ekonomi 003

Migrant Labour in Southeast Asia

Country Study: Indonesia

Dr Michele Ford Flinders Asia Centre &

School of Political and International Studies Flinders University

1. Introduction

As international labour migration grows worldwide, trade unions have been increasingly forced to acknowledge migrant workers as a potentially important trade union constituency. It is not an easy task for unions to accommodate migrant workers even in receiving countries, given their uncertain status as non-citizens and the temporary – and in the case of domestic workers, informal – nature of much contemporary employment of migrants. The challenges faced by unions in sending countries are even greater, as the workers they seek (or do not seek) to organize are employed outside national boundaries, and therefore outside the boundaries of traditional union activity.

Indonesia is a major sending country of overseas migrant labour in Southeast Asia with an established history of non-governmental organization (NGO) activism around migrant labour issues. In contrast, trade unions have played almost no role in migrant labour campaigns, let alone made any serious attempt to organize overseas migrant workers. This is partly explained by the fact that there was little opportunity for trade union activism more generally under President Suharto’s New Order regime (1967-1998). As a result, the Indonesian trade union movement is still establishing itself locally, and overseas migrant workers are considered an extremely low priority. However, trade unions’ failure to make any serious attempt to deal with migrant labour issues is also partly because overseas migrant workers are employed outside Indonesia, and therefore outside the national system in which those trade unions operate.

This report examines NGOs’ and trade unions’ attempts to respond to the conditions experienced by Indonesian workers employed overseas during the recruitment, overseas and return phases of their employment experience. It draws upon reports by international agencies and international and local NGOs, academic papers, government documents, and interviews with key informants in NGOs, trade unions and migrant worker organizations. It concludes that although some important initial cooperative gestures have been made between migrant labour NGOs and a small number of trade unions, there is almost no political will amongst local trade unions with regard to the concerns and requirements of overseas migrant workers. There is therefore little likelihood of significant trade union involvement in migrant labour issues in the near future.

2. Overview of the Country’s Migrant Labour Context

The general labour market situation, particularly high rates of open and hidden unemployment and low wages, act as push factors for international labour migration. Indonesia’s large official and unofficial migrant labour flows are a direct result of poor economic opportunities for working-class Indonesians within the country itself. Indonesia has a labour surplus economy, which is unable to accommodate a large percentage of its working age population. As a result, overseas labour migration has become an important avenue for employment of Indonesian citizens.

2.1 General Labour Market Situation

Indonesia has a complex and fragmented labour market.1 It has a low-wage economy with significant disparities between the wages paid to expatriates and high-skilled local professionals employed by

1

The information in this section on the situation to 1999 draws heavily on Feridhanusetyawan (2000) and Irawan et al (2000). Statistical data for the period after 2000 cited in this report is sourced from the Bureau of Statistics and the

multi-national corporations and agencies and those paid to civil servants and employees of local companies. There are also considerable discrepancies between the wages of managerial staff and low-level employees within companies. According to the Bureau of Statistics, in March 2000 production workers earned a median wage of between Rp. 68 500 (approximately US$ 7.21) and Rp. 214 900 (approximately US$ 22.62) per week depending upon the sector in which they were employed. These wage levels are far below those that can be earned by even the worst-paid of overseas migrant workers. Indonesia’s low-wage economy is made possible by its large labour surplus in almost all sectors. Between 1971 and 1999, the Indonesian labour force increased from 40 million to 95 million. In 1999 the overall labour participation rate in Indonesia was approximately 66 percent of the working-age population. More recent figures indicate that the labour force participation rate has sat at around 68 percent in the period 2001-2005, with total labour force in 2005 of 105.8 million people, 94.9 million of whom are employed (Table 2.1.1)

Structural mismatches mean that not only working-class Indonesians, but also Indonesians with a secondary and tertiary education, have difficulty finding decent work. Consequently although the education level of the workforce is rising (approximately 75 percent of all employed men and 80 percent of all employed women have primary school education or less, but in the 25-29 age bracket, 35-40 percent of all employed men and women have a secondary or tertiary education) unemployment has long been a major social problem in Indonesia. It also helps explain why formal sector employment overall accounts for a relatively small proportion of all employment opportunities. Only between 30-40 percent of working men and 20-30 percent of working women are employed in waged or salaried positions. The remainder of working Indonesians are engaged in ‘independent economic activity’ or in family businesses. The service sector, which provides employment opportunities for the majority of these ‘independent’ or family workers, is primarily informal in nature. In total, more than 50 percent of women and around 43 percent of men were employed in informal sector occupations in the late 1990s.

Official Indonesian unemployment figures are highly deceptive. In 1999, the official unemployment rate was under 7 percent, rising to just under 10 percent in 2004. These relatively low figures mask serious underemployment and relatively low labour force participation rates. For men, the employment to population ratio (a measure that is similar to labour force participation) is approximately 80 percent, while for women, has been between 40 and 50 percent. However, almost 50 percent of employed women and over 20 percent of employed men work fewer than 30 hours per week, while almost 8 percent of employed women and almost 4 percent of employed men work fewer than 10 hours per week.

Department of Manpower and Transmigration, from assorted tables available at http://www.pbs.go.id and

http://www.nakertrans.go.id. For a history of Indonesian government policy regarding economic development and its implications for employment, see Feridhanusetyawan (2000) and Manning (1998).

Table 2.1.1: Employed Persons 15 years and Over by Main Industry, 2002-2005

Main Industry 2002 2003 2004

Agriculture, Forestry, Hunting and

Fishery 40 633 627 43 042 104 40 608 019

Mining and Quarrying 631 802 732 768 1 034 716

Manufacturing Industry 12 109 997 11 495 887 11 070 498 Electricity, Gas, and Water 178 279 151 831 228 297

Construction 4 273 914 4 054 741 4 540 102

Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade,

Restaurants and Hotels 17 795 030 17 249 484 19 119 156 Transportation, Storage, and

Communications 4 672 584 4 939 665 5 480 527

Financing, Insurance, Real Estate

and Business Services 99 1745 1 306 551 1 125 056

Community, Social, and Personal

Services 10 360 188 9837 760 10 515 665

Total 91 647 166 92 810 791 93 722 036

Source: Badan Pusat Statistik (2005) based on National Labour Force Survey Data 2002-2005

The agricultural sector contributes relatively little to the country’s GDP (16 percent in 1997). However, as Table 2.1.1 demonstrates it remains a major source of employment in Indonesia. Although employment in the sector has shrunk as a proportion of the overall labour force, it still accounted for approximately 40 percent of all employment in 1999 (down from 64 percent in 1971, rising again to 45 percent in 2003).2 In contrast, the industrial sector accounts for a relatively small proportion of all employment opportunities (approximately 18 percent in 1999), but contributes over two times as much to the economy (34 percent in 1997). In 1999, manufacturing accounted for approximately 20 percent of all male employment and 15 percent of all female employment. In 2003, 47 percent of women were employed in agriculture and 14 percent in manufacturing.

The profile of men and women working in particular industries varies considerably. The latest figures available from the Department of Manpower and Transmigration demonstrate that while most women continue to work in agriculture, women are most concentrated in manufacturing and trade (Table 2.1.2; see also Table 2.1.3 for an inter-island comparison).

2

Indonesian statistics are problematic, so these and other figures cited in this report should be treated as indicative rather than as authoritative.

Table 2.1.2: Employed Persons by Sex and Main Industry, 2003

Industry Male

(thousand)

Female (thousand)

Total (thousand)

Females as % Total

% Female Employment

Agriculture 27 385 14 616 42 001 34.8 47.3

Manufacturing 6 539 4 388 10 927 40.2 14.2

Construction 3 977 130 4 107 3.2 0.4

Trade 9 303 7 543 16 846 44.8 24.4

Transport 4 814 163 4 977 3.3 0.5

Finance 953 342 1 295 26.4 1.1

Services 6 151 3 595 9 746 36.9 11.6

Other 786 99 885 11.2 2.5

Total 59 909** 30 876 90 785** 34.0 102%**

* On the Depnakertrans website, data used for this table does not coincide with data appearing in Table 2.1.1.

** Discrepancies in these totals induced by rounding. Source: Raw data taken from Depnakertrans (2003a).

An important aspect of the labour market that is often ignored by analysts is the difference in industrial and labour force profiles in different regions of Indonesia. Although it is beyond the scope of this report to examine this aspect of the labour market in detail, Table 2.1.3 provides a brief overview of the labour market profile of the major Indonesian islands. As these figures suggest, there are considerable discrepancies both in the overall employment rate and the proportion of men and women, in particular women, employed between the major islands in Indonesia.

Table 2.1.3: Employment to Population Ratio of Major Indonesian Islands, 2003

Island

Employed Males (thousands)

% All Males over 15

Employed Females (thousands)

% All Females

over 15

Female as % of Employed

Persons

Sumatra 12 328 78.5 6 371 40.2 34.1

Java 35 841 78.1 18 131 39.2 33.6

Kalimantan 3 368 83.5 1 708 43.9 33.6

Sulawesi 4 028 78.6 1 624 30.6 28.7

Other Islands 4 344 82.9 3 042 57.0 41.2

Total 59 909 78.8 30 876 38.8 34.0

Source: Raw data taken from Depnakertrans (2003b; 2003c).

A discussion of the Indonesian labour market would be incomplete without mention of the Asian economic crisis of 1997-98. The economic crisis had little effect on overall labour force participation rates. However, with the collapse of the Rupiah and increasing investor uncertainty with regard to

political and economic stability in the country, the balance of the labour market shifted away from the formal sector. Before 1997-98 crisis, the formal sector in general, and the industrial sector in particular, had experienced strong growth over nearly too decades. In the first year of the crisis (1997-98) the manufacturing sector employment contracted by over 11 percent. In addition, average real wages in the manufacturing sector decreased significantly. During this period, the agricultural sector absorbed many of the workers who lost their formal sector jobs (the annual growth rate in the agricultural sector for 1997-98 was 9.9 percent). The percentage of people employed in the informal sector also rose significantly from an overall low of about 41 percent in 1995 to approximately 46 percent in 1998-1999. A third choice for newly unemployed factory workers and others adversely affected by the crisis was to seek work overseas.

2.2 Profile of Migrant Labour

Indonesia is a receiver of skilled labour and a sender of semi-skilled an unskilled labour. In 2003, just over 18 000 foreign nationals were officially employed in Indonesia, including 8728 East Asians (mostly Korean and Japanese); 2712 Western Europeans; 2138 North Americans; 1533 Australians and 1278 Indians.3

Most of these foreigners are engaged in mining, industry and trade. By far the largest group (13 042 people) are professionals, and most others (4463 people) hold managerial positions. As Table 2.2.1 indicates, the vast majority of foreigners working in Indonesia are located in Jakarta. Other important employers of foreigners are resource-based industries in Riau, North Sumatra, East Kalimantan and Papua; the industrial areas of Batam and West Java; and the tourist industry and small import-export concerns in Bali.

Table 2.2.1: Location of Foreign Nationals Employed in Indonesia, 2003

Region Foreign Nationals

DKI Jakarta 11 086

Sumatra 2 038

Java (excluding Jakarta) 3 481

Bali 407

Kalimantan 421

Sulawesi 114

Papua 284

Other Islands/Unspecified 307

Total 18 138

Source: Adapted from Depnakertrans (2003d).

Indonesia sends many more labour migrants overseas than it receives. However, the large flows of workers through government-sanctioned labour export programs are a relatively new phenomenon. Although many workers migrated from the Indonesian archipelago for work during the colonial period and after Independence, it is only since the early 1970s that the government officially began to

3

facilitate labour migration to the Middle East, East Asia and to wealthier countries within Southeast Asia. Between 1969 and 1974, just 5624 workers were placed under the government’s labour migration program. Between 1994 and 1999 almost 1.5 million Indonesians were sent overseas under government-approved labour migration schemes (Hugo 2002). As Table 2.2.2 demonstrates, in the 1980s and early 1990s, Saudi Arabia was the major destination for official Indonesian migrant workers, while Malaysia became an important official destination from the early 1990s. Since 1993, other Asian destinations such as South Korea and Hong Kong have become increasingly important destinations alongside more traditional destinations such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Singapore.

Table 2.2.2: Historical Distribution of Official Labour Outflows from Indonesia to Top Five Destinations of 1993

DESTINATION 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993

Saudi Arabia 17 116 47 963 48 741 54 980 64 785 101 680

Malaysia 2 967 3 824 5 763 5 853 40 715 33 372

Singapore 2 515 1 338 1 705 4 311 9 937 11 842

Taiwan 1 720 102 4 43 190 5 204

United States 2 286 985 1 231 2 007 2 618 3,459

Source: Adapted from ILO (1998:3).

In contrast to the foreign nationals working in Indonesia, almost all Indonesians working overseas are employed in semi-skilled or unskilled occupations. The sending-country demand for semi-skilled and unskilled workers from Indonesia is reflected in the distribution of migrant workers placed overseas under government-sponsored schemes between the formal and informal sectors (Table 2.2.3).

Table 2.2.3: Placement of Informal and Formal Sector Workers Overseas 2003

Informal Sector Formal Sector

Receiving Country Male Female Total Male Female Total

Asia Pacific

Malaysia 340 9 831 10 171 56 694 22 574 79 268

Singapore 5 6 082 6 087 0 16 16

Brunei Darussalam 12 480 492 376 278 654

Hong Kong 1 3 473 3 474 0 35 35

Taiwan 52 288 340 1 255 335 1 590

South Korea 297 30 327 6 093 1 075 7 168

Japan 0 0 0 100 0 100

Total 707 20 184 20 891 64 518 24 313 88 831

Middle East & Africa

Saudi Arabia 13 671 154 443 168 114 633 291 924

United Arab Emirates 20 1 343 1 363 78 34 112

Kuwait 48 12 113 12 161 61 46 107

Bahrain 0 88 88 0 0 0

Oman 0 401 401 0 94 94

Jordan 0 226 226 0 0 0

Yemen 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cyprus 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 13 739 168 792 182 531 774 465 1 239

North America

United States 0 0 0 144 27 171

Total 0 0 0 144 27 171

EUROPE

Netherlands 0 0 0 15 15 30

Italy 0 1 1 0 0 0

Total 0 1 1 15 15 30

Grand Total 14 446 188 977 203 423 65 451 24 820 90 271

Source: Adapted from Depnakertrans (2003e; 2004f).

The largest proportion of Indonesian migrant workers are employed in the informal sector. The concentration of Indonesian labour migrants in informal sector occupations reflects the large number of female labour migrants (between 70 and 80 percent of all Indonesian overseas labour migrants) employed as household labour in the Middle East and important Asian destinations such as Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong. The demand for domestic workers is reflected in the job orders of registered labour sending companies. Of a total of 216 352 ‘orders’ received in 2002, 134 308 (62 percent) were domestic workers, while a further 75 722 (35 percent) were employed in industrial occupations, primarily in Malaysia. The remaining 6 322 (3 percent) were employed in the plantation sector in Malaysia.4

Government statistics do not account for other types of labour migration, which are estimated to outstrip official migration levels. Hugo (2002) has identified three broad types of undocumented labour migration. The first, who comprise the majority of undocumented Indonesian workers in West Malaysia, enter without passing through any official border checkpoint. The second, including many of those working in East Malaysia, enter legally, but overstay their visas. The third, including women who enter Saudi Arabia on a pilgrimage visa, obtain work in violation of their visa conditions. In Malaysia, undocumented Indonesian workers are employed in a wide range of sectors, including home-based manufacturing, plantation work, small businesses and as domestic workers. As will be discussed below the handling of undocumented labour migration is one of the major issues faced by the Indonesian government, the governments of receiving countries and Indonesian labour NGOs.

2.3 Policy Framework and Issues

The Indonesian government has adopted a highly interventionist approach towards overseas migrant labour since the mid-1980s. It determines the process through which potential labour migrants can legally be recruited, trained, and managed, and issues licences to private sector companies (or PJTKI, Perusahaan Jasa Tenaga Kerja Indonesia) to undertake those processes. Importantly, however, as noted above the Indonesian government’s migration regime controls a relatively small proportion of

4

Complete data was unavailable for later years. However according to the table for 2004, the number of orders rose dramatically (886 437 orders between January and September).

overseas labour migration. It is estimated that many more labour migrants, particularly those seeking to work within Southeast Asia, depart through other channels.5

Government policy has vacillated between prohibition and regulation, particularly with regard to flows of female domestic workers to the Middle East, where conditions are particularly harsh (for details of a series of policy changes on moratoria in 2003, see Solidaritas Perempuan/Komnas Perempuan 2003). Generally, however, the government has been in favour of regulation rather than prohibition, because overseas migrant workers have become an important source of foreign currency income (Table 2.3.1).

Table 2.3.1 Number of Documented Labour Migrants and Remittances by Region, 2001-2003

2001 2002 2003

Region Persons Remittances

($US) Persons

Remittances

($US) Persons

Remittances ($US)

Asia-Pacific 217 555 355 088 125 238 324 1 181 660 673 109 722 n/a Mid East

& Africa 121 180 180 839 612 241 961 384 693 651 183 770 n/a North

America 228 1 532 160 40 221 760 171 n/a

Europe 29 194 880 68 443 520 31 n/a

Total 338 992 537 654 777 480 393 2 198 019 604 293 694 n/a

Source: Ford (forthcoming). Data from Depnakertrans.

Over the last two decades, the government has been constantly criticized by NGOs, human rights agencies for being more focused on remittances than on the protection of migrant workers’ rights, or in the case of criticisms made by some religious groups, their morality. According to critics the focus on remittances has meant that the government has encouraged labour migration flows without implementing measures necessary to ensure the safety and wellbeing of Indonesian citizens employed overseas.

Government regulation of migrant labour has also been criticized on procedural grounds. One of the major criticisms made of government policy is that until 2004, when Law 39 on the Placement and Protection of Indonesian Workers Overseas was passed, the regulation of migrant labour was achieved through ministerial decrees and other government regulations rather than through legislation. Ministerial decrees and government regulations are weak policy instruments, which often contradict one and other, and seldom deal comprehensively with the issues surrounding migrant labour. Important recent decrees and regulations passed in recent years include:

5

See Ford (forthcoming) for a discussion of the impact of these alternative flows on the border provinces through which they pass.

• Presidential Decision No.29/1999 on the Coordinating Body for the Placement of Indonesian

Migrant Workers Overseas;

• Ministerial Decision No. KEP.137/MEN/2001 on the Organization and Work Practices in the

Department of Manpower and Transmigration;

• Ministerial Decision No. KEP.104A/MEN/2002 on the Placement of Indonesian Migrant

Workers Overseas;

• Decision of the Director General of Development and Placement of Overseas Migrant Workers

No.KEP.312A/O.P2TKLN/2002 on Technical Instructions for the Protection of Overseas Migrant Workers;

• Ministerial Decision No.KEP.10/MEN/2004 on the Formation of the Team for the Evaluation

of the Performance of Indonesian Migrant Labour Sending Companies;

• Ministerial Regulation No. Per-04/MEN/II/2005 on The Organization of Final Training Before

Departure for Indonesian Migrant Workers Overseas;

• Ministerial Regulation No. Per-05/MEN/III/2005 on The Determination of Administrative

Sanctions and the Means though which those Sanctions are Imposed in the Conduct of the Placement and Protection of Indonesian Migrant Workers Overseas;

• Ministerial Decision No. Kepmen No. KEP.14/MEN/I/2005 on the Team for the Prevention of

Non-Procedural Departures and Return Services for Indonesian Migrant Workers;

• Ministerial Regulation No. Per-07/MEN/IV/2005 on the Standard of Holding Centres for

Intending Indonesian Migrant Workers.6

Efforts to establish a law that dealt with migrant worker issues were initiated in 2002, after the humanitarian crisis at Nunukan, when the government failed to take effective measures to manage flows of deported migrant workers across the border from Malaysia (discussed below). Shortly after the Nunukan affair, a bill on the Protection of Indonesian Migrant Workers and their Families was introduced into the parliament. A year later, three competing drafts were being discussed by the parliament, one of which was drafted by the migrant labour NGO consortium, KOPBUMI (Solidaritas Perempuan/Komnas Perempuan, 2003). In October 2004 the controversial Law No.39/2004 on The Placement and Protection of Indonesian Workers Overseas was finally passed. In addition to being cast in terms of protection for migrant workers rather than in terms of migrant workers’ rights (as hoped for by the migrant labour NGO community), this law has been criticised not only by migrant labour advocates, but by labour sending companies, who have launched a court appeal to have the law amended.

The implementation of decentralization policies after the fall of Suharto have had important implications for the regulation of international labour migration. During the last two decades of the Suharto era and in the years immediately afterwards, all migrant labour policy and regulations were determined at the central level. Although most regulation remains centralized, opportunities for a new layer of government involvement have been created since regional autonomy was introduced in 1999/2000. Regional autonomy laws give local governments the power to monitor labour migration flows and pass legislation concerning those flows. Since regional autonomy laws were implemented, some sending provinces including East and Central Java and West Nusatenggara have issued regulations and policies concerning overseas migrant workers (Tirtosudarmo, 2001; 2004). However, it

6

remains to be seen how effectively regional governments in either sending or transit provinces can regulate and/or finance programs that address the needs of migrant workers.

Recent Domestic Policy Shifts

The regulation of unofficial labour migration flows and the handling of large numbers of undocumented workers from Malaysia have become much more visible policy considerations since the humanitarian crisis in 2002, when hundreds of thousands of Indonesians were deported to the small town of Nunukan within a matter of months (Palupi & Yasser 2002; Purwanto & Kuncoro 2002).7 According to NGO sources the central government made some attempt in the period after the Nunukan crisis to address the problems highlighted by the mass deportation of Indonesians from Malaysia. The 2003 Indonesian country report to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, authored by Solidaritas Perempuan and Komnas Perempuan (2003) identified the following as positive steps taken by the government following the Nunukan crisis:

• Department of Manpower and Transmigration initiatives including re-registration of

recruitment agencies; competence test development and training in collaboration with staff from the University of Indonesia;

• Ministry of Women’s Empowerment initiatives (in conjunction with the Women’s Movement

for the Protection of Migrant Workers, GPPBM) including pre-departure education; attempts to develop an in-country support system in six receiving countries; a more transparent funding mechanism for support services; data collection; and cooperation with other government agencies;

• The establishment of a new division within the Ministry of Social Affairs which focuses on

migrant workers and victims of violence and efforts to establish crisis centres in conjunction with other government agencies and civil society groups;

• Expressions of support for a collaborative program to provide legal and counselling services for

workers overseas and the initiation of an inter-agency working group to examine relevant UN mechanisms, and regional and bilateral cooperation by the Department of Foreign Affairs;

• The establishment of a Coordinating Ministerial Body comprised of 11 ministries and agencies,

which aims to synchronise different agencies’ approaches to the migrant worker issue (it is unclear either from the report or more recent developments that this initiative has had any real impact);

• A greater willingness on the behalf of various ministries to cooperate with non-governmental

organizations on the migrant labour question.

However, in interviews conducted in July 2005, NGO sources report that after an initial burst of activity, many of these initiatives have failed to promote real change in government practice with regard to overseas migrant labour. Entrenched problems associated with the ongoing high level of demand (which encourages workers to use unregistered channels if access is limited or too expensive through government-sanctioned sending companies), lack of resources and political will, and extensive corruption mean that the possibility of significant change in the near future is very slim.

7

Bilateral Initiatives and Protection in Receiving Countries

The Philippines experience has demonstrated that bilateral agreements are an important means of providing protection to overseas migrant workers. The importance of such agreements is recognized in Article 11 of Law No.39/2004 which states that Indonesian migrant workers can only be sent to countries with which the Indonesian government has written agreements.8 However, to date, this provision is unworkable, as Indonesia has written agreements with only a small number of countries, specifically Malaysia, South Korea and Jordan.

The most prominent of Indonesia’s current MOUs is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which was signed by Indonesia and Malaysia in May 2004, several years behind schedule.9 It is important to note that the 2004 MOU only covered migrant workers employed in formal sector occupations. When the MOU was signed, officials announced that another MOU dealing specifically with Indonesian FDWs working in Malaysia would also be negotiated (Human Rights Watch 2004); however at the time of writing in August 2005 there was no indication that any progress had been made towards such an agreement.

A related problem is the level of service provided to migrant workers in receiving countries. In contrast to the government of the Philippines, which has established a number of structures to support workers whilst overseas, the Indonesian government has a poor record of consular assistance for Indonesian citizens working overseas. Although some educational courses and crisis facilities are provided in some locations (such as Singapore), there is no labour attaché position even in major receiving countries and the Indonesian government has a very patchy history of advocacy on behalf of migrant workers who experience difficulties overseas.

Summary of Major Issues Related to the Policy Framework

As suggested above, there are a number of major issues related to the migrant labour policy framework in Indonesia. Some of the most important of these include:

• Inadequate supervision of official sending channels, particularly of registered labour sending

companies and associated services and failure to monitor and/or complicity in illegal sending activities (see section 2.4);

• Inadequate coordination between different ministries and government agencies dealing with

migrant labour;

• Legislation/regulations which fail to deal with major aspects of the labour migration process

and/or deal with them in an inconsistent manner;

• Lack of consistency and corruption in implementation of labour legislation/ regulations;

• Failure to proactively pursue comprehensive bilateral agreements with major receiving

countries;

8

This is one of the points of contention raised by the labour sending companies. 9

Earlier bilateral cooperation had been formalised in 1984 when the Malaysian government initiated the Supply of Workers Agreement, known as the Medan Agreement. However, this agreement is widely considered to have been ineffective (Tirtosudarmo 2004).

• Failure to proactively monitor conditions experienced by migrant workers in receiving

countries (including, but not limited to, a lack of consular engagement with the migrant labour question).

These problems both cause, and are exacerbated by, the political-economic and social issues faced by migrant workers before, during and after employment overseas. These issues are discussed in the following section.

2.4 Political-Economic and Social Issues

The political-economic and social issues surrounding large-scale official and unofficial labour migration flows from Indonesia to the Middle East have been well-documented by international and local NGOs (see for example Solidaritas Perempuan et al 2003; HRW 2004). Major problems exist at all stages of the labour migration process. Given the lack of good employment opportunities locally, there are many more people wishing to work overseas than opportunities to do so. This means that almost any condition imposed by recruitment agencies on a potential migrant worker will be accepted. Potential migrant workers are generally sourced from small villages by local agents who have connections to either registered or unregistered labour sending companies. These agents are most often known to the families of those recruited, and recruitment is most often realised through an informal invitation to work overseas. Potential migrant workers are given little concrete information about what they can expect before departure, whilst overseas, or on returning home.

Before leaving Indonesia, migrant workers managed by registered labour sending companies are generally taken to a holding centre, where their documents are prepared and, in the case of migrant domestic workers, they are supposed to receive training to adequately equip them for the tasks they are to perform once overseas. Many of these holding centres are overcrowded and ill-equipped. Potential migrant workers are often forbidden to leave the centres, and are sometimes subjected to physical abuse or sexual harassment. Human rights activists and trade unionists who have attempted to contact potential migrant workers report that it is difficult to get any access to them. Although the centres are nominally monitored by the Department of Manpower and Transmigration, the system is highly corrupt. Trade unionists involved a short-lived monitoring initiative (described in section 5.2) report that the living conditions in the centres were ‘inhuman’ and that the equipment in the training centres used for migrant domestic workers was outdated and often inoperable.

Migrant workers who are channelled overseas by unregistered migrant agencies are potentially at even more risk of abuse because the lack of official controls on the labour migration process, particularly with regard to the conditions in holding centres and the means by which they leave for overseas (including the risk of becoming victims of human trafficking). However, given the poor conditions in many official centres, the differences between official and unofficial channels may be overstated. While some unofficial migrant agencies traffic migrant workers into other countries with false papers or without documents, many other agents purchase ‘genuine’ travel documents from immigration officials. Conditions experienced by workers leaving through unregistered sending companies vary considerably, as do those experienced by workers contracted to their registered counterparts. Practices such as the falsification of identity, deprivation of liberty, overcharging and even extortion, are common amongst both registered and unregistered migrant sending companies.

Indonesians working overseas may also experience a wide range of problems once in the receiving country. For undocumented workers (including those who arrived with no documents, but also those

whose contracts have fallen through and those whose work visas have expired but have remained in the country) these problems generally revolve around their uncertain legal status. Without proper documents, workers have no avenues of protest against unfair working conditions and in some countries, such as Malaysia, are constantly in fear of incarceration and/or deportation. The conditions experienced by documented migrant workers while working overseas vary considerably from country to country and industry to industry. In most receiving countries Indonesian migrant workers employed in formal sector occupations have some access to normal processes within the local industrial relations system. However, not all basic labour rights are necessarily met. For example, in some destinations, such as South Korea and Hong Kong, migrant workers are permitted to organize; however, in others, like Malaysia, although migrant workers are not precluded from joining a union according to industrial relations law, they are forbidden to do so by the conditions of their work visas. In addition, workers’ passports may be retained by the employer or the agent, and in many cases work visas are tied to a particular employer. This means that the migrant worker in question cannot simply transfer to another position if working conditions are unsatisfactory. They may also not be able to return home, as work contracts generally stipulate that if the contract is broken, return costs are the responsibility of the migrant worker.

The situation is even less clear for the large numbers of Indonesian women who are employed overseas as domestic workers. Although there is potential for abuse in all employment situations where the worker does not have full citizenship rights, foreign domestic workers face a whole set of extra challenges unique to the location and nature of their employment. Domestic workers face all the challenges experienced by other temporary migrant workers, but they also experience problems unique to the nature and location of their work. In many jurisdictions domestic workers are effectively denied protection under labour law, because their work is viewed as an extension of the unpaid services ‘naturally’ provided by women. Consequently, domestic workers also have even less access to the freedom to organize and other basic labour rights than other migrant workers, because they generally fall outside the ambit of the industrial relations system (with the exception of Hong Kong). They also have less opportunity to do so, even where permitted, because they work in isolation, and have very limited opportunities to attend events outside their employers’ homes.

Work conditions for domestic workers vary enormously. There is little agreement about what constitutes a fair workload for a domestic worker, and law enforcement agencies are reluctant (even if it was feasible) to monitor work situations within private homes because of the unclear status of the employer-employee relationship in that sphere. As a result, the conditions experienced by an Indonesian foreign domestic worker depend almost entirely on the goodwill of her employer. Issues commonly raised in reports about Indonesian domestic workers’ conditions in host countries include long hours, few or no rest days, restriction of movement and communication, inability to practice their religion, and lack of privacy (many domestic workers are forced to sleep in the kitchen or another common area of the dwelling, particularly in destinations like Hong Kong and Singapore where space is limited). Because of the location of their work in the private sphere, domestic workers are particularly exposed to the possibility of psychological and physical – including sexual – abuse.

Overseas migrant workers also experience problems on their return to Indonesia. Although the Indonesian government has mandated channels and processes for returning migrant workers, those channels are demonstrably corrupt. Returning workers face artificial exchange rates, threats of extortion and even physical violence at airports (for example, the notorious Terminal 3 at Sukarno-Hatta airport in Jakarta), seaports (such as Jakarta’s Tanjung Priok and the ports in Riau and North Sumatra) and at land borders in Kalimantan. Extortion and risk of harm continues until the reach their villages. On return to their villages, their status is ambiguous. They bring significant financial

resources, which can create conflict in kinship networks and the community more broadly, particularly if the returnee attempts to invest their money in a long-term project rather than spending it on consumer goods. Socially, returnees may have considerable difficulty readjusting to life in their village communities. Women also face the stigma of having been outside the boundaries of community control for a significant period of time. Reintegration is now a major focus for a number of Indonesian migrant worker groups and migrant labour NGOs, particularly as many returnees choose to engage in circular migration rather than reintegration, which has serious consequences for family and community structures in sending villages.

3. Nature of Migrant Labour Organizations, their Programs and Services

The position of migrant labour organizations is an ambiguous one in the Indonesian context because they consist primarily of returned migrant workers, intending migrant workers and migrant families rather than currently-employed migrant workers, who are by definition located outside Indonesia. As used in this context, ‘migrant labour organization’ refers to organizations involved in the migrant labour movement which are not unions and not NGOs. The composition and purpose of these migrant worker organizations is the focus of considerable debate within the Indonesian NGO and trade union communities. For trade unionists in particular, their composition in particular is perceived as a major obstacle to integration within the mainstream trade union movement.

Almost all major migrant labour organizations currently in operation in Indonesia were at least initially sponsored by migrant labour NGOs, and although their self-perception and stated purposes vary considerably, there are many similarities in their membership and the type of activities in which they are involved. This section examines four major groups of migrant labour organizations in Indonesia and describes their programs and services.

3.1 Serikat Buruh Migran Indonesia

Serikat Buruh Migran Indonesia (SBMI, Indonesian Migrant Workers Union), formerly Federasi Organizasi Buruh Migran Indonesia (FOBMI, Federation of Indonesian Migrant Worker Organizations), is perhaps the most widely-recognised network of migrant labour organizations in Indonesia today. SBMI/FOBMI is a relatively new organization. Jaringan Nasional Buruh Migran Indonesia (Jarnas BMI, National Network of Indonesian Migrant Workers) – the precursor to FOBMI – was formally established in 2001. The network aimed to:

• consolidate existing organizations and to increase levels of organizing activities amongst

overseas migrant workers;

• act as a coordinating centre for organizing activities;

• prepare for the establishment of a permanent national migrant worker organization.

After a further meeting in September 2002, working parties were formed in seven geographical areas, namely Jakarta, Banten, West Java, Central Java and East Java (all on the island of Java), Lampung (in Southern Sumatra) and West Nusa Tenggara (the province directly to the east of Bali). After another series of meetings, FOBMI itself was officially formed on 25 February 2003 (FOBMI 2003).10 Its

10

Different FOBMI documents give different dates for both the formation of Jarnas BMI and the formation of FOBMI itself. According to the FOBMI Manifesto, the former was established in 2001 (not 2002) and the latter was established in February 2003, not March as reported in some other FOBMI documents.

formation was supported by the Konsorsium Pembela Buruh Migran Indonesia (KOPBUMI, The Consortium for the Defence of Indonesian Migrant Workers) which at the time was funded primarily by the American Center for International Labour Solidarity (ACILS), the international wing of the AFL-CIO.11 In interviews (June-July 2005) some founding members of KOPBUMI suggested that ACILS had been the main instigator of the foundation of FOBMI, which lay outside KOPBUMI’s original brief as an advocacy organization.

The majority of FOBMI’s key members are former migrant workers, but the organization targets intending and former migrant workers and their families. FOBMI’s branches (initially located in Banten, Cianjur, Cirebon, Wonosobo, Purwokerto, Banumas, Kebumen, Tulangagung, Blitar, Malang, Jember, Banyuwangi and Lampung) provide counselling and other assistance to prospective and former migrant workers in their provinces of origin.12 According to reports presented at its 2005 Congress, the National Secretariat was involved in a number of one-off ‘organizing’ sessions and some pre-departure training in five provinces and in providing legal aid and practical assistance to 115 individual migrant workers during the period 2003-2005 (FOBMI 2005a). In addition FOBMI engaged in monitoring activities at the Sukarno-Hatta airport, Tanjung Priok port and the hospital to which migrant workers are taken from Terminal 3 if they require medical assistance. FOBMI was also engaged in advocacy activities around the migrant labour law, the ratification of the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, and particular migrant worker cases.

FOBMI changed its name to Serikat Buruh Migran Indonesia (SBMI) at its second congress in late June 2005.13 When asked why the name change was necessary, members of the SBMI/FOBMI secretariat said that they saw it as a positive step towards registration as a union. The congress records show that one of the purposes of revising the constitution was to improve SBMI/FOBMI’s chances of successfully registering as a union with the Department of Manpower.

SBMI/FOBMI has engaged in a number of cooperative campaigns and networks in Indonesia with migrant labour NGOs and local trade unions, including:

• Forum Kerja untuk Keadilan PRT Migran (FOKER, The Forum for Justice for Migrant

Domestic Workers);

• Koalisi Anti Deportasi Buruh Migran Indonesia (KADBMI, The Coalition Against the

Deportation of Indonesian Migrant Workers);

• Aliansi Rakyat Bersatu (ARB, The United People’s Alliance);

• Persatuan Rakyat untuk Perubahan Sejati (PRPS, The People’s Alliance for Real Change).

It also has links with migrant worker organizations in Hong Kong, specifically the Indonesian Migrant Workers Union and the Hong Kong Coalition of Indonesian Migrant Workers Organizations. It has been a member of the Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA) since mid-2004. Members of its secretariat have attended workshops and conferences in a number of regional destinations including Manila, Bangkok, Hong Kong and Seoul. Although SBMI/FOBMI would eventually like to eventually register as a union

11

Although it is no longer receiving support from ACILS, SBMI/FOBMI continues to receive some support from the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and TIFA.

12

Ten new organizations became members of SBMI/FOBMI at the 2005 Congress. 13

For the purposes of clarity, SBMI will be referred to as SBMI/FOBMI in this report to distinguish them from the SBMI organizations associated with SP, which will be referred to as SBMI-Solidarity.

and establish branches in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan, discussions with secretariat members indicate that they are well aware of the significant challenges that they face even in establishing a strong local presence. One of the ways they have sought to deal with these challenges is to attempt to work more closely with local unions (see section 5.3).

3.2 Solidaritas Buruh Migran Indonesia

There are Solidaritas Buruh Migran Indonesia (SBMI, Indonesian Migrant Worker Solidarity) groups in four locations in Java: Cianjur and Karawang in West Java; Salatiga in Central Java and East Java (consisting of a number of locations within East Java Province – see below). These groups are associated with the women’s NGO, Solidaritas Perempuan (SP), and in addition to community-based education campaigns, their activities include case management and research on SP’s behalf.14 SBMI-Solidarity groups do not claim to be migrant worker unions. This reflects SP’s position that unions can only be formed in the receiving country, because that is where migrant workers are located.

Solidaritas Buruh Migran Indonesia – Jawa Timur (SBMI-Jatim) is one of the most active organizations in the SBMI-Solidarity group. It was established on 26 August 2000 with the support of Solidaritas Perempuan.15 It focuses primarily on policy advocacy at the regional area and community organizing in sending villages. SBMI-Jatim has developed a series of groups based in a number of sending villages in Lumajang and Madura, comprised of potential and ex-migrant workers and their families. Structurally SBMI-Jatim is an association of independent groups. Some of these groups have a system of dues, but others do not. SBMI-Jatim runs education sessions about topics such as labour migration, human rights, gender, micro-business. SMBI-Jatim also has more limited activities in Probolinggo and, Situbondo, Bondowoso and Jember, such as community group discussions with groups including farmers, street vendors and groups associated with the mosques, aimed at encouraging members to think critically about migrant labour issues.

3.3 Kelompok Dampingan

Some regional NGOs have kelompok dampingan, or community groups they support/are associated with. One example of this is Perkumpulan Panca Karsa (PPK), which consists of twenty-community groups associated with an NGO (Yayasan Panca Karsa) in Lombok. Yayasan Panca Karsa was formed in 1988 by a group of five feminist lawyers. It organizes routine discussions and training sessions on organization, gender, human rights, advocacy, focusing primarily on women. PPK, like other kelompok dampingan, have a less formal structure than either SBMI/FOBMI or SBMI-Solidarity, and are less independent. However, some key national migrant labour activists have suggested that this group and others like it have the potential to develop into important migrant labour organizations.

3.4 Sahabat Pekerja Migran

Sahabat Pekerja Migran (SPM, Friends of Migrant Workers), is a program of Poverty Purse, Dompet Dhuafa (the charity arm of the Republika daily newspaper). Like SBMI/FOBMI, SPM is associated

14

Strictly speaking, Solidaritas Perempuan is no longer an NGO. In 1993 members decided to restructure as a Serikat (association, also the word for union), which meant they adopted the open-membership structure of a mass organization in place of closed-membership structure of an NGO. In practice, it appears that the central structure of the organization continues to operate more or less like an NGO, and SP continues to derive most of its funding from traditional NGO donor sources (members pay dues, but these dues contribute only a small part of SP’s overall budget).

15

with a network of grassroots migrant worker organizations. However, it differs from the other migrant labour organizations described here in a number of ways. Most importantly, it is an openly religious organization, and is funded through community contributions (via Dompet Dhuafa) rather than through international donors. It is the only major migrant worker group not sponsored by a migrant labour NGO.

SPM concentrates on trying to organize Indonesian migrant workers in the Middle East and Malaysia. In December 2004 it organized a congress of migrant workers, at which the Federasi Pekerja Migran Indonesia (FPMI, The Indonesian Migrant Workers Federation) was established.16 The congress was attended by current and ex-migrant workers from Malaysia, Hong Kong, Korea, Saudi Arabia and representatives of migrant worker groups in Sumatra, Java, Sumbawa, Kalimantan (SPM 2004). To become a member of FPMI, organizations must be Muslim (Muslim individuals may also become members). Members must pay an affiliation fee and report monthly on their activities. Local organizational affiliates carry the name Serikat Pekerja Migran Indonesia (SPMI, Indonesian Migrant Workers Union). At the time of writing, the extent of SPMI activities at the grassroots was unknown.

3.5 Summary

There currently are two main types of migrant labour organizations in Indonesia. The first (SBMI/FOBMI and FPMI) claim to be labour unions. The second (SBMI-Solidaritas and kelompok dampingan such as PPK) focus more on their role as community organizations that have as much of a focus on the families of migrant workers as on potential and ex-migrant workers. In practice, however, the membership and activities of all these groups are very similar. In addition to handling individual cases, they provide education and capacity-building, and are engaged in advocacy at the local, and sometimes the national and international, level.

There is some ambivalence amongst members of these groups and other migrant labour activists about the strategy of organizing different interest groups (potential migrant workers, ex-migrant workers and migrant workers’ families) in the same organization. At one level, this is a practical strategy, as it is still beyond the capacity of local migrant labour organizations to organize any more than a few workers currently overseas, even where they would like to do so. At another, however, it creates a diffuse focus within migrant labour organizations, and encourages a tendency to focuses on ad hoc advocacy and individual cases rather than systematic organizing activities. In many ways this reflects their NGO links (and therefore exposure to NGO techniques). The exception to this generalisation is FPMI. However it remains to be seen how effective their alternative approach will be. For those migrant labour organizations that claim to be unions, in particular, the nature of their membership constitutes the most significant barrier to full recognition by local unions or the government.

4. NGO Involvement in Migrant Labour: Key Organizations and Activities

NGO activists first became involved in migrant labour issues in the early 1990s, at a time when the numbers of temporary migrant workers leaving Indonesia was growing rapidly, and the potential for abuse of female domestic workers in particular was becoming more and more obvious. Since then, they have been the major actors in the migrant labour movement in Indonesia. There are well over 100 NGOS that deal with migrant labour Indonesia-wide; however, recent research by KOPBUMI

16

Pekerja and buruh both mean ‘worker’. However, buruh traditionally carried leftist connotations and is more readily associated with ‘labourer’. During the New Order period, pekerja was considered a more neutral (less political) term. Both are currently in use.

confirms that for many migrant labour is the primary focus for only a proportion of these NGOs (in the 12 regions mapped by KOPBUMI, only 16 percent of NGOs involved in migrant labour issues identified migrant labour as their primary concern). The majority of NGOs working on migrant labour issues are focused on individual cases of migrant worker abuse. The organizations and networks described here are currently the most influential at the national level.17

4.1 Solidaritas Perempuan

Solidaritas Perempuan untuk Hak Asasi Manusia (SP, Women’s Solidarity for Human Rights) was the first migrant labour NGO in Indonesia. It was officially established in December 1990. Until 1998, migrant labour issues were SP’s primary focus. During the 1990s, SP provided legal advice and other support in individual cases where workers have been abused, provided training and setting up programs for migrant workers and their communities, and ran a shelter for women migrant workers who have been subject to violence. They also collected extensive data on migrant worker cases and engaged in policy advocacy at the national and international levels. Many former SP activists have gone on to engage in other forms of migrant labour activism. These include Tati Krisnawaty, who now runs the section of Komnas Perempuan (The National Commission on Violence Against Women) that deals with vulnerable women, including migrant workers;18 Wahyu Susilo, who was a key player in KOPBUMI until recently, and is now associated with Migrant Care; and Yanti Muchtar, whose training organization Kapal Perempuan is now part of the Forum Kerja untuk Keadilan PRT Migran (FOKER, The Forum for Justice for Migrant Domestic Workers).

Although SP maintains many of its migrant labour initiatives, including the shelter and advocacy on legal issues and individual cases, many migrant labour activists outside SP feel that its focus on migrant workers has decreased.19 In response, SP’s director, Salma Safitri said that while the organization has grown, and SP now deals with some other issues, its focus on migrant labour has maintained strength and staff numbers. Safitri argues that there is no need for SP to focus on organizing because many other organizations are doing so. In addition, as noted earlier (see section 3) SP adopts a strong position that unions can only be formed in the receiving country, because that is where migrant workers are located.

4.2 Center for Indonesian Migrant Workers

A second important migrant labour NGO that emerged about the same time as SP and is still active is the Center for Indonesian Migrant Workers (CIMW). CIMW is part of a larger organization called the Urban Community Mission (UCM), which operates under the direction of the Batak Protestant Church. CIMW provides education and legal aid directly to workers, but is most heavily involved in international networking and advocacy activities. A number of staff at CIMW have been seconded to AMC at different times, and CIMW has had links with organizations including the Hope Workers’ Center in Chungli City, Taiwan, the Ansan Migrant Shelter in South Korea, the Asian Migrant Centre (AMC) in Hong Kong and the Women’s Aid Organization and Tenaganita in Malaysia. CIMW has a formal commitment to encouraging female migrant workers to join unions.

17

Komnas Perempuan is not included in this section because it is not an NGO. However it does play a major role in advocacy of female migrant worker rights.

18

Komnas Perempuan was established in 1998 by Presidential Decree. It continues to receive part of its funding form the government, but considers itself an ‘independent national institution’. Komnas Perempuan has been very active in working with government departments and NGOs to promote awareness of and better conditions for women working abroad. 19

SP no longer has links with the mainstream labour movement, as it did in the 1990s, when it was very active in local labour campaigns.

4.3 KOPBUMI

Konsorsium Pembela Buruh Migran Indonesia (KOPBUMI, The Consortium for the Defence of Indonesian Migrant Workers) is a network of approximately 100 NGOs which deal with migrant workers in twelve provinces. KOPBUMI (which was funded by ACILS until October 2004) was formed in early 1997 in response to the absence of any mention of overseas migrant workers in the draft of Manpower Law No.25/1997. Members of KOPBUMI work individually at the grassroots, but have given the network’s office the authority to conduct advocacy campaigns on their behalf.

Until the recent departure of Wahyu Susilo, a former SP activist with a high media profile, the national office of KOPBUMI had a very active presence in the media and in direct campaigning with government. Campaigns have focused on the United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, domestic labour laws that deal with (or conversely fail to address) migrant labour issues, and government policy concerning moratoria on migrant worker departures and mass deportations of Indonesian workers, particularly from neighbouring Malaysia. KOPBUMI continues to run its regular email list, which is subscribed to not only by Indonesians interested in migrant labour issues, but also by activists in countries including Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong. It is also currently conducting an advocacy campaign against Law No.39/2004, investigating individual cases, and monitoring the renewed deportations from Malaysia. It recently conducted an extensive mapping exercise in which it documented migrant labour organization activities in 12 provinces. In addition, it claims to be conducting organizing activities in sending regions. However, there was a broad consensus amongst migrant labour activists and representatives of funding agencies interviewed in June-July 2005 that KOPBUMI’s range of activities and importance as a national actor has declined significantly after personnel left the organization.20

4.4 Migrant Care Indonesia

Migrant Care Indonesia was established after the split in KOPBUMI. Although Wahyu Susilo is not formally part of the executive, he is a major influence in the new organization, which has taken on much of the advocacy profile formerly held by KOPBUMI. Migrant Care has strong international links with migrant labour organizations in other Asian countries. Domestically, it is one of the five key organizations in the Forum Kerja untuk Keadilan PRT Migran (see below).

4.5 Gerakan Perempuan untuk Perlindungan Buruh Migran

Gerakan Perempuan untuk Perlindungan Buruh Migran (GPPBM, the Women’s Movement for the Protection of Migrant Workers) is a network of 19 women’s organizations which was established in mid 2000. Members of the network include Komnas Perempuan, Solidaritas Perempuan, LBH APIK and a number of religion-based groups, such as Fatayat NU, Muslimat NU and Wanita Katolik RI.. GPPBM has a dual strategy of advocating policy and legal change while working with government departments and agencies to improve the services they offer to migrant workers. To date, they have worked with the Department for the Empowerment of Women and the hospital at Kramat Jati where returning migant workers requiring medical attention are taken. They also have plans to raise awareness of migrant labour issues in sending areas and develop training programs for intending overseas migrant workers.

20

One informant suggested that KOPBUMI’s decline was at least in part caused by disputes over access to data following the split, along with changes in KOPBUMI’s funding base.

4.6 Forum Kerja untuk Keadilan PRT Migran

Forum Kerja untuk Keadilan PRT Migran (FOKER, The Forum for Justice for Migrant Domestic Workers) was formed in mid-2004 by 11 organizations, including Kapal Perempuan, KOPBUMI, Migrant Care, Gema Perempuan, Ecosoc and SBMI/FOBMI. FOKER is a lose network of five working groups which has an explicit focus on female domestic workers employed in Singapore. Each of the working groups focuses on one of the following: advocacy, campaigns, capacity building, organizing and research. FOKER is coming to the end of its initial grant from TIFA, and held a workshop in July 2005 to evaluate its progress and future directions.

4.7 Summary

Migrant labour NGOs continue to be the most influential group of organizations dealing with overseas migrant workers in Indonesia. However, like the NGO community more generally, few NGOs concentrate exclusively on one issue. Many NGOs that work on migrant labour issues deal with them within the context of campaigns on a whole suite of human rights or women-related concerns. At the regional and national levels, while there are a number of important collaborative networks, there is considerable friction between different organizations. There is also some tension between migrant labour NGOs and migrant worker organizations. This is understandable given NGOs’ superior influence and access to funding, and the power relations influence those relationships. However it does have a negative effect the broader movement’s ability to achieve its goals with regard to government policy and organization at the grassroots.

5. Trade Union Involvement in Migrant Labour

There have been some significant attempts to involve trade unions in migrant labour issues in Indonesia in recent years. However, overall trade union involvement in migrant labour issues to date has been sporadic and tokenistic. This section briefly outlines the labour movement context in post-Suharto Indonesia and describes a number of cases of union involvement in migrant labour initiatives in recent years.

5.1 Main Trade Union Groups

The labour movement context in Indonesia has changed dramatically since the fall of President Suharto in May 1998 after a prolonged period of union suppression. Soon after Suharto’s New Order regime came to power in 1967, it began restructuring the organized labour movement. Leftist unions were abolished, and remaining unions were encouraged to restructure as federation of industrial unions called the Federasi Serikat Buruh Indonesia (FBSI, Federation of Indonesian Labour Unions). In 1985, FBSI was forced to restructure again into a single union with a number of industrial departments called the Serikat Pekerja Seluruh Indonesia (SPSI, All-Indonesian Workers Union). Although independent enterprise unions were officially permitted from the early 1990s and SPSI was formally restructured as a federation in 1998 (FSPSI, Federation of All-Indonesian Workers Unions) during the last 13 years of the New Order, effectively only one union was officially permitted to represent workers in Indonesia. Soon after Suharto’s resignation, legislative and policy restraints on independent trade unionism were suddenly relaxed. By the end of the Habibie interregnum in October 1999, there were twenty federations registered at the national level alone. Three years later, the Department of Manpower had registered 61 federations, one confederation, almost 150 labour unions and some 11,000 enterprise

The major initiative involving trade unions in migrant labour issues was an initiative of the former Minister for Manpower, Jakob Nua Wea, who simultaneously was head of the KSPSI. For a number of months in 2003-2004, a team of approximately 70 union representatives called ‘Tim 17’ were engaged to monitor conditions in labour sending companies’ holding and training centres. The teams produced quite detailed reports of the facilities and conditions at a number of centres. However, they were disbanded and the monitoring function was returned to the Department of Manpower when Fahmi Idris became Minister for Manpower for the second time in October 2004.

5.3 Union Cooperation with NGOs and Migrant Labour Groups

Trade unions, labour NGOs (including migrant labour NGOs) and migrant labour organizations engage in sporadic cooperative advocacy campaigns which focus on the issues of both local workers and overseas migrant workers. Examples of such campaigns in recent years include the May Day marches of 2004 and 2005. SBMI/FOBMI in particular has been involved in a number of campaigns and networks with local unions including the Komite Anti Penindasan Buruh (KAPB, The Committee Against the Repression of Workers) and ad hoc campaigns around May Day and other significant events.

Most other forms of union cooperation with NGOs and migrant labour groups has occurred either because it has been facilitated by international organizations (primarily the ILO), or because it has been initiated by migrant labour groups (primarily SBMI/FOBMI). The ILO has arranged a number of meetings where local unions, migrant labour NGOs and SBMI/FOBMI were present. These were not designed to encourage particular cooperative initiatives, but rather to encourage discussion about migrant labour issues. The major initiative of the second kind to date was a meeting between SBMI/FOBMI and representatives of number of local unions, specifically:

• Gabungan Serikat Buruh Independent (GSBI, Association of Independent Unions);

• Federasi Serikat Pekerja Seluruh Indonesia-Reformasi (FSPSI-Reformasi, Federation of All-Indonesian Workers’ Unions-Reformasi);

• Konfederasi Serikat Pekerja Indonesia.

GSBI is an association of unions formed from workers’ groups associated with a prominent labour NGO, Sisbikum, in the late New Order period. FSPSI-Reformasi was the first-generation break-away from FSPSI soon after the fall of Suharto. When KSPI was formed, a small rump of 12 unions remained with FSPSI-Reformasi. Neither of these organizations have established migrant worker programs, but they have engaged in advocacy on migrant labour issues and have been supportive of SBMI/FOBMI. In both cases, the union members actively working towards engagement with migrant labour organizations have been women – in FSPSI-Reformasi’s case, the long-standing advocate for women within the state-sanctioned union of the New Order period, Ari Sunarijati.

When asked why SBMI/FOBMI was interested in meeting with these local unions, Dina, the outgoing Chair of SBMI/FOBMI, said that their purpose was to:

ask for suggestions from local unions on how to strengthen migrant labour organizations and to develop a network. Migrant worker issues are becoming more complex and we don’t want them just to be the province of the migrant labour NGO elite. We want unions to engage too

because the problems faced by workers everywhere are basically the same (Interview, 29 July 2005).

At the time of this meeting SBMI/FOBMI was also considering the possibility of registering formally with the Department of Manpower in order to strengthen its position as a representative of migrant workers – a strategy they subsequently attempted, but failed to achieve registration. It was also weighing up the merits of joining one of the existing federations. SBMI/FOBMI activists believe in the long term this is a priority, but plan to try to strengthen their internal structures before considering the possibility of affiliation.

5.4 Trends and Developments Union Policy Advocacies and Stance

Developments such as these suggest that awareness of migrant labour issues, and willingness to engage with migrant worker organizations and conduct advocacy on behalf of migrant workers, is strengthening in small pockets of the local trade union movement. However, it should be noted that these initiatives are occurring on the margins of local labour activism, and have been promoted almost exclusively by women trade union activists with a personal interest in migrant labour issues. When interviewed, these women acknowledged that their interest was not shared by the majority of their colleagues.

Interviews with other trade unionists in June-July 2005 suggested that the trade union movement generally has little, if any, interest in migrant labour issues. Most unionists interviewed commented on the difficulty of organizing workers employed overseas, arguing that the challenges faced by their unions in establishing a strong local presence made it impossible for them to look further afield. As noted above, this general attitude is not surprising given the fragile state of the Indonesian union movement at this time and the ambivalence of unions internationally towards the organization of workers employed outside the national boundaries in which trade unions operate. These factors represent a significant barrier to increased union engagement with migrant labour issues.

6. Cooperation or Competition?: Dynamics of Migrant Labour Work

Migrant labour activism and organizing in Indonesia are characterised by both cooperation and competition, which reflects the nature of relationships amongst NGOs, and between NGOs and grassroots organizations, in the Indonesian context in general and amongst labour movement organizations (trade unions, other grassroots organizations and NGOs) in particular.22 The most obvious form of cooperation is the large migrant labour NGO network, KOPBUMI, and smaller NGO networks such as FOKER and GPPBM. However it should be noted that there is evidence of significant competition between members of such networks for influence and international funds, which has the potential to reduce the effectiveness these networks (and demonstrably has in the cases of both KOPBUMI and FOKER).23

Newer forms of cooperation include joint union-NGO initiatives such as those described in Section 5.3 and cooperative efforts between migrant labour organizations (particularly SBMI/FOBMI) and both unions and migrant NGOs. At this time there is little apparent competition between unions and migrant labour NGOs, primarily because local unions are not interested in organizing migrant workers. In

22

See Ford (2003) for a detailed account of relations between unions, NGOs and grassroots labour organizations between 1985 and 2005.

23

contrast, a number of examples of conflict between migrant labour organizations and migrant labour NGOs came to light during the course of this study, primarily over issues associated with the division of labour and access to resources. These issues could represent a threat to present and future efforts to organize migrant workers within the sending country context of Indonesia.

6.1 Strengths and Weaknesses/Gaps of Existing Migrant Labour Work

Over the last fifteen years, Indonesian migrant labour NGOs have made a sustained effort to raise public awareness of migrant labour issues; assist individual migrant workers who face difficulties before their departure, overseas, or on their return; and develop international networks. They have achieved significant results in all of these areas during this time. Of particular note were the advocacy campaigns of the mid-late 1990s, which took place under the politically repressive Suharto regime. A number of solidarity groups (most notably the SBMI-Solidarity organizations associated with Solidaritas Perempuan) were also established in this period, in defiance of the Suharto government’s policy on grassroots organizations.

Since the fall of Suharto, migrant labour NGOs (like other Indonesian labour NGOs) have had to come to terms with dramatic changes in the political landscape. Although new-found freedoms have made advocacy and organizing work easier, the new political climate has also lead to increased fragmentation in the migrant labour NGO community.24 Developments in the post-Suharto period have also lead to increased complexity in migrant labour work, particularly with regard to current attempts to reshape community-based migrant labour organizations as unions. Although this increased complexity may lead to the development of a more vibrant organizational community concerned with migrant labour, it brings with it the risk of increased duplication, competition and lack of overall vision amongst migrant labour NGOs and unhealthy competition between migrant labour NGOs and grassroots migrant labour organizations.

Perhaps the main weakness in migrant labour work in Indonesia at this time is the absence of a truly effective organization for migrant workers. Despite some cooperative efforts between trade unionists and migrant labour activists, local unions have demonstrated no real interest in organizing workers employed overseas, and the only registered union that purports to represent migrant workers (the Federation of Indonesian Migrant Workers' Unions) appears to be totally inactive. SBMI/FOBMI has attempted to fill this gap; however, its structures are still embryonic and its attempts to formally register as a trade union have been unsuccessful to date. It should be noted that SBMI/FOBMI has succeeded in developing good international links both to MFA and to Indonesian unions in Hong Kong, one of the few receiving countries in which migrant workers are free to organize. Migrant labour NGOs have provided some support for SBMI/FOBMI (in particular, KOPBUMI, which sponsored its formation); however, as noted earlier there is also potential for competition between SBMI/FOBMI and migrant labour NGOs for resources.

If migrant labour work is to be optimised in Indonesia, migrant labour NGOs and migrant labour organizations need to develop a working model for collaboration between unions, NGOs and migrant worker organizations. Given local unions’ overall apathy towards migrant labour issues, such a model would need to focus primarily on NGOs and migrant worker organizations, possibly with a view to developing a trade union model which meets the very specific needs of migrant workers in a sending-country context in the long term. In the meantime, local networks should continue to develop their

24

Likewise, although independent trade unionism is now possible, local unions have multiplied, but have not yet had time to consolidate or form effective national alliances.

international links not only with transnational migrant labour networks, but with migrant labour organizations in receiving countries. The latter is particularly important, because the transnational nature of overseas labour migration demands a transnational response that is driven not only by NGOs acting on migrant workers’ behalf, but by migrant labour organizations themselves.

6.2 Models and New Trends in Migrant Work (in-country)

Indonesian migrant labour NGOs continue to work along established patterns of advocacy, case management and international networking. In some cases, as discussed in this report, these activities have supplemented by attempts to organize ex-migrant workers, intending migrant workers and members of the communities from which they are drawn, resulting in the formation of a range of migrant labour organizations. However there are two new trends that can be identified in migrant work in Indonesia at this time. The first, and more advanced, involves attempts to transform NGO-linked community-based organizations into migrant worker unions (see Section 3). The second trend involves attempts to engage local unions in discussions and initiatives around international labour migration (see Section 5.3). Although these trends – which are both in their infancy – are potentially complementary, progress in both these areas are likely to be slow because of the difficulties faced by the local union movement in establishing itself in the new economic and political climate (see Section 5) and because of the issues identified in Section 6.1.

6.3 Models and New Trends in Migrant Work (cross border/international)

Cross-border collaboration has been a defining feature of migrant labour NGO activism in Indonesia. Although most NGOs that engage with migrant labour issues in Indonesia’s sending and transit provinces have no access to international networks, all the major Jakarta-based NGOs and NGO coalitions are strong links overseas. SBMI/FOBMI has also developed a number of important international links. Transnational networks such as the MFA (which has five Indonesian partners, including SBMI/FOBMI) and CARAM Asia (to which Migrant Care is also affiliated) have been particularly influential. Some migrant labour organizations also have links to Indonesian migrant worker unions in Hong Kong. A new trend in cross-border collaboration evident in Indonesia is MFA’s efforts to introduce Indonesian migrant labour NGO activists to ‘local’ trade unionists from major receiving countries. It is too early to say how successful these initiatives will be. As noted earlier (Section 6.1), stronger links with migrant labour organizations (and particularly with migrant labour unions) in receiving countries are vital if Indonesia’s migrant labour organizations are to be able to effectively represent the interests of Indonesians working overseas.

6.4 Role of International Instruments and Platforms

International instruments have been an important symbolic resource for Indonesian NGOs concerned with migrant labour. KOPBUMI, the major migrant labour NGO federation, was formed expressly to lobby for the ratification of the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (which has since been signed, but not yet ratified). ILO instruments, specifically ILO Conventions 43 and 97, have also been influential, primarily because they have informed the ILO’s attempts to work with organizations interested in migrant labour.

References

Badan Pusat Statistik 2005. “Population 15 Years of Age and Over Who Worked by Main Industry 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005”. Available at http://www.bps.go.id/sector/employ/table2.shtml (Accessed 29 July 2005).

——. 2000. “Weekly Wage Rate and Median of Production Workers Under Supervisory Level by Sector 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000”. Available at http://www.bps.go.id/sector/wages/table1.shtml (Accessed 29 July 2005).

Depnakertrans 2003a. “Penduduk yang Bekerja Menurut Lapangan Pekerjaan dan Jenis Kelamin, Tahun

2003”. Available at http://www.nakertrans.go.id/pusdatinnaker/

BPS/Bekerja/Bekerja%20Lapangan_Jenkel%202003.htm (Accessed 29 July 2005).

——. 2003b. “Penduduk Berumur 15 Tahun Keatas Menurut Pulau dan Jenis Kelamin, Tahun 2003”.

Available at http://www.nakertrans.go.id/pusdatinnaker/

BPS/PUK/PUK%20Pulau_Jekel%202003.htm (Accessed 29 July 2005).

——. 2003c. “Penduduk Berumur 15 Tahun keatas Menurut Pulau dan Jenis Kelamin, Tahun 2003”.

Available at http://www.nakertrans.go.id/pusdatinnaker/

BPS/PUK/PUK%20Pulau_Jekel%202003.htm (Accessed 29 July 2005).

——. 2003d. “Tenaga Kerja Asing (TKA) Menurut Lokasi Kerja Tahun 2003”. Available at http://www.nakertrans.go.id/pusdatinnaker/tka/TKA_Loker% 202003.htm (Accessed 29 July 2005).

——. 2003e. ‘Penempatan TKI Informal Keluar Negeri Tahun 2003”. Available at http://www.nakertrans.go.id/pusdatinnaker/tki/TKI_Informal%202003.htm (Accessed 29 July 2005).

——. 2003f. ‘Penempatan TKI Formal Keluar Negeri Tahun 2003”. Available at http://www.nakertrans.go.id/pusdatinnaker/tki/TKI_Formal%202003.htm (Accessed 29 July 2005). Feridhanusetyawan, T. 2000. “Globalization, Poverty and Equity in Indonesia”. Country background paper

for the OECD Conference on Policy and Income Inequality in Developing Countries: A Policy Dialogue on the Effects of Globalisation. 30 Nov-1 Dec. Paris: OECD-IEA.

FOBMI. 2003. “Terms of References [sic] (TOR) Kongres Pendirian dan Deklarasi Organizasi Nasional Buruh Migran Indonesia”. unpublished document.

——. 2005a. “Laporan Pertanggung Jawaban Kegiatan Sekretariat Nasional Federasi Organizasi Buruh Migran Indonesia [FOBMI] Periode 2003-2005”. Unpublished Document.

——. 2005b. “Kongress II Federasi Organizasi Buruh Migran Indonesia (FOBMI) Batu, 25-28 Juni 2005”. Unpublished Document.

Ford, M. “After Nunukan: The Regulation of Indonesian Migration to Malaysia”. In A. Kaur and I. Metcalfe (eds) Divided We Move: Mobility, Labour Migration and Border Controls in Asia. New York: Palgrave MacMillan (forthcoming).

——. 2004. “Organizing the Unorganizable: Unions, NGOs and Indonesian Migrant Labour”. International Migration, 42 (5): 99-119.

——. 2003. “NGO as Outside Intellectual: A History of Non-Governmental Organizations’ Role in the Indonesian Labour Movement”. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Wollongong: University of Wollongong. ——. 2001. “Indonesian Women as Export Commodity: Notes from Tanjung Pinang”. Labour and

Management in Development, 2(5):1-9.

Irawan, P., Ahmed, I. and Islam, I. 2000. Labour Market Dynamics in Indonesia: Analysis of 18 Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM) 1986-1999, Jakarta: International Labour Office.

Hugo, G. 2002. “Women’s International Labour Migration”. In Robinson, K. and S. Bessell (eds) Women in Indonesia: Gender, Equity and Development. Singapore: ISEAS, pp. 158-178.

Human Rights Watch. 2004. “Help Wanted: Abuses Against Female Migrant Domestic Workers in Indonesia and Malaysia”, Human Rights Watch 16 (9).

Manning, C. 1998. Indonesian Labour in Transition: An East Asian Success Story? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Palupi, S. and Yasser, N. 2002. “Laporan Investigasi Buruh Migran Indonesia (TKI) di Nunukan: Korban Praktek Perbudakan Terselubung Indonesia – Malaysia”. Unpublished report produced by the Jaringan Relawan Kemanusaiaan untuk Nunukan.

Purwanto, E. and Kuncoro, W. 2002. “Laporan Perjalanan dari Nunukan Tanggal 21-29 Agustus 2002: ‘Menjadi Kuli Kontrak di Malaysia, Semakin Tertindas di Negeri Sendiri’”. Unpublished report produced by KOPBUMI and Jarnas BMI.

Sahabat Pekerja Migran 2004. “Laporan Kongres Pekerja Migran Indonesia, Wisma Antara – Nyi Ageng Serang, Jakarta, 21-24 Desember 2004”. Unpublished report.

Solidaritas Perempuan and Komnas Perempuan 2003. ‘Indonesian Migrant Domestic Workers: Notes on its [sic] Vulnerability and New Initiatives for the Protection of their Rights’, unpublished draft

Indonesian country report to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants. Tirtosudarmo, R. 2004. “Cross-border Migration in Indonesia and the Nunukan Tragedy”. In Ananta, A.

and E. Arifin (eds), International Migration in Southeast Asia. Singapore: ISEAS, pp. 310-330. ——. 2001. “The Politics of Regulating Overseas Migrant Labor in Indonesia”. Paper presented at the

Workshop on Labor Migration and Socio-Economic Change in Southeast and East Asia, Lund University, Sweden, 14-16 May 2001.