Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2018, publiée 108ème session CIT (2019)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Indonésie (Ratification: 1999)

Autre commentaire sur C105

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Law No. 9 of 1998 on freedom of expression in public. The Committee previously noted that Law No. 9 of 1998 on freedom of expression in public imposes certain restrictions on the expression of ideas in public during public gatherings, demonstrations, parades, etc., and that sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Law provide for the enforcement of those restrictions with penal sanctions “in accordance with the applicable legislation”. It noted the Government’s statement that, pursuant to section 17 of the Law, persons who violate section 16 (concerning the public expression of opinion in contravention of the applicable legislation) shall be punished in accordance with the criminal legislation in force. Moreover, the Committee noted that Law No. 9 of 1998 provides some limitations on expression, including that notification must be submitted to the police three days before certain activities (such as the expression of opinions in public or activities such as rallies or demonstrations), and that pursuant to section 15, the act of expressing public opinion can be disbanded if it fails to meet this requirement.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that Law No. 9 of 1998 is essentially a law to protect public order rather than to hinder people from expressing their opinion in public. The Government states that if the expression of opinions in public, damages public facilities or disturbs public order, the responsible person shall be held accountable for their acts. The Government also indicates that trade unions organized 284 actions in 2017 and 206 actions in 2016, none of which were considered as violations of sections 15, 16 and 17 of Law No. 9 of 1998. The Committee therefore requests the Government to continue providing information on the application in practice of sections 15, 16 and 17 of Law No. 9/1998 in relation to the exercise of the freedom of expression in public by all individuals and organizations, including the number and nature of penalties imposed.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 186 of the Manpower Act of 2003 provides for a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) of a minimum of one month and a maximum of four years for violation of sections 137 and 138(1), which relate to the undertaking of strikes. The Government stated that sanctions under section 186 of the Manpower Act could only be imposed for violating its sections 137 and 138(1), which stipulate that strikes should be carried out legally, orderly and peacefully and without violating laws.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that following the Constitutional Court Decree No. 012/PUU-I/2003, the criminal provisions of section 186 shall no longer have binding power in so far as they concern sections 137 and 138(1) of the Manpower Act. The Government also indicates that, in practice, workers involved in illegal strikes are punished by non-payment of salaries during the strike. If the strike lasts for more than five days, and the concerned workers refuse to resume work after two orders, they are considered as having resigned.