VI. Continuing Failure of the Indonesian Government to Protect and Prevent Exploitation of Child Domestic Workers

It is so sensitive because everyone has these domestic workers, so everyone in government, in business, and officials are scared that if you regulate [these workers] then it will affect their own privileges.

-Women's rights NGO director, Jakarta

Although it is the employers or their family members who directly perpetrate the economic exploitation and physical and sexual abuse of child domestic workers, it is the Indonesian government and its officials that are continuing to fail to protect them by preventing exploitation, providing services and remedies to children, and fully prosecuting anyone who perpetrates exploitation and abuse. This chapter documents these government failures by examining the actions of national and local lawmakers, police, and prosecutors.

National government retains discriminatory labor law

The Indonesian government has failed to revise its labor laws, which continue to exclude domestic workers from the minimum protections afforded to workers in the formal sector, such as provisions for a minimum wage, limits on hours of work, rest, holidays, an employment contract, and social security. This exclusion facilitates the abuse and exploitation of domestic workers, and disproportionately affects women and girls who comprise the overwhelming majority of domestic workers.

The 2003 Manpower Act arbitrarily distinguishes between "entrepreneur" businesses and "employers," obligating only entrepreneurs to abide by laws governing work agreements, minimum wages, overtime, hours, rest, and vacation.[92] Employers of domestic workers are not considered entrepreneurs, and therefore domestic workers are not protected by these labor provisions.

As demonstrated in the previous chapter, no legitimate reason exists for the exclusion of domestic workers from these protections. A 2007 Labor Survey carried out by the Indonesian Bureau of Statistics indicates that around 97 percent of live-in child domestic workers are girls, while the majority of individuals working in the formal sector and therefore benefiting from the regulations on work hours and rest are male.[93] The exclusion of domestic workers from the labor protections therefore has a serious discriminatory impact against women and girls who predominantly perform such work and denies them equal protection of the law.

In 2005, the Ministry of Manpower began drafting a law for domestic workers that was intended to afford domestic workers stronger labor protections. The drafting process appeared to come to a stop, however, sometime in late 2005 or early 2006.[94] A staff member in the Ministry's law bureau who is involved in the drafting of the law informed us that she did not expect any further meetings to be held on the draft during 2008.[95] As of October 2008, the law did not appear on the official list of the government's upcoming legislation to be presented to the parliament (Program Legislasi Nasional).

 

With the domestic workers law stalled within the Ministry of Manpower, the Ministry of Women's Empowerment took the relatively unusual step of holding its own public hearings on the draft law in May 2007 and April 2008. The Ministry also produced two updated drafts of the law based on these public hearings, and has committed to further redrafting of the law, even though the primary responsibility for drafting labor-related legislation is formally within the purview of the Ministry of Manpower.[96]

One domestic worker recruitment and placement agent told us, "I was invited by Women's Empowerment to a meeting to discuss the draft [domestic workers law] but the Ministry of Manpower did not even turn up! How ironic is that-considering it is a law about labor!"[97] An official within the legal bureau of the Ministry of Manpower confirmed that no representative from the Ministry was present at the Women's Empowerment meeting "because of a time clash."[98]

The Women's Empowerment Ministry is not alone in being unable to coax any action out of the Ministry of Manpower on the domestic workers bill. The director of a Jakarta-based women's rights NGO told us, "[A coalition of NGOs] has asked the Ministry of Manpower to meet with us, but until now, they have not done so. Because they do not consider this matter important. They do not consider the people important…. This is not a priority for the Ministry of Manpower. It is not even their 13th or 14th priority."[99]

Local laws

In the vacuum of inaction at the national level, some provincial and district governments have undertaken efforts to regulate child laborers and domestic workers.

For example in 2007, Central Java passed a provincial law on child labor that prohibits employing children in the worst forms of child labor, and explicitly cites domestic work as an example of jobs that are prohibited.[100] North Sumatra Province also has a law on the worst forms of child labor,[101] West Java province has laws on child labor and trafficking,[102] while the provinces of North Sulawesi, South Sulawesi, North Sumatra, West Nusa Tenggara, and the district of Surabaya have local regulations on trafficking.[103]

While many of these initiatives represent commendable if incremental progress, a new piece of regional legislation in Jakarta is alarmingly regressive. In 2004, Jakarta's government rescinded one of Indonesia's most progressive pieces of legislation for the protection of domestic workers.[104] Although a senior official in the Jakarta Manpower Agency described the replacement regulation as being "nearly the same"[105] as the old one, the new regulation removed a large array of protections previously afforded to domestic workers in Jakarta, including entitlements to annual leave; regular payment of salaries, clothing, food, rest, and housing; that disputes between domestic workers and employers could be resolved by a dispute settlement team established by the governor; and civil servant investigators' authority to conduct investigations into allegations of abuses, including inspecting houses.[106]

Moreover, the Governor of Jakarta informed Human Rights Watch that as of November 2008-more than four years after the passage of the law-the various Gubernatorial Regulations required to actually implement the few protections for child domestic worker that do exist under the new law "are still undergoing completion, but should be finalised in the short term."[107]

A senior official within the Jakarta Manpower Agency explained to Human Rights Watch why the law had been overturned: "There were so many articles that we couldn't apply. So it was dropped."[108] Governments should budget relevant agencies with the necessary resources and training to fulfill their regulatory duties, rather than scaling back core labor protections in response to the agencies' failure to carry out their duties.

Consultation with stakeholders when revising laws is an important element of policy reform, to ensure both appropriate amendments and enforcement. A wide variety of civil society members and government officials we interviewed in Jakarta incorrectly believed that the Jakarta law was still in force, suggesting that there was little consultation with relevant affected groups before removing the provisions.[109]

Anti-Trafficking Act of 2007

According to a representative of the National Commission for Child Protection, the commission recorded more than 2,000 cases of child trafficking in Indonesia in 2007.[110] The trafficking of children into exploitative forms of domestic work continues, as the case of a domestic worker we met in Depok demonstrates. Wani was trafficked by the family for whom she worked for three-and-a-half years from the age of 13 without payment. "It's not that [the family] were late or forgot to pay, I just never received the money…. I asked for it, but they never gave it to me. They would say 'later.' I felt angry. No reason was given."[111] Wani's employer moved around the country several times, so she lost touch with anyone she knew, including her family, whom she was never given permission to visit. The female employer also physically abused Wani.

As mentioned in Chapter IV, Indonesia enacted a new law in 2007 to tackle domestic and international trafficking in persons. Encouragingly, the new law provides a definition of "trafficking" that is in-line with the international definition provided in the Palermo Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children ("Palermo Protocol").[112]

However, the 2007 law fails to adopt an important protection provided by the Palermo Protocols, whereby "[t]he recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall be considered 'trafficking in persons' even if this does not involve [the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, or of the abuse of power]."[113] The end result is that the definition for criminal trafficking of children in Indonesia is less protective than the international standard.[114]

The absence of the special protections for children led one children's rights campaigner to assess the new law as follows: "Generally, the law is good but … on children, it is not so good, because… children and adults are [treated] the same."[115]

When we described the contents of the trafficking law to two agents involved in the recruitment and placement of child domestic workers, neither were aware that there was now a law that sanctioned anyone involved in the recruitment, transferring, or sending of people into situations that causes their exploitation. However, when we asked whether they had heard of the new Trafficking Law by name, they both said that they had.[116]

Another labor recruiter we spoke with had not heard of the new law. That he did not know of the legal obligation on him to prevent knowingly placing girls in situations where they will be exploited was particularly worrying, since he had explained to us, apparently without concern, about the fate of two girls that he had placed: "There was a case of a girl in Bekasi, with Mrs. [name omitted], and she has not paid the girl's salary. I've had problems with this woman twice. Two of my girls have not been paid by this woman. This current girl has gone three months without being paid!"[117] Knowingly placing girls with employers who have already demonstrated a propensity to economically exploit their domestic workers could constitute trafficking.

Although Indonesia signed the Palermo Protocol for the Prevention and Suppression of Trafficking in Persons in 2000, it has yet to ratify the treaty. This is despite the fact that ratification of the treaty was scheduled for 2004 under Indonesia's "National Plan of Action of Human Rights: 2004-2009."[118]

Lack of awareness of existing laws among both officials and the public

One concern raised constantly by children's rights advocates is the lack of awareness among the general public, labor recruitment and placement agents, police, prosecutors, and the courts about existing laws that could be used to protect child domestic workers, such as the Child Protection Act and the Domestic Violence Act.

As the director of the Indonesian Child Welfare Foundation explained, "Usually when evidence comes up the police, the prosecutors, and the judges get mixed up, and they end up using the wrong act."[119] He went on to add, "This is the biggest problem: how do you get the public to know about the law?... Once the public is aware of the laws they can help the government in looking out for abuses.… The government limits [its public awareness campaigns on new laws] to a limited amount of people.... They have to prioritize, they have to train, they have to expand networks about who knows about this."[120]

Another advocate told us,

We often meet police in the course of our work and we see that not many police [know about] the regulations that are especially for children. [For example, the Child Protection Act] came up in 2002, and they still do not know about it.... Can you imagine that the government officer does not know what the law is? What about the public? How could they know?[121]

A Jakarta-based labor agent expressed similar concerns, but about the Domestic Violence Act: "Some police do not know about it."[122]

Inadequate police response

Both the physical and economic exploitation of child domestic workers are criminal matters, and Indonesia's police force have an important role to play in investigating any such incidents. However, as documented below, long-standing public mistrust of the police impedes victims' and eyewitnesses' willingness to approach the police to request assistance or to provide information. It is the police's responsibility to overcome these concerns. Moreover, current police procedures are inadequate and frequently lead to cases being dropped unnecessarily, resulting in a failure to adequately investigate criminal wrongdoing. One of the most positive developments since 2005, however, has been the formal incorporation within the police structure of a special unit for women and children.

Public mistrust of police

Many victims and witnesses are reluctant to approach the police, place trust in the police, or provide information to the police out of concerns that they will be unsympathetic, uncooperative, ineffective, or corrupt. The failure of the police to correct these perceptions through better and more gender- and child-sensitive performance impedes their ability to collect necessary information from victims and witnesses and to enforce the laws protecting domestic workers.

Seventeen-year-old Kartika was raped by her male employer. Although she told us that she would like to see her rapist punished, she has not reported the crime to the police.

I didn't want to go to the police, because the most important thing was that I was safe. I'm afraid that [the employer's] neighbors wouldn't believe that he had done this to me, because he's known as a quiet person, always praying. No one would believe that he would do this to his domestic worker. I'm afraid that the police wouldn't believe my story. I think that all the police know the man and I'm afraid they would all prefer to believe the man rather than me.[123]

One recruiter of domestic workers explained that when workers he has placed have problems with their employers he tries to mediate the problem rather than involve the police: "I've never brought the police in. It would make things more complicated. With the police it is too bureaucratic…. There's no law that regulates domestic workers and we get bad responses from the police because they say it is not their responsibility."[124]

Another labor agent recounted a long list of employers he dealt with who failed to pay their child domestic workers for months: "I would not bother reporting to the police anymore. It is a waste of time and money. I have tried it before and I have never had any follow-up."[125]

The director of a women's rights group that assists abused domestic workers told us,

It is very hard for child domestic workers to get to the police by themselves.... I have never heard of a child domestic worker reporting a case by themselves, because they find the institution of the police scary. Especially for a child, because in their mind the work of police is catching people and putting them in jail, so children from the villages are scared to approach them.[126]

She went on to note,

[Labor recruitment and placement agencies] have their own mechanisms for resolving problems between employers and employees. The recruitment agencies come to the house, talk to the employers, negotiate, and withdraw the child domestic worker, and then replace them. It is rare-rare-for them to involve the police. Reporting to the police means wasting time and money, because sometimes the police ask for money.[127]

Poor investigation procedures

When domestic workers are capable and willing to approach the police for assistance, they frequently do not receive the protections afforded to them by law. Moreover, the procedures police use to respond to such reports impede their ability to carry out effective investigations and interventions.

A senior policewoman with more than 26 years of experience, and now based in the women's and children's unit of the Jakarta police, explained to Human Rights Watch the typical procedure when a domestic workers approaches the police to report abuse. First, the victim reports the case, either to their local police station or, when assisted by family, friends, or an NGO, directly to a women's and children's unit. At this stage, the police ask for the victim's personal information and the main information about the complaint, which forms the basis for a paragraph-long chronology. The victim then gets a receipt acknowledging that the case has been reported. The victim must then wait until she is summonsed by the police. According to the police officer we spoke with, in Jakarta the time between the initial complaint and the summons is "less than a week,"[128] although a women's rights advocate who has experience assisting victims in such cases cautioned that it could be more than "two weeks, depend[ing] on the police work performance."[129] It is only at this examination stage that the police prepare a more thorough chronology called Berita Acara Pemeriksaan (police investigation report). The police then have to collect any relevant evidence before passing on the information to the prosecutors to file a case.[130]

Both police and civil society groups conceded that these summons for the secondary interview, which are delivered by hand to the victim at the address that they provide during the initial interview, frequently do not actually reach the intended victim. As the police officer explained, "After the police try and follow-up, when they try to call her, they're not at the address they are registered here…. The investigators try to find her but they can't find them so they cancel the case."[131]

Civil society groups suggest that the victims are generally not at the address where the summons is delivered because they often go back to their home villages in the rural areas to recover, or move on to a new employer because they need the money, or because the police use out-dated addresses on the victim's identification cards. One social worker explained, "When [domestic workers] are victims of violence, there is an economic need to start working again. [Often] they go back to their villages…. The police need to be able to process cases where the victims are already in a different area."[132]

The Domestic Violence Act requires police to automatically provide up to seven days of temporary protection to a victim within 24 hours of receiving a report of abuse against a household member, including against a domestic worker living in the house. Once the police have begun to provide that protection, they are then obliged to request a protection order from a court.[133] The Law also obliges the police "to immediately conduct an investigation after knowing or receiving a report regarding the occurrence of violence in a household."[134] Current police procedures and practice, therefore, do not appear to conform with the obligations placed on the police by the Domestic Violence Act. Better compliance and speedier investigations could dramatically increase the number of successful investigations and prosecutions.

Failure to follow through on investigations of criminal activity

Another reason suggested by both police and civil society groups for why victims are sometimes unwilling to follow through with complaints that they have filed is that the victim and the employer come to an agreement by which the victim is financially compensated in exchange for dropping the complaint. One social worker told us, "When we offer to assist domestic workers and then the employer offers compensation, the domestic workers tend to have second thoughts about taking their employer to court [and] the [compensation] money looks much better."[135]

Sometimes, the police are not aware that such a settlement has been made between the employer and the victim.[136] But we also spoke to one private lawyer who works for a labor agency when their domestic workers have problems with their employers. The lawyer, himself formerly a policeman, explained,

Mostly with the police they just tell me not to bring [the case] to court. The police give the person creating the problem a chance to fix the problem. So often we mediate. Mostly if [the employer] gives some money [the problem] is fixed.[137]

A social worker told us that "the courts still allow mediation, [even though] mediation can only be used in civil cases."[138]

The police can also take a very passive approach to cases involving domestic workers. A police officer who has worked in the force for the past 18 years, and has specialized in cases against women and children for four years, told us that she was not aware of any arrests or cases being brought against employers for abuse against child domestic workers.[139] She readily admitted, however, that instances of such abuse do occur, "but because there is no report we cannot pursue the cases. There is no opportunity [for the girls] to run away and escape from the house. They are threatened verbally and physically: 'If you report, I will kill you!'"[140]

One social worker who advocated on behalf of a murdered child domestic worker explained that when she approached the police about the case, the police told her that there was little they could do because there were no witnesses to the crime. "When they said there were no witnesses, I went to the scene [of the crime] and met with the local [neighborhood official]. I gathered all the witnesses I could find–12 of them–and another three expert witnesses."[141] The employer was eventually convicted and received a 10-year sentence for the killing.

Violence against domestic workers is a criminal issue. Police should investigate allegations of physical or sexual abuse and should prosecute whenever there is credible evidence that an employer has committed an offence. Whether or not compensation has been offered or accepted should not be a factor in these decisions. Prosecuting crimes committed against child domestic workers sends an important message that society will not tolerate its children being abused and exploited in the worst forms of domestic labor. Again, collecting sufficient information for investigation or prosecution at the earliest feasible time will help the police follow through with a prosecution even if a victim becomes more reluctant to pursue a case following a financial settlement from the employer.

Moreover, police cannot place the entire burden on victims to find witnesses or supporting evidence. The police need to pro-actively investigate cases of abuse, including cases of economic exploitation, which are criminal matters. This is important even in criminal matters where the police share investigative responsibility with labor inspectors.

Establishment of women's and children's unit within police

The change most widely praised by interviewees from all sectors of society was the creation of a new women's and children's unit within the Indonesian Police. These new units handle complaints, allegations, and investigations into violence and sexual abuse, trafficking, and protection of women and children as witnesses or victims. They also train other police officers on trafficking and domestic violence.

The new units are responsible for dealing with all crimes in which the offenders are children. Human Rights Watch made no investigation into the capacity or quality of this work, and makes no judgment here of that element of their work.

This new unit formalizes and builds upon a structure previously known as the Special Service Unit (Ruang Pelayanan Khusus) or the "policewomen desk," which were special services in select police stations at the provincial and district level that focused on handling cases of violence against women and children. These desks were established by an association of senior female police officers formed in 1998. These Special Service units were not formally part of the police organizational structure.[142] By virtue of Decree No. 10 of 2007 of the Chief of Police, these desks are now part of the formal structure of the Indonesian National Police, and have been renamed as the Women and Children Service Unit (Pelayanan Perempuan dan Anak).[143]

There are now such desks at 33 provincial district police offices, and 205 at district police offices, particularly prioritizing areas with high levels of trafficking.[144] Local police offices do not have such units.

This move has received widespread praise from non-governmental and civil society groups. The director of one women's organization in Jakarta told us, "Law enforcement are going well at collaborating with us.... At the local Jakarta level the services with the police are pretty good, but this is not so widespread."[145] One labor agent who claims to place more than 1,000 domestic workers a year praised the new unit: "The police's [women's and children's unit] is really good…. The [provincial level police station] is really helpful, but [the district level and the local level] are not good. The police who work in these [district level and local level stations] are sometimes not aware that there is a [women's and children's unit] and they have no idea how to handle domestic violence cases."[146]

Increased public awareness of the new unit remains of utmost importance. As one police officer told us, there had been some effort to increase public awareness of the women's and children's unit, "but so far only for special groups, for example, to women's groups, but nothing to street children or domestic workers. I am confused as to why we do not disseminate information better."[147]

New units need adequate resources to conduct their work. A police officer in the unit in Yogyakarta told Human Rights Watch, "[Sometimes] we have to fund some of our work ourselves, from our pockets. By doing this job we have no special functional allowance…. When the [victims are] poor people, when they report their cases we give them money for transport home or for food. Also, [there's a] kind of bribery, with the cases for the courts to process the cases quickly. It costs a lot: 300,000 to 400,000 rupiah [US$30 to $40]."[148] In a month, this police officer said she could spend up to 300,000 rupiah ($30) from her 4.5 million rupiah ($440) monthly salary to support two or three cases.

Establishment of women's and children's help centers

Another development since our last report is the establishment of a number of specialized temporary residential and assistance centers for abused women and children around Indonesia. Human Rights Watch has not been able to visit such shelters, so we are not in a position to assess conditions first-hand.[149] However, in principle, shelters that provide temporary safe spaces for women and children to escape abuse and to re-establish normal life are an important contribution to protection, providing they put the interests of women and children first. 

In September 2004, a shelter for abused children was established in Jakarta by the Department of Social Affairs.[150] Currently, the shelter has a capacity for 30 children, although demand "often exceeds capacity."[151] There are plans to renovate the shelter in 2009 to double capacity to 60 children. The shelter receives trafficked children, separated displaced children, and victims of sexual and physical abuse. According to an official in the department, it is "common" for the shelter to receive a domestic worker who is considered trafficked or exploited.[152]

Other such shelters or safe houses exist in Kalimantan Barat, Mataram, Jambi, Batu Raden, Batu in Malang, Aceh, Jakarta, and Yogyakarta.

Prosecutors

Human Rights Watch heard criticisms that the prosecutors tend to lack appropriate sensitivity to victims, as demonstrated by asking victims to meet directly with the accused, blaming the domestic workers for the treatment that they received, never attending trainings or meetings organized by NGOs, and dismissing victims as being "just domestic workers."[153]

One policewoman with over two decades of experience in the force, and more than six years dealing specifically with cases involving women and children, called the prosecutor's office her "biggest obstacle" in bringing cases involving violence against women and children to trial. This policewoman highlighted how the prosecutor's office does not have a special division to deal with cases dealt with by the police's women's and children's unit. If they had, she told us, "I feel like I'd have a much easier time with these cases because they would share the same perspective."[154] She also complained that the prosecutor's office was not transparent or cooperative enough.[155]

Although the Prosecutor's Office is required to have a "gender unit," as a result of the Presidential Instruction No. 9/2000 on Gender Mainstreaming, the Chair of the Women's Commission dismissed it as being "not very active."[156]

Manpower Agency

Officials at the local offices of the Manpower Agency have the responsibility for enforcing child labor laws, but are currently failing to take effective steps to ensure that domestic workers receive even the most basic labor protections that they are guaranteed. In a letter to Human Rights Watch, Fauzi Bowo, governor of Jakarta, wrote,

A number of programs protecting child domestic workers have already been implemented by the Jakarta Provincial Labour Office and Social Welfare Service…. These programs regulate inspections conducted by Labor Inspectors from provincial as well as municipal Labour Offices on child domestic workers in formal workplaces such as factories, companies and offices. Until now, there have been no child workers reported found in the places inspected.[157]

An official from the Jakarta Manpower Agency also informed us that they have not made a single intervention with relation to the mistreatment of a child domestic worker.[158] Remarkably, they also claimed that they have "never found data on under-15s [working as domestic workers]."[159] 

Yet in a survey that Human Rights Watch believes undercounted child laborers, the National Bureau of Statistics nonetheless estimated that there were 3,000 underage live-in domestic workers in Jakarta in 2007.

Although officials at both the Jakarta and Yogyakarta Manpower offices assured Human Rights Watch that they could accept complaints if a domestic worker approached them, they were not aware of anyone ever filing such a complaint.

The Manpower offices in Jakarta appear to be collecting information from some labor recruitment and placement agencies about the number of domestic workers they place. The head of one such placement agency told us,

The local Manpower Agency collects documents from me-data on my girls-but when I went to ask for these documents later when I needed them, they [did not have] them at the agency…. [When] they picked them up, I had to pay a 'transport fee.'[160]

Another agent told us that staff from the Manpower office visit him to collect the numbers of domestic workers that he places. He told us that the Manpower office used to collect names of the workers, but now just collects the raw numbers.[161]

Although the Jakarta Manpower agency claims to supervise labor agencies, Human Rights Watch has serious doubts about the practical reality. A senior official from the Jakarta Manpower Agency assured us that one or two of his staff visit each labor agency approximately every three months, and conduct interviews with their workers to evaluate whether any abuses have occurred.[162] However, since the same official claimed that this was all carried out by a staff of five or six, and that there were 550 supplier agencies in Jakarta, this would mean that if each inspector worked alone, they would need to visit one labor agent every two hours, assuming that they devote all of their resources to suppliers of domestic workers to the exclusion of all other industries. None of the labor agents that Human Rights Watch interviewed had ever received such an inspection.

Government efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labor

In 2002, the Indonesian government launched a 20-year National Plan of Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor (National Action Plan).[163] The plan clearly states that children exploited "as domestic servants" are engaged in a worst form of child labor.

The first five-year phase of the action plan, which ended in 2007, had three main objectives: (1) to increase public awareness of the worst forms of child labor; (2) to map the existence of the worst forms of child labor; and (3) to eliminate the worst forms of child labor in five sectors: children involved in the sale, production and trafficking of drugs; children trafficked for prostitution; and children involved in offshore fishing, mining, and footwear production.[164]

In cooperation with ILO-IPEC the government also initiated a time-bound program for 2002-2007 that aimed to withdraw and prevent 31,340 children from the five sectors identified by the first National Action Plan. In 2008, government officials claimed that the first time-bound plan had missed its total goal, but had succeeded in preventing 27,078 children from entering the five sectors, and removing 2,154 children from hazardous environments.[165] In another program the government claims that it prevented or recalled child workers from 2004-2007, in four provinces: East Java, Sumatra North, West Nusa Tenggara, and South Sulawesi. The government also claims to have established a "child labor free zone" in Kutai Negara district, which they claim resulted in the removal of 10,123 children.[166] Human Rights Watch was not in a position to verify any of these removal or "prevention" figures.

 

Assessments of the success of the first phase of the action plan were mixed. NGO representatives variously described the program as "not a success"[167] or that it "has helped a bit."[168] Arum Ratnawati, the National Chief Technical Advisor at the ILO in Jakarta said: "We observe some progress, but this is a big country and there remains a lot to be done."[169] ILO data from 2004 indicates that 1.4 million children aged 10 to 14 are working in Indonesia.[170]

In particular, NGOs faulted the poor quality, or complete absence of, data collection by provincial governments on the issue of child labor. One child's rights advocate asked: "How can people plan if they don't even have the data?"[171] Another common critique made by NGOs was the lack of capacity of provincial government civil servants charged with carrying out the plan. In particular, they cited the fact that many civil servants are being transferred to the provinces for short periods and as soon as they develop relevant expertise, they are then transferred out again before having a chance to implement what they have learned.[172]

Government officials pointed to the establishment by the Ministry of Manpower of 22 "Provincial Action Committees for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor," and 70 similar committees at the district level as a success of the first phase.[173]  However, as an official at the ILO observed, "Now, not all of them are operational. Some are doing nothing."[174] The Jakarta Labor Agency told us that the Jakarta Committee met "every two months," however when pressed they admitted that the Committee had last met "about five months ago."[175] The Yogyakarta Committee only met once between January and August 2008.[176]

Education

As documented in our 2005 report, costs associated with education often force poor girls and boys to drop out prior to completing their nine years of compulsory education. This contributes to children being pushed into the labor force. We also demonstrated how working as a domestic worker can interfere with children's ability to access education. In addition to costs, domestic workers who are permitted to attend school face significant challenges:  long hours of work and less sleep interfere with scholastic performance as a child may be tardy, absent, or unable to complete school assignments. Indonesian NGOs also claim that a lack of birth certificates, family identification cards, or parents' identification cards, can also pose obstacles to children in low income families being enrolled in school.[177]

In 2007 Indonesia's National Bureau of Statistics surveyed 285,904 homes and did not find a single live-in child domestic worker who had more than a primary school education.[178] Worryingly, data collected by the National Commission for Child Protection (Komisi Nasional Perlindungan Anak) indicates an increase in school drop-outs from 10.8 million children in 2006 to 12.7 million children in 2007.[179]

During our 2008 investigation, we reaffirmed that this connection between education fees and children ending up in child labor continues. Endah explained to us why she started work at age 15:

I couldn't continue school so I decided to get work. [My last year of school was] the first semester of the first year of junior high [seventh grade]. I really wanted to continue studying, but I really didn't have the money. It was 15,000 rupiah ($1.50) per month. But what I really couldn't afford was the 'building fee' and the uniform. It was 500,000 rupiah ($50) for the building fee and uniform…. Then each semester we had to buy books…. I regret it.[180]

Budiwati, who only finished fifth grade, explained to us why she was working:

I can't afford to go to school right now…. I pay for my younger sibling's school … she is in fifth grade…. I want my younger sister to finish college and get a proper job so she doesn't have to have an improper job like me. I want to work in a factory or a company because then I would earn more. [But] I only finished elementary school, and you need a junior high diploma to work in a factory. I want to go back to school but I don't have enough money.[181]

Discriminatory attitudes that dismiss the importance of education for girls also persist within some communities. Where education carries a cost, these costs may make it more likely that discriminatory attitudes in the family will result in girls being withdrawn from school before boys. Dian started work at age 15. "When I said I wanted to go to school [my parents] said I didn't need to go to school…. My parents didn't plan [or budget] on sending my [older] brother to school. But [other family members helped out] so that he could go to school-because he's a guy. I asked relatives to help send me to school, and they said 'Why would we help send you to school? You're a girl so you'll just end up in the kitchen anyway.'"[182]

An economic indicator about the difficulty in attracting better educated girls to become domestic workers is shown by the practice of one labor agency we met with in South Jakarta that pays its field recruiters 300,000 rupiah ($30) for every domestic worker they recruit, but 500,000 rupiah ($50) for every babysitter they recruit. The agency's head explained why: "With babysitters they have to have a junior high diploma, and that is difficult to find."[183]

The Constitution of Indonesia requires that the government allocates a minimum of 20 percent of the national and regional budgets to education.[184] In 2008, however, education spending was set at 154.2 trillion rupiah ($16.76 billion), or 15.6 percent of the state budget.[185] On August 13, 2008, Indonesia's Constitutional Court declared that the country's 2008 budget failed to satisfy the constitutional mandate.[186] This was the third time since 2004 that the Court has found that the government had violated its constitutional duty with regard to education spending.[187] The government has promised that it will meet the necessary allocation for the 2009 budget.[188]

A new program established by the Indonesian government in 2007 known as the "Conditional Cash transfer program" targets an estimated 6.5 million poor families.[189] The program provides cash grants of up to 2,200,000 rupiah ($217) per year to the poorest families. One condition, among others, of receiving the cash is that all children ages 6 to 15 attend school with a minimum attendance rate of 85 percent.[190] A competent monitoring mechanism of the conditions of the grants will be an important element to secure the program's success.

In Yogyakarta, there is a "retrieval program" for drop out children, which allows students who have dropped out because of the costs to return to school for free.[191] This program, however, only targets children who are official residents of the city. Migrant child domestic workers are not considered residents and therefore do not qualify for such programs.[192]

In a very welcome move, it is now illegal in some areas for public schools to charge students "building fees," including in Jakarta, Depok, Mojokerto, Surabaya, and Solo.

Where informal or alternative educational systems do exist, it is vital that they be offered at either the same or higher quality as the regular public school system, so as not to disadvantage children who have to access their education in this manner.

Ensuring access to education for domestic workers is not just about covering the school costs, or establishing alternative education options for working children, however. It also requires enforcement of regulations that require work not to interfere with children's school attendance. Human Rights Watch visited one program offering alternative schooling to child domestic workers who were allowed to attend when granted a rest day. Although this program was a rare, but welcome, opportunity for child domestic workers, it is important that the government work to reduce overall work hours so that child domestic workers do not have to forgo a much-needed rest day to access their right to education. As one domestic worker advocate explained, "Most employers do not give permission to child domestic workers to access regular kinds of alternative education… and the government has no willingness to ensure child domestic workers access to it, because there is no sanction for not giving permission to child domestic workers to access education."[193]