Apart from bringing Indonesian and non-Indonesian scholars together and to stimulate research on labour in Indonesia, this conference had also other aims, namely: to view Indonesian labour history in different periods of the twentieth (and twenty first century) and examine how different interests and political agendas (nationalism, liberalisation, decentralisation, decolonisation) interface with workers interests both at national and local levels; and to explore the state of theorizing within Indonesian labour studies. Organisers of this workshop were Erwiza Erman (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia or the Indonesian Sciences Institute), Jan Elliott (CAPSTRANS (Centre for Asia Pacific Social Transformation Studies) and Ratna Saptari (CLARA). There were fourteen participants who were from various academic institutions from Indonesia (LIPI, Gadjah Mada University, University of North Sumatra, Udayana University) and NGOs (Jaringan Kerja Budaya; Konsorsium Pembaharuan Agraria; Yayasan Prakarsa Swadaya Masyarakat); six participants were from Australia, namely from the University of Wollongong and University of Newcastle; and five participants came from the Netherlands(KITLV, the University of Amsterdam, and the International Institute of Social History (IISH). Staff members of the Dept of History, Udayana University, secured a good working and social atmosphere for the participants of the workshop.

This workshop was opened by Prof. Taufik Abdullah as director of LIPI and also as one of the leading figures of Indonesian social history. He reiterated the need for a return to the focus on subordinate groups in the study of Indonesian history, who have been much neglected and unrecorded by scholars, particularly since the New Order period. Following this appeal the question was raised as to how to approach the issue of labour history. As Jan Breman stated, the questions that every scholar had to raise were: 'whose history' 'where to find the sources' 'how to look at the evidence' and 'how to write the history'. During the course of the workshop, although these large questions were not immediately in the forefront of the topics presented by the speakers, they underpinned the questions raised in the discussions. A large portion of the time was focused on the varied nature, positions and struggles of different categories of labour. Although there was no strict debate on the definition of labour, how labour relations diverged or converged, or how we should link theory and practice; different labouring groups were identified: workers, coolies, bonded labour, peasantry, government employees, and domestics working in different sectors: railway, plantation agriculture, smallholder agriculture, mining, industrial, service, harbour, government, and in the private home.

There were also differing entry points in studying these labouring groups. Some looked at definitions, language and rhetorics, to understand how workers are defined, by whom, the way in which these terms emerge and the multiple meanings that emanate from such definitions. The terms coolie, bonded labour, tukang, buruh, karyawan and the way they were used came from particular constellations of power, with the state directly and indirectly, playing a strong role in determining the boundaries for these definitions (Vickers, Breman and Ford).

Others looked at the dynamics of unions and workers' organisations: the issues they deal with, characteristics and ideological inclinations of the leaders, their relations with the rank-and-file and the particular historical contexts they operate in (Ingleson, Schwidder, Elliott, Erman, Saptari). It was argued that compliance, accommodation or resistance should be seen in the particular context in which such action emerges. Also, an understanding of the strategies adopted by organisations cannot ignore the various tensions between different ideologies and different individuals within the leadership. What also escapes current foci on language and ideology is the structural (political or economic) underpinnings of labour relations which may become impediments to workers' organisations (Boomgaard). Quite often workers could not afford not to work which left them little time and energy to be involved in political struggle. Ideological and cognitive schisms may also occur between organisers and the worker him/herself. For instance it was found that in some areas (Medan and Bandung), workers themselves felt alienated from the language that urban intellectuals use in the latter's attempt to mobilise them. Also the organisers themselves were not free from their own gender-biases (Anarita, Agustono). One speaker showed how on the one hand the emergence of non-governmental organisations on the labour scene encouraged political awareness among workers. Since women workers were often targeted by organisers to join into discussion groups, many women became involved. On the other hand, as soon as an organisation was established the women were often left behind and their issues not taken into account within the general labour demands. These competing agendas of workers' organisations was often strengthened or even stimulated by state intervention. What was clear was that the 'communist card' was often used to divide unions and organisations (Elliott, Ford, Saptari). Through these cases there was a general awareness, although unspoken, that whether facing economic crisis or prosperity there is no unmediated link between economic circumstances and workers' consciousness and political activism.

The complexity of studying labour becomes much more apparent as we examine the divergent demands of the working population. For instance for the agrarian population the main question was how to get enough land for subsistence as large corporations and the urban elite attempt to take over land previously used by peasants for their household economies (Noer Fauzi and Dianto). For industrial workers the issue was of demanding higher wages, more job stability and the right to organise (Anarita, Elliott). Unions themselves, at the moment play a highly ambivalent role, on the one hand domesticating workers' resistance into much more controllable and acceptable terms for the employers; on the other hand they are seen as the only body that can claim for improvement of workers' working conditions (Elliott).

Other speakers looked at work relations and the conditions under which the labouring population are controlled and disciplined. Thus in the plantations for instance, ethnic, gendered and generational hierarchies were manipulated as shown in the case of plantations in East Java and North Sumatra (Mahbubah, Agustono). Labour recruiters play a large role in shaping work relations as they are also given the task of supervision and control, and this could be seen for the dock workers of Tanjung Priok, the plantation workers of East Java and the domestic workers who work outside Indonesia (Veering, Mahbubah and Aswatini). Various means were used to secure a stable labour force, such as through debt and opium (Sairin). The organisation of production through the family unit and small scale production in South Sumatra also brings into focus the varied nature of production relations as family and wage labour relations overlap (Purwanto). Workers' attempts to improve their conditions do not always imply their participation in collective action as workers attempt to obtain income from multiple sources not only in the labour market (Ardana) but also from family contributions or rotating credit associations (Anarita). These help them to overcome long- or short-term crises. However discussions did not enter into how sources from 'outside' helped to strengthen or inhibit their political position in the workplace although labour studies in other countries have shown how the interrelationship between collective and individual action both inside and outside the workplace or work relations are highly important for a better understanding of labour relations.

Different periods in Indonesian history were covered by the different papers, namely the early twentieth (and early nineteenth) century; late 1920s; the 1930s, the revolution years, the post-independence years of the 1950s, the New Order period and the post Suharto period of the late 1990s and onwards. Sources regarding certain periods were more difficult to obtain then others. Some papers argued that although each period provided a particular wider setting for the playing out of different struggles, there was marked continuity between these periods (Ingleson and Schwidder). It would have been interesting if there could have been comparisons dealing with the respective historical periods and see how these were experienced differently by different localities and social groups, however this was not possible because of the uneven historical spread of the papers.

Van der Linden stated that in order to understand working class history, we must understand the wider society in which we live and work, and the interrelationship between 'structure' and 'agency'. We should also be aware that the focus on one may blur out the focus on the other ('the indeterminacy problem') yet a constant attempt to link the two levels should underline our research. Finally, although we should consistently focus on labour and subordinate groups (Breman) ultimately it was argued that labour history cannot be separated from social history (Boomgaard, Ingleson).

These discussions, preliminary as they were, were quite meaningful for a group who came together for the first time to talk about labour issues in Indonesia. These discussions were sharpened by the presence of the discussants who underlined important parts of the papers and pointed out the gaps (Nilan, Connor, Farid). Ambitious plans were formulated to continue the discussions and deepen our understanding on this subject. A number of activities were suggested, firstly that this would be the first of a series of workshops on labour to be held once in two years; secondly, an electronic network will be set up first starting with a small group of researchers who are working on this topic; thirdly together with the initiation of an electronic discussion group, should come also an association Indonesian labour historians which could become the vehicle by which research questions could be stimulated; fourthly, a merging of bibliographies and archives on Indonesian labour would be very much desired; fifthly, it was hoped that two publications would come out, one in English and one in Indonesian, with each consisting of a selection of the papers; and lastly, a desire was felt to establish an independent archival depot where documents and records could be stored, systematised and made accessible to the public. Indeed there is still much work to be done.

[top]