[This article continues our coverage of the ongoing Indonesian crisis. In our previous issue (ATC 68), correspondent Carolus Irawan Saptono reported on the preparations for the fraudulent and repression-ridden election. This was subsequent as predicted by the Suharto regime’s Golkar party, with over 70% of the proclaimed vote. The deaths of over 250 people in protests against the rigged election, however, came as an embarrassment to the regime and signal of a weakening dictatorship.
[The following report focuses on the revival of the labor movement and the repressive response. Previous coverage of the crackdown against the radical wing of the labor and peasant movement, the Center for Indonesian Labor Struggles (PPBI), the national peasant PTN and an allied student federation appeared in ATC 65 ("Will Repression Save Suharto?" by Dianne Feeley).
[The author of the following article, Togi Simanjuntak, is a researcher with the Institute for the Studies on the Free Flow of Information (ISAI) and a member of the Alliance of Independent Journalists, a journalists’ organization set up after the banning of three media (Tempo, DeTiK, and Editor) in June 1994.]
"whispering into the world’s ear: ’I have seen marsinah,(1)
marsinah has spoken to me’"
— Putu Oka Sukanta,(2) Marsinah, Jakarta, 1993
"titik sugiarti(3) will not rise again
but the embers left burning will not be extinguished"
— Putu Oka Sukanta, Bara di Kolam Limbah
(Embers in the Stagnant Pool), Jakarta, May 1994
JUST A WEEK before the 1997 election campaign period there was a wave of protests and strikes involving thousands of workers in a number of industrial areas in Java, including Tangerang, Bekasi, Bogor and Ungaran. The actions called on companies to fulfill minimum working standards, in particular by paying the government-regulated regional minimum wage.
These protests came as a considerable surprise, given earlier warnings by officials that action would be taken against any possible threat to the smooth running of the 29 May election. If necessary, according to police spokesman Nurfaizi, this included shooting on sight.
Apart from the protest action by thousands of Megawati Sukarnoputri supporters at the parliament building on 15 April, these labor strikes represent the biggest street protests since the 27 July 1996 riots(4). Yet as a result of the government’s repression and persecution of its critics in the aftermath of the July events, political observers have described pro-democracy groups as "lying prone."
The implications that a labor strike can have was clarified by an official in the Ministry of Manpower, Bomer Pasaribu. He pointed out that the failure – on the part of both companies and government – to listen to workers’ demands could lead to further worker action in the pre-election period. Bomer’s statement, and the workers’ protests themselves, point to the significant role of workers as a determining factor in assisting the climate of political change in Indonesia.
Thus far the role of workers as an element of the people’s movement appears to have been ignored by the broader political community that is seeking to bring about the ideals of democracy in Indonesia. Yet the assumption that democratization can be achieved by relying on the educated middle class is incorrect.
The characteristics of the process of capitalization in Indonesia are different than those in Western Europe, North America, or even newly industrial nations such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia.(5) Further, the fulfillment of workers’ basic rights runs parallel with the struggle to create a more democratic government.
While many workers in Indonesia are still focusing on the struggle for their basic rights, fulfillment of these rights runs parallel with the struggle to create a more democratic government. In the future – particularly in the free market era—it appears inevitable that the call for basic rights, and the need for structural change in the political system and in government economic policies, will run in tandem.
New strategies being employed in the workers’ struggle – both in terms of scale and at a political and structural level – have been pioneered by two independent workers’ organizations formed in the last four years: the Indonesian Workers’ Prosperity Union (SBSI) and the Indonesian Centre for Workers’ Struggle (PPBI). But following the government’s persecution of leading activists in the crackdown that followed the July 27th incident, the work needs revitalizing.
The government faces major economic challenges and these will certainly have an influence on politics. While Indonesia has been able to attract foreign investment because of its cheap labor force and natural resources – and its relative political "stability" – it now faces competition from China and Vietnam, whose workers’ wages average only thirty-six cents a day. These two countries have already liberalized their economies so as to be able to integrate into the world market.
Indonesia’s capacity to compete in non-oil exports, such as textiles and shoes, which up to now have been mainstays,(6) has been weakened by industrial mobility. At the same time, the country is not yet really prepared with a sophisticated high-, medium- or even very low-technology industry. This is aggravated by pressure from the international community regarding human rights – especially in regard to East Timor – and protectionist national car legislation.(7)
As foreign investors flock to Indonesia looking for new subcontractors, the basic rights of workers and their freedom to organize remain at a disappointingly low level despite the guarantees outlined in Article 28 of the country’s constitution. One well known example is of Nike. [Nike’s behavior at home and abroad is discussed in Bill Resnick’s article elsewhere in this issue of Against the Current – ed.]
Through the use of subcontractors, Nike employs 22,000 Indonesian workers. The average worker earns roughly $2.50 a day, among the lowest wages in the Third World. Yet the struggle to improve wages and working conditions has been blocked by the government. For example, only one organization, the All Indonesia Workers Union (SPSI), is officially recognized as a legal workers organization.
The Indonesian government’s records put the number of SPSI members at more than 1.1 million, comprising some ten thousand workplace units. A retired military officer and a district level leader of the ruling party Golkar usually chair the SPSI branches at a provincial level. The Minister of Manpower is a member of the SPSI’s Consultative Council. SPSI members are directed to become members of Golkar, and Golkar members dominate the SPSI leadership (see Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1991, U.S. Department of State, February 1992, 870).
Anyone wanting to set up an independent workers organization – or organizations for other professions<197>are usually prevented from doing so by the application of Law No. 8 of 1985 concerning Social Organizations. The law states that an organization wishing to establish itself or legalize its existence must include Pancasila, the state ideology in its statute.
On the pretext of acting in the interests of the security of the nation, the law gives the state the power to control non-governmental organizations that receive foreign assistance without the consent of the government. Additionally, through Article 8, the government seeks to pressure nongovernmental organizations into forming umbrella organizations, facilitating government control.
Examples of such umbrella organizations are the SPSI (workers), the PGRI (teachers), the PWI (journalists) and the KPI (seamen). (See Ben Witjes, "The Indonesian Law on Social Organizations: A Study of the Sociopolitical Context and the Consequences for Indonesian and Foreign NGOs," Nijmegen (Netherlands), April 1987, 50.)
As far as wages are concerned, despite the fact that over the last four years the minimum regional wage(8) has risen by 125%, there is still a gap between the minimum wage and what is needed to meet the cost of living. Over the last thirteen years the regional minimum wage has risen by as much as 270%, but food, housing and transport have increased by around 400%. This means that Indonesian workers in 1982 were better off by one-third than they were in 1995.
The level of pay in Indonesia constitutes the lowest in ASEAN. While the rate of pay in Indonesia by 1993 had risen to twenty-eight cents an hour, in Singapore the rate is $5.12, in Malaysia it is $1.80 and in the Philippines it is sixty-eight cents.
In Indonesia the government has set up a system of industrial relations that dictates every disagreement must be resolved through the Tripartite Cooperative Institute. This mechanism comprises workers’ representatives (in this case SPSI representatives), representatives of the owners, and the government (the Department of Manpower/Labour).
Due to its lack of independence, the SPSI, representing the workers and to whom workers look to for support, is coopted by the government and acts as an extension of the owners. When agreement is not reached and workers respond by demonstrating or striking, the military – as an extrajudicial force(9) – frequently intervenes and intimidates workers. Marsinah, Rusli and Titi Sugiarti(10) are examples of three labour activists who have died in the struggle for workers rights.
The last four years have seen the rise of independent labour organizations, which have become alternative channels for the aspiration of workers. These are the SBSI and the PPBI. The two have even attempted to integrate the workers’ struggle into the democratization movement. For example, PPBI protest actions always raise the issue of abolishing the package of five political laws that are proclaimed in Article 28 of the country’s constitution. Pro-democracy activists and critical intellectuals regard the package (laws on political parties, social organizations, general elections, the parliament and People’s Consultative Assembly, and referenda) as restricting the right to organize, gather and express opinions.
The PPBI also challenges the dual function of the military, a concept through which the military actively intervenes in the socio-political affairs of the country. Worker activists argue that workers cannot hope to receive their rights if they are denied the possibility of establishing an independent workers organization.
Wilson, Chairman of the PPBI’s Education and Propaganda Division, told this writer that it is impossible to struggle for workers’ basic rights without challenging the military’s right to be involved in all aspects of political and economic life to such an extent that it threatens any possibility of democratic life.
In the beginning the SBSI was led by activists from nongovernmental organizations in North Sumatra affiliated to the Batak Protestant Church (HKBP), an ethnic Batak Protestant church organization. In addition there were others, such as labor lawyer Muchtar Pakpahan, the current SBSI chair, who were involved in advocacy work for workers.
Despite intimidation and pressure from the military, the SBSI swiftly established 87 branches across the country, claiming a membership of around 250,000. In an effort to stifle the SBSI’s growth, the Department of Labour used as weapons the regulations contained in Law No. 8 of 1985 concerning Mass Organizations, as well as Ministerial Regulation No. 5 of 1987 concerning the establishment of an organization or union.
The government’s repression of the SBSI also uses extrajudicial intervention to intimidate worker activists. Military intervention has frequently been used to halt SBSI activities, whether workers’ training sessions, the establishment of organizational branches, or protest actions and strikes. Activists are used to being military interrogation – even being subjected to physical intimidation – as well as threatened with arrest, trial and imprisonment.
In October 1992 Muchtar Pakpahan and nine other leaders were interrogated overnight by police. Their alleged crime? They were involved in discussions about establishing a branch office in Tangerang. The U.S. Embassy attache for labour affairs, Greg Talcott, who had been present at the meeting, was also interrogated for an hour before being released.
On another occasion, as a result of a national strike in February 1994(11), Pakpahan, Soenarti (Chairman of the Executive Council), and Trisjanto (leader of the SBSI in Central Java) were arrested by police and charged under Article 155 of the Criminal Code.
Even the SBSI’s training session in Sibolangit, North Sumatra, was broken up in November 1995 by some forty members of the security forces. Thirty-five training participants, including five SBSI organizers, were interrogated for ten hours in the local police station.(12)
Following this violation of their rights, Pakpahan and sixteen SBSI leaders went to the National Human Rights Commission and the national parliament to complain about the breaking up of the meeting. They also questioned the statement made by the regional military commander, who banned all SBSI activities in four provinces: Aceh, North Sumatra, West Sumatra and Riau.
Muchtar Pakpahan and other SBSI leaders were involved in a major demonstration involving tens of thousands of workers from more than 80 factories in Medan (North Sumatra) from 14-19 April 1994. Demonstrators called on the governor to meet four demands: an increase in wages from about $1.50 to about $3.50 per day; a review of Minister of Manpower regulation No.1/1994, which allows the government to recognize the SPSI as the one and only officially-recognized workers union; an impartial investigation into the death of Rusli; and reinstatement of 389 workers sacked after a strike at the PT Korek Api Deli factory in March 1994.
Dissatisfied at the attitude of government officials in response to these demands, the angry crowds were infiltrated by the military. Shops were damaged and looted and many cars were damaged. Yuli Kristianto, an ethnic Chinese businessman, was killed by the crowd after they surrounded his car.
The military chief of staff accused the SPSI of being the mastermind of the riots. The regional military commander alleged that the SBSI had used the same tactics and methods used by the banned Indonesian Communist Party.
Evidence gathered by the SBSI’s own fact-finding team showed that there had been provocation by "outside forces" during the peaceful action. When the demonstrators shouted "Give us freedom to organize" and "Long live SBSI," some members of the crowd who have been identified as members of the security forces in civilian dress began shouting slogans other than those agreed upon by those coordinating the action, such as "down with Suharto."
Anti-Chinese leaflets and posters, which had nothing to do with the SBSI, were distributed. Medan criminals who carried out the damage to and looting of shops told SBSI activists that they had been paid by the authorities to take this action. (See Human Rights Watch, May 16, 1994, Vol.6, No.4; also Amnesty International, "Labour Activists Under Fire," early May 1994.)
As a result of the Medan riots, SBSI Chairman Muchtar Pakpahan was tried for inciting workers. After being found guilty at the district court, a verdict confirmed on appeal to the high court, Pakpahan’s appeal was eventually successful. He was unconditionally released after his case was heard by a panel of the Supreme Court headed by Adi Andojo, a judge widely accepted as having maintained his moral integrity and independence.
However, in a controversial decision that contravened the Code of Criminal Procedure (only the litigate and the accused have the right to judicial review), the prosecutor filed for a judicial review.
Last December the nation’s chief justice reversed the previous Supreme Court ruling. The result is that Pakpahan has been sentenced to four years imprisonment.
The Medan case has attracted considerable press and international concern, but a number of pieces of the story concerning the military’s repression warrant reiteration here.
The parents, wives and children of the activists have also experienced intimidation and terror. For example, in March 1992 the Chairman of the Medan branch of the SBSI, Amosi Telaumbanua, together with Riswan Lubis and other leaders, was arrested and tortured at the District Military Command for five days on suspicion of organizing a strike at the PT Rotanindo company.
In May 1993, Telaumbanua was detained again in similar circumstances, this time for eight days. He was unconditionally released and then sacked from his job. His two children, aged 9 and 10, were snatched by unknown people and only found three days after Telaumbanua’s release.
In addition to its work in seeking to improve workers basic rights, the SBSI also seeks to integrate the workers’ movement into a broader alliance with other pro-democracy elements. One concrete example of such an alliance is the Indonesian People’s Council (MARI), set up on in June 1996. Muchtar Pakpahan is a founding member.(13)
Unlike the SBSI, which places demonstrations calling for basic rights and pro-democracy political movements in two separate grooves, the PPBI integrates the two actions in the same demonstration.
In December 1995 the PPBI, in coalition with Indonesian Students’ Solidary for Democracy (SMID), coordinated a strike by around 12,000 workers from the Central Java textile factory PT Sri Rejeki Isman Tekstil (commonly known as Sritex, whose owner is the wife of Minister of Information Harmoko).
The following July the PPBI again coordinated a demonstration of tens of thousands of workers in the industrial region of Tandes, Surabaya, East Java. During each action the PPBI, in addition to calling for basic workers rights, also called for the abolition of the five political laws and the dual function of the armed forces.
Following the events of 27 July 1996, the Suharto regime persecuted pro-democracy activists, among them Muchtar Pakpahan and two PPBI activists, Dita Indah Sari (PPBI Chairwoman) and Wilson Nurtias (Chairman of the PPBI’s Education and Propaganda Division).
One of the accusations made by the prosecution against the two PPBI activists was that they linked each workers’ protest action, which should only relate to basic rights, with calls for the abolition of the five political laws and the dual function of military.
Both activists and organizers for the PPBI and the SBSI are charged with not being content to limit their work to seeing economic improvements for the workers. But they are driven by the nature of the Indonesian governmental system to link the question of economic improvements for workers to the issue of democratization in Indonesia.
ATC 69, July-August 1997