Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 1997, Publication : 85ème session CIT (1997)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Indonésie (Ratification: 1957)

The Government has supplied the following information:

1. The Government has sent communications to the ILO dated 22 September, 23 September and 26 October 1994, and 18 January 1995, and 5 September 1996. As stated repeatedly in these reports, the Government has and continuously pays great attention to the workers' protection and welfare. The existing labour laws and regulations provide adequate protection of workers' rights to organize and collective bargaining. However, the Committee on Freedom of Association has requested further information from the Government.

The right to organize in Indonesia is fully recognized under the Indonesian Constitution and laws. The 1945 Constitution, article 28, states that: "Freedom of association and assembly, of verbal and written expression and the like, shall be prescribed by law". In addition, Act No. 14 of 1969 on The Provisions Respecting Manpower, article 1, states that "All manpower shall have the right to establish and become a member of a workers' union". Other regulations that reveal the right to organize are Act No. 22 of 1957 on the Settlement of Labour Disputes and Act No. 12 of 1964 on Termination of Employment in Private Undertakings. Act No. 22 of 1957, article 2, paragraph (1), states that: "If a labour dispute arises, the trade union and the employer shall seek to settle the dispute peacefully by negotiation".

Article 3, paragraph (1), of this Act states that: "If the negotiation between the disputing parties does not result in a settlement and they do not intend to submit their dispute to be settled by arbitration to an arbitrator or Board of Arbitration, then such situation must be notified to the official in writing by both, or either one of the parties". In addition, paragraph (2) of article 3 states that: "The notification as meant in the preceding paragraph shall be regarded as a request to the official concerned, which must be granted, to conciliate and seek a settlement of the disputes".

Article 6, paragraph (1), of this Act states that: "If in a dispute one of the parties intends to take action against the other party, such intention shall be notified in writing to the other party and to the Chairman of the Regional Committee. This notification shall also give details of the outcome of negotiations on the matters in dispute between the employees and the employers concerned, as presided over or conciliated by the official or stating that a request for negotiation was rejected by the second party, or that the second party has failed twice within two weeks to respond to the invitation of the first party to negotiate on the matters in dispute".

Article 8, paragraph (1), of this Act states that: "The Regional Committee in its endeavour to settle a labour dispute shall do everything possible having regard to the law, existing agreements, custom, justice, and the interests of the State".

Furthermore, article 1, paragraph (1), of Act No. 12 of 1964 states that: "The employer shall do his best to prevent termination of employment." Yet paragraph (2) of this article mentions "Termination of employment is prohibited: (a) while the worker is not able to perform work due to sickness, certified by a doctor, over a period not exceeding 12 (twelve) consecutive months, and (b) while the worker is prevented from performing work due to his fulfilling his duties towards the State as determined by law or the government or to the performance of his religious duties as commanded by his religion and approved by government".

Article 2 of this Act states that: "If, following such endeavours, the termination of employment cannot be avoided, the employer shall discuss his intention to do so with the worker's organization concerned or with the worker himself, should the worker not be a member of a workers' organization." Article 3, paragraph (1), further states that: "Should the discussion referred to in article 2 clearly fail to bring about agreement, the employer may dismiss the worker concerned only after having obtained a permit from the Regional Committee for the Settlement of Labour Disputes (Regional Committee), respecting individual dismissals and from the National Committee for the Settlement of Labour Disputes (National Committee) respecting mass dismissals. A dismissal is considered to be a mass dismissal if, in an undertaking, the employer has terminated the employment of ten or more workers within a period of one month, or has affected a series of terminations indicative of an intention to achieve mass dismissal." Moreover, article 5, paragraph (1), of Act No. 12 of 1964 mentions: "A request for a permit to dismiss, together with the reasons for termination, shall be submitted in writing to the Regional Committee within whose jurisdiction the residence of the employer is located, in respect of individual dismissals, and to the National Committee in respect of mass dismissals. In deciding upon a request to terminate employment the Regional or National Committee, as the case may be, shall take into account the condition and development of the labour market and the interests of both the worker and the undertaking (article 7, paragraph (1)). In granting a permit the Regional Committee or the National Committee, as the case may be, may also lay down the obligations of the employer to the worker regarding severance pay, service pay and other compensation of other kinds". The fixing of the amount of severance pay, service pay and other compensation shall be laid down by Ministerial Regulation. Such regulation, to be made by the Minister of Manpower, shall also provide a wage concept formula upon which to base the payment of severance pay, service pay and other compensation.

Article 8 of this Act states that: "The worker, the employer, or the worker's or employer's organization concerned, may appeal to the National Committee against refusal by a Regional Committee to issue a permit of dismissal, or a conditional permit, within 14 days of such refusal having been received by the parties concerned. The National Committee shall deal with such appeals in accordance with the appeal procedure laid down for the settlement of such labour disputes. Termination of employment without such a permit shall be null and void, ipso jure."

2. The development of trade unions. The right of each person to organize and to express opinions, both oral and written, is secured and regulated under Indonesian laws and regulations including the 1945 Constitution. In addition, Indonesia has also ratified ILO Convention No. 98 of 1949 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining as stated in Act No. 18 of 1956. Act No. 21 of 1954 provides stipulations on collective agreements between trade unions and employers.

Conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association were very critical on the freedom of Indonesian workers to organize. The Government of Indonesia feels it is important to present the historical background on trade unionism in Indonesia which tended towards a consensus for unification.

During the period of Dutch colonialism, the trade union movement was initiated by Dutch employees in the Government offices and private enterprises such as the Nederlands Indische Onderwijs Genootschap, 1897, Postbond or Post Workers' Union, 1905, Suikerbond or Sugar Workers' Union, 1906, and Cultuurbond or Agriculture Workers' Union, 1907.

The early stage of the trade union movements among Indonesian workers was inspired by the national movements such as Budi Utomo or Association of Scholars led by Budi Utomo, 1908, the Serikat Dagang Islam or Moslem Traders' Association, 1911, the Partai Komunis Indonesia or Indonesian Communist Party, 1920, and the Partai Nasional Indonesia or Indonesian National Party, 1927. Along with those movements, several trade unions were established such as Perserikatan Guru Hindia Belanda or Teachers' Association, 1912; Spoorbond or Train Workers' Union, 1913; Perserikatan Pegawai Pegadaian Bumi Putera or Pawning Employees' Association, 1914; Serikat Pegawai Pekerjaan Umum or Public Works Employees' Association, 1917; and Serikat Pegawai Hindia Belanda or Government Employees' Association, 1930.

In 1919, Perserikatan Pegawai Pegadaian Bumi Putera (PPBP) organized its first congress in Bandung. The congress came to the conclusion that all existing trade unions should be united into one organization. Then they established Persatuan Pergerakan Kaum Buruh (PPKB) or Association of Labour Movements as the only federation in the country.

Secondly, soon after independence in August 1945, several groups established new trade unions. One of them was Barisan Buruh Indonesia (BBI) or the Indonesian Labour Movement. It was established on 19 September 1945 and claimed that all existing trade unions were its members. The Indonesian Labour Movement (BBI) held its first congress on 17 November 1945 in Solo. At this congress a conflict arose. One group advocated that the existing labour organizations should remain as a socio-economic movement. The second group held a congress in Madiun on 21 May 1946 and established Gabungan Serikat Buruh Indonesia (GASBI) or Federation of Indonesian Trade Unions, with the aim of raising the living standards of union members.

On 29 November 1946, GASBI and another federation of trade unions, namely Gabungan Serikat Buruh Vertikal (GASBEV), or Federation of Joint Vertical Trade Unions, merged and established an organization called Sentral Organisasi Buruh Seluruh Indonesia (SOBSI) or Federation of Indonesian Workers' Organization. In May 1947 this organization held a congress in Malang. From this time, this organization was directed towards communism and affiliated to the Partai Komunis Indonesia (PKI) or Indonesian Communist Party. It was proven that SOBSI was involved in the uprising revolt led by the Communist Party in Madiun in September 1948, as well as in the abortive coup of Gerakan 30 September/PKI or the 30 September Movement in 1965.

During the period from 1946 to 1960 trade unions grew quickly because most of the existing political parties established trade unions. The main objective of the political parties was to use these trade unions to recruit the maximum number of members in the interest of their own parties, particularly as they were facing the first general election in 1955. Since the struggle of the trade unions was apparently for the political interest of their respective parties, the struggle for the workers was neglected. At that time, a number of organizations were established. Among them were Serikat Buruh Islam Indonesia (SBII) or Indonesian Moslem Labour Union, 1947, which affiliated to Partai Masyumi or Masyumi Moslem Party; Gabungan Serikat Buruh Revolusioner Indonesia (GASBRI) or the Federation of Indonesian Revolutionary Workers, 1948, which affiliated to Partai Murba or Murba Party; Serikat Buruh Muslimin Indonesia (SARBUMUSI) or Indonesian Islamic Labour Union, 1955, which affiliated to Nahdatul Ulama or Nahdatul Ulama Moslem Party/Society; and Kesatuan Buruh Marhaen or Marhaen United Workers, 1956, which affiliated to Indonesian National Party, etc. There were approximately 150 national trade unions, hundreds of local trade unions, and seven federations of trade unions. Almost all of the existing trade unions focused on political activities, ignoring their main function, which was to improve the social welfare of the workers and their families. Therefore, in 1960, there was a move to establish the Organisasi Persatuan Pekerja Indonesia (OPPI) or Indonesia Workers' Organization to unite all existing trade unions. This was opposed by SOBSI, an organization affiliated to the Communist Party (PKI). However, in 1961, Sekretariat Bersama Perjuangan Buruh Pelaksana Trikora (Sekber Buruh) or the Joint Secretariat of Workers' Movement on West Java was established in order to unite trade unions with respect to endeavours to return West Irian to the Republic of Indonesia.

Thirdly, the Communist Party and SOBSI continued to disintegrate trade unions in Indonesia. The disintegration among trade unions increased and reached its peak with the rebellion of the 30 September Movement of the Indonesian Communist Party (G30S/PKI).

Learning from this experience, soon after the abortive coup of the Communist Party in 1966, trade union leaders realized that in order to make the trade union movement stronger, they had to unify themselves, and they should not put the trade union movement under any political party. For this reason, the trade union leaders established Keszatuan Aksi Buruh Indonesia (KABI) or the Coordinated Indonesian Workers' Movement in early 1966. KABI struggled for political goals while socio-economic aspects of trade unions in Indonesia were handled by Sekber Buruh. On 1 November 1969 the spirit of Indonesian unionism reasserted itself again through the establishment of Majelis Permusyawaratan Buruh Indonesia (MPBI) or the Indonesian Trade Union Congress. This organization was established as a forum for dialogue on labour matters and to improve the general atmosphere of the labour movement. The MPBI was based on Pancasila and the Indonesian Constitution of 1945. Its members consisted of 21 trade unions.

Freedom of expression and of establishment of trade unions in Indonesia has developed. Workers' unions are independent and obviously do not depend on, nor are they influenced by, any organization or party. This shows great progress up to early 1973 when most trade unions in Indonesia were part of political organizations or parties. Their movement very much depended on political parties. As a result, the trade unions were unable to create and to implement sound industrial relations, and were unable to struggle for the improvement of workers' social welfare.

In the 1970s, the Government of Indonesia encouraged the leaders of all political parties to simplify their organizations. The parties finally agreed to reduce the number of political parties. Several parties merged to establish Partai Persatuan Pembangunan or the Development Unity Party and several others merged to establish Partai Demokrasi Indonesia or the Indonesian Democratic Party. The Functional Group or Golongan Karya (GOLKAR) also operated as a political party. This simplification had an effect on the trade unions, as most lost their parent bodies in the political parties. In this situation, the MPBI held a seminar in Tugu on 21-28 October 1971. All representatives of trade unions participated in the seminar and reconfirmed the necessary characteristics of the labour movement in Indonesia as follows:

- firstly, the labour movement must not be influenced by any political parties;

- secondly, trade union activities must be focused on socio-economic issues;

- thirdly, the existing trade unions must be reorganized and united through persuasive approaches;

- fourthly, the organizational structure of the labour movement must be improved; and

- fifthly, trade unions must not depend on external budget resources.

The seminar successfully exposed the idea of focusing the labour movement on its proper functions, responsibilities, and unification. As the follow-up to this seminar, the MPBI held a plenary meeting on 24-26 May 1972 to discuss reformation and simplification of the existing trade unions. They were encouraged to merge and establish one new organization of workers.

The determination to establish a single trade union federation in Indonesia was expressed in the Declaration of All Indonesia Workers' Unity in Jakarta on 20 February 1973, and following that, the Federasi Buruh Seluruh Indonesia (FBSI), or Indonesian Workers' Federation, was established. The trade union leaders agreed to set up a new system of trade unionism based on the following provisions:

- workers' organizations or trade unions were based on industrial sectors or trade;

- no trade union should affiliate to any political party;

- there should be only one trade union in each enterprise affiliated to an appropriate Serikat Buruh Lapangan Pekerjaan (SBLP) or industry-based trade union.

All existing 21 trade union federations agreed to merge into FBSI, namely:

(1) Gabungan Serikat-Serikat Buruh Islam Indonesia (GASBINDO, Federation of Moslem Workers' Organization);

(2) Kesatuan Buruh Pancasila (KUBU PANCASILA, Pancasila Workers' Union);

(3) Konsentrasi Nasional Gerakan Karya Buruh (KONGKARBU, National Concentration of Workers' Movement);

(4) Gabungan Organisasi Buruh Serikat Islam Indonesia (GOBSII, Federation of Moslem Workers' Society Organization);

(5) Kesatuan Buruh Marhaenis (KBM, Marhaenis Workers' Union);

(6) Kongres Buruh Islam Merdeka (KBIM, Independent Moslem Workers' Congress);

(7) Sentral Organisasi Buruh Republik Indonesia (SOBSI, Central Organization of Workers of the Republic of Indonesia);

(8) Gerakan Buruh Muslim Indonesia, (GERBUMI, Indonesian Moslem Workers' Movement);

(9) Gabungan Serikat Buruh Indonesia (GSBI, Federation of Indonesian Labour Union);

(10) Serikat Buruh Muslimin Indonesia (SARBUMUSI, Indonesian Moslem Labour Union);

(11) Persatuan Karyawan Buruh Indonesia (PERKABI, Association of Indonesian Workers);

(12) Kesatuan Pekerja Kristen Indonesia (KESPEKRI, Association of Christian Workers);

(13) Federasi Buruh Islam Indonesia (FBII, Federation of Moslem Workers);

(14) Persatuan Organisasi Buruh Islam Indonesia (PORBISI, Association of Indonesian Moslem Labour Organizations);

(15) Federasi Buruh Kerakyatan Indonesia (FBKI, Workers' Association of Indonesian Common People);

(16) Sentral Organisasi Buruh Pancasila (SOB PANCASILA, Central Organization of Pancasila Workers);

(17) Ikatan Karyawan Muhammadiyah (IKM, Muhammadiyah Workers' Association);

(18) Kongres Buruh Seluruh Indonesia (KBSI, Congress of all Indonesian Workers);

(19) Kesatuan Karyawan Buruh (KEKARBU, Association of Workers);

(20) Persatuan Guru Republik Indonesia (PGRI, Indonesian Teachers' Association);

(21) Serikat Pekerja Pegawai Pos, Telepon dan Telegraf (SSPPT, Post, Telephone and Telegraph Trade Union).

The Government appreciated the consensus of the above-mentioned trade union leaders and issued Manpower Ministerial Decision No. 286 A/DDII/DPHK/1974 on 11 March that recognized the FBSI as the only "Federation" in Indonesia, as the result of the merger of the previous federation and trade unions.

Since the establishment of the FBSI, trade union leaders have endeavoured to strengthen the unionism of Indonesian workers through the new organization. Consolidation and reformation of workers' organizations continued as the organization of workers needed to be based on industrial sectors or professional fields. The FBSI represented Indonesian workers at both national and international levels.

In its early stage, the FBSI consisted of 19 Serikat Buruh Lapangan Pekerjaan (SBLPs) or industrial-based trade unions. However, in 1973 the Congress of Indonesian Teachers' Association (PGRI) declared itself an independent professional organization and left the FBSI. Then, in 1976 the Congress of Serikat Buruh Transport (Transportation Workers' Union) split into three SBLPs namely the Serikat Buruh Angkutan Jalan Raya or Inland Transportation Workers' Union, the Serikat Buruh Angkutan Sungai, Danau dan Ferry or River, Lake and Ferry Transportation Workers' Union, and the Serikat Buruh Transport Udura or Air Transportation Workers' Union. As a result there were 21 SBLPs namely:

(1) Serikat Buruh Pertanian dan Perkebunan (SBPP, Farm and Plantation Trade Union);

(2) Serikat Buruh Minyak, Gas Bumi dan Pertambangan Umum (SBPMU, Oil, Gas and Mining Trade Union);

(3) Serikat Buruh Rokok dan Tembakau (SBRT, Cigarette and Tobacco Trade Union);

(4) Serikat Buruh Makanan dan Minuman (SBMM, Food and Beverage Trade Union);

(5) Serikat Buruh Tekstil dan Sandang (SBTS, Textile and Cloth Trade Union);

(6) Serikat Buruh Perkayuan (SBP, Wood Trade Union);

(7) Serikat Buruh Percetakan dan Penerbitan (SB Perpen, Printing and Publishing Trade Union);

(8) Serikat Buruh Farmasi dan Kimia (SBFK, Pharmacy and Chemical Trade Union);

(9) Serikat Buruh Logam dan Keramik (SBLK, Metal and Ceramic Trade Union);

(10) Serikat Buruh Asembling Mesin dan Perlengkapan (SBAM, Machine and Equipment Assembly Trade Union);

(11) Serikat Buruh Karet dan Kulit (SBKK, Rubber and Leather Trade Union);

(12) Serikat Buruh Elektronik (SBE, Electronic Trade Union);

(13) Serikat Buruh Bangunan dan Pekerjaan Umum (SBBPU, Building and Public Works Trade Union);

(14) Serikat Buruh Niaga, Bank dan Asuransi (SB NIBA, Commerce, Bank and Insurance Trade Union);

(15) Serikat Buruh Pariwisata (SBPAR, Tourism Trade Union);

(16) Serikat Buruh Maritim (SBM, Maritime Trade Union);

(17) Serikat Buruh Pelaut Indonesia (SPI, Indonesian Seafarers' Union);

(18) Serikat Buruh Angkutan Jalan Raya (SBAJR, Inland Transportation Trade Union);

(19) Serikat Buruh Angkutan Sungai, Danau dan Ferry (SBASDF, River, Lake and Ferry Transportation Trade Union);

(20) Serikat Buruh Transport Udara (SBTU, Air Transportation Trade Union);

(21) Serikat Buruh Kesehatan (SB KES, Health Trade Union).

The Government appreciates the attitude and spirit of the trade union leaders to be associated in one federation, the FBSI. During its Second National Congress held in Jakarta on 26-30 November 1985, the FBSI agreed on a decision to change the name and organizational structure of FBSI to a unitary organization to be called the Serikat Pekerja Seluruh Indonesia (SPSI) or All Indonesian Workers' Union. As the continuation of the FBSI established on 20 February 1973, the SPSI now moved to merge the workers' unions of the various industrial sectors. The SPSI is a professional organization of workers based on Pancasila.

The objective of this organization is to unify workers and to foster a sense of collective purpose of workers, to protect and maintain workers' interests and rights, and to improve social welfare and conditions of work. Meanwhile, the SPSI has a responsibility to mobilize workers to fulfil their obligations, as well as to be disciplined, productive, innovative and responsible.

The SPSI was set up as a unitary organization with only one central executive board consisting of nine departments, namely:

(1) Department of Agriculture and Plantation;

(2) Department of Metals, Electronics and Machines;

(3) Department of Textiles and Garments;

(4) Department of Tourism, Food and Beverages;

(5) Department of Pharmacy and Health;

(6) Department of Chemicals, Energy and Mining;

(7) Department of Trade, Banking and Insurance;

(8) Department of Public Works and Forestry;

(9) Department of Transportation.

As a result of this restructuring, there were several trade union leaders who were not elected as executive members of the SPSI or to any position in a department. They became frustrated, and then made every effort to come back to the old organization in the form of a federation. Some of them established a trade union called "Sekretariat Bersama SBLP" (Joint Secretariat of SBLP), and the others established "Serikat Buruh Merdeka Setia Kawan" (Independent Trade Union of Solidarity). Both organizations had no members or followers and no longer survive.

The Third National Congress of SPSI in November 1990 decided to restructure SPSI by changing the nine departments to 13 sectoral unions. Each sectoral trade union has its own central and regional executive board. Meanwhile, the provincial and district executive boards of SPSI retain the function as coordinators of the sectors at regional levels. The return to a federation structure together with the establishment of independent and democratic industrial sector-based unions was agreed as the way forward to facilitate the creation of close relations between workers and their unions and of more effective representation. These changes were reconfirmed by the Board of Executives of SPSI at its national meeting held in October 1994. The sectoral trade unions are:

(1) building construction and public works;

(2) timber;

(3) trade, banking and insurance;

(4) publishing and printing;

(5) tourism;

(6) food, beverages and cigarettes;

(7) chemicals, energy and mining;

(8) metal, electronics and machines;

(9) textiles, garments and leathers;

(10) transportation;

(11) seafarers;

(12) agriculture and plantations;

(13) pharmacy and health.

In November 1995, the SPSI held the Fourth National Congress. Prior to that Congress, each sectoral trade union held its respective national conference. The conferences of: Cigarettes, Tobacco, Food and Beverage Trade Union held on 2 August 1995; Wood and Timber Trade Union on 23-27 August 1995; Building Construction and Public Workers' Trade Union on 12-15 September 1995; and the other nine sectoral trade unions held their national conferences in September 1995. The culmination of those activities was the Fourth National Congress of SPSI held in November 1995. In the framework of improving workers' understanding of their rights and obligations, the SPSI has set out a Doctrine for Indonesian Workers, which emphasizes that in executing their rights, workers should also realize their obligations. They should realize that workers and employers have mutual interests and common goals.

In conclusion, it was the decision of the trade union leaders to set up their own organizations whether as a federation, unitary or a confederation. On several occasions, they tended to unite into one trade union or federation.

Factory-based independent trade unions

In response to both domestic and foreign criticism on the freedom of workers to establish their own organizations, the Minister of Manpower issued Regulation No. 1 on 17 January 1994. Based on this regulation, workers may establish an independent and democratic union in each company freely and without any requirement of affiliating with another trade union. According to the data available, presently, there have been about 1,200 independent unions at the company level. The newly established company union is only required to submit information on its organization status and members of its executive to the Ministry of Manpower. At the same time, soon after the union is established, it is able to perform its functions and negotiate with employers for drafting collective agreements. Each factory-based trade union can stay as an independent union without necessarily affiliating with the FSPSI, or it may decide to join the FSPSI. As an independent union, each factory-based trade union is not encouraged to join a political party or other association. Each individual worker has, of course, the right to express his political aspirations through political parties. Each worker is also eligible to join existing relevant professional associations such as the Indonesian Economists' Association, the Indonesian Engineers' Association, the Indonesian Public Administration Association, and others. However, such political organizations and professional associations should not be involved in handling labour or industrial relations problems in certain companies or to take over or to duplicate the function of a trade union.

The essence of Conventions Nos. 87 and No. 98 is that all workers in each company have the right to establish trade unions. The main purpose of that trade union is to negotiate with employers for better standards of living for those workers and their families. These criteria have been followed by the FSPSI and the 1,200 independent factory-based trade unions or Serikat Pekerja Tingkat Perusahaan, SPTP.

Serikat Buruh Sejahtera Indonesia

The so-called Serikat Buruh Sejahtera Indonesia was formed in April 1992 by elements of political parties, the human rights movement and legal aid. So far we have not been able to prove that this organization is established by the workers or their representatives at the company level. Moreover, we have not been able to prove that its objective is to pursue collective labour agreements. From its inception up to the present, evidence shows that the SBSI is more concerned with politics than labour issues. The court will decide whether the SBSI has a right to exist or not.

Therefore, if the SBSI should exist, it should be categorized as a non-governmental organization rather than a trade union. As an NGO, it may follow Law No. 8, of 1985, on the Principles of Social Organization. As an NGO, SBSI, of course, may have particular programmes relating to labour issues such as to empower trade unions through workers' education, to help trade unions in court, etc., but it should not duplicate or take away the roles and functions of trade unions.

Manpower policy within the last four years

(1) In executing its role and function, particularly in the Sixth Five Years Development, the Government issues a manpower policy called "Sapta Karya Tama Pelita VI" (Seven Priorities of Manpower Policy in the Sixth Five Years Development). This policy contains seven priorities as follows: manpower planning; information systems and integrated labour market; professional independent young labour force; apprenticeship programme; industrial relations and protection of workers; overseas employment services; organizational development, development of productivity centre, reformatic training, and workers' cooperative. Recently, the last three priorities were added, making ten priorities or "Dasa Karya Tama".

(2) Under Act No. 3 of 1992, the scope of the workers' social security programme is expanded, i.e. to include a health insurance scheme. In addition, Act No. 11 of 1992 requires employers to include their workers in a pension fund scheme. Each company is also obliged to set up a committee for occupational safety and health.

(3) The Regional Wage Committee, whose members are drawn from tripartite elements, has long been established in each province. This committee conducts surveys on the minimum physical needs (MPN) and submits recommendations on setting the regional and sectoral minimum wage. Based on those recommendations, the regional minimum wage has been increased from time to time. It is recorded that the average minimum wage increased from 48.5 per cent of MPN in 1990 to 63.6 per cent of MPN at the end of 1993, to about 92.49 per cent of MPN in 1996. The regional minimum wages (RMW) in effect since April 1997, increased by more than 10 per cent on average as compared to the RMW of 1996.

(4) Participation of workers' and employers' organizations in various institutions have continuously increased such as in the bipartite bodies, national and regional tripartite bodies, national and regional committees for labour dispute settlement, national and regional committees on occupational safety and health, national and regional training councils. The workers' unions continuously and actively exercise their rights through formulation of collective labour agreements in each company.

(5) Government, employers' and workers' organizations have closely established cooperation through their own programmes and activities to promote, develop, and draw community awareness to create a conducive climate for industrial peace and company development. It takes a long time to make employers and workers, as well as the industrial community, aware of their obligations in implementing such industrial relations.

The strategic steps taken in this respect are the following:

- consistent implementation of law enforcement;

- establishment of organizational unit of SPSI at company level (UK-SPSI), factory-based trade union (SPTP) and of collective labour agreement (CLA);

- settlement of industrial disputes based on the existing regulations;

- improving the function of the bipartite cooperative body;

- paying more attention to the social welfare of workers and establishment of committees on occupational safety and health (P2K3).

Law enforcement

There are about 160,000 companies in the country employing 10 persons or more. There are about 1,300 labour inspectors including 350 who have structural occupations and 950 who have operational occupations. Labour laws are enforced based on direct visits of inspectors, as well as on company reports submitted as required by Act No. 7 of 1981. In 1996, inspectors conducted direct visits to over 3,000 companies. Based on these inspections it was found that 1,600 companies in 1996 violated the existing provisions on working norms; 28 of them were brought to court and were fined, and 1,572 were issued a warning letter.

Development of industrial relations

There are about 60,000 companies in Indonesia employing 25 workers or more. Of those companies, organizational units of SPSI (UK-SPSI) were established in 12,750 companies covering 2.14 million workers. In addition, independent factory-based trade unions (SPTP) were established in about 1,200 companies covering about 60,000 workers. Employers' associations of Indonesia (APINDO) were established in 292 districts covering 2,000 companies. Collective labour agreements were agreed and formulated in about 11,000 companies covering about 2 million workers.

In 1996, there were 890 strikes involving about 500,000 workers, resulting in the loss of over 5 million working hours and of US$ 1 million.

Industrial disputes

The number of industrial disputes handled by the Industrial Dispute Settlement Committee at central level (P4P) during November 1996 was three cases, two of which have been settled. Industrial dispute settlement is regulated under Act No. 22 of 1957. Meanwhile, the cases of termination of employment handled by this committee during November 1996 were 111 involving 2,712 workers; in October 1996 there were 153 cases involving 1,179 workers. Among 264 cases in October and November 1996, 115 cases involving 2,228 workers have been settled. Settlement of termination of employment is regulated under Act. No. 12 of 1964.

Social welfare

Implementation of a minimum regional wage has been recently regulated under Manpower Ministerial Decision No. 2 of 1996. This decision is designed to improve the social welfare of workers where the basic calculation is according to minimum life needs. In November 1996 no companies applied for postponement of the implementation of a minimum regional wage. However, up to November 1996, the total number of companies applying for postponement of the implementation of a minimum regional wage was 797.

Up to December 1996, the membership in Workers' Social Security Scheme/Programme (ASTEK) was 65,778 companies covering 10,316,520 workers.

The number of workers' cooperatives as of December 1996 was 5,291 and the number of family planning programmes at the company level was more than 2,400 units covering about 111,000 workers.

Committee on Occupational Safety and Health

Committees of Occupational Safety and Health (P2K3) were established in about 11,000 companies as of December 1996. In 1996 there were 2,080 cases of occupational accidents, resulting in 1,686 injuries and 41 deaths.

In addition, Government representatives informed the Committee that, in response to the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association at its session in November 1996, the tripartite partners in Indonesia had conducted a series of meetings to consider the amendment of a number of Ministerial Regulations referred to in the report of the Committee of Experts, including Ministerial Decision No. 438 of 1992, Ministerial Regulation No. 3 of 1993 and Ministerial Regulation No. 1 of 1994. New draft legislation to replace the above provisions were now in the process of completion. However, they believed that before discussing the legal provisions in detail, it was necessary to provide the Committee with information on the historical development of trade unionism in Indonesia. In so doing, they referred extensively to the written information submitted on this case. Referring to a number of articles quoted from the Constitution and several labour laws, they stated that there were extensive provisions protecting the right of workers to organize and to bargain collectively.

They explained that the purpose of providing complete information on the historical development of trade unionism in Indonesia was to ensure the Conference Committee of the commitment of the Government of Indonesia to accommodate and protect the interests of Indonesian workers and of the consensus that they reached through their organization. The information provided showed that trade unionism in Indonesia was not static, but responded to the changing national and international environment. Trade unions in Indonesia were open to change, bearing in mind their struggle for unity and their concerted efforts for the betterment of their members. In this light, the workers, employers and Government in Indonesia had intensively reviewed several labour laws over the past three years which they realized were no longer relevant to present and future economic and social conditions.

Following the holding of a series of meetings and the completion of the necessary procedural steps, a new Bill on manpower had recently been submitted to Parliament. The Bill was expected to be an umbrella law covering and refining the provisions of Act No. 1 of 1951 bringing the Labour Act into operation, Act No. 21 of 1954 on the Conclusion of Collective Bargaining Agreements between Trade Unions and Employers, Act No. 22 of 1957 on the Settlement of Labour Disputes, Act No. 12 of 1964 on Termination of Employment in Private Undertakings and Act No. 14 of 1969 on the Basic Provisions respecting Manpower. The new Bill was more comprehensive, simpler and more concise, more flexible and easier to understand than the previous legislation. In this context, they noted that it was the custom of the parliamentary system in Indonesia to invite the views of society, and particularly of related institutions and organizations, on draft legislation. Several NGOs and institutions had organized a workshop to discuss the Bill, the results of which would be submitted to Parliament.

In response to the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Indonesian tripartite partners had agreed to draft a single Ministerial Regulation to cover the three Ministerial Instruments referred to above. The tripartite partners had agreed in this respect that the following principles should be contained in the new regulation: trade unions at the company level should be established by the workers for the workers at that company; trade unions should be established on a voluntary and democratic basis; trade unions at the company level could remain as single independent trade unions or could join a national industrial trade union; and single independent unions at the company level could directly conduct negotiations with employers only by sending notification of their establishment to the regional office of the Ministry of Manpower. Consensus still needed to be achieved on a number of matters, including the definition of democratic principles for workers and the issue of whether a company-level trade union belonging to an industrial trade union should be registered at the company level or through its national headquarters. The Government representatives were optimistic that these matters would be resolved in a relatively short period of time.

In conclusion, they emphasized that all Indonesian laws were available to public and international institutions. The ILO Office in Djakarta would have access to any legislation that was not supplied directly to the Committee of Experts by the Government. However, they took the opportunity to submit a copy of Act No. 8 of 1974, regulating the terms and conditions of employment of public servants, to the Conference Committee.

The Employers' members recalled that the issue of the application of Convention No. 98 by Indonesia had been raised on many occasions by the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts. The last occasion on which the case had been discussed by the Conference Committee was in 1995. The observation by the Committee of Experts was basically a repetition of earlier comments. The problems in question related to the application of the Convention in both law and practice. The situation was aggravated by practical problems in individual cases involving the extreme use of force of all kinds. Many of these individual cases were described in the report that the Committee on Freedom of Association had submitted to the Governing Body. It was a matter of particular concern that in these cases the persons concerned had been treated in a manner which was not at all in line with the provisions of the Convention. This failure to give effect to the Convention in practice was symptomatic of the fact that it was not correctly applied in law. It was therefore unfortunate that the lengthy statement by the Government representatives had contained only historical information on the development of trade unions, but had largely failed to address the questions raised by the Committee of Experts in its report and the Conference Committee in 1995.

Referring to the lack of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Employers' members noted that workers could be dismissed on the ground of lack of harmony in industrial relations, and that in practice trade union membership could be considered to constitute such a lack of harmony in industrial relations. Although there existed a Ministerial Regulation of 1992 which provided that membership of a trade union could not constitute a reason for dismissal, these provisions did not appear to be implemented in practice. Even though the Committee of Experts had pointed to the need to simplify and clarify the legal provisions in this respect, no new information had been provided by the Government representatives on this point.

Referring to the comments of the Committee of Experts on the need to adopt specific legislative provisions to protect workers' organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations, the Employers' members stated that the regulations to which the Government representatives had referred did not contain sufficient protection in this respect. Better legislation was therefore needed to provide more effective protection.

On the question of the restrictions placed on free collective bargaining, the Employers' members noted that workers' organizations needed to cover a particular number of enterprise units in order to be able to engage in collective bargaining. Even though the Convention itself did not contain detailed provisions on this issue, such requirements were placed at a very high level so that collective bargaining became almost impossible in practice. Nevertheless, the Employers' members acknowledged that, since this question had been raised in the 1991 report of the Committee of Experts, the requirements in question had been reduced. They therefore recognized that some movement had been made in the right direction, although more rapid change was required. They regretted, however, that the Government representative did not provide new information in this respect.

The Employers' members had understood from the statements made by the Government representatives that the consultation process with regard to the new Bill on these matters was near completion and that the proposed legislation would soon be submitted to parliament. However, the Government representatives had not provided information on whether the problems referred to by the Committee of Experts would be addressed and resolved by the new legislation. Furthermore, although the Government representatives had provided the Conference Committee with a copy of Act No. 8 of 1974, regulating the terms and conditions of employment of public servants, it should be pointed out that such legislation should have been provided to the ILO many years ago. It was also to be regretted that the Government of Indonesia had not availed itself of ILO technical assistance to address these problems at an earlier stage and that the Government representatives had not taken advantage of the opportunity provided by this discussion of the case to respond to the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Employers' members suggested that technical assistance from the ILO might help to speed up the process of improving the application of the Convention, both in law and in practice. There was a great need to amend the legislation and the Government should endeavour to take the necessary action.

The Workers' members noted with regret that the case of Indonesia had been discussed in 1979 and four times during the 1990s, namely in 1991, 1993, 1994 and 1995. Notwithstanding the direct contacts mission which had taken place in November 1993, the situation remained preoccupying. The Committee on Freedom of Association, which had dealt with this case a number of times, had formulated very severe conclusions in which it deeply deplored and emphasized the gravity of allegations which had showed that the general situation had not improved, but continued to be characterized by increasingly serious violations of fundamental human rights and trade union rights in Indonesia. The terms used by the Committee of Experts reflected its grave concern. It insisted, in particular, that the Government should indicate the measures taken to strengthen the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and that it adopt specific legislative provisions to protect workers' organizations. The Workers' members deplored that the Government's reply, although long, did not contain any information in response to the repeated requests made by the Committee of Experts. Furthermore, they noted that the written and oral replies of the Government contained significant contradictions. While the Government insisted on the independence of the trade union movement in relation to the political parties, the SPSI, the official trade union, was closely directed and influenced by the authorities. In addition, in qualifying the SBSI as a non-governmental organization, the Government was in direct contradiction to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association, which urged the Government to eliminate immediately all obstacles preventing the recognition and registration of the SBSI as a trade union. The members of the SBSI and its leaders were systematically subjected to anti-union measures, such as arrests, imprisonment or harassment. In the period since the Committee on Freedom of Association had examined the case, the list of allegations of anti-union measures had lengthened. According to the information that had been obtained, many local trade union leaders of the SBSI had recently been intimidated by the police or the army. The chairman and the vice-chairman of the local SBSI organization in Binji had been arrested and interrogated. During the course of 1996, the activists and leaders of different branches and regional federations of SBSI had been intimidated and their property often confiscated. The chairman of SBSI, Mr. Muchtar Pakpahan, had been arrested on 30 July 1996 in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court had acquitted him and that all legal charges against him had been dropped. He had been kept in detention for over a year in spite of his poor health.

The Workers' members endorsed the observations of the Committee of Experts. The system of industrial relations in Indonesia was such that the anti-union measures against organizations which escaped Government control had become normal practice. The information and statistics supplied by the Government on the increasing number of collective agreements and trade unions at the company level did not prove either the true nature of the trade union movement or the success of collective bargaining. Indeed, it was necessary to take into account the content of these agreements to verify that they actually covered conditions of work and wages. According to information available to the Workers' members, the provisions of the draft law referred to by the Government representatives were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention by authorizing greater interference by the public authorities. The Workers' members deplored the fact that the Government had not replied to the precise questions raised by the Committee of Experts and insisted that Indonesia take the necessary measures in the very near future to bring its legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention. They emphasized that the Government could benefit from the technical assistance of the ILO in this respect. They stated that the authorities must free the imprisoned trade unionists, particularly Mr. Pakpahan and cease acts of anti-union violence and intimidation. Finally, they proposed that serious consideration should be given to sending a mission to Indonesia in the very near future and that this case should be examined once again next year to identify any progress achieved. If no progress was made, they suggested that the case of Indonesia should then be included in a special paragraph.

The Workers' member of Indonesia provided the Committee with some additional information on Ministerial Decree No. 438 of 1992 concerning the guidelines for the establishment of workers' unions in a company. The decree made no reference to dismissal or regroupment, but merely regulated the method of establishing workers' unions at the plant level. It stipulated that where there were 25 workers at the respective company, such workers could form a union by themselves without any intervention from third parties.

The speaker also said that the national convention of the All Indonesia Workers Union (SPSI) in September 1995 had concluded that there was an urgent need to reform and restructure the Indonesian trade union movement to make it more effective and professional in its efforts to protect the interests of workers. There were now 13 industrial unions affiliated to the new Federation (FSPSI). The national convention of the SPSI had also decided to urge the Government to review much of its labour legislation in accordance with recent economic developments. Based on this conclusion, the Indonesian Government had submitted to Parliament a Bill on manpower which revised eight existing labour Acts and six ordinances. The FSPSI had submitted its first response to the Bill, which covered, among other matters, dispute settlement machinery, compulsory and voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, the establishment and recognition of unions, the Tripartite Consultative Council and the Bipartite Consultative Council, women workers, child labour, wage protection, employment relations, the contract of employment, the informal sector and migrant workers. The FSPSI had also conducted a three-day workshop, attended by the representatives of some NGOs and by academics, leading to the preparation of further comments. A further seminar would be held for the preparation of the final draft of the Bill. The National Tripartite Joint Consultative Body had also discussed the possibility of reviewing Ministerial Decree No. 438 of 1992, as well as Ministerial Regulation No. 3 of 1993 on workers' union registration and Ministerial Regulation No. 1 of 1994 on the establishment of in-house unions. There were still some differences of opinion on the criteria for establishing unions, the structure of industrial unions (including independent unions), the right to bargain collectively and other trade union functions to further the interests of the workers. The National Tripartite Joint Consultative Body also intended to organize a workshop to examine how universal principles could be set out in the new ministerial regulation on the right of workers to join unions, workers' participation in the industrial relations framework as well as their right to training, to a fair wage and to collective bargaining. In view of this progress, there were good grounds for believing that the Tripartite Joint Consultative Council would be ready to undertake a permanent review of labour legislation in an era of economic globalization, without harming the values and way of life of society.

The Government member of Iceland, on behalf of the Governments of Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Iceland, deplored the growing number of violations of human rights at workplaces. Both the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association, in its 1996 examination of Case No. 1773, used strong words to express their deep concern with regard to the persistent and continuing violations of trade union rights in Indonesia and, more precisely, the seriousness of allegations referring to the murder, disappearance, arrest and detention of trade union leaders and workers. The Governments of the Nordic countries, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom shared this deep concern and strongly urged the Government of Indonesia to take all necessary measures to bring the situation into conformity with the provisions of Convention No. 98. Finally, the personal situation of the SBSI President, Mr. Muchtar Pakpahan, raised serious concern. He expressed their common wish to join those who had already appealed to the Government of Indonesia so that his civil, political and trade union rights be respected in every way.

The Workers' member of the Netherlands recalled that this case had been examined on twelve occasions by the Committee of Experts and on five occasions in the Conference Committee. Moreover, the Government had not furnished the detailed report requested by the Conference Committee in its conclusions to the long discussion held in 1995. In 1996, the Conference Committee had deferred discussion of the case due to severe time constraints. However, the Government had misrepresented this to its national press as proof that the ILO was now satisfied with the manner in which the Convention was implemented in the country. The Workers' members had, in 1996, expressed the wish to include the case of Indonesia on a list of cases for discussion in 1997. They were particularly concerned that the Government had stated time and time again that the criticism of the Committee of Experts, since 1979, was unfounded. He pointed to a certain inconsistency in the points raised by the Committee of Experts in its reports since 1979. Certain issues, such as the role of the army in dispute settlement and in labour matters in general, had been raised on some occasions, but not others. The same was true as concerned the denial of the right to organize for workers in the public sector.

With regard to the protection of workers against anti-union discrimination, the Government had denied over the years that there were any problems with the relevant legislation and had stated that new legislation was not necessary, as the law afforded good protection against anti-union discrimination. Nevertheless, for almost 20 years the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee had been telling the Government that this was not the case. In this respect, he noted that additional information supplied by the Experts, workers and employers had been ignored. It was not in this manner that such a case should be dealt with by government in the ILO supervisory system. Current examples of anti-union discrimination included the dismissals of SBSI and AJI (Independent Journalists' Association) members and activists by their employers.

On the question of protection against acts of interference by employers, the only development registered was the revision of Ministerial Decision No. 1109 of 1986 by Decision No. 438 of 1992. The Government, which had previously maintained that the 1986 Decision afforded adequate protection, had then implicitly said the contrary in 1993 by admitting that it was no longer compulsory for workers to obtain permission from their employer to set up a union. Moreover, despite the fact that both the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee considered that the revised Indonesian legislation continued not to provide adequate protection against acts of interference by the employer, the Government refused to take any further action. By way of illustration of the influence exercised by employers over trade union activities in practice, he informed the Committee that the president of SPSI from 1985 to 1995 had been the president of the employers' federation for the textile industry in West Java at the time he was elected to his trade union position.

The situation was identical as regards restrictions to collective bargaining. The Government had stated that its legislation was not in conflict with the provisions of the Convention and that the Committee of Experts did not understand the national conditions in member States. Despite changes to the excessive requirements for the registration of trade unions set out in Ministerial Regulation No. 5 of 1987, the new Regulation, No. 3 of 1993, still contained formidable obstacles which, according to the Committee of Experts, were in violation of the Convention. In fact, what the Government had done was to create a trade union monopoly for the FSPSI and its sectoral unions, similar to what had existed in Eastern European countries before 1989. In 1995, the Conference Committee had urged the Government to dismantle all restrictive registration requirements for the establishment of trade unions.

Not only had the Government shown very little political will to adopt the changes to the law requested by the ILO for almost 20 years but its record of application of the Convention in practice was appalling. It had also engaged in crude and brutal violations of the Convention in practice for many years. Over the past five years, it had relentlessly harassed, intimidated, arrested, jailed and victimized leaders, activists and members of the SBSI, a trade union to which the Government refused to grant recognition. The fate of its general chairman, Muchtar Pakpahan, was widely known, despite the fact that the Governing Body had repeatedly stated that Mr. Pakpahan was a genuine trade union leader who should be released forthwith and allowed to continue with his trade union work. Another example was that, based on the official State doctrine of the "dual function" of the army, retired military personnel continued to take positions in the government-backed trade union central organization, the FSPSI, and its sectoral unions. After denying this practice for years, the Government had later argued that it was the right of retired army personnel to take employment, become members of a union and be elected to trade union office. However, the real situation was that these army pensioners were selected for these functions by a special army department in view of the Government's preoccupation with security. Finally, he recalled that the security forces continued to interfere brutally in strikes and workers' demonstrations. Indeed, the presence of police and security personnel at trade union meetings and other activities was so widespread that it was almost considered to be a fact of trade union life.

Although the Government maintained that workers were free to set up their own company trade unions, it had been confirmed to him that if such trade unions expressed the intention to join the SBSI, their existence would immediately be forbidden.

Despite the acceptance by the Government of a direct contacts mission in November 1993 and a subsequent technical assistance mission, it had to be concluded that the few changes in legislation made by the Government did not go far beyond developments of a merely cosmetic nature, as the representative of the US Government had stated in 1995. He urged the Government to ask for ILO advice on the text of the new Bill submitted to Parliament, and to bring the ILO's views on the proposed legislation to the attention of the Indonesian Parliament. He fully subscribed to the conclusion drawn by the Workers' Vice-Chairperson while drawing attention to the fact that among the jailed trade unionists there were three leaders and activists of the Independent Journalists' Association (AJI).

The Workers' member of Thailand stated that the history of this case illustrated well the attitude of governments in his region. The case provided a pertinent and topical example of both the Indonesian Government's insensitivity to working people in local circumstances in Indonesia. The Chairperson of the Worker's group had already covered many aspects of the case, but he wished to concentrate on the SBSI and its general chairman Muchtar Pakpahan. As concerned the SBSI, the authorities had refused to register the SBSI on several occasions, even though it had fulfilled the necessary criteria. He recalled that the Committee on Freedom of Association had urged the Government to remove immediately all obstacles to registration and to the official recognition of the SBSI. He stressed that Muchtar Pakpahan had been arrested on 30 July 1996 on charges which alleged that he had been linked to the serious civil disturbances of 27 July 1996. Charges of subversion could result even in the death penalty. Yet, even though the official Indonesian Human Rights Commission said that the Government and its security forces were responsible for the July civil disturbances, Muchtar Pakpahan remained in prison. All legal experts following the trial which started in December 1996 considered that Muchtar Pakpahan was not granted a fair trial and that basic rules of justice were violated. The trial continued until he was hospitalized. After concerted national and international pressure, he was authorized to be treated in a civilian hospital, as long as he personally paid expenses. The Government had indicated that the trial would resume as soon as he was able to go back to prison. It was clear that these legal procedures and multiple sentences were linked directly to his union activities. In addition, many union members and members of SBSI were frequently harassed, interrogated and deprived of their freedom. He concluded by insisting that the necessary measures be taken to change the legislation and national practices to bring them into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. Unless significant progress was noted, he proposed, like several other speakers, that Indonesia be mentioned in a special paragraph in the examination to be made by this Committee in 1998.

The Government member of the United States emphasized the long-standing concern of his country regarding this case. Based on the observation of the Committee of Experts, along with the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1773, he expressed his concern that sufficient progress had not been made. In some respects, there was even reason to fear that the situation was worsening. The case of labour leader Muchtar Pakpahan was particularly troubling and he called upon the Government of Indonesia to ensure that he received adequate medical treatment. Both the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts pointed out that there were significant and long-standing weaknesses in Indonesian labour law, coupled with serious problems of enforcement of the legislation. Such a situation led, inevitably, to human rights violations the likes of which had been presented in some detail. He strongly urged the Government of Indonesia to continue the process of consolidating and amending its labour law, and to ensure that the new legislation was in full conformity with Convention No. 98, as well as other core labour standards. He recalled that technical assistance was available from the ILO in this respect. In addition, he strongly urged the Government to take immediate steps to prevent violence and other anti-union measures against Indonesian trade unionists. Convention No. 98 could not possibly be fully applied in an atmosphere where basic human rights were not first protected and promoted. He stressed that his Government would not hesitate to recognize and condemn the Indonesian Government's violations of fundamental workers' rights and human rights and strongly hoped that positive steps would be taken as quickly as possible by the Government of Indonesia to improve respect for the rights of workers.

The Government member of Canada expressed concern over the findings of the Committee of Experts with regard to the situation in Indonesia and stressed the importance that her country attached to the case of Mr. Muchtar Pakpahan, and in particular the necessity that he received just and fair treatment in any legal proceedings, as well as adequate medical care. This issue had been raised repeatedly with the Indonesian authorities by the Embassy of her country in Djakarta, as well as by the Department of Foreign Affairs, including at the ministerial level. She urged the Indonesian authorities to respect fully their obligations under the ILO Constitution and under ratified Conventions.

The Workers' member of France regretted that for a number of years the Committee of Experts had reported intolerable acts of interference with regard to the right of workers to freedom of association in Indonesia, in enterprises at both the regional and national level. The report contained allegations of serious anti-union discrimination, including intimidation, interrogation, molestation, illegal custody, imprisonment, dismissal and even the disappearance of members of the SBSI. These were not isolated incidents. These acts had become systematic and concerned the entire Indonesian territory. The Government, through the police, the army, and unidentified employers' groups, regularly put pressure on workers who wanted to form unions. If they did not renounce this right, individual or collective dismissal followed. On several occasions the local unions were ransacked and files taken or destroyed. The arrest and imprisonment of Muchtar Pakpahan came about as a result of such systematic anti-union policies. Since his first imprisonment in 1995, Mr. Pakpahan had been in jail for nearly one year, charged with endangering the security of the State. He was still detained to this day, and his failing health had become life-threatening. Despite the censure by international trade unions and various interventions made by European governments and NGOs, no action had been taken by the authorities. The speaker added that none of the reasons provided by the Government of Indonesia elucidated the serious and repetitive violations of the terms of Convention No. 98, ratified in 1957. The Indonesian Government must clearly account for these deliberate acts against the right of workers to freedom of association and to collective bargaining and not limit their arguments to more general accusations. This was especially true for the acts of anti-union discrimination against the leaders of the SBSI. Moreover, the president of the SBSI, Mr. Muchtar Pakpahan must be freed immediately. Finally, the Indonesian Government must adopt very rapidly specific provisions which would bring their legislation in line with the provisions of the Convention. It was regrettable that the information furnished by the Government was not more explicit; this cast a doubt on its seriousness.

The Workers' member of Japan emphasized the serious nature of the case, which related to violations of the rights of workers and the labour movement. Countries which ratified the Convention had the obligation to bring their law and practice into conformity with its provisions. Although the report of the Committee of Experts had raised four principal points and the Government had been requested to respond to them, it had not provided specific information on these matters, nor had it taken action in practice to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts. An important measure of the Government's willingness to adopt measures to give meaningful effect to the Convention in law and practice would be an improvement in the situation as concerned the right of public servants to bargain collectively. It was perhaps due to the legacy of Asian dictatorships that many people in the region looked to the public service as a model of employment. If the Convention was not applied in full to public servants, this would provide an excuse for employers to impose restrictions in the private sector. The Government should endeavour to play the role of a good employer which respected international labour standards, and particularly the right to collective bargaining in the public sector, in accordance with the Convention. He hoped that the Government would respond to the requests of the Committee of Experts in a rapid and faithful manner on these very serious points by taking the necessary measures to implement the Convention.

The Workers' member of Colombia, stated that, in spite of the declarations of good will made by the Government representatives, the workers were very concerned at the persistence of the anti-union policies in Indonesia. In the developing countries, there was frequently a tendency for undue interference in the activities of workers' organizations, restrictions on the right to collective bargaining and the submission of trade unions by employers. This phenomenon was attested to by the Committee of Experts in the case of Indonesia. He emphasized that these restrictions on the right of freedom of association and collective bargaining were unacceptable. He emphasized that national development could not be achieved without respect for workers' rights and expressed serious doubts about the positive industrial relations climate described by the Government representatives. With regard to the numerical restrictions imposed by the legislation in order to have free access to collective bargaining, he stated that these measures could not be described in any way as protecting the right to collective bargaining. Nor was it possible to speak of respect for freedom of association, when the official practice was to resort to intimidation and aggression, through detention and the confiscation of property. He hoped that the Government would free the trade union activists and leaders and that it would give full guarantees of the exercise of trade union rights.

The Workers' member of Pakistan joined with other speakers of the Workers' group and indicated his deep preoccupation concerning the situation of workers' rights in Indonesia. This preoccupation was even greater because Indonesia should, given the importance of the seat it held on the Governing Body, be an example for other governments. Whereas on the contrary, for a number of years, the Committee of Experts, the Committee on Freedom of Association and this Committee had noted serious violations of the principles of freedom of association, in law and in national practice. More precisely, the Committee of Experts had brought to light the contradictions between legislation and the provisions of the Convention which protected workers against anti-union discrimination, interference by employers or their organizations with regard to union activities, and restrictions on the right to collective bargaining. The Committee on Freedom of Association had emphasized the seriousness of violations of workers' rights committed by public authorities who had systematically resorted to anti-union measures including dismissal, arrest, harassment and other physical or mental violence. He insisted that the Government take the necessary measures, without delay, to amend the legislation so that it conformed to the provisions of the Convention and pleaded that the Government liberate jailed union members immediately, recalling that trade unions could function only where democratic values were properly respected.

The Government member of Germany declared that he fully supported the statement of the Government member of Canada.

The Government representative of Indonesia welcomed the time available for discussion of this case. His delegation had endeavoured to provide the Committee with as much information as possible in order to improve its understanding of the whole situation in Indonesia. However, in order to cover all the matters raised by the previous speakers, including information on individual cases, he welcomed the opportunity to respond to the points that had been raised during the discussion.

The Government representative stated, that, in response to several delegates' requests for information on particular cases, information had been communicated on related questions raised during the Committee's discussions in 1994 and 1995, and to the Committee on Freedom of Association. This information would not be repeated: the information provided on this occasion had been limited to the topic under discussion.Those who were interested in having access to the information should consult the Office. His delegation had been advised by the Secretariat to provide general information on this occasion and to submit information relating to individual cases to the Committee on Freedom of Association. This explained why the written information provided had not contained information on individual cases. It was also for that reason that 4 copies of information concerning individual cases had been submitted for disbursement to the Workers' and Employers' groups, the Chairperson and the Office.

In response to the comments made by the Employers' members, the speaker stated that the information presented was intended to respond to the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, as they appeared in the report of the Committee of Experts. The conclusions asked the Government to refine 3 Ministerial regulations. His delegation had stated that the tripartite partners had discussed and drafted a new regulation to cover the 3 regulations mentioned. It had also to be noted that the tripartite partners had been involved, over the last 3 years, in formulating draft labour legislation.

Also in response to the comments of the Employers' members, he said that his delegation had already confirmed in 1995 that all workers at the enterprise level had the right to establish trade unions and only needed to provide notification so that they could be registered and engage in collective bargaining. The restrictions referred to by previous speakers were no longer applied, with the result that there were now hundreds of independent unions at the company level which concluded collective agreements. There was no requirement for such unions to be affiliated to the SPSI. Trade unions could therefore exist on their own at the company level. His country had engaged in a tripartite process for the refinement of existing legislation, including the development of one ministerial regulation to cover the three previous regulations. It was the objective of tripartite consultation to seek consensus positions on what was best for the country, particularly in a situation of great change, when laws and regulations might no longer be relevant to current and future national needs. Tripartite consultation had led up to the submission of a Bill to Parliament, which would in turn invite the opinion of the people on the subjects that it covered. The SPSI had formulated its opinion on the provisions of the Bill and had organized a workshop on that matter. It was to be hoped that a Bill could be adopted that would take into consideration the best way of protecting the interests and rights of workers. In this respect, while appreciating the value of ILO advice, he made it clear that the function of the ILO was not to draft legislation for every country.

He disagreed with the Workers' members that there had been an increase in violations of the provisions of the Convention. The information on the historical background of the trade union movement in his country had been provided to explain the aspirations of Indonesian workers to unity and concerted effort. They believed that their country could be strong if it were united. Although the case of Muchtar Pakpahan was often raised by officials from foreign governments, trade union organizations and the ILO, he stated that they could have the opportunity to meet him. He was being treated in a very good hospital by the best doctors and he informed the Committee of the telephone number at which he could be reached. He reminded the Committee that Mr. Pakpahan was being held under criminal charges and that his case was not related to trade union matters.

In response to the comments made by the Workers' member of the Netherlands on the involvement of the security forces in dealing with demonstrations and riots denoted as labour issues, the speaker referred to the information provided to this Committee in 1994 and 1995 which had explained: the division of work between the security forces and the Ministry of Manpower; the way to distinguish labour and industrial relations issues from political issues and personal interests; and the way to distinguish individual cases from the policy of the Government. It was necessary to have a good understanding of the history. Most Indonesian workers had directly experienced great suffering and hardship due to the lengthy oppression of the colonial power and during the revolution. The colonial power played the strategy of divide and conquer and the conditions were made even worse and painful because some Indonesian traitors did not feel guilty in betraying their fellow Indonesians. That explained why Indonesia tended to maintain unity and why the security forces were traumatized by the continuing efforts to exercise the policy of divide and conquer.

The speaker stated that, after having observed the work of the Committee for 12 years, it appeared that, if a problem arose between a government or its security forces and an organization, the Committee had a tendency to put into question the government or the security force. The Committee had never examined whether the organization concerned observed good conduct or not. It was to be wondered why the Committee tended to put into question the security force, even though it was conducting its role correctly, but not the organization which was not observing good conduct.

He cited a number of examples from his personal experience to prove that meetings were held freely and without interference from the police or security services. Where workers' organizations were engaged in legitimate activities, they had nothing to fear from these forces. He regretted that many speakers had reached erroneous conclusions on this matter due undoubtedly to misperceptions and misinformation. The SPSI would be ready to substantiate the fact that the action of the police and security forces did not amount to interference in trade union activities.

The Employers' members, although recognizing that the Government representatives had provided the Committee with information, were not convinced that it was the right type of information or that it was related to the problems raised by the Committee of Experts. With regard to the comments of the Government representatives concerning the desirability of trade union unity, they recalled that this was a matter to be decided upon by the workers themselves. Single trade union organizations only became problematic when they were imposed by the government. Indeed, the intention of the Convention was to prevent such situations. The Employers' members therefore requested the Government to respond to all of the points raised by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association and to send all of the relevant information to both bodies. The Government representatives had indicated that Indonesian legislation might not be perfect. This could be due to misunderstandings of the requirements deriving from the Convention. It would therefore be very useful if the Government would agree to receive detailed technical assistance from the ILO on the matters raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Workers' members considered inadmissible the declaration by the Government representative concerning Mr. Muchtar Pakpahan and other trade union leaders. In order to maintain the position that the problems raised did not concern the application of the Convention, the Government held on to a reasoning according to which the SBSI represented a security risk only on the ground that it was not recognized by the SPSI. The reasoning was unacceptable as, according to the Committee on Freedom of Association, the SBSI fulfilled all the conditions required for being recognized as a trade union. The content of the debate in the present Committee demonstrated that this case was well known and that it troubled the members of all three groups, as it touched upon basic workers' rights. It was all the more regrettable that the Government had continued for several years only to provide evasive responses to the Committee of Experts. The Government representative had expressed the hope that the present Committee would close the discussion on this case. But, in order to do so, the Government should provide detailed and complete responses, in writing, to the observations by the Committee of Experts and finally give effect to the conclusions adopted by the Committee on Freedom of Association as well as the conclusions adopted two years ago by the present Committee. Regarding the Bill that had been mentioned, the Workers' members had at their disposal distressing information and the Government should also provide full information on this subject for consideration by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee took note of the information communicated by the Government representative and of the detailed debate which subsequently followed. The Committee further noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association had expressed that not enough protection existed against acts of anti-union discrimination, nor against interference by employers in the functioning of workers' organizations and that serious restrictions remained on the right to bargain collectively. The Committee observed with deep concern that the discrepancies between the Convention on the one hand, and legislation and national practice on the other, had continued for many years. The Committee also observed that the Government had not given sufficient proof of a willingness to comply with the provisions of this core Convention, as it had not requested technical assistance in this respect. The Committee expressed its deep concern over this situation and asked the Government urgently to amend the legislation and to report on the measures taken or envisaged in this respect. The Committee urged the Government to ensure full respect of the civil liberties essential for the full implementation of the Convention. The Committee voiced its wish to be able to examine this case next year.