Lessons from Medan

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.