Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Rofiq Hidayat, Muhammad Yasin
The Draft Bill on Public-Housing Savings (Tabungan Perumahan Rakyat - Tapera) has finally passed into law, and is set to be incorporated into the State Gazette by the government within the next 30 days. As it has now passed into law, the newly established Tapera Law will now officially serve as a regulatory framework for the government and will oblige both Indonesian citizens and foreign citizens working in Indonesia to participate in the Tapera program. Moreover, due to its mandatory nature, any employer and worker refusing to participate in the program will become subject to administrative sanctions.
However, the Tapera Law itself is still widely perceived to possess many flaws that need to be addressed. By way of example, Chazali H. Situmorang, Chair of the USU Alumni Association for Jakarta and its surrounding areas, asserted that the Tapera Law does not define the government as the party responsible for the provision of housing for low-income citizens.
In fact, the Tapera Law now places the whole burden solely on the shoulders of workers and employers. This means that the philosophy behind the formulation of the Tapera Law completely contradicts the provisions set out in Law No. 1 of 2011 on Housing and Residential Areas.
“There are some inconsistencies in there [the formulation of the Tapera Law],” asserted Mr. Situmorangduring a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) event titled Social Welfare for Houses; Understanding the Public-Housing Savings Program. The event was organized by the University of North Sumatra (USU) Alumni Association and took place in the Regional Representatives Council’s (DPD) Office on Wednesday, 24 February 2016.
Tapera funds comprise of trusteeship funds collected from its participants (workers and employers), which means that these funds belong to them. However, these fund owners are not involved in the various planning processes for the funds, either in through the Tapera Management Agency (BP Tapera) or through the Tapera Committee.
“Then how can these funds be called trusteeship funds?” asserted Mr. Situmorang.
All of BP Tapera’s Commissioners are appointed and relieved from duty by the president. Meanwhile, the Tapera Committee comprises of the Minister for Public Works and Public Housing, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment, a commissioner from the Financial Services Authority (OJK), and a professional with sufficient competency in the housing sector. The downside of this is that no exact definition of the term “professional” is defined within the Tapera Law.
“So, what is the exact standing of workers and employers, as ultimately they are the fund owners?” Mr. Situmorang has demanded.
Another flaw with the program closely relates to Tapera’s main instruments, namely fund collection, fund cultivation, and fund utilization. Funds are collected from workers and employers, who are the program’s participants, while fund cultivation and utilization are managed by BP Tapera. BP Tapera then appoints an investment manager and banks who cultivate and utilize the collected funds. This appointment is quite unusual, because the participant’s funds are managed by a third party, without the involvement of any workers or employers during the planning and implementation stages.
“If the so-called third party falls into bankruptcy, who will bear the responsibility? Does the government intend to take responsibility? There are no provisions set out which discuss this particular issue, unlike in the case of the Social Security Agency (BPJS). The BPJS Law clearly stipulates that the government will take over full responsibility if the BPJS ever falls into bankruptcy,” asserted Mr. Situmorang.
There are also issues relating to the program’s lack of schedule or timeframe, as regards participants securing a house after they first join the program. This is because the Tapera Law adopts the so-called “first come, first served” principle. This lack of a definite timeframe is seen as likely to result in greater problems along the way. Another matter which is also seen as important are the land-titles which are granted to the program’s participants, as these are also not specified under the Tapera Law.
“If a law fails to provide legal certainty for the citizens that it applies to, then this is a major source of concern. The same question remains unanswered, when and where does the government play its role and shoulder the responsibilities which are mandated in the constitution and in Law No. 1 of 2011?” asserted Mr. Situmorang.
Parlindungan Purba, Chair of the Regional Representatives Council’s (DPD) Committee II, has also revealed another flaw in the Tapera Law. According to him, the Tapera Law only facilitates formal-sector workers (e.g workers employed by a company/business), and is not applicable for two workers in the informal sector (e.g. freelancers, household workers).
Moreover, the implementation of the Tapera Law needs to be synchronized with other prevailing laws and regulations. Mr. Purba has underlined the fact that the potential funds collected from Tapera participants could amount to trillions of rupiah in total. Therefore, Mr. Purba has emphasized the need for integrated oversight as regards the collection of funds.
Remaining with the aspect of oversight for the program, Mr. Purba has also criticized the incorporation of a commissioner from the OJK into the Tapera Committee. Purba firmly believe that only the OJK has the authority to oversee the financial-service aspect of Tapera, and therefore there is no need for a commissioner to become a member of the Tapera Committee. Mr. Purba is afraid that if a commissioner from the OJK becomes a member of the Tapera Committee, then this will affect its independence.
BP Tapera’s Obscure Legal Status
The Tapera Law establishes a new institution to be called BP Tapera, which exists for the purpose of managing Tapera funds. Article 32 (2) and Article 1.12 of the Tapera Law expressly stipulates that BP Tapera is defined as a legal entity.
Regarding this matter, Muhammad Joni, Chair of the Indonesian Society for the Constitution (Masyarakat Konstitusi Indonesia - MKI), has questioned the definition of BP Tapera as a legal entity.
“Is it a public legal entity, a private legal entity, or a public service entity? This matter remains obscure,” asserted Mr. Joni at the FGD event.
Mr. Joni’s opinion is also shared by Mr. Situmorang, who further added, “There are no provisions that explain this matter [the type of legal entity].”
According to the provisions set out in the Tapera Law, however, BP Tapera encompasses all of the characteristics of a public legal entity, because BP Tapera can only be dissolved by a law, and cannot file for bankruptcy with a bank. These characteristics were incorporated under Articles 50 and 51 of the Tapera Law.
However, Mr. Joni also wonders why the Tapera Law has introduced manager investments which are usually present in private legal entities into a public legal entity. He asserts that the obscure definition of BP Tapera as a legal entity will eventually affect its accountability, transparency and management. If BP Tapera is indeed a public legal entity, then an investment manager can also be held publicly responsible for the management of Tapera funds.
Mr. Situmorang further offered his opinion as regards the status of the BP Tapera. According to him, there is something slightly weird with regard to the absence of government-fund participation in the Tapera program. The government only will only channel some funds at the beginning in order to finance BP Tapera’s operations, and ironically, any possible operational fund insufficiencies in the future are to be covered using Tapera funds themselves, which are ultimately collected from workers and employers.
“How could the Tapera Law not separate the bookkeeping for BP Tapera’s funds/assets from the bookkeeping for the Tapera funds that are collected from its participants?” Mr. Situmorang concluded.
However, the Tapera Law itself is still widely perceived to possess many flaws that need to be addressed. By way of example, Chazali H. Situmorang, Chair of the USU Alumni Association for Jakarta and its surrounding areas, asserted that the Tapera Law does not define the government as the party responsible for the provision of housing for low-income citizens.
In fact, the Tapera Law now places the whole burden solely on the shoulders of workers and employers. This means that the philosophy behind the formulation of the Tapera Law completely contradicts the provisions set out in Law No. 1 of 2011 on Housing and Residential Areas.
“There are some inconsistencies in there [the formulation of the Tapera Law],” asserted Mr. Situmorangduring a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) event titled Social Welfare for Houses; Understanding the Public-Housing Savings Program. The event was organized by the University of North Sumatra (USU) Alumni Association and took place in the Regional Representatives Council’s (DPD) Office on Wednesday, 24 February 2016.
Tapera funds comprise of trusteeship funds collected from its participants (workers and employers), which means that these funds belong to them. However, these fund owners are not involved in the various planning processes for the funds, either in through the Tapera Management Agency (BP Tapera) or through the Tapera Committee.
“Then how can these funds be called trusteeship funds?” asserted Mr. Situmorang.
All of BP Tapera’s Commissioners are appointed and relieved from duty by the president. Meanwhile, the Tapera Committee comprises of the Minister for Public Works and Public Housing, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment, a commissioner from the Financial Services Authority (OJK), and a professional with sufficient competency in the housing sector. The downside of this is that no exact definition of the term “professional” is defined within the Tapera Law.
“So, what is the exact standing of workers and employers, as ultimately they are the fund owners?” Mr. Situmorang has demanded.
Another flaw with the program closely relates to Tapera’s main instruments, namely fund collection, fund cultivation, and fund utilization. Funds are collected from workers and employers, who are the program’s participants, while fund cultivation and utilization are managed by BP Tapera. BP Tapera then appoints an investment manager and banks who cultivate and utilize the collected funds. This appointment is quite unusual, because the participant’s funds are managed by a third party, without the involvement of any workers or employers during the planning and implementation stages.
“If the so-called third party falls into bankruptcy, who will bear the responsibility? Does the government intend to take responsibility? There are no provisions set out which discuss this particular issue, unlike in the case of the Social Security Agency (BPJS). The BPJS Law clearly stipulates that the government will take over full responsibility if the BPJS ever falls into bankruptcy,” asserted Mr. Situmorang.
There are also issues relating to the program’s lack of schedule or timeframe, as regards participants securing a house after they first join the program. This is because the Tapera Law adopts the so-called “first come, first served” principle. This lack of a definite timeframe is seen as likely to result in greater problems along the way. Another matter which is also seen as important are the land-titles which are granted to the program’s participants, as these are also not specified under the Tapera Law.
“If a law fails to provide legal certainty for the citizens that it applies to, then this is a major source of concern. The same question remains unanswered, when and where does the government play its role and shoulder the responsibilities which are mandated in the constitution and in Law No. 1 of 2011?” asserted Mr. Situmorang.
Parlindungan Purba, Chair of the Regional Representatives Council’s (DPD) Committee II, has also revealed another flaw in the Tapera Law. According to him, the Tapera Law only facilitates formal-sector workers (e.g workers employed by a company/business), and is not applicable for two workers in the informal sector (e.g. freelancers, household workers).
Moreover, the implementation of the Tapera Law needs to be synchronized with other prevailing laws and regulations. Mr. Purba has underlined the fact that the potential funds collected from Tapera participants could amount to trillions of rupiah in total. Therefore, Mr. Purba has emphasized the need for integrated oversight as regards the collection of funds.
Remaining with the aspect of oversight for the program, Mr. Purba has also criticized the incorporation of a commissioner from the OJK into the Tapera Committee. Purba firmly believe that only the OJK has the authority to oversee the financial-service aspect of Tapera, and therefore there is no need for a commissioner to become a member of the Tapera Committee. Mr. Purba is afraid that if a commissioner from the OJK becomes a member of the Tapera Committee, then this will affect its independence.
BP Tapera’s Obscure Legal Status
The Tapera Law establishes a new institution to be called BP Tapera, which exists for the purpose of managing Tapera funds. Article 32 (2) and Article 1.12 of the Tapera Law expressly stipulates that BP Tapera is defined as a legal entity.
Regarding this matter, Muhammad Joni, Chair of the Indonesian Society for the Constitution (Masyarakat Konstitusi Indonesia - MKI), has questioned the definition of BP Tapera as a legal entity.
“Is it a public legal entity, a private legal entity, or a public service entity? This matter remains obscure,” asserted Mr. Joni at the FGD event.
Mr. Joni’s opinion is also shared by Mr. Situmorang, who further added, “There are no provisions that explain this matter [the type of legal entity].”
According to the provisions set out in the Tapera Law, however, BP Tapera encompasses all of the characteristics of a public legal entity, because BP Tapera can only be dissolved by a law, and cannot file for bankruptcy with a bank. These characteristics were incorporated under Articles 50 and 51 of the Tapera Law.
However, Mr. Joni also wonders why the Tapera Law has introduced manager investments which are usually present in private legal entities into a public legal entity. He asserts that the obscure definition of BP Tapera as a legal entity will eventually affect its accountability, transparency and management. If BP Tapera is indeed a public legal entity, then an investment manager can also be held publicly responsible for the management of Tapera funds.
Mr. Situmorang further offered his opinion as regards the status of the BP Tapera. According to him, there is something slightly weird with regard to the absence of government-fund participation in the Tapera program. The government only will only channel some funds at the beginning in order to finance BP Tapera’s operations, and ironically, any possible operational fund insufficiencies in the future are to be covered using Tapera funds themselves, which are ultimately collected from workers and employers.
“How could the Tapera Law not separate the bookkeeping for BP Tapera’s funds/assets from the bookkeeping for the Tapera funds that are collected from its participants?” Mr. Situmorang concluded.
(rfs/sp)
Marcell Sihombing, Rofiq Hidayat, Muhammad Yasin
The Draft Bill on Public-Housing Savings (Tabungan Perumahan Rakyat - Tapera) has finally passed into law, and is set to be incorporated into the State Gazette by the government within the next 30 days. As it has now passed into law, the newly established Tapera Law will now officially serve as a regulatory framework for the government and will oblige both Indonesian citizens and foreign citizens working in Indonesia to participate in the Tapera program. Moreover, due to its mandatory nature, any employer and worker refusing to participate in the program will become subject to administrative sanctions.
However, the Tapera Law itself is still widely perceived to possess many flaws that need to be addressed. By way of example, Chazali H. Situmorang, Chair of the USU Alumni Association for Jakarta and its surrounding areas, asserted that the Tapera Law does not define the government as the party responsible for the provision of housing for low-income citizens.
In fact, the Tapera Law now places the whole burden solely on the shoulders of workers and employers. This means that the philosophy behind the formulation of the Tapera Law completely contradicts the provisions set out in Law No. 1 of 2011 on Housing and Residential Areas.
“There are some inconsistencies in there [the formulation of the Tapera Law],” asserted Mr. Situmorangduring a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) event titled Social Welfare for Houses; Understanding the Public-Housing Savings Program. The event was organized by the University of North Sumatra (USU) Alumni Association and took place in the Regional Representatives Council’s (DPD) Office on Wednesday, 24 February 2016.
Tapera funds comprise of trusteeship funds collected from its participants (workers and employers), which means that these funds belong to them. However, these fund owners are not involved in the various planning processes for the funds, either in through the Tapera Management Agency (BP Tapera) or through the Tapera Committee.
“Then how can these funds be called trusteeship funds?” asserted Mr. Situmorang.
All of BP Tapera’s Commissioners are appointed and relieved from duty by the president. Meanwhile, the Tapera Committee comprises of the Minister for Public Works and Public Housing, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment, a commissioner from the Financial Services Authority (OJK), and a professional with sufficient competency in the housing sector. The downside of this is that no exact definition of the term “professional” is defined within the Tapera Law.
“So, what is the exact standing of workers and employers, as ultimately they are the fund owners?” Mr. Situmorang has demanded.
Another flaw with the program closely relates to Tapera’s main instruments, namely fund collection, fund cultivation, and fund utilization. Funds are collected from workers and employers, who are the program’s participants, while fund cultivation and utilization are managed by BP Tapera. BP Tapera then appoints an investment manager and banks who cultivate and utilize the collected funds. This appointment is quite unusual, because the participant’s funds are managed by a third party, without the involvement of any workers or employers during the planning and implementation stages.
“If the so-called third party falls into bankruptcy, who will bear the responsibility? Does the government intend to take responsibility? There are no provisions set out which discuss this particular issue, unlike in the case of the Social Security Agency (BPJS). The BPJS Law clearly stipulates that the government will take over full responsibility if the BPJS ever falls into bankruptcy,” asserted Mr. Situmorang.
There are also issues relating to the program’s lack of schedule or timeframe, as regards participants securing a house after they first join the program. This is because the Tapera Law adopts the so-called “first come, first served” principle. This lack of a definite timeframe is seen as likely to result in greater problems along the way. Another matter which is also seen as important are the land-titles which are granted to the program’s participants, as these are also not specified under the Tapera Law.
“If a law fails to provide legal certainty for the citizens that it applies to, then this is a major source of concern. The same question remains unanswered, when and where does the government play its role and shoulder the responsibilities which are mandated in the constitution and in Law No. 1 of 2011?” asserted Mr. Situmorang.
Parlindungan Purba, Chair of the Regional Representatives Council’s (DPD) Committee II, has also revealed another flaw in the Tapera Law. According to him, the Tapera Law only facilitates formal-sector workers (e.g workers employed by a company/business), and is not applicable for two workers in the informal sector (e.g. freelancers, household workers).
Moreover, the implementation of the Tapera Law needs to be synchronized with other prevailing laws and regulations. Mr. Purba has underlined the fact that the potential funds collected from Tapera participants could amount to trillions of rupiah in total. Therefore, Mr. Purba has emphasized the need for integrated oversight as regards the collection of funds.
Remaining with the aspect of oversight for the program, Mr. Purba has also criticized the incorporation of a commissioner from the OJK into the Tapera Committee. Purba firmly believe that only the OJK has the authority to oversee the financial-service aspect of Tapera, and therefore there is no need for a commissioner to become a member of the Tapera Committee. Mr. Purba is afraid that if a commissioner from the OJK becomes a member of the Tapera Committee, then this will affect its independence.
BP Tapera’s Obscure Legal Status
The Tapera Law establishes a new institution to be called BP Tapera, which exists for the purpose of managing Tapera funds. Article 32 (2) and Article 1.12 of the Tapera Law expressly stipulates that BP Tapera is defined as a legal entity.
Regarding this matter, Muhammad Joni, Chair of the Indonesian Society for the Constitution (Masyarakat Konstitusi Indonesia - MKI), has questioned the definition of BP Tapera as a legal entity.
“Is it a public legal entity, a private legal entity, or a public service entity? This matter remains obscure,” asserted Mr. Joni at the FGD event.
Mr. Joni’s opinion is also shared by Mr. Situmorang, who further added, “There are no provisions that explain this matter [the type of legal entity].”
According to the provisions set out in the Tapera Law, however, BP Tapera encompasses all of the characteristics of a public legal entity, because BP Tapera can only be dissolved by a law, and cannot file for bankruptcy with a bank. These characteristics were incorporated under Articles 50 and 51 of the Tapera Law.
However, Mr. Joni also wonders why the Tapera Law has introduced manager investments which are usually present in private legal entities into a public legal entity. He asserts that the obscure definition of BP Tapera as a legal entity will eventually affect its accountability, transparency and management. If BP Tapera is indeed a public legal entity, then an investment manager can also be held publicly responsible for the management of Tapera funds.
Mr. Situmorang further offered his opinion as regards the status of the BP Tapera. According to him, there is something slightly weird with regard to the absence of government-fund participation in the Tapera program. The government only will only channel some funds at the beginning in order to finance BP Tapera’s operations, and ironically, any possible operational fund insufficiencies in the future are to be covered using Tapera funds themselves, which are ultimately collected from workers and employers.
“How could the Tapera Law not separate the bookkeeping for BP Tapera’s funds/assets from the bookkeeping for the Tapera funds that are collected from its participants?” Mr. Situmorang concluded.
However, the Tapera Law itself is still widely perceived to possess many flaws that need to be addressed. By way of example, Chazali H. Situmorang, Chair of the USU Alumni Association for Jakarta and its surrounding areas, asserted that the Tapera Law does not define the government as the party responsible for the provision of housing for low-income citizens.
In fact, the Tapera Law now places the whole burden solely on the shoulders of workers and employers. This means that the philosophy behind the formulation of the Tapera Law completely contradicts the provisions set out in Law No. 1 of 2011 on Housing and Residential Areas.
“There are some inconsistencies in there [the formulation of the Tapera Law],” asserted Mr. Situmorangduring a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) event titled Social Welfare for Houses; Understanding the Public-Housing Savings Program. The event was organized by the University of North Sumatra (USU) Alumni Association and took place in the Regional Representatives Council’s (DPD) Office on Wednesday, 24 February 2016.
Tapera funds comprise of trusteeship funds collected from its participants (workers and employers), which means that these funds belong to them. However, these fund owners are not involved in the various planning processes for the funds, either in through the Tapera Management Agency (BP Tapera) or through the Tapera Committee.
“Then how can these funds be called trusteeship funds?” asserted Mr. Situmorang.
All of BP Tapera’s Commissioners are appointed and relieved from duty by the president. Meanwhile, the Tapera Committee comprises of the Minister for Public Works and Public Housing, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment, a commissioner from the Financial Services Authority (OJK), and a professional with sufficient competency in the housing sector. The downside of this is that no exact definition of the term “professional” is defined within the Tapera Law.
“So, what is the exact standing of workers and employers, as ultimately they are the fund owners?” Mr. Situmorang has demanded.
Another flaw with the program closely relates to Tapera’s main instruments, namely fund collection, fund cultivation, and fund utilization. Funds are collected from workers and employers, who are the program’s participants, while fund cultivation and utilization are managed by BP Tapera. BP Tapera then appoints an investment manager and banks who cultivate and utilize the collected funds. This appointment is quite unusual, because the participant’s funds are managed by a third party, without the involvement of any workers or employers during the planning and implementation stages.
“If the so-called third party falls into bankruptcy, who will bear the responsibility? Does the government intend to take responsibility? There are no provisions set out which discuss this particular issue, unlike in the case of the Social Security Agency (BPJS). The BPJS Law clearly stipulates that the government will take over full responsibility if the BPJS ever falls into bankruptcy,” asserted Mr. Situmorang.
There are also issues relating to the program’s lack of schedule or timeframe, as regards participants securing a house after they first join the program. This is because the Tapera Law adopts the so-called “first come, first served” principle. This lack of a definite timeframe is seen as likely to result in greater problems along the way. Another matter which is also seen as important are the land-titles which are granted to the program’s participants, as these are also not specified under the Tapera Law.
“If a law fails to provide legal certainty for the citizens that it applies to, then this is a major source of concern. The same question remains unanswered, when and where does the government play its role and shoulder the responsibilities which are mandated in the constitution and in Law No. 1 of 2011?” asserted Mr. Situmorang.
Parlindungan Purba, Chair of the Regional Representatives Council’s (DPD) Committee II, has also revealed another flaw in the Tapera Law. According to him, the Tapera Law only facilitates formal-sector workers (e.g workers employed by a company/business), and is not applicable for two workers in the informal sector (e.g. freelancers, household workers).
Moreover, the implementation of the Tapera Law needs to be synchronized with other prevailing laws and regulations. Mr. Purba has underlined the fact that the potential funds collected from Tapera participants could amount to trillions of rupiah in total. Therefore, Mr. Purba has emphasized the need for integrated oversight as regards the collection of funds.
Remaining with the aspect of oversight for the program, Mr. Purba has also criticized the incorporation of a commissioner from the OJK into the Tapera Committee. Purba firmly believe that only the OJK has the authority to oversee the financial-service aspect of Tapera, and therefore there is no need for a commissioner to become a member of the Tapera Committee. Mr. Purba is afraid that if a commissioner from the OJK becomes a member of the Tapera Committee, then this will affect its independence.
BP Tapera’s Obscure Legal Status
The Tapera Law establishes a new institution to be called BP Tapera, which exists for the purpose of managing Tapera funds. Article 32 (2) and Article 1.12 of the Tapera Law expressly stipulates that BP Tapera is defined as a legal entity.
Regarding this matter, Muhammad Joni, Chair of the Indonesian Society for the Constitution (Masyarakat Konstitusi Indonesia - MKI), has questioned the definition of BP Tapera as a legal entity.
“Is it a public legal entity, a private legal entity, or a public service entity? This matter remains obscure,” asserted Mr. Joni at the FGD event.
Mr. Joni’s opinion is also shared by Mr. Situmorang, who further added, “There are no provisions that explain this matter [the type of legal entity].”
According to the provisions set out in the Tapera Law, however, BP Tapera encompasses all of the characteristics of a public legal entity, because BP Tapera can only be dissolved by a law, and cannot file for bankruptcy with a bank. These characteristics were incorporated under Articles 50 and 51 of the Tapera Law.
However, Mr. Joni also wonders why the Tapera Law has introduced manager investments which are usually present in private legal entities into a public legal entity. He asserts that the obscure definition of BP Tapera as a legal entity will eventually affect its accountability, transparency and management. If BP Tapera is indeed a public legal entity, then an investment manager can also be held publicly responsible for the management of Tapera funds.
Mr. Situmorang further offered his opinion as regards the status of the BP Tapera. According to him, there is something slightly weird with regard to the absence of government-fund participation in the Tapera program. The government only will only channel some funds at the beginning in order to finance BP Tapera’s operations, and ironically, any possible operational fund insufficiencies in the future are to be covered using Tapera funds themselves, which are ultimately collected from workers and employers.
“How could the Tapera Law not separate the bookkeeping for BP Tapera’s funds/assets from the bookkeeping for the Tapera funds that are collected from its participants?” Mr. Situmorang concluded.
(rfs/sp)