Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:41:16.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of Trade Union Formation in the Java Sugar Industry, 1945–1949

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Colin Brown
Colin Brown
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania, Hobart
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Comparatively little of a scholarly nature has been written about Indonesian trade unions, particularly on the two decades from 1945 to 1965 when, like the political parties to which so many of them were affiliated, the unions had their heyday. This paper focuses on the development of trade unions in one specific industry: refined sugar production. The period to be examined—1945 to 1949—runs from the proclamation of Indonesian independence by Sukarno and Hatta, through the revolution fought against the returning Dutch, to December 1949 when the Netherlands finally acknowledged Indonesian independence. It was during this period that the major post-war sugar industry unions were established. The circumstances surrounding the establishment of these unions will be examined, along with their leaders and members, ideological leanings and political and industrial objectives.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , February 1994 , pp. 77 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This article is a revised version of a paper prepared for the conference on ‘The International Sugar Economy in the Post-War World: 1945–90’ held at the University of East Anglia, 29–31 August 1990. I wish to thank participants in that Conference, and colleagues at Griffith University, for their comments on that paper, though naturally I bear full responsibility for any errors which remain. Financial assistance from the Griffith University Research Committee is gratefully acknowledged.

1 The exceptions include Tedjasukmana, Iskandar, The Political Character of the Indonesian Trade Union Movement (Cornell University Modern Indonesia Project, Monograph Series, Ithaca, 1958);Google ScholarTedjasukmana, Iskandar, ‘The Development of Labor Policy and Legislation in the Republic of Indonesia’ (PhD dissertation, Cornell University, 1961);Google ScholarSandra, , Sedjarah Pergerakan Buruh Indonesia (Pustaka Rakjat, Jakarta, 1960);Google ScholarHawkins, Everett D., ‘Labor in Transition’ in Indonesia, ed. McVey, Ruth T. (HRAF, New Haven, 1963), pp. 248–71;Google ScholarHawkins, Everett D., ‘Labor in Developing Countries: Indonesia’ in The Economy of Indonesia, ed. Glassburner, Bruce (Cornell University, Ithaca and London, 1971), pp. 196–250.Google Scholar

2 See Table 1 for statistical details of the industry. A brief discussion of the sugar industry's experiences during the 1930s, still useful despite its age, is Boeke, J. H., The Evolution of the Netherlands Indies Economy (Netherlands and Netherlands Indies Council, Institute of Pacific Relations, New York, 1946), pp. 40–7.Google Scholar

3 See Ingleson, John, In Search of Justice. Workers and Unions in Colonial Java, 1908–1926 (Singapore University Press for the Asian Studies Association of Australia, Singapore, 1986), pp. 156–8 for a more detailed description of the industry's workforce.Google Scholar

4 Netherlands East Indies (Royal Naval Intelligence Division, Geographical Handbook Series, London, 1944), vol. II, p. 274.Google Scholar

5 Tedjasukmana, , Political Character, pp. 8ff.Google ScholarNote that Sandra gives 1917 as the foundation date of the union. See Sandra, Sedjarah, p. 16.Google Scholar

6 Ingleson, , Search, p. 156.Google ScholarIngleson gives an excellent account of the early years of the union; see pp. 155–209.Google Scholar

7 Sandra, , Sedjarah, p. 31.Google Scholar

8 Ingleson, , Search, p. 314;Google ScholarMcVey, Ruth T., The Rise of Indonesian Communism (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1965), p. 46 in and p. 47 in.Google Scholar

9 Six non-Dutch owned mills in fact remained outside the control of the Japanese companies: Rejoagung and Krebet (owned by the Oei Tiong Ham Concern), Candi (Candi Sugar Factory Company), Tasikmadu and Colomadu (Mangkunegoro of Solo) and Manisharjo (Sunan of Solo). Krebet, Candi, Colomadu and Manisharjo were still crushing in 1945.Google ScholarThe best descriptions of the industry under the Japanese Occupation are Postma, T. F. H. et al. , De Javasuikerindustrie gedurende de Japansche bezetting (mededeelingen van het Department van Economische Zaken in Nederlandsch-Indie, No. 2, Batavia/Jakarta, 1946)Google Scholar and Rodenberg, G., ‘De suikerindustrie op Java tijdens de Japansche bezetting’ part I, Economisch Weekblad (hereafter EW), 12, 5 (13 April 1946), pp. 38–40 and part II, EW, 12, 6 (20 April 1946), pp. 45–6.Google Scholar

10 Anon, ‘Tanah Djawa mengambang diatas kapal goela: I’, Ma'moer 1, 10 (10 05 1946), p. 334.Google Scholar

11 This discussion of the BBI is based chiefly on Tedjasukmana, , Political Character, esp. pp. 18–20;Google ScholarAnderson, B. R. O'G., Java in a Time of Revolution (Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1972), pp. 212–16;Google Scholar and Sandra, , Sedjarah, esp. pp. 64–7.Google Scholar

12 The political dimensions of the division between ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ unions are set out in Anderson, Java, p. 213.Google Scholar

13 Before the war, Sjamsoe (or Syamsu) had been a journalist, a Parindra activist and eventually a leader of the Indonesian Union of Workers in Private Enterprise (Serikat Buruh Partikulir Indonesia) during the 1930s. During the Occupation, he worked in the Labour Directorate which was responsible, amongst other tasks, for recruiting forced labourers (romusha). He was the first President of the Indonesian Labour Party (Partai Buruh Indonesia, PBI), established by the BBI at its November 1945 conference. He broke with the PBI over its support for the Linggadjati Agreement and formed the Independent PBI (PBI Merdeka, PBIM) in April 1948; in November, the PBIM became the Murba (National Communist or Proletarian) Party, of which Sjamsoe was Secretary-General.Google ScholarCf. Anderson, , Java, p. 441;Google ScholarKahin, George McT., Nationalism and Revolution in Indonesia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1952), p. 313;Google ScholarSutter, John, Indonesianisasi: Indonesian Politics in a Changing Economy, 1940–1955 (Ithaca: Data Paper no. 36, Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University, 1959), pp. 381–4;Google ScholarPolitical Parties, Armed Groups, Labour Unions and Youth Organizations in Indonesia (Jakarta: Ministry of Information, n.d. [1950?]), p. 14.Google Scholar

14 Sabarmin, , ‘Perkembangan Gerakan Buruh di Indonesia Setelah Kemerdekaan Indonesia Diproklamasikan’, Tindjauan Masa'alah Perburuhan (hereafter TMP) 6, II (10 1950), p. 35.Google Scholar

15 Ibid., p. 35; Kedaulatan Rakjat (hereafter KR), 3 09 1946.Google Scholar

16 The 3 July 1946 affair was an attempt to overthrow the Republican government by military and civilian political leaders, including Tan Malaka. For further details, see Anderson, , Java, pp. 370–403.Google Scholar

17 Sabarmin, , ‘Perkembangan’, p. 36; KR, 19 May 1947. SOBSI was accepted into membership of the WFTU the following month: see KR, 9 June 1947.Google Scholar

18 There is some minor mystery about this date. The one quoted here is that given in contemporary newspaper reports. See, for instance, Merdeka, 16 Feb. 1946; KR 16 Feb. 1946. The SBG's official history, however, gives the date as 3 March 1946: see Lahir dan Perkembangan SBG (SBG, Surabaya, 1960), p. 9. Tedjasukmana (Political Character, p. 20)Google Scholarrepeats this latter date, as does Hindley, Donald (The Communist Party of Indonesia 1951–1963 (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1964), p. 141). There can be little doubt that the conference forming the union was indeed held on 14–15 February 1946; what the significance of the 3 March 1946 date is, though, remains a mystery. So far as I have been able to determine, no SBG meeting or other public activity was undertaken on that date.Google Scholar

19 The following discussion draws heavily on Propinsi Djawa Timur (Departemen Penerangan, Jakarta, 1952), pp. 327–8;Google Scholarstatement by the Minister for Agriculture and Supplies, ‘Mengapa Goela Diatoer Pemerintah’, published in KR, 3 June 1946 and 4 June 1946; and the government memorandum concerning the later establishment of the Executive Body for State Sugar Enterprises, published in Merdeka, 5 June 1946.Google Scholar

20 Largely at Sjamsoe's behest, the BBI had reformed itself as the PBI at its 9 November 1945 congress; however, six weeks later, on 31 December 1945, the BBI was re-established as an organization of workers, separate from the PBI. For a detailed discussion of these developments see Anderson, , Java, pp. 212–16.Google Scholar

21 Selo Soemardjan, , ‘Bureaucratic Organization in a Time of Revolution’, Administrative Science Quarterly 2, 2 (09 1957), p. 196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In this article, Selo Soemardjan also provides a detailed description of the takeover of a mill near Yogyakarta by such workers, and the difficulties they experienced in trying to manage it. These difficulties included criticisms made by the workers of the decisions taken by those they had appointed to run the mill, and refusal by workers hired specifically for the crushing season to accept the loss of their jobs when the season ended.

22 KR, 10 April 1946.Google Scholar

23 KR, 14 Oct. 1946.Google Scholar

24 The constitution of the BPPGN is reproduced in Ma'moer 1, 15 (17 Aug. 1946), pp. 513–19.Google Scholar The references in this paragraph and the following one are to this version. Note that the government treated sugar estates differently from other estates; the latter were grouped together under the State Plantations Centre (Pusat Perkebunan Negara).

25 ‘Mengapa Goela Diatoer Pemerintah’, KR, 3 June 1946.Google Scholar

26 KR, 15 Oct. 1946. He does not appear to have elaborated on the ‘situation’ he had in mind.Google Scholar

27 Much of this paragraph is based on Sutter, Indonesianisasi, p. 398.Google ScholarNote that according to a report of a union conference held in December 1946, Koesnandar was to be the SBG's nominee for this position. See KR, 27 Dec. 1946. I t is not clear when or why Koesnandar was replaced by Daljono. A 1938 graduate of t he Rechtshogeschool in Jakarta, Daljono worked initially for the Mangkunegaran in Solo, his home town. In 1945 he had been appointed to the General Affairs Division of t he Solo Republican Government, and to the Working Body of the local Indonesian National Committee; he subsequently (1949) joined the equivalent body of the Central National Indonesian Committee. He was a prominent early member of Sjamsoe's Indonesian Labour Party. However, he seems subsequently to have moved substantially away from this involvement with radical leftist politics, in 1948 helping to found the Indonesian Islamic Workers' Union (Sarekat Buruh Islam Indonesia, SBII) a body closely linked with the modernist Islamic political party Masjumi. He was a member of the Masjumi Council, and represented the party in Parliament.Google ScholarCf. Ensiklopedia Indonesia, vol. I, p. 367;Google ScholarPolitical Parties, p. 14;Google ScholarTedjasukmana, , Political Character, p. 45;Google ScholarGasbiindo: Soko Guru Revolusi Indonesia (PB Gasbiindo, Jakarta, 1964), p. 88.Google Scholar

28 The following is based on the report of the conference carried in KR, 16 Feb. 1946.Google Scholar

29 Cf. Reid, A. J. S., The Indonesian National Revolution (Longman, Hawthorn, 1974), p. 89.Google Scholar

30 Sutter, , Indonesianisasi, p. 37in.Google ScholarBorn Samadiman, R. Ngabehi, Soebroto, Hadi, he acquired the name Danoehoesodo in Yogyakarta during the Japanese Occupation. A veterinarian by training, before the war he had been Chair of the Jakarta branch of Parindra, and an official of the Union of Civil Servants' Associations (Persatoean Vakbonden Pegawai Negeri). He served as chief of the Yogyakarta Department of Economic Affairs during the Occupation. By the late 1940s or early 1950s though, rather like Daljono, Danoehoesodo had switched his political allegiance to the Masjumi, and his industrial affiliation to the Masjumi-sponsored Sarekat Buruh Islam Indonesia.Google Scholar See ibid.; KR, 11 March 1946;Google ScholarBuku Kenang-kenangan Kongress SBII Ke VI di Jogjakarta, Tg 23 sld 26 Djanuari 1960 (Pengurus Besar SBII, Bagian Penerangan, Jakarta, 1960).Google Scholar

31 It is not clear when in 1946 Daljono took up this position. He was certainly in it by late December. See KR, 27 Dec. 1946.Google Scholar

32 KR, 14 Dec. 1946.Google Scholar

33 Merdeka, 15 April 1947; 7 May 1947.Google ScholarWolf, Charles, though, cites Department of Labour statistics showing the SBG had 30,000 members (presumably permanent employees) in March 1947.Google ScholarSee Wolf, Charles, The Indonesian Story (John Day for the Institute of Pacific Relations, New York, 1948), p. 69.Google Scholar

34 KR, 26 Nov. 1946.Google Scholar

35 KR, 26 Dec. 1946. These Articles basically provide for Indonesian ownership of national and vital resources.Google Scholar

36 For a listing of how the major parties lined up on Linggadjati, see Sejarah Nasional Indonesia, ed. Notosusanto, Nugroho (Balai Pustaka, Jakarta, 1977), vol. VI: Jaman Jepang dan Jaman Republik Indonesia [1942-sekarang]), p. 44.Google Scholar

37 Lahir dan Perkembangan SBG, p. 10.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., pp. 9–10.

39 Suara SOBSI 3 (15 April 1948), p. 4.Google Scholar

40 For details see ibid.; Lahir dan Perkembangan SBG, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar Note that the latter gives 3 April as the date the conference concluded.

41 Cf. Reid, Revolution, p. 137.Google ScholarSoerjono, notes that Setiadjit had been ‘active among the sugar mill workers’ since his arrival in Republican territory in 1946.Google ScholarSee Soerjono, , ‘On Musso's Return’,Google Scholartrans Anderson, Ben, Indonesia, 29 (1980), p. 69.Google Scholar

42 Lahir dan Perkembangan SBG, p. 11.Google ScholarShortly after its formation the SBG Asli changed its name to SBG Merdeka (Independent SBG). The SBG Merdeka itself subsequently changed its name again to SBG Proklamasi (SBG of t he Proclamation [of Indonesian independence]). Note that on the political front in April 1948 Sjamsoe formed the Independent Indonesian Labour Party (Partai Buruh Indonesia Merdeka, PBIM) which in November 1948 merged with two other parties to form Murba, usually defined as a national communist party. Hereafter the abbreviation ‘SBG’ will be taken to mean the SBG which was an affiliate of SOBSI. Other SBGs will be specifically identified by appending their institutional affiliation or other identifier: e.g. SBG Asli, SBG Proklamasi, SBG Neutraal.Google Scholar

43 The full membership of the Executive Committee is set out in Suara SOBSI 4 (1 June 1948), p. 4.Google ScholarThe position of Second Chairman (Ketua II), held by Danoehoesodo in the interim committee elected at Solo, was left vacant. Note, though, that Lahir dan Perkembangan SBG (p. 68) does mention Danoehoesodo as being appointed to that position, but with a notation to the effect that he ‘subsequently resigned’. This latter source also identifies the mills to which seven of the Executive Committee members were attached. They were mostly located in the Yogyakarta—Solo region, and at least three of them—Gondanglipuro, Tanjungtirto and Padokan—were not in operation. The remaining two Committee members were attached to the Yogyakarta and Solo branches of the BPPGN; it might reasonably be assumed that these two men at least were not active field or factory workers. It is also unlikely—though of course by no means impossible—that Liem Tiong Hien, listed as being attached to the Mojosragen mill, was a field or factory worker; more likely, he was an administrator, chemist or engineer.Google Scholar

44 Lahir dan Perkembangan SBG, p. 12.Google Scholar

45 Anon, ‘Pergerakan Buruh sesudah Proklamasi Kemerdekaan’, TMP 10/11 (02–03 1951), pp. 24–5; Gasbiindo, p. 34.Google Scholar

46 Cf. Anderson, , Java, p. 214.Google Scholar

47 For a brief description of the background to the emergence of these two groups see Reid, Revolution, pp. 131–3;Google ScholarKahin, , Nationalism, pp. 259ff.Google Scholar

48 Sejarah Nasional Indonesia, p. 56.Google Scholar

49 The account of the meeting presented here draws heavily on Lahir dan Perkembangan SBG, p. 13.Google ScholarAgain, there is some confusion about the precise dates on which this meeting took place. Lahir dan Perkembangan SBG gives 10–11 September. Nasution, citing a roughly contemporary source, makes the dates 7–8 September.Google ScholarSee Nasution, A. H., Sekitar Perang Kemerdekaan Indonesia (Angkasa, Bandung, 1979), vol. 8Google Scholar: Pemberontakan PKI 1948, p. 209.Google ScholarThe pro-Republican government paper Merdeka, in its 13 September 1948 issue, reports one speech being given at the conference on 7 September, though it did not carry any extensive reporting of it. This seems to suggest that Nasution's dates may well be the correct ones.Google Scholar

50 Cited in Nasution, Sekitar Perang, pp. 209–10.Google ScholarAlthough not entirely clear, it appears that Nasution's source is Derita, S. P., Lima minggu sebelum Madiun Affair (Sarkawi, Medan, 1949).Google Scholar

51 Nasution, Sekitar Perang, pp. 211, 213, citing Derita, Lima minggu, pp. 36–8.Google ScholarRomusha were forced labourers. A Somokaco was the Head of a General Affairs Section in a Department of the Occupation government. It is unclear from the text, and from other evidence available to me, just exactly what office it was to which Amir was referring. Sjamsoe was certainly in the Labour Affairs Directorate during the Occupation, and thus it seems probable that the General Affairs Section to which Amir was referring was in that Directorate. But at what level is not clear. This was not the first time that Sjamsoe has been attacked for his war time activities: see, e.g., Anderson, , Java, p. 215.Google Scholar

52 A useful summary of the Affair is Swift, Elizabeth Ann, ‘Madiun 1948’, (MA dissertation, Cornell University, 1981), pp. 89–97.Google Scholar

53 Cf. Lahir dan Perkembangan SBG, p. 15;Google ScholarMerdeka, 1 Nov. 1948. It is virtually impossible to tell exactly how many of the union's leaders were killed at this time. However of the nine members of the 1948 Executive Committee other than Setiadjit, at least four presumably survived since they held office in the Interim Committee which ran the affairs of the union in 1949–1950. See Lahir dan Perkembangan SBG, p. 68.Google Scholar

54 Lahir dan Perkembangan SBG, p. 15.Google Scholar

55 Sandra, , ‘Perkembangan gerakan buruh diberbagai lapangan industri’, TMP 3, VII (07 1958), p. 29.Google Scholar

56 See Smj, ‘Vaksentral2 Indonesia dalam pameran Kementerian Perburuhan’, TMP 6, VI (10 1954), p. 8.Google Scholar