has caused a lot of controversy in the community. The program is predicted to be a solution for the community. However, Rachmad Kristiono Dwi Susilo, S.Sos., MA, Ph.D., as a lecturer in sociology at the University of Muhammadiyah Malang (UMM), believes that this program is too normative and hastily implemented.
"This program applies to both public and private employees with a salary deduction system. For those who earn a small income, this program is certainly very burdensome," he said.
According to the Tapera system, employees' salaries will be reduced by 3% for housing savings. A total of 0.5% is paid by the employer, and 2.5% is paid by the workers themselves. The funds collected in Tapera can be used to help participants buy their first home.
"However, everyone's housing needs are different. It is not necessarily that the low-income community (MBR) does not have a house. The program seems to be a forced policy, it cannot be avoided. In fact, not every company is interested, especially those companies that are not directly involved with their employees," he said.
Read more: UMM Lecturer Mentions IKN Provides Opportunities for Economic Improvement
Furthermore, Rachmad said there are two things that must be reviewed by the government before implementing Tapera. First, the government must ensure how many people need the Tapera program. The reason is, Rachmad assessed that the government does not yet have accurate data regarding this issue.
"It would be better if this program were based on a voluntary basis. Moreover, the executive has not provided basic reasons regarding the complete Tapera planning model. In fact, if viewed from a long-term perspective, this program is a great idea to ensure that all people have a good place to live. As long as the implementation of the procedures and the practice are not deviated from," he said.
Moreover, many people think that this program is unrealistic. "Let's say that in two years, it's not certain that you can get a house. You have to be more than 50 years old first. Thus, many people say that this is only associated with the government's business program," Rachmad explained.
According to Rachmad, the easiest way to provide alternative housing is to utilize state-owned land that can be built into flats and utilized by the community. For example, by strengthening the house renovation program and providing assistance for uninhabitable houses, as has been done by the government. It can also be supported by the amount of investment owned by the country. Thus, subsidies for the underprivileged will also be fulfilled.
Read more: Confused About Choosing a Healthy Sacrificial Animal? Here Are Tips from UMM Livestock Lecturer
Last but not least, he said that with the various controversies that surround Tapera, it must be evaluated further. "This program does have noble goals to help people own a house, but its implementation and implication must be more mature and realistic. The government is expected to be able to give full trust to the community so that this program can run as expected," he concluded. (lai/wil/put)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
