Tax Rebellion in a Matrilineal Land

Although matrilineal systems can be found among other ethnic groups, the Minangkabau are particularly well known for theirs. Sociologically, the matrilineal system serves as a framework for social behaviour for the Minangkabau people in both individual and group interactions. As a framework for social conduct, the Minangkabau matrilineal system has several characteristics: 1) lineage is traced through the maternal bloodline; 2) the economic yield from rice fields and dry fields is primarily for the benefit of the women of the clan; 3) the key to the economic produce, the rice barn (rangkiang), is held by the women; and 4) the voice of the women in deliberations for the interests of the clan and family is decisive in the outcome achieved (Hakimy, 1984).

These rights cannot be controlled personally, but the position of women in the use of ancestral property greatly assists them during economic hardship. The distribution is managed by the maternal uncle (mamak kepala waris). Interestingly, the practice of this inequitable distribution for men has endured in Minangkabau life. The acceptance of this inequality is linked to three phases in the life cycle of a Minangkabau boy: 1) from age 1 to 10, his life is centred around the communal longhouse (rumah gadang); 2) from age 10 to adolescence, he moves to sleep in the surau (prayer house); and 3) upon reaching adulthood, he is expected to migrate (merantau).

This life cycle becomes a driving factor for Minangkabau men to live independently, without expecting support from family property. One way to break dependence on family assets is to migrate. The urge to migrate grows even stronger when the family back in the village lives below the poverty line. Hence, a philosophy emerged for the migrants: rather than bring poverty home, it is better to venture further afield.

Although men do not receive proceeds from ancestral property, there is a source of income provided to Minangkabau men, specifically for the clan chiefs (penghulu kaum), known as bunga. Bunga is a levy obtained from the commercial exploitation of communal clan land (tanah ulayat) and is given to the clan chief. There are four types of bunga in Minangkabau: bunga kayu (timber levy), alas (forest levy), amping (riverbank levy), and tanah (land levy) (Navis, 1984; 152). The proceeds from this levy could be used for the chief’s personal needs or for his assistants.

Despite the levy, those managing the communal clan land did not feel burdened by the payment. This is because the word bunga literally denotes a plant often used to enhance the beauty of a place. Consequently, the Minangkabau people were shocked when a tax was imposed on goods they themselves owned. Moreover, the Minangkabau had never previously known the term ‘tax’. Tax (belasting) was introduced to the Minangkabau people in the interior regions in 1823, two years after the colonial power, with the help of its supporters, crushed the Padri faction (Asnan, 2023; 330).

In reality, the imposition of tax was part of the political expansion into the interior, as the Dutch had calculated from the outset that taxation would become a source of revenue for them in the region (Asnan, 2023; 327). The Dutch therefore sought every opportunity to ensure the smooth implementation of taxation. When the Minangkabau people began to grow restless with this policy, the Dutch became concerned that an anti-tax movement would emerge. If that happened, the Dutch would face numerous problems dealing with the Minangkabau people, especially as they were concentrating their forces to confront Prince Diponegoro’s resistance in Java.

The strategy adopted by the Dutch to quell the anti-tax resistance of the Minangkabau people was to issue the Plakat Panjang agreement. This agreement was announced on 25 October 1833 by two government commissioners on behalf of the Commissioner General. One of the contents of the agreement was that the government would no longer impose a monetary tax, but merely hoped the people would expand coffee and pepper cultivation, which was, in fact, for their own benefit as well as the government’s (Amran, 1984; 18). However, one by one, the terms of this agreement were violated once the Dutch succeeded in crushing the Padri resistance.

This victory allowed the Dutch to impose taxes on the Minangkabau people with greater impunity, and tax collection continued into the early 20th century. Religious figures were drawn into the fight against taxation after an income tax in the form of money was imposed on them. Previously, they had been exempted from various forms of tax because they had no fixed source of income, though they were eventually exempted again due to a strong reaction and on the advice of senior officials in the Netherlands (Amran, 1988; 91).

The link between the tax rebellion and the matrilineal system occurred when the Dutch issued a policy regarding ‘tax on company income or other income’. What deeply offended the Minangkabau people at the time was the content of Article 4, paragraph 1, which concerned ‘income from ancestral property in the name of the clan’. Should payment not be made, the ancestral property could be confiscated (Amran, 1988; 92). This policy was a fatal mistake for the Dutch, as ancestral property is not personal property but the collective asset of all clan members. For the Minangkabau people, ancestral property was their economic safety net, especially for the women. Article 4, paragraph 1 was thus an arbitrary act issued unilaterally by the Dutch, perceived as an act of tyranny.

This policy ultimately became the trigger for the tax rebellion in Minangkabau. The rebellion took place on 15-16 June 1908 in three different locations.