publications

<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

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

It is difficult to establish regulations on domestic workers because every family has its own way of dealing with them.
—Wiwik Indrasih, Office of Social Welfare and Women’s Empowerment, Surabaya, December 9, 2004.

Indonesia has failed to protect child domestic workers from abuse and exploitation in three ways.  First, although the Indonesian government in a 2002 Presidential decree identified the physical or economic exploitation of child domestic workers as a worst form of child labor, government officials at the national and regional level consistently deny that there is widespread abuse of such workers.  Consequently, no action has been taken to protect children from working in hazardous or harmful forms of domestic work.  Second, Indonesia’s national labor laws exclude domestic workers from the minimum protections afforded to workers in the formal sector, such as minimum wage, hours of work, rest, holidays, an employment contract, and social security.  Efforts by local grassroots organizations seeking regulations on a weekly day of rest, decent wages, and hours of work for domestic workers in Yogyakarta and Jakarta have met with resistance from local government officials.  Third, there are no other mechanisms that effectively protect workers in the informal sector.  Although domestic workers can report cases of abuse to the police, the police often fail to investigate or prosecute; in many cases they pressure the parties to settle disputes in ways that leave the children still exposed.  Even laws enacted to protect children from labor exploitation are not enforced in the child domestic labor context. 

Indonesia should enforce existing laws to the extent they provide protection for child domestics, should amend or replace laws that are inadequate, and should develop enforcement mechanisms to bring Indonesia law and practice into compliance with its treaty obligations to protect children and to guarantee all workers equal protection of the law.

Lack of Will to Protect Child Domestic Workers

Governments Efforts to Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labor

In 2002, two years after ratifying the Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, the Indonesian government, by Presidential decree, launched a twenty-year National Plan of Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor (National Action Plan).215  In a welcome move, the plan identified children who are physically or economically exploited “as domestic servants,” along with twelve other areas of child labor, as a worst form of child labor.216  Since that time, however, the government, however, has failed to take any action to protect child domestic workers from such abuse.

The National Action Plan is divided in three phases with targets to be achieved in the first phase after five years, in the second phase after ten years, and in the third phase after twenty years.217  The objectives of the first phase of the National Action Plan in 2003-2007 are to:  (1) increase public awareness of the worst forms of child labor; (2) map the existence of the worst forms of child labor; and (3) eliminate the worst forms of child labor in five areas:  children involved in the sale, production and trafficking of drugs; children trafficked for prostitution; and children involved in, respectively, offshore fishing, mining, and footwear production.218  The second phase of the National Action Plan will be “achieved after 10 years” and will replicate models used to eliminate the worst forms of child labor in the first phase “in other areas.”219  

The government, in cooperation with ILO-IPEC, has initiated time-bound programs in the five areas identified as targets in the first phase.220  Child domestic labor, which involves at minimum 688,132 children, predominantly girls, working in hidden work situations and at risk of sexual, physical and psychological abuse has not been recognized by the government as a priority along with other sectors in the first phase of the action plan.  Nor has the Indonesian government yet made public how it plans to address the worst forms of child domestic labor for the second phase of the National Action Plan.221

The government should prioritize programs to eliminate the worst forms of child domestic labor along with the other sectors already identified.  The Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention obligates state parties to implement programs of action to eliminate as a priority the worst forms of child labor “tak[ing] account of the special situation of girls.”222   The Worst Forms of Child Labor Recommendation, in particular, urges states to give “special attention” to “the problem of hidden work situations, in which girls are at special risk.”223  Notably, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors state compliance with the convention, in 2004 recommended that Indonesia “ensure that the [government] reach out and protect children employed in the informal sector, in particular domestic workers.”224   Indonesia to date has failed to do so.

Turning a Blind Eye to Abuse

Some of the nineteen government officials we spoke with acknowledged that some child domestics face abuse, but were quick to argue that such cases are rare.  A parliamentarian in Semarang said:  “There are rarely cases of abuse against child domestic workers because the work relationship is based on mutual needs of both parties.”225  In Surabaya an official from the Office of Social Welfare and Women’s Empowerment told us, “Child domestic workers are not paid a salary because they are treated like their own family by employers; therefore they are not paid. . . .  Almost 80 percent of child domestic workers are sent to school by employers.  If [they are] not sent to formal school, they are sent to informal school.  Any case of physical violence does not represent the situation in Surabaya.  These are special cases.”226  Human Rights Watch interviewed no child domestic worker in Surabaya whose employer sent her to school. 

Some government officials described child domestic workers as “devotees” under the protection of their employers. 227  Government officials told us that employers provide food, shelter, and education and in return “children devote themselves to their employer.”228  An official from the national Ministry of Women’s Empowerment explained, “No child works as a domestic.  Our [Javanese] culture is ngenger.229  If they 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.”230  In stark contrast with this idealized description, we met only one fourteen-year-old domestic whose employer permitted her to attend formal school.  But even she was subjected to verbal abuse and insults by her employer, she told us.231 

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.”232  This view was echoed by a representative of an employers’ association who cautioned against calling domestics “workers” because that would imply that they have rights in terms of minimum wage and a day of rest.  Rather, he said, they should be referred to as “household helpers.”233

Eliminating the worst forms of child domestic labor requires not only laws to eradicate such exploitation, but acknowledgment by the government and public at large that there is widespread abuse.  Recent publicity, including public statements by the national government, around the abuse of Indonesian migrant domestic workers in Malaysia, Singapore, and the Middle East contrasts with government silence and denial concerning the abusive conditions faced by domestic workers in Indonesia.  “Abuses against child domestic workers in Indonesia are endemic and as serious as those against Indonesian migrant domestic workers,” said Pandji Putranto, an ILO-IPEC senior program officer overseeing IPEC’s child domestic worker programs in Indonesia.234  But “the government is not serious” about tackling the issue of child domestic labor, he said.235  

Excluded from Protection of the Law and Lack of Enforcement

Child domestic workers never complain even when they are not paid their salary.  [They] are not treated fairly and cannot defend themselves.  Other workers even have unions.  Domestic workers have nothing.
— Pandji Putranto, Senior Program Officer, ILO-IPEC, November 29, 2004.

Labor Laws

All domestic workers, adult and children, are excluded from Indonesian labor law and do not enjoy the minimum protections afforded to Indonesian workers employed in the formal sector.  This exclusion gives abusive employers a blank check, facilitates the abuse and exploitation of domestic workers, and disproportionately impacts women and girls who comprise the largest percentage of domestic workers. 

At the national level, the legislature in March 2003 promulgated a new labor law, the Act Concerning Manpower (Manpower Act), which sets forth wage and hour protections for workers in the formal sector, but excludes, among others, domestic workers. 236  The labor code arbitrarily distinguishes between employers in the formal and informal sector; obligating only “entrepreneurs”—employers in the formal sector—to abide by laws governing work agreements, minimum wages, overtime, hours, rest, and vacation.237 

The labor law does prohibit “anyone” from employing and involving children, defined as anyone under the age of eighteen, in the worst forms of child labor, such as slavery or practices similar to slavery; jobs that use, procure, or offer a child for prostitution, pornography or gambling; jobs which use a child to procure, or involve a child for production and trade of alcoholic beverages, narcotics, psychotropic substances; and/or all kinds of job harmful to the health, safety, and morals of a child.238  The types of jobs which damage the health, safety, and morals of children are not defined in the Manpower Act, but were determined by a ministerial decree in October 2003.239

The Decree of the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration (Ministerial Decree), effective October 31, 2003, sets the working age of all children at fifteen, and prohibits children under the age of eighteen from performing work that is hazardous to their health, safety, or morals.240  Thus, the decree on its face is applicable to child domestic workers, but in practice is not enforced.  The decree, however, bars only employers in the formal sector from employing children to work overtime.241  Although more children work in the informal sector than in the formal sector, employers in the informal sector are not limited in the number of hours of work they may extract from a child.  Such a distinction in the protections afforded to child workers in the formal versus the informal sectors contravenes the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, which do not differentiate between employment sectors in their prohibition on economic exploitation of children.242 

The Ministerial Decree further describes as hazardous work in locked places and work conducted between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.243  This provision of the law should be applied to child domestic workers, but in practice is not.  The decree, however, fails to specifically identify as hazardous work that exposes children to physical, psychological, or sexual abuse; involves long hours; or that unreasonably confines a child to the employer’s premises, as set forth in the Worst Forms of Child Labor Recommendation.244  The ILO has concluded that a child domestic is engaged in hazardous work when “‘on call’ 24 hours a day, including night-time hours, who has no time off and who is not allowed to leave the premises except to perform controlled tasks, is working under particularly difficult conditions and is unreasonably confined,” and thus a worst form of child domestic labor.245 

Notably, the Manpower Act obligates the government to enact regulations “to overcome problems concerning . . . children who work outside of [an] employment relationship” (the latter defined in the law as an employment relationship between formal sector employers and workers).246  As of this writing, the Indonesian government has not promulgated any government regulation that addresses problems of working children who do not work for formal sector employers.

In Jakarta, a local regulation governing domestic workers has been in existence since 1993.  Jakarta Provincial Regulation No. 6/1993 provides that domestic workers are entitled to annual leave, regular payment of salaries, clothing, food, rest, and housing.247   Children over fifteen may work, but only upon written permission from their parents.  The regulation does not specify the hours of work per day, hours of rest, or minimum wage.248  The law also regulates domestic worker placement agencies, requiring them to be licensed, to house prospective employees, and to provide skills training.249  Violations of these provisions can result in three months of imprisonment or a fine of Rp.50,000 (U.S.$5.55).250  According to Jakarta-based NGOs working with child domestics, the regulation is not being enforced. 251

The ILO-IPEC study on child domestic workers concluded that the regulation has not worked because the public and government officials are unaware of the law, there are no mechanisms to monitor its implementation, and sanctions for violations are mild.252  The head of the Jakarta Office of Manpower told a journalist in January 2005 that his office has not been able to enforce the regulation because officials lacked detailed guidance on how to enforce it.253

In Yogyakarta and Jakarta, local NGOs are pushing for legislation that would afford domestic workers fundamental workers’ rights at the provincial level.  But there is strong resistance from the local government, as well as employers, to setting a minimum wage , hours of work, and to providing a weekly day of rest for domestics.254 

Child Protection Law

The Indonesian government, in 2002, passed the Child Protection Act with the stated purpose of guaranteeing the rights of the child and the principles stated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.255  The law defines a child as anyone under the age of eighteen and prohibits economic or sexual exploitation of children, as well as violence and abuse of children.256  The law sets forth penalties for economically or sexually exploiting a child, and for committing violence, including torture, against a child.257

The government-appointed Indonesian Commission on Child Protection (KPAI) informed us that the Child Protection Act can be used to prosecute employers who abuse and exploit child domestics.  Commission member Dr. Lily Rilantono however noted, “Nobody cares about child domestic workers,”258 explaining that the implementation and effectiveness of the Child Protection Act is limited by society’s subjective perceptions of what is exploitative.259  Government officials in Medan, Semarang, and Surabaya told us that they were unaware of any employer of a child domestic worker ever being charged or prosecuted under the act.260 

Domestic Violence Law

The Domestic Violence Law, enacted in November 2004, prohibits physical, psychological, and sexual violence against a husband, a wife, children, family members living in the home, and persons working in the home, and provides for sanctions against perpetrators of the abuse.261  Officials at the national and local level told us that this law should protect domestic workers from violence and abuse.262  However, statements by government officials to Human Rights Watch, as noted above, raises serious doubt that political will exists to enforce the law to prosecute employers of domestic workers.

No Remedy for Violations

Everyone does not want to be a domestic, but due to financial reasons there is no choice.  But this does not mean that employers can take advantage of us.  We are human too.
—Atin, who became a domestic worker at age eleven, Yogyakarta, December 1, 2004.

There are no regulations requiring local manpower offices to receive complaints from domestic workers about workplace abuse or exploitation.  Officials at the national ministry of manpower and regional offices of manpower in Medan and Semarang told us that they do not monitor the informal sector, which includes domestic workers.263  An official at the North Sumatra Office of Manpower and Transmigration explained domestic workers in particular are not monitored because they “are difficult to observe.”264  Nevertheless, officials in Semarang and Medan told us that a domestic worker who was not paid her salary could file a complaint with the local office of manpower and the office would assist in settling the case.265  But these officials had no data or complaints, nor could they recall any such case ever being filed.

The absence of regulations governing how domestic workers can seek redress for workplace exploitation leaves such workers with limited avenues for relief.  For instance, when asked how disputes on wages are resolved, a domestic worker supplier agency’s lawyer in Jakarta told us that the agency asks the governor’s office to intervene.  “If they are not able to clear the problem, they leave it to us to report to the police and the police make a determination from this.  If the police say there are no witnesses and your people are lying, we leave it to the God.”266

Officials at the national ministry of manpower and local offices of manpower told Human Rights Watch that domestic workers can report cases of abuse and exploitation to the police.267  However, neither they nor the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights were able to provide Human Rights Watch with data on complaints filed by domestic workers or prosecutions of employers.  According to NGOs who work with abused domestic workers, police often dissuade domestic workers who have been economically exploited or physically abused from pursuing their cases in court and pressure domestics and their families to settle cases out of court.268  Even when a domestic worker agrees to settle, there is no guarantee that the employer will actually pay the promised amount and there are no legal means to enforce the settlement.269  For instance, an NGO in Surabaya described a case it handled involving thirteen-year-old Siti, who was physically abused by her employer and was paid only Rp.200,000 (U.S.$22.22) for working eleven months.  The police investigated the case and a financial settlement for 1.5 million rupiah (U.S.$166) was agreed upon by the employer and Siti’s family.  According to the NGO, the employer paid only one million rupiah (U.S.$111) and the police refused to compel payment of the agreed amount.270 

A telephone hotline, KIDSLINE, was set up in Surabaya in 2004, by a consortium of local NGOs and the Surabaya police unit responsible for women and children. The hotline allows any child to call in and report cases of violence.  According to activists we spoke with, the local police unit that is responsible for investigating such cases routinely fails to do so and merely refers the callers to NGOs for services.271  Human Rights Watch met with the head of the police unit and she was unable to provide us any data on the types of complaints that the hotline receives or how the unit has handled complaints.272  Nor was the official aware of any employers of domestic workers being prosecuted or convicted of abuse.273 

An NGO working with child domestic workers in the Philippines has found that telephone hotlines are a useful means for child domestic workers to seek help.274  Hotlines, however, only work effectively when the hotline is staffed twenty-four hours a day by trained personnel who can respond to the caller; within reasonable time take steps to withdraw the child from abusive situations; provide safe shelter, medical treatment and counseling; and refer cases for prosecution.275  



[215] Presidential Decree No. 59/2002 on the Plan of National Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor, adopted August 13, 2002. 

[216] Ibid.

[217] Ibid.

[218] Ibid., chap. III(A)(2); see also ILO, A Series of Policy Recommendations: Eliminating the Worst Forms of Child Labor , p.13.

[219] Plan of National Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor, chap. III(A)(2).

[220] Time-bound programs aim to eliminate the worst forms of child labor within a set period of time in cooperation with the government in which such programs are implemented.  See generally ILO-IPEC, Time-Bound Programs for Eliminating the Worst Forms of Child Labor: Manual for Action Plan  Guidebook II (Geneva: ILO, 2003).  The programs aim to withdraw and prevent 31,340 children from the five sectors and support economic empowerment of 7,500 families.  ILO, A Series of Policy Recommendations: Eliminating the Worst Forms of Child Labor, p. 13.

[221] No government official at the national or regional level Human Rights Watch spoke with told us of any plans to protect child domestic workers.  This was also confirmed by ILO-IPEC.  Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Pandji Putranto, Senior Program Officer, ILO-IPEC, March 28, 2005.

[222] Worst Form of Child Labor Convention, arts. 6-7(2)(e).

[223] Worst Forms of Child Labor Recommendation, para. 2(c).

[224] Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Indonesia, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.223, January 30, 2004, para. 85.

[225] Human Rights Watch interview with Ali Mansoor, Member of Parliament, Province of Central Java, Semarang, December 7, 2004. 

[226] Human Rights Watch interview with Arijanto, Office of Social Welfare and Women’s Empowerment, Surabaya, December 9, 2004. 

[227] Human Rights Watch interview with Rachmat Sentika, Deputy for Child Protection and Welfare, Ministry of Women’s Empowerment, Jakarta, December 16, 2004; Human Rights Watch interview with Arijanto, Office of Social Welfare and Women’s Empowerment, Surabaya, December 9, 2004.

[228] Human Rights Watch interview with Arijanto and Wiwik Indrasih, Office of Social Welfare and Women’s Empowerment, Surabaya, December 9, 2004.

[229] See note 4 defining ngenger.

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

[231] Human Rights Watch interview with Wardina, Bekasi, December 18, 2004.

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

[233] Human Rights Watch interview with Harjano, The Employer’s Association of Indonesia (APINDO), Jakarta, December 21, 2004.

[234] Human Rights Watch interview with Pandji Putranto, Senior Program Officer, ILO-IPEC, Jakarta, December 16, 2004.

[235] Ibid.

[236] National laws are created by consensus between the president and the House of Representatives.  Laws may require implementing regulations in the form of government regulations or presidential decrees to have effect.  A government regulation implements a law and is prepared only where the law calls for government regulations or does not specify the type of legislation required.  Regional regulations (perda) are at the lowest level of the Indonesian legal hierarchy.  They are based on agreement between the head of the region and the Regional Representative Council and must comply with national laws and regulations.  The Ministry of Home Affairs can void regional regulations that conflict with national laws.  See generally Asian Development Bank, Country Governance Assessment Report Republic of Indonesia (Manila: Asian Development Bank, 2004), pp. 7-12.  See also Decree of the People’s Consultative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia, No. III/MPR/2000 on Legal Source and Legislative Regulations Order, August 18, 2000.

[237] Manpower Act, arts. 77-79 and 90.  The Manpower Act defines an “entrepreneur” as an “individual, a partnership or legal entity that operates a self-owned enterprise . . .  [or] a non-self-owned enterprise.”  In contrast, an “employer” is defined as an “individual, entrepreneur, legal entities, or other entity that employ manpower by paying them wages or other forms of remuneration.”  Ibid., art. 1(4-5).

[238] Ibid., art. 74(1)(2).  The Manpower Act does permit entrepreneurs to employ children between thirteen and fifteen for “light work to the extent that the job does not stunt or disrupt their physical, mental and social developments.” Ibid., arts. 68-69(1).  The law further provides that entrepreneurs who employ children for light work must:  seek written permission from parents or guardians; have a work agreement between the entrepreneur and the parents or guardian; limit the hours of work to three hours during the day and without disturbing his or her schooling; meet occupational health and safety requirements; and pay wages in accordance with prevailing provisions.  There must also be “clear employment relations” between all parties.  Ibid., art. 69.  The law defines “employment relation” as a relationship between an entrepreneur and a worker based on a work agreement, which describes the types of work and wages.  Ibid., art. 1(15).  The law provides for some sanctions for violating the law.  Specifically, the law states that “whosoever” violates article 74 (prohibiting employment of children in the worst forms of child labor) is subjected to imprisonment of two to five years and/or fined from Rp.200,000,000 (U.S.$22,222) up to Rp. 500,000,000 (U.S.$55,555).  Ibid., art. 183.

[239] Ibid., art. 74(3).  

[240] Decree of the Minister of Labor and Transmigration, No. KEP.235/MEN/2003 Regarding Types of Work that are Hazardous to the Health, Safety or Morals of Children (Ministerial Decree), October 31, 2003, arts. 2-3.

[241] Ministerial Decree, art. 4.

[242] Convention on the Rights of the Child, arts. 2, 32; Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, art. 3.

[243] Ministerial Decree, I(c)(4 and 9). 

[244] Worst Forms of Child Labor Recommendation, para. 3. 

[245] ILO, Helping Hands, p. 12.

[246] Manpower Act, art. 75. 

[247] Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Pramuwisma Di Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, Nomor 6 Tahun 1993 (Regional Regulation of Jakarta Special Province No. 6/1993 on Improving the Welfare of Domestic Workers), June 29, 2003.

[248] Ibid.

[249] Ibid.

[250] Ibid.

[251] Human Rights Watch interviews with Yayasan Kesejahteraan Anak Indonesia (YKAI) and Rumpun Gema Perempuan, Jakarta, November 30, 2004.

[252] ILO-IPEC, Flowers in the Rock, p. 163.

[253] Bambang Vinabianto, “City Administration Fails to Service its Domestic Workers,” The Jakarta Post, January 14, 2005 (citing Ali Zubeir, head of the Jakarta Office of Manpower, who stated, “There are too many factors that must be taken into account to implement existing regulations, because we want to act fairly both to the maids and their employers”).

[254] Human Rights Watch interview with Andri Utami, Yayasan Kesejahteraan Anak Indonesia (YKAI), Jakarta, November 29, 2004; Human Rights Watch interview with Lita Angraeni, Rumpun Tjoet Njak Dien, Yogyakarta, December 1, 2004.

[255] Child Protection Act, arts. 2-3.

[256] Ibid., arts. 1(1) and 59.

[257] The penalties for exploiting a child economically or sexually are a maximum of ten years of imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of Rp.200,000,000 (U.S.$22,222).  Ibid., art. 88.  Persons who commit acts of violence, including torture, against a child can be imprisoned for up to three years and six months, and/or fined a maximum of Rp.72,000,000 (U.S.$8,000).  Ibid., art. 80(1).  (Torture is not defined in the Child Protection Law).  The penalty increases if the child is seriously injured (five years imprisonment and/or maximum fine of Rp.100,000,000 (U.S.$11,111)) or dies (ten years imprisonment and/or maximum fine of Rp.200,000,000 (U.S.$22,222)).  Ibid., art. 80(2)(3).

[258] Human Rights Watch interview with Dr. Lily Rilantono, Indonesian Commission on Child Protection (KPAI), Jakarta, December 16, 2004.  The nine-member KPAI was appointed by the national Minister for Women’s Empowerment Sri Redjeki Soemaryoto.  KPAI’s mandate includes educating the public about the child protection law, accepting complaints, gathering data and information, and submitting recommendations about children to the government.  Dewi Santoso, “Government Installs Child Care Commission,” The Jakarta Post, July 21, 2004.

[259] Human Rights Watch interview with Dr. Lily Rilantono, Indonesian Commission on Child Protection (KPAI), Jakarta, December 16, 2004. 

[260] Human Rights Watch interview with Safruddin, Office of Manpower and Transmigration, Province of North Sumatra, Medan, December 14, 2004; Human Rights Watch interview with Bambang Praytino, Office of Manpower and Transmigration, Province of Central Java, Semarang, December 7, 2004; Human Rights Watch interview with Arijanto and Wiwik Indrasih, Office of Social Welfare and Women’s Empowerment, Surabaya, December 9, 2004.

[261] Undang–Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 23 Tahun 2004 Tentang Penghapusan Kekerasan Dalam Rumah Tangga (Act of the Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 23/2004 on Domestic Violence), September 22, 2004, art. 2(1)(c).

[262] Human Rights Watch interview with Sudaryanto, Director of Women Worker and Child Labor Inspection, Ministry of Manpower, Jakarta, December 16, 2004; Human Rights Watch interview with Sabrina, Office of Women’s Empowerment, Province of North Sumatra, Medan, December 14, 2004.

[263] Human Rights Watch interview with Haji, Sub-Director of Child Protection, Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration, Jakarta, December 16, 2004; Human Rights Watch interview with Safruddin, Office of Manpower and Transmigration, Province of North Sumatra, Medan, December 14, 2004; Human Rights Watch interview with Bambang Praytino, Office of Manpower and Transmigration, Province of Central Java, Semarang, December 7, 2004.

[264] Human Rights Watch interview with Azman Lubis, Labor Inspector, Office of Manpower and Transmigration, Province of North Sumatra, Medan, December 14, 2004. 

[265] Human Rights Watch interview with Bambang Praytino, Office of Manpower and Transmigration, Province of Central Java, Semarang, December 7, 2004; Human Rights Watch interview with Jamunuddin Marbun, Unit Head, Industrial Relations, Office of Manpower and Transmigration, Province of North Sumatra, Medan, December 14, 2004.

[266] Human Rights Watch interview with Ramahadas Fro Marss, lawyer at Asosiasi Pengelola Pramuwisma Seluruh Indonesia, domestic worker supplier agency, Jakarta, November 30, 2004.

[267] Human Rights Watch interview with Safruddin, Office of Manpower and Transmigration, Province of North Sumatra, Medan, December 14, 2004; Human Rights Watch interview with Bambang Praytino, Office of Manpower and Transmigration, Province of Central Java, Semarang, December 7, 2004; Human Rights Watch interview with Sudaryanto, Director of Women Worker and Child Labor Inspection, Ministry of Manpower, Jakarta, December 16, 2004.

[268] Human Rights Watch interview with Kelompok Perempuan Pro Demokrasi (KPPD), Surabaya, December 8, 2004; Human Rights Watch interview with Pndokan Yayasan Pondol Rakyat Kreatif (YPRK), Medan, December 14, 2004.

[269] Human Rights Watch interview with PERISAI, Semarang, December 6, 2004; Human Rights Watch interview with Kelompok Perempuan Pro Demokrasi (KPPD), Surabaya, December 8, 2004;  Human Rights Watch interview with PUSAKA, Medan, December 15, 2004; Human Rights Watch interview with Center for Study and Child Protection (PKPA), Medan, December 15, 2004.

[270] Human Rights Watch interview with Surabaya Child Crisis Center (SCCC), Surabaya, December 8, 2004.

[271] Human Rights Watch interview with Kelompok Perempuan Pro Demokrasi (KPPD), Surabaya, December 8, 2004; Human Rights Watch interview with Surabaya Child Crisis Center (SCCC), Surabaya, December 8, 2004.

[272] Ibid.

[273] Human Rights Watch interview with Mirmarnigsih, Youth, Children and Women Unit, Surabaya, December 9, 2004.

[274] Human Rights Watch interview with Cecilia Flores-Oebanda, President of the Visayan Forum, Bangkok, Thailand, November 25, 2004.

[275] Ibid.; Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Pandji Putranto, Senior Program Officer, ILO-IPEC, March 25, 2005; Email message from Lita Angraeni, Rumpun Tjoet Njak Dien, to Human Rights Watch, March 13, 2005.


<<previous  |  index  |  next>>June 2005