Lessons from Medan

If the latest reports from Medan are correct, then the ban on further labor protests, which the North Sumatra security authorities issued late last week in the wake of some ugly rioting, has been of limited effect at best.

Reports reaching Jakarta Tuesday evening lead us to believe that far from having abated, the demonstrations and rioting by laborers had spread to the city's fringes along the roads leading towards Binjai and Tanjung Morawa. By mid-Monday at least 29 persons were being held by the police for questioning.

As was reported during the weekend, the trouble started on Friday, when about 10,000 workers rallied in Medan to demand that the government raise the daily minimum wage in the province from the present Rp 3,100 (US$1.44) to Rp 7,000, or more than twice as much. The workers also demanded that the government recognize the existence of the Indonesian Prosperous Labor Union (SBSI).

Further reports on Tuesday said the SBSI was threatening to organize more strikes if the government refuses to raise the minimum wages for workers throughout the country. Specifically, a SBSI official mentioned Lampung, Tangerang and Surabaya as target areas for such actions.

Two conflicting aspects may be noted as we endeavor to view the Medan incident in a proper perspective. First, there is the persistent demand for the government's recognition of SBSI. So far, the authorities have been steadfast in their refusal to permit no more than one labor union, the government-sanctioned All-Indonesia Workers Union (SPSI). The irony of the situation is that it is precisely this policy that has undermined the credibility of SPSI in the eyes of many, not to mention the union's apparent failure to effectively stand up for the rights of its members, if persisting labor protests here and there are a reliable yardstick.

Considered from this point of view, it may be judicious for the government to allow more leeway for workers by providing them with options. Surely, adequate, yet acceptable, regulations can be devised if a certain degree of restraint is still regarded as necessary.

Here, however, we come to the second aspect of the problem. We do not believe the course the SBSI leaders are now apparently taking will in the end benefit either the organization or the workers in general. A number of points may be raised. First, there is the exceedingly important question of national security and stability. Can the SBSI guarantee that it will be capable of controlling any large protest movements in such places as Tangerang and Surabaya?

One glaring example of how easy it is for demonstrations to get out of the control of the organizers are the Malari riots of the 1970s, when student protests against the visit of Japanese prime minister Kakuei Tanaka turned into uncontrolled riots that in a manner of speaking almost set Jakarta ablaze. For those who were involved in those riots, or for those who witnessed them, surely the lesson is one that is not easily forgotten.

A second point worth considering may be that a minimum daily wage of Rp 7,000 may not be very realistic and therefore difficult to push through at the present stage. As much as we support any efforts to improve the lot of our workers, we believe the rational thing to do is to maintain a proper sense of realism. The reason is that, whether we like it or not, factories have to stay in business and make sufficient profits before they can improve their employees' salaries.

All in all, we think there is a lesson to be learned for both, employers and workers, in the Medan incidents. There are miserly employers, and for those it is well to remember that there is a limit to the patience of workers. For the protesting workers and the SBSI in particular, it is good to remember that actions, if recklessly chosen, can be counter-productive.