publications

<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

I. Summary

I finished elementary school, but my family had no money to pay for school fees, so I started working as a domestic worker in North Sumatra.  I was thirteen years old then. . . . The employer never hit me, but would say dirty things.  The male employer would call me a “cunt” and would invite me for a walk and [to] rent a room.  That made me uncomfortable.  I felt scared.  The employer would give me food once a day, but if I ate more than that, she would shout at me and call me pig.  I was hungry—that’s why I would take a little more food.  I had no day off.  I was always depressed because I could not leave the house to visit my mother or sister.  No one came to see me.  It was not allowed.
—Vina, Medan, December 15, 2004.
I was fifteen when I started working.  There were eleven people in the house.  The employer had a catering business, on many mornings I woke up at 2:00 a.m. and cooked till 4:00 a.m.  I then washed clothes from 4:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.  I would bathe and feed the child.  I would then go with the employer to the market and buy groceries.  I would iron clothes in the afternoon and take care of the baby.  At night, I would massage both my employers.  I would often go to sleep at 10:00 p.m. . . .  I felt oppressed—I wanted to run away but she had my money.  After one year and three months, I decided to escape.  I lied to my employer that my mother was sick and had to go see her.  My employer gave me Rp.150,000 [U.S.$16.66] and told me that she would give the rest when I returned.  It was a trick to make sure I went back.  But I didn’t.  How could I?  Yes, I was paid a total of only Rp.150,000 even though I worked there for over one year.
—Lili, Yogyakarta, December 4, 2004.1

In Indonesia such stories are all too typical.  By becoming domestic workers Vina and Lili had ceded control of their lives to their employers.  As one domestic worker told us, “As a domestic worker you have no control over your life.  No one respects you.  You have no rights.  This is the lowest kind of work.”2

This report provides an account of the working conditions of child domestic workers based on forty-four interviews with former and current child domestic workers, ages eleven and older.  It illustrates the endemic exploitation and abuse of these young workers who are employed in other people’s households, including the households of relatives, engaged to perform tasks such as cooking, cleaning, laundry, child caretaking, and, sometimes, working at their employers’ business.  Hidden in their employers’ homes, isolated from their parents, with no oversight by the Indonesian government, these children often toil in exploitative work conditions.

While some of the nineteen Indonesian officials we spoke with acknowledged that some child domestics face abuse, most were quick to argue that such abuse was limited to a handful of extreme cases and did not require fundamental changes in the government’s approach.  This response contrasts markedly with public statements by officials on the need for enforcement of basic rights protections and creation of grievance and redress mechanisms to stem similar abuses faced by Indonesian adults working as domestics in Malaysia, Singapore, and the Middle East.  It is as if officials find it unthinkable that Indonesians could treat Indonesian domestics in ways in which officials know such workers are treated overseas.  Meaningful change for child domestics in Indonesia will require a more objective view of the situation.  This report is a contribution toward that end, and builds on the efforts of a growing number of grassroots organizations working on behalf of child domestics in Indonesia.

In Indonesia girls typically enter domestic work between the ages of twelve and fifteen.  The legal minimum working age in Indonesia is fifteen.  Girls are recruited by employers, friends, relatives, or labor agents from rural or poor urban areas for work as domestics in urban centers.  Labor agents told Human Rights Watch that employers prefer hiring children because they are cheaper than adults, can be more easily managed, and “cannot run away from the employer.”3 

Girls described being lured with false promises of higher wages in cities, but without being given details about all the tasks they would perform, the hours they would be expected to work, or the lack of vacation days for months at a time.  Most girls said they typically worked fourteen to eighteen hours a day, seven days a week, with no day off.  Many told us their employers forbid them from leaving the workplace to visit their family or friends or from receiving any visitors, rendering them depressed and isolated from the outside world.  In the worst cases, in addition to working eighteen hour days, some were physically and sexually abused.  Employers often withhold salary until the child returns home once a year for Eid-ul-Fitr, a Muslim holiday at the end of Ramadan; many then fail to pay the children at all or pay less than what they promised.  The employers’ tactic of withholding the salary deters child domestics who live far from their homes from leaving exploitative situations. 

The International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates that more girls under sixteen work in domestic service than in any other category of child labor. Indonesia, where hundreds of thousands of girls toil as domestic workers, is no exception.  According to the ILO there are 2.6 million domestic workers in Indonesia out of which at minimum 688,132, mainly girls under the age of eighteen, are child domestics. 

Domestic workers in Indonesia are not recognized as workers and are excluded from the nation’s labor code, which affords basic labor rights such as a minimum wage, overtime pay, an eight-hour workday and forty-hour workweek, weekly day of rest, vacation, and social security to workers in the formal sector.  The exclusion of all domestic workers from these rights denies them equal protection of the law and has a discriminatory impact on women and girls, who constitute the vast majority of domestic workers.

In Indonesia, the word most often used for domestic workers is pembantu (“helpers”) rather than pekerja (“workers”), and is reflected in the government’s failure to regulate the sector.  Labeling them as helpers is convenient because it translates into low pay and fewer protections for women and girls who perform such tasks.  As in many parts of the world, domestic work is considered as “women’s work” and therefore not remunerative.  The characterization of domestic workers as helpers also reflects the widespread belief that families who take in children as domestic helpers are providing disadvantaged children with a safe option out of poverty.  Such a paternalistic view is contrary to the findings in this report, and to those of the ILO and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Indonesia that have studied the conditions actually faced by such children. 

Although Indonesia has a large labor ministry, it does not monitor the informal labor sector, and no effective mechanisms exist for domestic workers to report abuses.  Domestic workers can report cases to the police, but the police often refuse to investigate or prosecute and, when they do investigate, often force settlement of disputes.  Due to the hidden nature of the work and the control extended over their movements by employers, domestic workers find it difficult to seek help and file formal complaints with the police. 

The government officials Human Rights Watch spoke with consistently denied that child domestics are often exploited or abused.  Some instead described child domestics as “devotees” who devote themselves to their employers because they are provided food and shelter.  The deputy for child protection in the Ministry of Women’s Empowerment told us:  “Our [Javanese] culture is ngenger.4  If [children] work in a house, they are regarded by employers as their own children and are sent to school in return for working in the house. . . . Sometimes they get no salary because the employer provides them food and accommodation.”5  An official at the national Ministry of Manpower told us that there should be no minimum wage for domestics and should “domestic workers be given a day off, then they would not know what to do and would not know where to go.”6  Efforts by local NGOs in Jakarta and Yogyakarta for regulations for a weekly day of rest, decent wages, and work hours have met with stiff resistance by local governments.

Children often become domestic workers to supplement their family’s income.  Some have dropped out of school, unable to complete the nine years of education (six years of elementary and three years of lower secondary school) required by Indonesian law due to the cost of education.  Many child domestic workers told us that they dropped out because their families could no longer pay for school tuition and other fees, books, uniforms, or transportation.  For those who are able to complete nine years of basic education, the cost of secondary education continues to be a deterrent.  Without continued secondary education, these children have limited work options, as nearly all non-agricultural formal sector jobs in Indonesia require a high school degree.

Domestic service also interferes with children’s access to education.  Those who wish to attend school are dependent on the goodwill of their employers and our findings suggest that employers routinely deny them this opportunity.   Indonesian law does not limit the working hours of children, above the legal working age of fifteen, to ensure that they are able to attend school. 

Given conditions in Indonesia today, it is unrealistic to expect that practices will change overnight.  Powerful economic and cultural forces underlie the current prevalent use of child domestics.  Steps can and should be taken immediately, however, to stem the worst abuses and to begin to build the kind of regulatory regime capable of monitoring and protecting all children working in the sector. Two essential first steps are nationwide enforcement of the minimum working age of fifteen and the eradication of what is known internationally as the “worst forms” of child domestic labor.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child and ILO Convention No. 182, concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor prohibits the employment of children in work that is likely to be hazardous, interferes with their education, or is harmful to their health, safety or morals.7  Domestic work by children under such conditions, some examples of which are documented in this report, is a worst form of child labor under international law.  Prohibited work includes work under difficult conditions, such as work for long hours, during the night, that unreasonably confines the child to the employer’s premises, or that exposes the child to physical, psychological, or sexual abuse.8  Indonesia has ratified these treaties and has a duty to protect the physical, mental, and moral health of child domestic workers.

The Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention obligates member states, such as Indonesia, to design and implement programs of action “to eliminate as a priority the worst forms of child labor” and recommends states give “special attention” to “the problem of hidden work situations, in which girls are at special risk.”9  In a welcome move in 2002, the Indonesian government launched, by Presidential decree, a twenty-year National Plan of Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor, and identified the physical and economic exploitation of child domestic workers, along with twelve other areas of child labor as a worst form of child labor.  The government, in cooperation with ILO, has initiated time-bound programs to remove children involved in the sale, production, and trafficking of drugs; children trafficked for prostitution; and children involved in offshore fishing, mining, and footwear production. The government should also prioritize the elimination of the worst forms of child domestic labor because it involves at minimum 688,132 children, predominantly girls, who work in hidden work situations and are at risk of physical, psychological and sexual abuse.

International organizations, such as the United Nation’s Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and ILO’s International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC) in partnership with local NGOs, have initiated small-scale programs for child domestic workers in the greater Jakarta area.  These programs, however, are not a solution to the underlying problem and, as we were told by ILO and UNICEF, probably do not reach the worst cases because the programs typically require the consent of the child’s employer.  Such efforts are no substitute for legal protection affording basic labor rights to domestic workers, including recognition by the Indonesian government that child domestic workers are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation and must be protected.

Not all child domestic workers work fourteen to eighteen hour days, are deprived of wages and adequate rest, are prohibited from contacting their families, or are sexually and physically abused.  But the sheer fact that these young workers are not protected by the law leaves them at their employers’ mercy.  Such work relations are inherently susceptible to abuse and exploitation and must be rectified.

Human Rights Watch urges Indonesia to:

  • Strictly enforce fifteen as the minimum age of employment for all sectors, including domestic work; and enact regulations to provide for sanctions against all labor recruiters and employers, including employers in the informal sector, who recruit and employ children under fifteen.

  • Prioritize the elimination of the worst forms of child domestic labor along with the five other child labor sectors already prioritized, and with assistance from ILO-IPEC institute a time-bound program to eliminate the worst forms of child domestic labor.

  • Amend the Manpower Act, Law No. 23/2003, to:
    • ensure that domestic workers receive the same rights as other workers, most importantly a minimum wage, a weekly day of rest, an eight-hour workday, rest periods during the day, and vacation and holiday leave;

    • provide an effective penalty for violating the law; and

    • prescribe a reasonable number of hours during the day that children, aged fifteen and older, including those in the informal sector, may work, to ensure that their work does not interfere with their schooling.

A full set of detailed recommendations, addressed to the Indonesian central and regional governments, international organizations, and donor governments, is found in Chapter VII. 10

* * * * *

Human Rights Watch conducted research for this report in Indonesia in November and December 2004, and subsequently through telephone and electronic mail from New York.  The report is based on field investigations in Java and Sumatra: in urban areas such as Bekasi, Jakarta, Medan, Pamulang, Semarang, Surabaya, Yogyakarta, and two sending areas (areas where child domestics are recruited), one outside Medan, and the other outside Yogyakarta.  We spoke with more than 105 people, including forty-four current and former domestic workers ages eleven and older, as well as activists, lawyers, academics, and government officials at the local and national level.  Children and adult domestic workers were interviewed outside their workplaces.  Almost all of the domestics with whom we spoke had worked in more than one household, and many had worked in a quite a few.  The names of all domestic workers have been changed to protect their privacy and preclude potential employer retaliation.  In this report, in accord with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, “child” refers to anyone under the age of eighteen.11

* * * *

This is Human Rights Watch’s twelfth report on child labor.  To date, we have investigated bonded child labor in India and Pakistan, the failure to protect child farmworkers in the United States, child labor in Egypt’s cotton fields, abuses against girls and women in domestic work in Guatemala, the use of child labor in Ecuador’s banana sector, the use of child labor in sugarcane cultivation and abuses against child domestic workers in El Salvador, child trafficking in Togo, and the economic exploitation of children as a consequence of the genocide in Rwanda. In addition, we have published fifteen reports on the forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict, a worst form of child labor, documenting such abuses in Angola, Burma, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Uganda.

This is Human Rights Watch’s seventh report documenting abuses against domestic workers, including migrant workers, both children and adults.  We have documented such abuses in El Salvador, Guatemala, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Togo, and the United States.



[1] All figures quoted in rupiah have been converted to U.S. dollars at the exchange rate of Rp.9,000 to U.S.$1.00.

[2] Human Rights Watch interview with Hasana, who became a domestic worker at age twelve, Yogyakarta, December 4, 2004. 

[3] Human Rights Watch interview with Tarsiyah, labor agent, Jakarta, November 30, 2004.

[4] Ngenger is a Javanese word referring to domestic service of a child in another (typically more wealthy or higher status) household; the custom is rooted in feudal-era practices.

[5] Human Rights Watch interview with Rachmat Sentika, Deputy for Child Protection and Welfare, Ministry of Women’s Empowerment, Jakarta, December 16, 2004.

[6] Human Rights Watch interview with Sudaryanto, Director of Women Worker and Child Labor Inspection, Ministry of Manpower, Jakarta, December 16, 2004.

[7] Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted November 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force September 2, 1990, ratified by Indonesia on January 20, 1990), art. 32(1); ILO Convention 182 concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor (“Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention”), adopted June 17, 1999, 38 I.L.M. 1207 (entered into force November 19, 2000, ratified by Indonesia on March 28, 2000), art. 3.

[8] ILO Recommendation concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor (“Worst Forms of Child Labor Recommendation”), ILO No. R190, June 17, 1999, para. 3.

[9] Worst Form of Child Labor Convention, art. 6; Worst Forms of Child Labor Recommendation, para. 2(c).

[10] In this report “regional government” refers both to provincial governments and district governments in Indonesia. 

[11] Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as “every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.”


<<previous  |  index  |  next>>June 2005