Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Ady T.D. Achmad
Businesses affiliated with the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KADIN), as well as the Indonesian Employers Association (Apindo), have announced their organized opposition to the Draft Bill on Public-Housing Savings (Draft Bill). This latest rejection has been made in response to the government and the House of Representatives’ (House) plan to immediately pass the Draft Bill into law.
As well as expressing their rejection of the bill, both of these well-known organizations are also threatening to boycott the entire technical-regulation formulation process, which would ultimately lead to the implementation of the Draft Bill. Rosan Perkasa Roeslan, the Chair of KADIN, explained that KADIN and Apindo’s rejection of the bill stemmed from the fact that the public-housing savings program overlapped with the Workers Social-Security Agency (BPJS Ketenagakerjaan or BPJS for Workers). Indeed, the BPJS for Workers also encompasses a house-purchasing program which BPJS participants can utilize. Moreover, some 30% of the program’s total Old-Age Insurance (JHT) funds will be allocated towards supporting this housing program.
According to Mr. Roeslan, the government does not need to establish a separate but similar housing program, particularly as regards workers in the formal sector. Mr. Roeslan claims that such overlapping policies will only lead to an ineffective and inefficient business climate, which runs counter to recent government policies aimed at creating a better business environment throughout Indonesia. It is Mr. Roeslan’s belief that instead of achieving this particular aim, the mandatory contributions set out under the Draft Bill will only end up burdening the whole business sector.
“The more mandatory contributions that are imposed upon businesses, the more uncompetitive they will become,” asserted Mr. Roeslan during a press conference held at KADIN’s Jakarta office on Tuesday, 2 February 2016.
Mr. Roeslan further revealed that Indonesian businesses were already shouldering some 11.75% of the contribution-fee burden as regards the BPJS for Health and the BPJS for Workers programs. Moreover, the country’s businesses are also having to deal with an 8% increase in severance payments, as well as with an annual 11.5% increase in the national minimum wage. Moreover, the enactment and implementation of the Draft Bill will also result in the imposition of mandatory contributions of 0.5% on employers and 2.5% on workers.
Instead of adding another 3% burden to that already being shouldered by the country’s businesses, under the framework of public-housing savings program, emphasized Mr. Roeslan, it would be better if the government made the most of the housing programs that already exist, such as the BPJS for Workers program. The JHT funds currently being managed by the BPJS for Workers already amount to a total of IDR 180 trillion. Were 30% of this figure to be allocated to the housing program, then some IDR 54 trillion funds would become available for housing procurement for workers.
Mr. Roeslan further asserted that if the government insisted on passing the Draft Bill into law, then KADIN would refuse to take part in the formulation of the Draft Bill’s implementing regulations. Indeed, Mr. Roeslan made it clear that KADIN had made its opposition to the Draft Bill clear from the very beginning.
Also commenting on this issue, Hariyadi B. Sukamdani, Chair of the National Management Council for Apindo, expressed her regret that the country’s lawmakers were intending to regulate mandatory contributions through under a set of implementing regulations. Mr. Sukamdani also insisted that there was no more room for negotiation, should the government insist on passing the Draft Bill into law.
“We reject the Draft Bill and will even boycott the formulation of any implementing regulations as regards the Law on Public-Housing Savings,” asserted Mr. Sukamdani.
Mr. Sukamdani also stressed that the Draft Bill covered workers in both the formal and informal sectors, whereas the government had initially declared that the public-housing savings program would only be available to informal workers who fell into the lowest-income bracket (Masyarakat Berpenghasilan Rendah - MBR). If the government is indeed intending to target the bottom strata of Indonesian society, Mr. Sukamdani believes, then the Draft Bill should not impose any mandatory contributions on workers within the formal sector. Mr. Sukamdani asserts that it is up to the government to provide housing for MBRs and that there is no need to impose any compulsory contributions on both employers and employees.
Also speaking recently, Muhammad Joni, General Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Institute, asserted that there were a number of flaws in the structure of the Draft Bill’s legal framework as regards the implementation of the planned public-housing savings program. By way of example, Mr. Joni explained that the composition of the Public-Housing Savings Committee did not encompass any input from the general public. Moreover, the Draft Bill may end up inflicting financial losses upon fund owners. When taken together, these two facts could be considered a breach of citizens’ constitutional rights.
According to Mr. Joni, the public-housing savings fund could also become prone to misappropriation, as it would likely suffer from a lack of oversight. “The public-housing savings funds that are to be collected from the country’s citizens would constitute a public fund, and so they would have to be managed transparently,” Mr. Joni insisted.
Also making his voice heard was Said Iqbal, President of the Indonesian Workers-Union Confederation. However Mr. Iqbal expressed his support for the government and the House as regards the enacting of the Draft Bill. According to Mr. Iqbal, the program will be able to assist blue-collar workers as they look to secure housing, as a large number of these workers encounter difficulties with regard to house ownership, due to their low salaries. Mr. Iqbal has also suggested a 5% mandatory contribution, 3% of which would be borne by business, 1% by blue-collar workers, and a further 1% by the government.
“We support the Draft Bill because, for many years now, blue-collar workers have had trouble securing ownership of accommodation,” concluded Mr. Iqbal.
As well as expressing their rejection of the bill, both of these well-known organizations are also threatening to boycott the entire technical-regulation formulation process, which would ultimately lead to the implementation of the Draft Bill. Rosan Perkasa Roeslan, the Chair of KADIN, explained that KADIN and Apindo’s rejection of the bill stemmed from the fact that the public-housing savings program overlapped with the Workers Social-Security Agency (BPJS Ketenagakerjaan or BPJS for Workers). Indeed, the BPJS for Workers also encompasses a house-purchasing program which BPJS participants can utilize. Moreover, some 30% of the program’s total Old-Age Insurance (JHT) funds will be allocated towards supporting this housing program.
According to Mr. Roeslan, the government does not need to establish a separate but similar housing program, particularly as regards workers in the formal sector. Mr. Roeslan claims that such overlapping policies will only lead to an ineffective and inefficient business climate, which runs counter to recent government policies aimed at creating a better business environment throughout Indonesia. It is Mr. Roeslan’s belief that instead of achieving this particular aim, the mandatory contributions set out under the Draft Bill will only end up burdening the whole business sector.
“The more mandatory contributions that are imposed upon businesses, the more uncompetitive they will become,” asserted Mr. Roeslan during a press conference held at KADIN’s Jakarta office on Tuesday, 2 February 2016.
Mr. Roeslan further revealed that Indonesian businesses were already shouldering some 11.75% of the contribution-fee burden as regards the BPJS for Health and the BPJS for Workers programs. Moreover, the country’s businesses are also having to deal with an 8% increase in severance payments, as well as with an annual 11.5% increase in the national minimum wage. Moreover, the enactment and implementation of the Draft Bill will also result in the imposition of mandatory contributions of 0.5% on employers and 2.5% on workers.
Instead of adding another 3% burden to that already being shouldered by the country’s businesses, under the framework of public-housing savings program, emphasized Mr. Roeslan, it would be better if the government made the most of the housing programs that already exist, such as the BPJS for Workers program. The JHT funds currently being managed by the BPJS for Workers already amount to a total of IDR 180 trillion. Were 30% of this figure to be allocated to the housing program, then some IDR 54 trillion funds would become available for housing procurement for workers.
Mr. Roeslan further asserted that if the government insisted on passing the Draft Bill into law, then KADIN would refuse to take part in the formulation of the Draft Bill’s implementing regulations. Indeed, Mr. Roeslan made it clear that KADIN had made its opposition to the Draft Bill clear from the very beginning.
Also commenting on this issue, Hariyadi B. Sukamdani, Chair of the National Management Council for Apindo, expressed her regret that the country’s lawmakers were intending to regulate mandatory contributions through under a set of implementing regulations. Mr. Sukamdani also insisted that there was no more room for negotiation, should the government insist on passing the Draft Bill into law.
“We reject the Draft Bill and will even boycott the formulation of any implementing regulations as regards the Law on Public-Housing Savings,” asserted Mr. Sukamdani.
Mr. Sukamdani also stressed that the Draft Bill covered workers in both the formal and informal sectors, whereas the government had initially declared that the public-housing savings program would only be available to informal workers who fell into the lowest-income bracket (Masyarakat Berpenghasilan Rendah - MBR). If the government is indeed intending to target the bottom strata of Indonesian society, Mr. Sukamdani believes, then the Draft Bill should not impose any mandatory contributions on workers within the formal sector. Mr. Sukamdani asserts that it is up to the government to provide housing for MBRs and that there is no need to impose any compulsory contributions on both employers and employees.
Also speaking recently, Muhammad Joni, General Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Institute, asserted that there were a number of flaws in the structure of the Draft Bill’s legal framework as regards the implementation of the planned public-housing savings program. By way of example, Mr. Joni explained that the composition of the Public-Housing Savings Committee did not encompass any input from the general public. Moreover, the Draft Bill may end up inflicting financial losses upon fund owners. When taken together, these two facts could be considered a breach of citizens’ constitutional rights.
According to Mr. Joni, the public-housing savings fund could also become prone to misappropriation, as it would likely suffer from a lack of oversight. “The public-housing savings funds that are to be collected from the country’s citizens would constitute a public fund, and so they would have to be managed transparently,” Mr. Joni insisted.
Also making his voice heard was Said Iqbal, President of the Indonesian Workers-Union Confederation. However Mr. Iqbal expressed his support for the government and the House as regards the enacting of the Draft Bill. According to Mr. Iqbal, the program will be able to assist blue-collar workers as they look to secure housing, as a large number of these workers encounter difficulties with regard to house ownership, due to their low salaries. Mr. Iqbal has also suggested a 5% mandatory contribution, 3% of which would be borne by business, 1% by blue-collar workers, and a further 1% by the government.
“We support the Draft Bill because, for many years now, blue-collar workers have had trouble securing ownership of accommodation,” concluded Mr. Iqbal.
(rfs/sp)
Marcell Sihombing, Ady T.D. Achmad
Businesses affiliated with the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KADIN), as well as the Indonesian Employers Association (Apindo), have announced their organized opposition to the Draft Bill on Public-Housing Savings (Draft Bill). This latest rejection has been made in response to the government and the House of Representatives’ (House) plan to immediately pass the Draft Bill into law.
As well as expressing their rejection of the bill, both of these well-known organizations are also threatening to boycott the entire technical-regulation formulation process, which would ultimately lead to the implementation of the Draft Bill. Rosan Perkasa Roeslan, the Chair of KADIN, explained that KADIN and Apindo’s rejection of the bill stemmed from the fact that the public-housing savings program overlapped with the Workers Social-Security Agency (BPJS Ketenagakerjaan or BPJS for Workers). Indeed, the BPJS for Workers also encompasses a house-purchasing program which BPJS participants can utilize. Moreover, some 30% of the program’s total Old-Age Insurance (JHT) funds will be allocated towards supporting this housing program.
According to Mr. Roeslan, the government does not need to establish a separate but similar housing program, particularly as regards workers in the formal sector. Mr. Roeslan claims that such overlapping policies will only lead to an ineffective and inefficient business climate, which runs counter to recent government policies aimed at creating a better business environment throughout Indonesia. It is Mr. Roeslan’s belief that instead of achieving this particular aim, the mandatory contributions set out under the Draft Bill will only end up burdening the whole business sector.
“The more mandatory contributions that are imposed upon businesses, the more uncompetitive they will become,” asserted Mr. Roeslan during a press conference held at KADIN’s Jakarta office on Tuesday, 2 February 2016.
Mr. Roeslan further revealed that Indonesian businesses were already shouldering some 11.75% of the contribution-fee burden as regards the BPJS for Health and the BPJS for Workers programs. Moreover, the country’s businesses are also having to deal with an 8% increase in severance payments, as well as with an annual 11.5% increase in the national minimum wage. Moreover, the enactment and implementation of the Draft Bill will also result in the imposition of mandatory contributions of 0.5% on employers and 2.5% on workers.
Instead of adding another 3% burden to that already being shouldered by the country’s businesses, under the framework of public-housing savings program, emphasized Mr. Roeslan, it would be better if the government made the most of the housing programs that already exist, such as the BPJS for Workers program. The JHT funds currently being managed by the BPJS for Workers already amount to a total of IDR 180 trillion. Were 30% of this figure to be allocated to the housing program, then some IDR 54 trillion funds would become available for housing procurement for workers.
Mr. Roeslan further asserted that if the government insisted on passing the Draft Bill into law, then KADIN would refuse to take part in the formulation of the Draft Bill’s implementing regulations. Indeed, Mr. Roeslan made it clear that KADIN had made its opposition to the Draft Bill clear from the very beginning.
Also commenting on this issue, Hariyadi B. Sukamdani, Chair of the National Management Council for Apindo, expressed her regret that the country’s lawmakers were intending to regulate mandatory contributions through under a set of implementing regulations. Mr. Sukamdani also insisted that there was no more room for negotiation, should the government insist on passing the Draft Bill into law.
“We reject the Draft Bill and will even boycott the formulation of any implementing regulations as regards the Law on Public-Housing Savings,” asserted Mr. Sukamdani.
Mr. Sukamdani also stressed that the Draft Bill covered workers in both the formal and informal sectors, whereas the government had initially declared that the public-housing savings program would only be available to informal workers who fell into the lowest-income bracket (Masyarakat Berpenghasilan Rendah - MBR). If the government is indeed intending to target the bottom strata of Indonesian society, Mr. Sukamdani believes, then the Draft Bill should not impose any mandatory contributions on workers within the formal sector. Mr. Sukamdani asserts that it is up to the government to provide housing for MBRs and that there is no need to impose any compulsory contributions on both employers and employees.
Also speaking recently, Muhammad Joni, General Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Institute, asserted that there were a number of flaws in the structure of the Draft Bill’s legal framework as regards the implementation of the planned public-housing savings program. By way of example, Mr. Joni explained that the composition of the Public-Housing Savings Committee did not encompass any input from the general public. Moreover, the Draft Bill may end up inflicting financial losses upon fund owners. When taken together, these two facts could be considered a breach of citizens’ constitutional rights.
According to Mr. Joni, the public-housing savings fund could also become prone to misappropriation, as it would likely suffer from a lack of oversight. “The public-housing savings funds that are to be collected from the country’s citizens would constitute a public fund, and so they would have to be managed transparently,” Mr. Joni insisted.
Also making his voice heard was Said Iqbal, President of the Indonesian Workers-Union Confederation. However Mr. Iqbal expressed his support for the government and the House as regards the enacting of the Draft Bill. According to Mr. Iqbal, the program will be able to assist blue-collar workers as they look to secure housing, as a large number of these workers encounter difficulties with regard to house ownership, due to their low salaries. Mr. Iqbal has also suggested a 5% mandatory contribution, 3% of which would be borne by business, 1% by blue-collar workers, and a further 1% by the government.
“We support the Draft Bill because, for many years now, blue-collar workers have had trouble securing ownership of accommodation,” concluded Mr. Iqbal.
As well as expressing their rejection of the bill, both of these well-known organizations are also threatening to boycott the entire technical-regulation formulation process, which would ultimately lead to the implementation of the Draft Bill. Rosan Perkasa Roeslan, the Chair of KADIN, explained that KADIN and Apindo’s rejection of the bill stemmed from the fact that the public-housing savings program overlapped with the Workers Social-Security Agency (BPJS Ketenagakerjaan or BPJS for Workers). Indeed, the BPJS for Workers also encompasses a house-purchasing program which BPJS participants can utilize. Moreover, some 30% of the program’s total Old-Age Insurance (JHT) funds will be allocated towards supporting this housing program.
According to Mr. Roeslan, the government does not need to establish a separate but similar housing program, particularly as regards workers in the formal sector. Mr. Roeslan claims that such overlapping policies will only lead to an ineffective and inefficient business climate, which runs counter to recent government policies aimed at creating a better business environment throughout Indonesia. It is Mr. Roeslan’s belief that instead of achieving this particular aim, the mandatory contributions set out under the Draft Bill will only end up burdening the whole business sector.
“The more mandatory contributions that are imposed upon businesses, the more uncompetitive they will become,” asserted Mr. Roeslan during a press conference held at KADIN’s Jakarta office on Tuesday, 2 February 2016.
Mr. Roeslan further revealed that Indonesian businesses were already shouldering some 11.75% of the contribution-fee burden as regards the BPJS for Health and the BPJS for Workers programs. Moreover, the country’s businesses are also having to deal with an 8% increase in severance payments, as well as with an annual 11.5% increase in the national minimum wage. Moreover, the enactment and implementation of the Draft Bill will also result in the imposition of mandatory contributions of 0.5% on employers and 2.5% on workers.
Instead of adding another 3% burden to that already being shouldered by the country’s businesses, under the framework of public-housing savings program, emphasized Mr. Roeslan, it would be better if the government made the most of the housing programs that already exist, such as the BPJS for Workers program. The JHT funds currently being managed by the BPJS for Workers already amount to a total of IDR 180 trillion. Were 30% of this figure to be allocated to the housing program, then some IDR 54 trillion funds would become available for housing procurement for workers.
Mr. Roeslan further asserted that if the government insisted on passing the Draft Bill into law, then KADIN would refuse to take part in the formulation of the Draft Bill’s implementing regulations. Indeed, Mr. Roeslan made it clear that KADIN had made its opposition to the Draft Bill clear from the very beginning.
Also commenting on this issue, Hariyadi B. Sukamdani, Chair of the National Management Council for Apindo, expressed her regret that the country’s lawmakers were intending to regulate mandatory contributions through under a set of implementing regulations. Mr. Sukamdani also insisted that there was no more room for negotiation, should the government insist on passing the Draft Bill into law.
“We reject the Draft Bill and will even boycott the formulation of any implementing regulations as regards the Law on Public-Housing Savings,” asserted Mr. Sukamdani.
Mr. Sukamdani also stressed that the Draft Bill covered workers in both the formal and informal sectors, whereas the government had initially declared that the public-housing savings program would only be available to informal workers who fell into the lowest-income bracket (Masyarakat Berpenghasilan Rendah - MBR). If the government is indeed intending to target the bottom strata of Indonesian society, Mr. Sukamdani believes, then the Draft Bill should not impose any mandatory contributions on workers within the formal sector. Mr. Sukamdani asserts that it is up to the government to provide housing for MBRs and that there is no need to impose any compulsory contributions on both employers and employees.
Also speaking recently, Muhammad Joni, General Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Institute, asserted that there were a number of flaws in the structure of the Draft Bill’s legal framework as regards the implementation of the planned public-housing savings program. By way of example, Mr. Joni explained that the composition of the Public-Housing Savings Committee did not encompass any input from the general public. Moreover, the Draft Bill may end up inflicting financial losses upon fund owners. When taken together, these two facts could be considered a breach of citizens’ constitutional rights.
According to Mr. Joni, the public-housing savings fund could also become prone to misappropriation, as it would likely suffer from a lack of oversight. “The public-housing savings funds that are to be collected from the country’s citizens would constitute a public fund, and so they would have to be managed transparently,” Mr. Joni insisted.
Also making his voice heard was Said Iqbal, President of the Indonesian Workers-Union Confederation. However Mr. Iqbal expressed his support for the government and the House as regards the enacting of the Draft Bill. According to Mr. Iqbal, the program will be able to assist blue-collar workers as they look to secure housing, as a large number of these workers encounter difficulties with regard to house ownership, due to their low salaries. Mr. Iqbal has also suggested a 5% mandatory contribution, 3% of which would be borne by business, 1% by blue-collar workers, and a further 1% by the government.
“We support the Draft Bill because, for many years now, blue-collar workers have had trouble securing ownership of accommodation,” concluded Mr. Iqbal.
(rfs/sp)