Explorations

in
Southeast Asian Studies
A Journal of the Southeast Asian Studies Student Association

Vol 3 Fall 1999

Contents Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Article 4

The Participation of Women Workers in the Indonesian

Labor Opposition Movement in the 1990s
Akiko Kodama[1]

Akiko Kodama is an M.A. candidate in the department of Asian Studies at the University of
Hawaii at Manoa.

Notes

The situation in Indonesia's labor movement the 1990s was very different from that which
prevailed in the 1980s, when Indonesian workers were well controlled by the government. In
order to demand their rights and to improve their working conditions, workers increasingly
began to stand up and unjuk rasa (show their feelings). Of course, such actions risked
intervention by the police or the military, but that did not discourage many workers from
involvement in open demonstrations. During this period small-scale and often localized protests
were a frequent form of labor opposition throughout Indonesia, being especially evident in Java
and Sumatra. In turn, these workers' activities gained the attention of non-working class people
who were actively involved in a national movement pressing for greater political freedoms that
was instrumental in bringing about the resignation of President Suharto in May 1998.

The first part of this essay focuses on changes in the government's attitude, which signaled the
beginning of outward labor opposition. A major development was the reformation of the Serikat
Pekerja Seluruh Indonesia (SPSI), the only legal trade union in Indonesia, which encouraged the
active participation of workers, especially women, in its demonstrations. The second part focuses
on the Marsinah murder case, in which a woman worker was killed after organizing a
demonstration. Because her death received nation-wide, even international, attention, the reasons
for Marsinah's emergence as a labor symbol are a particular concern of this essay. The final
section discusses the sources of support for Indonesian workers, including groups inside
Indonesia as well as in the international community.

Background: The Change in Government Attitude

As shown a number of studies, the Indonesian government's control over workers was tight
during the 1980s. The indifference towards Indonesian workers' rights was particulary evident
after the installment of Sudomo, a retired general, as the Minister of Manpower in 1986, whose
policies aroused increasing criticism from foreign countries.[2] That same year, at the meeting of
the International Labor Federation (ILO), representatives of the Dutch trade union movement
first mentioned their concerns over the close relationship between the military and the SPSI, the
only legal trade union in Indonesia. In the following year at the ILO meeting, the International
Confederation for Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) again raised the issue of the violation of Articles
of ILO Convention 87 and 98, which guarantee workers' freedom of association, of organization,
and of collective bargaining. Besides lodging complaints with the ILO, the ICFTU's Asia Pacific
Regional Organization (ICFTU-APRO) also continued working with the SPSI leaders in an
effort to encourage the implementation of ILO standards. In the United States, despite a lack of
support from Washington, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organization (AFL-CIO) - one of the country's largest labor unions - argued for the removal of
Indonesia's trade preferences under the Generalized System of Preferences for three years, from
1987 to 1989. Facing actions that threatened the nations' economic well-being, the Suharto
government was forced to recognize that it needed to make sufficient changes in labor control
policies to impress the international community.

In 1990, Presidential Order no. 27 implemented the removal of Presidential Order no. 123 of
1963, which prohibited strikes and lockouts at the workplace. This appeared to be a major
advance for workers in Indonesia as it theoretically allowed them to hold active labor
demonstrations. However, Hubungan Industri Pancasila or the Pancasila Industrial Relations,
which guaranteed the government's authority at the negotiating table and which encouraged
employers and employees to solve problems without a strike in 1985, was still very much alive.
In a statement intended to warn workers, the civilian Ministry of Manpower, Cosmas Batubara
(who replaced Sudomo in 1988) said that both labor and management should respect the spirit of
Pancasila so that no demonstrations would occur.[3]

Apparently in response to international pressure, changes were also evident in SPSI, the sole
government-acknowledged labor union. The SPSI attended the ICGTU-APRO's International
Labor Standards Seminar in 1990 and 1991 and reconfirmed the labor rights recognized at the
ILO and obligation to implement international labor standards. The SPSI then launched a self-
reformation that would reflect the decisions of the seminar. A new constitution was established
to respect the principle of "free and independent trade unionism and democracy,"[4] by which
the organization was decentralized into 13 industrial unions. SPSI also promoted an expansion of
its membership, and encouraged the state to develop social welfare programs to protect workers,
such as workers' pension funds and insurance. However, labor unions outside the SPSI were still
prohibited. The SPSI thus remained the single institution through which the government could
control workers. The state's encouragement to expand the SPSI through the Ministry of
Manpower emphasized the authoritarian nature of the union. As a result, the SPSI did not
increase its membership significantly in the first half of the 1990s.

The Beginning of Outward Labor Opposition

With the government making purely cosmetic gestures in the democratization of labor relations,
the dissatisfaction of workers continued to grow and from 1990 they actively began engaging in
strikes and demonstrations. The number of labor disputes nationwide, which was kept low by
tight controls in the latter part of the 1980s, jumped from only 19 in 1989 to 61 in 1990 and, as
Table 1 demonstrates, continued to grow.[5]

Table 1 Number of Strikes and Laborers Involved

Number of Number of
Year
Strikes Laborers Involved
1989 19 1,168
1990 61 27,839
1991 130 64,474
1992 250 176,005
1993 185 103,490
1994 278 136,699
1995 276 128,855
1996 350 209,257

Furthermore, these numbers reflect only labor disputes by the SPSI related unions; significantly,
a Japanese study noted that many other labor disputes occurred at factories that did not have
SPSI related unions.[6] Most of those recorded after 1990 were at large-scale, export-oriented
factories in the formal sector, especially in the apparel, textile, and shoe industries where the
majority of workers were women. They were concentrated on Jabotabek[7], in the West Java
area. In comparison to the previous decade, the size of the protests was now greater and involved
more people.

Several points can be made regarding the causes of these protests. First, while workers in the
cities were still attached to families back in rural villages, for many, living in the city became
more permanent than previously and the demands to improve urban existence were therefore
intensified. Second, although Indonesian workers were now generally better educated and thus
more aware of labor legislation and their rights, the government had done little to correct highly
visible discrepancies, such as the violation of the minimum wage law. Third, since workers in the
formal sector were usually young, they were more willing to engage in radical protests.
However, the situation described above, in which young workers who dreamt of settling down in
the city had to work under unfavorable conditions, had not fundamentally altered over the
previous thirty years. A more important cause of the greater incidence of worker protest may
therefore have resulted from Indonesia's position in the spotlight of international attention. This
meant the government could not respond with "a hardline reaction" even when it did intervene in
labor protests. Workers were quick to take advantage of this situation.[8]

One aspect of this changing situation was growing participation by some labor unions that were
not themselves officially recognized. Because union activities through the SPSI were greatly
restricted, workers tried to establish their own labor unions, even though these were legally
banned. The Serikat Merdeka Buruh (SBM or Setiakawan),[9] the Serikat Buruh Sejahtera
Indonesia (SBSI, or the Indonesian Prosperity Trade Union), etc., were established in the first
half of the 1990s. In establishing these unofficial unions, workers "[challenged] the government
on the question of worker rights."[10] Although attempts to form unions outside the government
authority had occurred previously, the 1990s marked the first time that the government restrained
itself from unilaterally disbanding these "illegal" unions. As a result, such unions could expand
their branches. Among them, the SBSI is a good example of a union that successfully expanded
all over the nation, eventually claiming more than 30,000 members.[11] Because the SBSI was
established by a non-worker, a law lecturer at the University of Indonesia, Muchtar Pakpahan,
the government stated that it could not be recognized as a labor union. This raises the question of
middle-class attitudes, a factor which will be explored later in this essay. At this point, however,
it is only necessary to note that since the SBSI had strong ties with foreign labor unions and
NGOs, as did other "illegal" unions in Indonesia, the government could not forcibly disband
them.

How then did workers actually become involved in the protest actions and struggles aimed at
expressing their demands? In an extraordinary network of personal interaction, workers
organized strikes and demonstrations at the factory level, and from there were often able to
attract thousands of workers beyond the boundary of that factory. In those actions, workers used
placards, posters, and protest songs to show their dissatisfaction, as in the large protest in Medan
in 1994 which was planned by the SBSI-related unions and later expanded into unrest.[12]
Typical placards proclaimed "We're not work horses" and "A minimum of Rp. 3100 a day is only
enough to eat."[13]

Political demands were also evident in slogans such as "Give us the freedom to organize," and
"Long live SBSI."[14] While marching to the central areas of Medan, workers sang protest
songs. Unfortunately, the songs sung on this occasion were not recorded, but we can gain a sense
of their tone from the collections of protest songs, Untukmu Buruh (For Workers), which were
performed by the SBSI to create solidarity among workers and to appeal to their determination
for change.[15] In "Hidup SBSI" (Long live the SBSI), a stirring male voice sings with a
children's chorus, "Let's gather in one group. We struggle together. Don't go back. Don't
withdraw . . . ."[16] Both men and women sing in "Unjuk Rasa" (Show your feeling), "We have
complete freedom to unite. We demand a wage raise. We demand an end to lay-offs . . . ."[17]

The participation of women in these workers' protest actions, even as leaders, was quite
common. As women workers became opposition leaders, they took the risk of being arrested or
kidnapped by the police or the military. While being interrogated, such arrested workers were
often harassed and tortured. The workers who went through such interrogations reported that
they were badly beaten, kicked, and even burnt.[18] One of the above-mentioned SPSI songs
even alleged that besides physical abuse, some inmates were forced to eat their own excrement
["Engkau paksa angar/Teman minum air seni. . . memaksa makan tinja dan kecoa."][19] Such
harassment and torture could happen to women workers as well. Moreover, in the case of women
workers, sexual abuse and threat of rape were often added to this already terrifying mix.[20] A
woman worker kidnapped by intelligence agents after organizing a strike in Semarang in 1995
was threatened with rape if she continued her involvement with labor protest. Another woman
arrested in Tangerang in 1994 was sexually abused and threatened with rape unless she divulged
the names of other activists.

Even when workers showed their solidarity by participating in protests, however, strikes and
demonstrations usually ended with the arrests of those who organized them. Although, as noted
earlier, government intervention had lessened in comparison with earlier times, neither
government officers nor management considered workers' demands. With the leaders removed,
the local military could more easily force the rest of the workers to break up and return to work.
In the case of large protests, security forces or the anti-riot police often moved in to break up
crowds of workers by force. During such confrontations, strikers were injured.[21] Afterward,
they often faced forced dismissals from their jobs as a warning to others.[22] Despite these risks
and difficulties, a significant number of workers remained adamant and undiscouraged,
maintaining the struggle to achieve their demands.

Another unique expression of labor protest during this period was evident in a number of
workers' theaters established with the help of NGOs. From the late 1980s members of these
NGOs, whose roots lay in a middle-class student critique of the government that had begun to
surface as early as the 1970s, began approaching workers in order to increase democracy and to
seek more equal distribution of wealth.[23] Through its activities with workers, the NGOs
realized the efficiency of role-playing techniques as a means of educating workers and building
solidarity and confidence among them. Responding to increased workers' interest in the role-
playing workshop, the first workers' theater, Teater Buruh Indonesia (TBI, the Indonesian
Workers' Theater), was founded in 1989 with support from Saluran Informasi Sosial dan
Bimbingan Hukum (Yayasan Sisbikum, the Foundation for the Channeling of Information and
Legal Guidance). Yayasan Sisbikum considered the TBI to be "the theater by workers, about
workers, and for workers" in the Jakarta area.[24] Its purpose was to provide a place for workers
to exchange information about their problems. The TBI created plays from workers' experiences
to reflect their voices, but these were often based on the experience of women because it was felt
that they faced more severe conditions at work than men. The TBI production style encouraged
the audience, namely workers, to participate in singing songs and dancing at the end of the
performance, which meant that the artistic value of the play was secondary to audience
involvement.[25]

Teater Aneka Buruh (Teater ABU, All Workers Theater), the second workers' theater, was
established in 1992 with help from Yayasan Perempuan Mardika (The Independent Women's
Foundation). Teater ABU was directed by a leading actress in an avant-garde theater troupe, and
thus was more artistically-oriented than TBI.[26] Teater ABU aimed to inform society as well as
workers about labor problems, especially the problems of women workers, such as dismissal of
pregnant workers and sexual harassment at work. While the majority of its audience was
workers, with staging at well-known urban theaters, Teater ABU also received attention from the
art community.

Regardless of the difference in their styles, both theaters were successful in providing workers in
the Jakarta area with a new means by which they could perceive and recognize their own
problems. Because of news coverage of these theaters and because of reports spread by word of
mouth, their influence among workers was growing. However, because their implicit assertions,
complaints, and accusations were mediated through the plays, and because they did not directly
appeal to factory management or to the government, theater involvement meant that until 1994
workers and their allies could evade the intervention of authorities and obtain performance
permits.[27] By welcoming them as participants in performance activities, this new theater
helped workers to face their situation and fostered their willingness to become involved in open
protest.
Either through direct labor protests, which caught the attention of the military, or through
workers' theaters, which indirectly created commitment to those protests, workers became
increasingly willing to clamor openly for their rights, often refusing to retreat during
confrontations with the military even when their lives were threatened. Their enthusiasm for
change was stimulated and enhanced, not weakened, by the Marsinah case of May 1993.

The Case of Marsinah

Marsinah was a 25 year-old female employee of the PT Catur Putra Surya which manufactured
watches in Sidoarjo, East Java. She was a representative of the labor union affiliated with the
SPSI and worked along with other representatives of workers to organize a strike on May 3,
1993, after the company failed to comply with the Governor's order to raise the minimum wage
from 1750 rupiah to 2250 rupiah a day. When workers still refused to return to work the next
day, their representatives, including Marsinah, succeeded in extracting an agreement from the
management to grant the new wage. On May 5, 13 workers' representatives (all men and not
including Marsinah), were taken to the local military office and forced to sign letters of
resignation. Worried about the welfare of these representatives, Marsinah stopped by the local
military office on the way back to her home. After learning that her colleagues had already been
released, she visited two of them. Her movements after leaving her friends' house are unknown,
but on May 8, she was found dead in a hut next to a rice field in Wilangan village, more than 200
kilometers away from the factory. Her body clearly showed that she had been tortured, and she
had been raped with a blunt instrument before being killed.[28]

The mass media was initially reluctant to discuss the case, but the Surabaya Post broke this
silence on May 24, when it referred to the sloppy investigation in which there had been no effort
to locate evidence regarding the perpetrators of the crime, and when not even an autopsy had
been ordered. Following this, Marsinah's murder was quickly picked up by most newspapers in
Java and coverage then spread throughout Indonesia. Although television, under strict
government control, avoided mentioning the case, articles in newspapers were successful in
gaining readers' attention nationwide. The reasons for the new interest in Marsinah's case are not
completely clear, but presumably it was due to the realization of its newsworthy nature, the
potential appeal to the public, and the fact that journalists were pushing the limits of a freer press
environment.[29] Along with journalists' commentaries, students and NGOs in East Java formed
groups or demonstrated to show their concern over Marsinah's death. In June, student groups at
Jember Central University held a demonstration to mark the fortieth day after Marsinah's death.
Another group, Aksi Doa Solidaritas Untuk Marsinah, took their concerns to the Surabaya
regional police office in July. Twenty-seven NGOs joined with a human rights groups in
Surabaya to form Komite Solidaritas Untuk Marisinah and made up a team to investigate the
facts regarding her death. Popular attention, from working class to middle class, was riveted by
the progress of these investigations.

When the case was given top priority and involved the state intelligence agency, the owner and
eight management members from the factory were arrested and charged with involvement in
Marsinah's death. During the trial, however, all of them claimed that they had been tortured and
forced to admit their involvement in the case. As a result, suspicions about the fairness of the
investigation, and even rumors of a military involvement in the disappearance and murder of
Marsinah, began to grow. In April 1994, the government's National Human Rights Commission
itself questioned the treatment of defendants by the police after they were arrested and referred to
the existence of other people who really killed Marsinah.

Finally, in May 1995, the nine defendants were released. However, although two other special
investigation teams were formed, the real perpetrators have not yet been arrested. Indonesians
generally still have a strong interest in this case. A connection between the military and
Marsinah's death is still rumored, and many people would like the accusations about a conspiracy
brought into the open; they are pressing for a disclosure of all the details and facts relating to the
death of this factory worker.

Marsinah in Indonesian Society

How could an unknown worker's death catch the attention of so many people? The Action in
Solidarity with Indonesia and East Timor (ASIET) pointed out that the murder of Marsinah was
the first case of the premeditated killing of a worker in Indonesia.[30] Many workers had died
previously during confrontations with the military in its efforts to stop labor opposition, but
Marsinah was the first worker intentionally killed outside a specific conflict situation. Even so,
why have so many people, from workers to journalists to students, rallied around an unknown
labor activist's death, and why does her death continue to arouse popular emotion? What aspect
of this incident moved people so greatly?

In an article about Marsinah included in the publication of Ratna Sarumpaet's play, Marsinah:
Nyanyian Dari Bawah Tanah (Marsinah: Songs from the Underworld), Goenawan Muhamad
analyzed the Indonesian reaction to the Marsinah case.[31] In his view, most Indonesians
acquainted with the case feel that the reasons Marsinah was killed are more important than who
killed her. There is an underlying perception that Indonesian society is established in such a way
that only those who already have power and money can be rich, even if this involves unethical
paths, while the rest of the people, mostly workers, have to accept hard lives and unrelenting
poverty. Among such workers, Marsinah was symbolic of the most disadvantaged because
female workers generally work under more adverse employment conditions than most male
workers. Nevertheless, in order to fight against the unfair social system and to change the fate of
herself and her fellows, Marsinah stood up and spoke out; as a result, she was killed. Goenawan
further emphasized that Marsinah died because of the ideology of treating lower class workers
and women as less significant than people from higher socio-economic positions, and of
regarding women as less important than men. This attitude allowed the murderers to think that
the discovery of an unnamed woman worker's body would result in little more than a brief
mention in a small corner of the local newspaper. That is why they felt they could torture, rape
and discard her with impunity.

Certain surprising aspects of Marsinah's case were also mentioned in Goenawan's article.
Marsinah lived in East Java. If she had lived in the Jakarta area, she might have been in the midst
of workers' strikes and demonstrations, which had occurred frequently since 1990, and she might
have been involved in daily discussions of workers' rights and the minimum wage. However,
Marsinah was far away from this clamoring and debate. Even so, popular perception saw her as a
people's heroine - a poor young girl who had come to be aware of her fundamental human rights,
and who had stood up and made full use of her leadership abilities in the pursuit of a better life
for herself and her fellows.

In short, the Marsinah case had a great impact on many people because it enabled them to
perceive the extent to which human rights had been set aside by the Indonesian government.
Faced with a situation in which workers' demands for change were suppressed, ordinary people
could discern in the death of Marsinah a threat against themselves - a threat that went beyond the
boundaries of social class. Nor was this feeling apparent only among workers whose situation
was similar to that of Marsinah; student activists and journalists, who have themselves frequently
faced threats from those in power, also persisted in demanding a fair investigation of this case.
But their reaction was motivated by more than just horror, for Marsinah represented an
inspirational figure. If one poor young woman could stand up against authority, everyone could
participate in actions to improve the situation of the country. Marsinah therefore has become the
symbol of struggle for many people who seek greater equity in Indonesian society. It is for these
reasons that Marsinah is remembered, and why, years after her death, there are still widespread
demands for a resolution of the case and punishment for her murders.

Marsinah as a Symbol

In addition to showing their concern for her through demonstrations, gatherings, and newspaper
articles, workers and artists picked up Marsinah, the symbol of the workers' struggle, in art
exhibitions, paintings, songs, and plays, which were intended to appeal to large numbers of
people. For example, the exhibition, "Pameran Untuk Marsinah" (The Exhibition for Marsinah),
planned for the 100-day Islamic ceremony after her death, was to be held at the Surabaya Arts
Center in August 1993. It was felt that this occasion would provide an opportunity to make a call
for social justice.[32] The exhibition planner was the artist Moelyono, famous for his
"consciousness-raising art," which encourages rural, frequently illiterate, people to consider their
situation rather than passively accepting government decisions.[33] Since it was located in a
formal performance space, however, the target of this exhibition seemed to have been a middle-
class audience rather than workers. It may have been because of this targeted audience that the
exhibition was cancelled by order of the local military just before its opening; even any
photographing of the exhibit was declared illegal. At the Center, Moelyono's installation art,
"Interrogation Scene," was waiting for the audience, with its human figures made of rice straw
placed in front of a wall of black and white slab, and with white gloves hanging from the ceiling.
[34] This art was inspired by the last days of Marsinah's life and symbolized the vulnerability of
human life (straw) under the national authority (white gloves) and the submission to authority,
which can be both good and evil (the white and black wall). By placing the audience into a
position of "interrogators" of his work, Moelyono intended them to realize that they too could
potentially take on the role of a threatening authoritative power. Although the people gathered
for the opening unfortunately could not see the work, they would certainly have discussed and
debated the questions provoked by the exhibition.

During the same year, Kartika Affandi, daughter of the father of modern Indonesian art, Affandi,
completed her new work, "Srikandi." Srikandi is a strong female character from the wayang, the
traditional shadow play, and in Kartika's work, Srikandi stands up to face the eyes spying on her
as if she were showing her determination to fight back against those spying eyes. It is well
known that Kartika often selects women as the theme of her paintings and that she sometimes
includes political messages in her works. Although unstated, there is probably an intentional
connection between the Srikandi and Marsinah. Kartika's message seems to be that an Indonesian
woman should not be passive but be brave in opposing the obstacles confronting her.[35]

Marsinah also became the focus of workers' songs. TBI produced the cassette Marsinah:
Bersatulah Buruh Indonesia (Marsinah: Indonesian Workers Unite) at the beginning of 1994.[36]
All the songs were sung by women, and the focus of this collection was specifically women
workers. The first song, "Marsinah," presents Marsinah as the symbol of opposition. The lyrics
describe her tortures, and a woman representative sings about workers' determination to follow
her wishes and continue the struggle for justice. In "Buruh Perempuan" (Women Workers), the
message is that women workers should appeal against suffering in their work and in their lives.
Through the entire recording, workers criticize the empty words of government officials' and call
for workers' solidarity in the pursuit of democracy. So effective was this recording that in July
1994 the national commander of the police claimed that the TBI songs "exploited" Marsinah's
death and put a stop to the circulation of the cassette.[37] However, as this censorship did not
come into force until several months after the release of the cassette, it was generally ineffective.

The SBSI released the song "Surat Cinta Untuk Marsinah" (Love Letter for Marsinah) in the
cassette Untukmu Buruh.[38] Like the TBI's song, the minor-key male voices of this cassette
accuse the courts of injustice and praise Marsinah as one who sacrificed herself for the workers
in Indonesia. This SBSI version escaped censorship entirely. In both the TBI and the SBSI
recordings, Marsinah's spirit was handed down to millions of her fellows throughout the country
by means of her integration into workers' songs.

Marsinah's story was also incorporated and elaborated into plays. Ratna Sarumpaet, a female
playwright, wrote Marsinah: Nyanyian Dari Bawah Tanah (Marsinah: Song from the
Underworld) in 1994. Ratna supported the Teater ABU because she felt that as an artist from the
middle-class art community, she could do the most for workers through plays in which her
literary skills could be used most effectively.[39] In regard to the Marsinah case, she
commented, "When a woman dares to speak, there seems to be a great force or desire to silence
her."[40] In this play Ratna linked gender issues with the suffering of the poor people, and by
addressing the particular concerns of workers,' the play appealed to a much wider audience.
Staged in guerilla style in several big cities in Java in 1994, it successfully attracted a middle-
class audience, but because of the pressure applied to her sponsor, it was impossible for Ratna to
mount any productions after early 1995. Later, she created another play, "Marsinah Menggugat"
(Marsinah Accuses) in 1997, and this time, the performance of the play was banned by the
police.[41]

TBI also created the play "Senandung Terpuruk Dari Barik Tembok Pabrik" (Song Buried
Behind the Factory Wall) in which the name of the main character "Marsih" hinted at Marsinah.
It was scheduled to be staged in May 1995 at Taman Ismail Marzuki in Jakarta, Indonesia's most
famous performing art center. It was the TBI's first attempt to stage their play at such a venue in
an effort to cultivate new audiences among the middle class. Nevertheless, claiming that the play
might disturb national unity, the head of the Jakarta Regional Government's Socio-Political
Directorate banned the performance. As a result, it was difficult for the group to obtain a permit
to stage the following performance at their home theater for a worker audience, and further
attempts to produce the same play at other places were banned.[42] Another workers' theater,
Sanggar Pabrik, sponsored by the SBSI, intended to stage "Surat Cinta Bagi Marsinah di Sorga"
(Love Letter to Marsinah in Heaven) in September 1995 as the first performance, but in this case
the permit also was refused.

In exhibitions, paintings, songs, and plays, Marsinah's desire and bravery were thus remembered
and shared, especially among Javanese. At the same time, through Marsinah as the symbol of
struggle, artists and workers' theater were able not only to empathize with the suffering of
workers, especially that of women, but also to present their case in a compelling manner to new
and often middle-class, educated audiences. Marsinah can thus be seen as a kind of bridge
connecting both women's and men's issues and linking workers to members of the middle-class,
who were also becoming more sympathetic to the problem of social inequities in Indonesia and
to demands for political and social change.

Support for Workers in the Reformasi Movement

This kind of support for the labor movement had already been evident in the support offered to
the workers' theaters at the time of their inception. NGOs offered the workers a place to study
their rights, and this finally took shape as two major theaters: TBI and Teater ABU. Those
theaters, as already suggested, contributed to the building of solidarity among workers and the
raising of consciousness of labor problems among middle-class audiences.

After the Marsinah case in 1993, the international community's concern about the flagrant
violations of the rights of Indonesian workers intensified. One obvious example of this was the
notice from the U.S. governmental committee on the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)
to the Indonesian government in June 1993.[43] Disturbed about the violations of workers' rights
and of labor laws in Indonesia, the committee warned that the U.S. government would remove
the GSP for Indonesia unless the Indonesian government improved the situation by February
1994. Similar measures included petitions from NGOs and labor unions, such as Asia Watch,
International Labor Rights Education and Research Fund, and the AFL-CIO. A visit to Indonesia
by U.S. Trade Representatives to examine the situation apparently allayed American
sensibilities, for even though no improvement in workers' rights or in working conditions was
observed, the GSP for Indonesia was not removed. The country had again succeeded in escaping
potentially serious economic damage.

An unfortunate result of the US decision was that the Indonesian government once again felt
relatively free to intervene to restrict workers' protests. It was during this period that the above-
mentioned bans on artistic activities regarding Marsinah and the forceful suppression of large
demonstrations in Medan (the Medan Unrest) occurred. Ironically, however, this heightened
surveillance of workers encouraged many members of the middle class to realize that respecting
workers and their rights was directly related to the achievement of the enhanced political
freedoms they desired. The workers also realized the importance of an alliance beyond their
social class, and so a movement toward alliance began.
The formation of the coalition Pusat Perjuangan Buruh Indonesia (PPBI) in 1994 is an example
of middle-class activists' efforts to cooperate with the workers.[44] The General Secretary of the
PPBI, Dita Sari, is a former student activist from Solidaritas Mahasiswa Indonesia untuk
Demokrasi (SMID, Indonesian Students Solidarity for Democracy). She recalled her first
participation in the 1992 demonstration by the SMID during which she realized that issues raised
there must have touched a wide range of Indonesians. When the PPBI was founded as part of an
alliance including the SMID, the Serikat Tani National (the National Peasants Union), and the
Jaringan Kesenian Rakyat (the People's Artists Network), she therefore decided to take the office
of General Secretary. The main activity of the PPBI was to lead united strikes, allowing workers
to demand more than just better wages and to increase their effectiveness by involving students if
management did not accept workers' demands after several days of strikes. Dita Sari claimed
that, through the alliance with students, protest actions could clearly demonstrate the split
between "the oppressors and the oppressed" in Indonesian society.[45]

The PPBI also emphasized the need to address the problems of women workers. The general
program and the program of demands adopted at the first congress stressed that women were
placed under the worst working conditions. The removal of all discrimination against women
workers and an improvement in their working conditions were clearly stated as a principal goal
of the PPBI. In fact, the end of unequal pay between men and women workers was demanded at
the strike in Semarang just two days after the formation of the PPBI.[46] Aided by Dita Sari's
view that a patriarchic society encouraged the suffering of women workers, active women
workers were welcomed and integrated into the PPBI activities, which sought real change for
women. Thus PPBI's attitudes may also have helped foster a view that treating women as equals
of men should be a part of a larger program of social and political change.

In combination with the PPBI, the SBSI made efforts to ally with middle-class activists. In July
1996, the Chairperson of the SBSI, Muchtar Pakpahan, formed an alliance with student activists
and Megawati Sukarnoputri, an opponent political leader of Indonesia, in order to protest the ban
on political rallies.[47] Recognizing the influence of those powerful figures on the general
election in 1997 and the Presidential election in 1998, security forces raided Megawati's
campaign headquarters, and Pakpahan, together with ten student activists, was arrested for
subversion.[48] This episode was only one aspect of an extremely complex situation in which
Pakpahan's jail sentence forced the SBSI to continue its struggle without its leader until May
1998, when he was released. More particularly, the arrest of Pakpahan attracted even greater
international attention to the Indonesian situation.

Reaction to the arrest of Pakpahan among NGOs and labor unions outside Indonesia was heated,
and the AFL-CIO took strong steps to apply more pressure to the Indonesian government. First,
they appealed to the Clinton Administration to reexamine the country's commercial relations
with Indonesia.[49] They asked that all development and investment programs by U.S.
government agencies be postponed until all jailed worker activists were released and until
workers' rights were respected. Although the requests from the AFL-CIO were not realized,
concern at the arrest of Pakpahan was expressed in the Human Rights Report 1996 by the U.S.
government.[50] Determined to obtain help from as many avenues as possible, the AFL-CIO
also made its plea to other respected international organizations such as the ICFTU and
international human rights organizations. The AFL-CIO awarded the 1997 George Meany
Human Rights Award to Pakpahan although Pakpahan himself could not visit America to receive
it.

Ratna Sarumapaet, whose plays about Marsinah were banned in Indonesia, also received support
from foreign NGOs and academic groups. Her play "Marsinah: Nyanyian Dari Bawah Tanah"
was translated into English and into German and has been presented at university seminars and
through NGOs in Australia, Germany, and the U.S. In this way, it succeeded in attracting
attention to Ratna's cause and to the situation of Indonesian women workers. In 1997 "Marsinah"
won the award for "plays dealing with political and humanitarian issues" at the 4th International
Women Playwright Conference in Ireland, thus helping to raise international concern about the
struggle for workers' rights in Indonesia, especially as they concerned women.[51]

The intervention in the movement for democracy by the government continued even after the
general election in 1997 and the presidential election in 1998. Nevertheless, with international
support for the workers and with the movement playing a watch-dog role, the ties between
workers and middle-class activists never weakened. Their joint struggles elevated into an active
search for a new leader of the country and finally helped end the Suharto regime in May 1998.
This event represented the first possibility for real change in Indonesia in over thirty years.

What were the Fruits of Labor Opposition in the 1990s?

What did workers, especially women workers, win in terms of improving their lives through their
struggles in this period? In order to participate in protest activities, workers were taking risks:
they faced danger in confrontations with the police or the military, and were subject to dismissal
from their factory jobs. Sadly, despite these great risks and the sacrifice of so many individuals,
the fruit of the labor struggles of the 1990s was actually small.

With regard to the minimum wage, the most common focus of workers' attention in protest
activities, the Ministry of Manpower announced a plan to raise the minimum wage steadily from
1993 to 1998 so that it equal the minimum living needs in 1998.[52] In 1996, the government
considered that most factory workers were regular but daily-status employees and ordered
employers to pay them for 30 days each month.[53] As well as the pressure from international
community, this action may have been in response to a shift in public opinion inside Indonesia,
which had previously demonstrated little interest in workers' concerns and was said to be the
reason businesses were able to ignore minimum wage laws so flagrantly.[54] The growth of a
larger, better educated and more prosperous middle class, however, meant that views among that
group were changing, creating an atmosphere supportive of strikes, particularly those protesting
minimum wage violations.

On the other hand, advances with regard to other demands were not as successful. Improvements
in working conditions, such as the reduction of long working hours and the observance of safety
regulations, remained among the unachieved goals. Nor was there any attempt to address the
specific difficulties of women workers. There was no change in the enforcement of maternity
and menstruation leave, and no evidence of efforts to counter discrimination at work, such as a
sexual division of labor, which creates lower wages for women.
Because of the Marsinah case, the struggles of women workers as well as their sub-standard
working conditions attracted the attention of their male colleagues and the middle class and
stressed the need for greater solidarity between various groups. But because of the subsequent
alliance between the workers and the middle class, the goal of the movement tended to be
directed less towards gaining improvements in the lives of workers and more towards the mutual
goal of the various social classes - that is, the achievement of democracy. In consequence, real
changes have yet to be achieved for women workers in Indonesia.

Conclusion

Under international scrutiny, which forced the government to check its harsh oppression,
Indonesian workers in the 1990s finally obtained the opportunity to express their dissatisfaction
and make demands in the form of strikes and demonstrations. Women workers, who were
culturally restrained from resisting male authority and whose demands had not been previously
addressed through labor unions, could now participate in protest actions beside their male
colleagues. It was not even unusual in the 1990s for women workers, like Marsinah, to be the
leaders in the labor opposition movement.

Marsinah was murdered, but through her death, the sufferings of workers, especially women
workers, and their efforts to bring about change were brought to the attention of the middle class,
many of whom began to realize that the workers' goals were inextricably bound up with their
own desire for democracy. An alliance between workers and middle-class activists was formed,
and with the added support from NGOs and labor unions based in other countries, the movement
toward greater political freedoms was gradually expanded.

Nevertheless, the rewards that workers gained through labor opposition in the 1990s were
generally limited to small increases in the minimum wages, and even this gain has been eroded
in the current economic crisis. Demands from women workers for improvements in their
situation have not yet been met. But it could be argued that ordinary working women are gaining
in experience and are learning that they can collectively exert some influence on events. In
effect, with their involvement in a national movement that replaced the leader of the country,
they are completing an apprenticeship. While little is certain about Indonesia's economic future,
one can foresee a prolonged continuation of struggle by women workers as they work to
capitalize on the knowledge and experiences of the past.

Notes

1 This essay is based on a chapter in my thesis submitted to the University of Hawai'i in partial
fulfillment for the degree of Master of Arts. I would like to express my appreciation to my thesis
committee, especially to Professor Barbara W. Andaya, the chairperson, for her insightful
suggestions and warm guidance.
2 See further R. Lambert, Authoritarian State Unionism in New Order Indonesia, Asia Research
Center on Social Political and Economic Change, Working Paper No. 25 (Murdoch: Murdoch
University, 1993).

3 T. Harada, "Saiyuusen Kadai no Koyoukikai Soushutsu" (Indonesia/Most Prior Subject of

Employment Opportunities Development), in Nihon Roudoukenkyu Zasshi 33, no.2/3 (February
1 1991): 41-48. Text in Japanese.

4 Lambert, 8.

5 Departmen Tenaga Kerja R. I., Perencanaan and Pengerbangan Tenaga Kerja, Perencanaan
daProfil Sumber Daya Manusia Indonesia: the Human Resources Profile in Indonesia (Jakarta:
Pusat Perencanaan and Informasi Tenaga Kerja, 1998), 55.

6 K. Matsui, "90nendai Indonesia no rodoshijyo to rodomondai" (Labor Market and Disputes in

Contemporary Indonesia), Ajia Torendo, 66, 1994-II (1994): 54-75.

7 Jabotabek is an amalgam of the name of the cities in the region: Jakarta, Bogor, Tangerang,
and Bekasi.

8 See C. Manning, "Structural Change and Industrial Relations During the Suharto Period: An
Approaching Crisis?" Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 29, no. 2 (1993): 59-95, and also
V. Hadiz, "The Political Significance of Recent Working Class Action in Indonesia" (1992),
unpublished paper cited in Lambert.

9 The SBM was established in 1990. However, due to the difference in strategy and
administration of finance among leaders, it broke up in 1991. Some members became involved in
the SBSI, established in 1993.

10 Lambert, 21, quoting from the speech by Princen, the founder of SBM.

11 K. Matsui.

12 For a more detailed record of Medan Unrest, see C. K. Jana (undated), "The 1994 medan
unrest," www.peg.apc.org/~stan/asiet/doss1/dedan.htm, (undated). in Action in Solidarity with
Indonesia and East Timor (ASIET), The Fight for Workers' Rights in Indonesia,
www.peg,apc.org/~asiet/welcome.htm?.

13 C. K. Jana.

14 C. K. Jana

15 Untukmu Buruh: Lagu-lagu Perjuangan Buruh (Jakarta: LKK Production, 1995). A collection
of the SBSI protest songs, some of which were sung by the chairperson of the SBSI, Muchtar
Pakpahan.
16 My translation. The original text reads: "Mari bersatu bersama kami. Kita berjuang bersama
sama. . . Janganlah mundur. Janganlah surut . . . ." from "Hidup SBSI" in Untukmu Buruh:

17 My translation. The original text reads: "Kami tuntas bebas berserikat. Kami tuntut upah naik.
Kami tuntut stop PHK (pemberhentian hubungan kerja). . . ." from "Untuk Rasa" in Untukmu
Buruh.

18 "October 1994, new trade union, PPBI is born,"

www.peg.apc.org/~stan/asiet/doss1/ppbibornhtm.

19 Untukmu Buruh.

20 "October 1994, new trade union, PPBI is born,"

www.peg.apc.org/~stan/asiet/doss1/ppbibornhtm.

21 In case of the Medan unrest, soon after the representatives of the workers left the Governor's
office, the anti-riot force moved in with tear gas and riot batons. The battle between this force
and the workers developed into large-scale civil unrest, in which not only many workers,
including women, were injured but also an ethnic Chinese businessman was killed. See further,
C. K. Jana.

22 More than 300 workers were dismissed after the strike in March 1994, and the reinstatement
was one of the demands raised in the Medan Unrest (C. K. Jana). In the Marsinah case,
Marsinah's co-workers were forced by the local military to sign the resignation letter (see B.
Waters, "the Marsinah murder," www.peg.apc.org/~stan/asiet/doss1/marsinah.htm.

23 M.H. Bodden, "Workers' Theatre and Theatre About Workers in 1990s Indonesia," in Review
of Indonesian and Malayan Affairs 31, no.1 (June 1997): 37-78.

24 Bodden, 42.

25 Bodden, 42.

26 For more discussion about aesthetic and workers' theaters, see Bodden.

27 Bodden. As discussed in the following section, when these theaters gained the support of
other social classes, and especially when TBI picked up Marsinah's story as the theme of
dramatic performances, the government started intervening. By this time, however, TBI had
become a very popular theater that could sell more than 1,000 tickets per performance.

28 Waters, "The Marsinah Murder." This on-line article is an update of the original, which
appeared in Inside Indonesia, 36 (1993).

29 It will be remembered that the government crackdown came in 1994, with the closing of the
outspoken journals Tempo and Detik
30 "Violence: the military, violence and the workers' movement,"
www.peg.apc.org/~stan/asiet/doss1/abri.htm.

31 M. Goenawan, "Marsinah," in Ratna Sarumpaet, Marsinah Nyanyian Dari Bawah Tanah

(Yogyakarta: Yayasan Bentang Budaya, 1997). Goenawan's article was originally presented in
Jakarta in December 1993 as a speech in honor of Marsinah.

32 A. Wright, "Resistance in the Visual Field: Activist Art in Indonesia in the 1990s," in Facets
of Power and its Limitations: Political Culture in Southeast Asia, ed. I. Trankell and L. Summers
(Uppsala: Department of Anthropology, Uppsala University, 1998).

33 Wright, 119.

34 Wright, 118. "Interrogation Scene" was left in the photograph, which was taken before the
order of the cancellation. Wright's essay gives a detailed analysis of the work.

35 See D. Dysart and Hi. Fink, H., eds., Asian Women Artists. (Sydney: Craftsman House, 1996).

36 Marsinah: Bersatulah Buruh Indonesia: 10 Lagu Terbaru, (Jakarta: Yayasan SISBIKUM and
TeaterBuruh Indonesia, 1994).

37 Bodden, 64.

38 Untukmu Buruh.

39 Bodden.

40 "Playwright Ratna Sarumpaet Summoned for Police Questioning in Indonesia" (undated),

www.en.com/users/heroine.Ratna.html (unpaged).

41 ISAI, Ratna Sarumpaet's Marisinah: News Account of a Performance Banned by Police,

www.en.com/users/heroine/Marsinah.html (1998, April 3).

42 Since the head of the Jakarta regional Government's Socio-Political directorate, who banned
TBI's performance at TIM, insisted on renaming the theater and rewriting the play, the TBI sued
him in the special courts. The lawsuit ruled against the TBI but in the process attracted the
attention of the middle-class. For detailed information, see Bodden.

43 "How U.S. Officials View the Matter" and "What Does America Demand of Indonesia?" in
Economic & Business Review Indonesia, 72 (1993): 9; 10-14.

44 "Organizing in Indonesia: an interview with Dita Sari, PPBI,"

www.peg.apc.org/~stan/asiet/doss1/ditasari.htm (undated), in: ASIET, The Fight for Workers'
Rights in Indonesia, www.peg.apc.org/~asiet/welcome/htm? This article is based on the
interview that took place when Dita Sari visited Australia in December 1994 and in March 1995
in order to attend conferences on the international workers movement and the West Australian
International Women's Day rally.

45 "Organizing in Indonesia," unpaged.

46 "Organizing in Indonesia," unpaged.

47 M. Shari, Trial of Labor Leader: a Leading Critic of Indonesia's President Suharto Finds
Himself a Victim of Intense Judicial Pressure, http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/1997/int/
970210/asia/trials_of_a.htm 149, no. 6 (February 10 1997).

48 This was the second time that Pakpahan was arrested. He was first arrested in 1994 for
organizing the Medan unrest although he was in Java and was not involved in the demonstration
and the subsequent unrest. He was sentenced three years in jail but was released after serving
nine months.

49 AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO Executive Council Feb. 19, 1997. Statement: Indonesia,

http//www.aflcio.org./estatements/indonesi.htm (1997).

50 "Worker Rights" (1996) in Indonesia: Human Rights Report 1990, Section 6, Special Briefing
on 1996 Annual Report on Human Rights Practices, by Secretary of State Madeleine K.
Albright, Under Secretary for Global Affairs Tim Wirth, and Assistant Secretary for Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor, John Shattuk. (Washington: D.C., Jan. 1997).

51 Ratna Sarumpaet, Marsinah: Nyanyian Dari Bawah Tanah, (Yogyakarta: Yayasan Bentang
Budaya, 1997).

52 "Minimum Wage Hike Signals Labor Complexity, " in Economic & Business Review
Indonesia 197 (1996), 19-20.

53 As fn. 50.

54 R. Hindryati, "Business Values Cause Labor Market," Indonesia Business Weekly 1, no.36
(1993), 6-7.