skip to main | skip to sidebar
Global Labour Column Archive
  • HOME
    • ABOUT US
    • GLC ANTHOLOGIES
  • LINKS
    • RECOMMENDED SITES
    • DISCLAIMER
  • AUTHORS
  • GLOBAL BOARD
  • CONTACT
  • GLU
  • ICDD
  • Follow Us on Twitter
  • Monday, July 7, 2014

    Labour Issues in Indonesian Plantations: from Indenture to Entrepreneurship

    Stéphanie Barral
    This article documents the labor issues in Indonesian plantations focusing on how changes in agrarian capitalism and state regulation have affected plantation workers. Plantation-based capitalism in Indonesia dates back to the 1860s, when European and American companies opened up the province of North Sumatra, mainly in order to produce tobacco, rubber and palm oil. This system continued long into the post-colonial period, alongside an expansion of the plantation system elsewhere from the 1960s. The 1980s saw a boom in large private estates, especially oil palm plantations, which also spread to other Indonesian islands where forested land was available. Big oil palm plantations now cover more than five million hectares. Each production unit consists of approximately 20 000 to 30 000 hectares; harvesting, the main technical operation, currently requires between two and four thousand permanent laborers per unit.

    The first decades of the plantation system in North Sumatra

    From 1863 into the 1930s, private concessions expanded to cover around 10,000 square kilometers. From a 250 km stretch of coast to 50 to 70 km inland, 265 companies occupied 700,000 acres of farmland. The planters had great power during the 19th century and in the first decade of the 20th century, due to the weak presence of government representatives, political pressure from the Netherlands and the colonial government to meet the economic interests of the plantations (notably through Coolie Ordinance Acts, starting from 1880).

    The first plantations were established in areas with very few inhabitants, so plantation administrators organised migration from overseas to satisfy labour requirements. Planters organised the in-migration of indentured single young men: these plantation ‘coolies’ first came from China, followed by a very rapidly growing intake from Java. The system involved the recruitment and transportation of laborers from populated areas where an impoverished segment of the population represented a pool of potential labour.

    Using migrant labour facilitated control, as the newcomers were not accustomed to the ecological and social environment in which the plantations were established. During the 50 first years of the plantations’ land colonisation in North Sumatra, labour relations were basically coercive. At that time, no external regulation of labour relations existed, and these relations were shaped by brute force.

    For the planters, labour migration had two objectives: the migrants would first work on the plantation, and then settle locally, rather than return home at the end of the first contract. ‘Coolies’ who refused to work were punished through means like withholding wages, physical punishment and imprisonment. They lived in crowded conditions, unsanitary wooden huts, and the company’s doctors only treated mild diseases (seriously ill coolies were returned to their native villages).

    The period of reform: From ‘coolies’ to free wage labour under paternalism

    After 50 years of harsh coercion, faced with political pressure for reform as well as the many shortcomings of the existing methods of control over ‘coolies’, the planters began to move towards a less coercive system. The high recruitment costs and high mortality rates indicated the limitations of the system of brute force and poor social conditions.

    The colonial government abolished the indenture system in 1911, and the system was phased from the late 1920s. The former ‘coolies’ became free labourers and in-migration now focused on families rather than on single men: this family focus continues today. The planters also established new services, both to improve conditions and increase the workers’ ties to the companies.

    Workers and their families lived in individual houses; criminal penalties for missing work were abolished. These changes were matched by an increase in support to workers’ private lives (medical care, food distribution, the setting up of local grocery stores and the possibility of getting a loan from the company), all of which represented a broader tutelary system. From direct coercion, the system had evolved to one of paternalistic labour relations, which provided a number of social and economic facilities while also exercising strict control over workers’ work and private lives. Despite the social advances, plantation workers and their families still led difficult lives. After World War II and the independence of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945, the country was marked by political changes, and by cultural and social struggles.

    The early 1950s saw government intervention in wage determination, and a labour code that enabled improvements in welfare. The working day was limited to seven hours, the working week to 44 hours; there was to be an annual review of payments in kind in line with inflation; child labour was to be limited; maternity leave was introduced. The national labour law also sought to mandate employers to play a role in the provision of housing, medical care, and access to education for working families. However, these measures did not constitute a collective and universal protection system like that found in most of European welfare states of the time: rather, they were based on a standardisation of existing company paternalism.

    The above is still the case today; for instance, its latest expression can be found in the Law No. 13 of 2003 which stipulates that “[T]he labour provider shall be responsible for wages and welfare protection, working conditions and disputes that may arise” (Article 66). Article 100 stipulates:

    In order to improve the welfare of the workers / labourers and their families, the entrepreneur shall provide welfare facilities. (…) Welfare facilities shall refer to, for instance, family planning services, babysitting facilities, housing facilities for workers/labourers, special rooms for prayers or other religious facilities, canteens, policlinics and other medical/health facilities, and recreational facilities.
    Plantations in the era of dictatorship
    In 1965, General Suharto seised power and established a totalitarian regime: there was a tremendous slaughter, including the massacre of many Communist Party members (many of whom were plantation workers); union freedom was abolished. The new regime aimed at the restoration of profitability to North Sumatra’s plantations, which had been weakened by social demands and struggles. It also promoted the expansion of the plantation system countrywide, an expansion which boomed in the 1980s, and still continues today.

    Although General Suharto was dismissed in 1998, labour unions remain weak to this day, and international labour non-governmental organisations (NGOs) occupy a more important role. Another legacy of the Suharto period was the introduction, in 1979, of the retirement and health public agency, Jamsostek, which operates a mandatory pension scheme. The retirement system resembles the American pension funds system. Employees remit part of their wage to the agency every month, and the company they work for supplements the payment. When workers turn 55, the legal retirement age, they receive a lump sum equal to the total amount of the money they have saved plus interest.

    This created a major change in the plantation system. Essentially, the economic situation of its working families became more precarious, since a condition for receiving the lump sum at retirement was to move out of plantation-provided housing: previously, retired workers could live in such housing and receive a monthly subsidy until their death. So, the new pension system meant less paternalistic control, but it also created the need for workers to buy a piece of land and to build a house.

    This change had major consequences for workers’ lives, since they had to raise additional funds. This was only possible by a relaxation of paternalistic controls over workers by plantation managers, to enable workers to undertake individual economic initiatives. These had previously been banned. Previously, working families did not have the right to open a business inside or even outside the plantation compound; now they were allowed to set up their own businesses and saving plans.

    Relaxing control over workers was implemented by adapting working conditions, mostly by reducing monitoring and by granting permission for individual initiatives; women plantation residents were no longer obliged to work for the plantation. Today, the pattern for permanent workers is that the male head of the family works every day, while his wife can choose to work as a casual worker on a less regular basis and to spend her time elsewhere.

    Facing the challenges of the pension system

    Field surveys show that whereas workers in newer plantations have successfully addressed this new challenge, for those in North Sumatra’s ex-colonial plantations the situation is much more precarious.

    The more recent plantations are established in forested areas where land is still available. In their free time, and because of the inefficiency of land regulations in these newly colonised areas, plantation workers clear new areas, and plant their own oil palm trees. This access to land and this possibility for entrepreneurship has enabled a widespread process of social advancement.

    Quite the reverse is true in the ex-colonial plantations of North Sumatra, where no additional land is available. The saturated economic environment makes entrepreneurship difficult. Workers and their families thus face major economic problems when trying to prepare their retirement. The effect is that of territorial inequalities in the country, and growing economic difficulties linked with the continuous reduction of available land.

    Click here for further details 
      

    Download this article as pdf

    Stéphanie Barral is a French junior researcher in sociology at INRA. Her fields of interest are land and labour markets, agricultural policies and their consequences on the evolution of agriculture, in Europe or in post-colonial societies.

    Posted in: Indonesia,Paternalism,Private Plantations,Social Protection
    Email This BlogThis! Share to X Share to Facebook
    Newer Post Older Post Home

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    Share

    Twitter Facebook Stumbleupon Favorites More

    Subscribe to the Mailing List

    If you want to subscribe to the GLC mailing list, please click here or send an empty email to "List-GLColumn-subscribe@global-labour-university.org"

    Contribute to the GLC

    If you want to contribute to the Global Labour Column, please read here the Guidelines for Contributions

    Languages






    Donations

    More Info

    Popular Posts

      T-Shirt Economics: Labour in the Imperialist World Economy
      Chinese Construction Companies in Africa: A Challenge for Trade Unions
      Ruskin, the trade union college, is under siege

    TAGS

    Trade Unions Financial Crisis Workers' rights Globalisation Neoliberalism Labour Market Collective Bargaining Decent Work Inequality Labour Standards Wage Social Movements Europe Development Strategies Struggle Progressive alliances Strike Growth Labour Labour rights Financial Market Tax Financial Regulation Social Security Public Investment Social Democracy South Africa Economic Democracy Fiscal Space Germany Informal Economy Corporate Governance Freedom of Association ILO Minimum Wage United States Competitiveness Human Rights Labour Movements Trade Union Austerity Central Bank Environment Free Trade Free Trade Agreement Greece Labour Movement Social Protection State Funding Transnational Solidarity Unemployment Vietnam Workers’ Rights Crowd Work Domestic Workers Economic Crisis Education Employment Forced Labour France Global Warming Labour Market Flexibility Labour Statistics Migration National Minimum Wage Public Works Programmes Trade Union Divisions Workers' unity Agriculture Brexit Care Work Construction Sector Cooperatives Crisis Economic Alternatives Economic Reform Farmworkers Financialisation Globalization Indonesia Just Transition Labour Process Liberalisation Macroeconomic Policy NUM Nationalism Occupational Health Organising Outsourcing Portugal Privatisation Refugees Regulation Reserve Army of Labour Right to strike Social Dialogue Social Justice Solidarity Tax Evasion Welfare State Workers Rights Workers’ Organisations AMCU Africa Alternative Sources of Power Anti-privatisation Anti-union Violence Automobiles Brazil Business and Human Rights Capital Flight Capitalism Chinese Investment Climate Change Collectivity Colombia Community Monitoring Conference Corporate Transparency Coup Cuba Debt Restructuring Decriminalisation Demand Democracy Developed and Developing Countries Development Digitisation Disciplining of the superfluous labour force Domestic Work Economic Development Egypt Elections Entrepreneurship Eurozone Crisis Executive Compensation Factory Occupations Fair Trade Farm Workers Feminism Finance Financial Crises Financial Innovation Financial crisis. Fiscal Austerity Food Sovereignty G20 Gender Gentrification Global Health Global Multiplier Great Depression Great Recession Hawkers Health Hotel Housekeepers Human Rights due Diligence India Industrial Relations Informal Employment Institutions International Aid Policy International Framework Agreements Investment Partnership (TTIP) Investment Partnerships Iran Korean Shipbuilding Industry Kuznets Labor Labour Broking Labour Income Share Labour Markets Labour Reform Leadership Left Legislation Loi Travail Macroeconomic Performance Management Manufacturing Marshall Plan Metal Workers Migrant Domestic Workers Militarised Capitalism Mineworkers NASVI National Health Service Neolibaralism Networking New Progressive Consensus Online Campaigning Options for the Euro Area Paternalism Patriarchy Pensions Performance Standards Political Alliances Poverty Reduction Precariousness Prison Labour Prisoners Private Plantations Progressive Tax Reform Protectionism Protests Public Policy Quebec Racism Rank-and-File Member Redistribution Regulation of Labour Rent Seeking Rural Development Ruskin SEWA Securitization Sex Work Shadow Banking Shaft Stewards Social Audit Social Development Social Movement Social Transformation Solidarity Economy Spain Sportswear Industry State Stellenbosch Street Trading Street Vendors Strike Ban Strikes Structural Changes Supply Chains Swedish Model Tertiary Education Top Income Shares Tourism Trade Liberalisation Trade Misinvoicing Transatlantic Trade Transformation Transparency Transport Trump Tunsia Turkey Unfree Labour Union 4.0 Union Strategy Unions Universal Health Coverage (UHC) Voluntary Initiatives Wage Employment Wage Inequality Wage Share West Africa Wild Cat Strike Winelands Women Women’s Movement Workers` Organization Youth

    PUBLICATIONS

    Click here to view more

    Blog Archive

    • ►  2020 (1)
      • ►  September (1)
    • ►  2017 (40)
      • ►  December (4)
      • ►  November (2)
      • ►  October (3)
      • ►  September (5)
      • ►  July (4)
      • ►  June (6)
      • ►  May (4)
      • ►  April (3)
      • ►  March (2)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (3)
    • ►  2016 (34)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (2)
      • ►  October (2)
      • ►  September (4)
      • ►  August (4)
      • ►  July (2)
      • ►  June (3)
      • ►  May (4)
      • ►  April (1)
      • ►  March (4)
      • ►  February (3)
      • ►  January (2)
    • ►  2015 (32)
      • ►  December (2)
      • ►  November (5)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  September (2)
      • ►  August (1)
      • ►  July (2)
      • ►  June (5)
      • ►  May (3)
      • ►  April (2)
      • ►  March (2)
      • ►  February (3)
      • ►  January (1)
    • ▼  2014 (32)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (1)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  September (3)
      • ►  August (1)
      • ▼  July (3)
        • Chinese Construction Companies in Africa: A Challe...
        • Turkey seen through the Prism of Occupational Dise...
        • Labour Issues in Indonesian Plantations: from Inde...
      • ►  June (6)
      • ►  May (2)
      • ►  April (3)
      • ►  March (2)
      • ►  February (2)
      • ►  January (2)
    • ►  2013 (41)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (2)
      • ►  October (5)
      • ►  September (4)
      • ►  August (1)
      • ►  July (4)
      • ►  June (3)
      • ►  May (4)
      • ►  April (3)
      • ►  March (4)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (4)
    • ►  2012 (35)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (4)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  September (2)
      • ►  August (2)
      • ►  July (2)
      • ►  June (2)
      • ►  May (4)
      • ►  April (3)
      • ►  March (3)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (2)
    • ►  2011 (39)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (4)
      • ►  October (3)
      • ►  September (4)
      • ►  August (3)
      • ►  July (2)
      • ►  June (3)
      • ►  May (3)
      • ►  April (4)
      • ►  March (4)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (2)
    • ►  2010 (39)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (5)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  September (2)
      • ►  August (2)
      • ►  July (3)
      • ►  June (4)
      • ►  May (1)
      • ►  April (4)
      • ►  March (4)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (3)
    • ►  2009 (5)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (2)

     
    Copyright © 2011 Global Labour Column Archive | Powered by Blogger
    Design by Free WordPress Themes | Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premium Blogger Themes | 100 WP Themes