Colonial Policy in Implementing Fine Laws in Minangkabau

After winning the Padri War, the Dutch became increasingly free to implement various policies in the name of the Minangkabau population’s interests. Under the pretext of improving security, the Dutch were forced to issue a policy aimed at providing peace to the community. This policy was the Colonial Police Act, issued in 1872. Its draft was prepared by van Harencarspel, who referred to himself as the grand secretary of the colonial government at the time. The content and purpose of the proposed draft related to regulations controlling the movement and domestic behaviour of all non-European residents (Hadler, 2008; 118) living in Minangkabau. Although aimed at all non-Europeans, the law was still primarily directed at the indigenous population. To understand its content and objectives, in 1894 the law was translated by the director of the King’s School in Bukittinggi to suit the conditions of the Minangkabau people at that time. The law also stipulated fines not only for unlicensed movement and residency but also for inappropriate behaviour inside the rumah gadang (Hadler, 2008; 119). Those who violated this law were fined according to rates set by the colonial police. The amount of the fine was regulated according to the scale of Dutch interests regarding the violation committed. The law consisted of 11 articles detailing forms of violation. Article 1: Wrongful relocation and wrongful residence in a village. According to Dutch records, every village in Minangkabau had special records regarding the activities and conditions of its community. Villages with natural resources and those frequently engaging in resistance movements received strict surveillance from the Dutch. Even the movements of residents were constantly monitored. Population increases were meticulously recorded. The aim was to narrow the space for population movement from one village to another. Politically, this policy could anticipate an increase in population in a village when there was resistance against the Dutch. Those caught were fined between 1 and 15 rupiah. Article 2: Misconduct of a married woman with another man. In the matrilineal Minangkabau society, a married woman had the responsibility to maintain the integrity of her household. Misconduct in socialising would impact relationships between families, clans, tribes, and villages. Therefore, supervision of married women was carried out by all family members, as it could damage internal and external relations. This article described two forms of misconduct: going with a man who is not her husband or sleeping outside her household for more than one night without her husband’s permission. For such violations, the colonial police imposed a fine of 1 to 15 rupiah on the perpetrator. Article 3: Misconduct of a man with a married woman. This article mirrored Article 2, but the difference lay in the main actor. In Article 2, the main actor was the woman, whereas in Article 3, the main actor was the man involved with a married woman. The fine for this violation was 1 to 15 rupiah. Article 4: Wrongful upbringing of a child. This article related to the loss of the maternal uncle’s function in the rumah gadang. The purpose was to address juvenile delinquency, especially among teenagers, ensuring they remained under the supervision of rumah gadang members. This law was issued to anticipate the involvement of children, particularly youths, in anti-colonial organisations. The Dutch applied this strategy upon seeing the growing development of surau education in Minangkabau, which could at any time make it difficult for the Dutch to secure cooperation. Violations of this article were fined 16 to 25 rupiah. Article 5: Failure to guard an insane person. In the eyes of the law, an insane person is immune to prosecution. Even if they violate the law, they cannot be prosecuted through legal channels. Their words, thoughts, and behaviour are unpredictable. Their presence can even disturb the comfort of others. Therefore, during the colonial period, families with an insane person had to guard them to prevent them from damaging property or attacking others. If a family failed to guard them properly, the colonial police would impose a fine of 15 to 25 rupiah. To avoid the fine, families often resorted to the inhumane method of restraint by stocks. Article 6: Wrongful overnight stay. In this context, wrongful overnight stay referred to a man sleeping in the house of a widow or a maiden without other family members present. However, the article strongly emphasised staying overnight in places that were bases of resistance against the Dutch. Violations of this article were fined 1 to 15 rupiah. Article 7: Wrongful sale of charms. This article referred to charms that could arouse courage and invulnerability to weapons. The sale of charms for such purposes caused concern for the Dutch. Typically, invincibility charms were traded just before the outbreak of war. Violators of this article were fined 26 to 60 rupiah. The fine was imposed on both the seller and the buyer, but for charms used for healing, the Dutch imposed no fine on either party. Article 8: Entering someone’s premises without permission. Violations under this article were categorised as deliberate acts. One factor behind the issuance of this law was…