Stories from Deli

In 1880, the Agreement with Chinese Leaders, also known as the “Associatie van 1880”, was established between Dutch colonial plantation owners in Sumatra’s East Coast (Deli, Langkat, and Serdang) and influential Chinese community leaders. This agreement aimed to address critical labor issues, such as high worker desertion rates and recruitment inefficiencies. By integrating Chinese leaders as intermediaries, the plantation owners sought to streamline labor management, ensuring a steady and controlled workforce while reducing disruptions caused by desertions.

Under the agreement, Chinese leaders were appointed as official agents for the planters and were compensated financially for their services. Their responsibilities included overseeing the recruitment and immigration process, verifying worker documentation, organizing transport to plantations, and handling deserters. They also issued official discharge letters and passes to workers, ensuring proper documentation and preventing unauthorized employment. Workers without valid papers risked detention or penalties. To further discourage illegal hiring, the agreement imposed a fine of 20 Mexican dollars per unauthorized worker, which funded the operations of the Planters’ Committee. Planters contributed allowances based on the amount of tobacco harvested, calculated at five picols per worker, and payments were made in advance to ensure smooth operations.

The agreement also aimed to control labor recruitment by mandating that all contracts be validated by Chinese leaders or recognized officials in Penang or Singapore. This system formalized labor relations, reduced disputes, and helped retain workers through strict monitoring. However, the arrangement also introduced challenges, including potential for corruption or favoritism by intermediaries. Some workers viewed the system as overly restrictive, which occasionally led to resistance or covert non-compliance.

Initially signed for one year, the agreement allowed for termination if Chinese leaders failed to fulfill their responsibilities. A review at the end of the term would determine whether the agreement should continue, be amended, or dissolved. While it succeeded in addressing immediate labor issues, its reliance on intermediaries underscored the complexities of colonial labor systems. Although the agreement improved administrative efficiency and worker retention, it also created tensions between the planters, Chinese leaders, and laborers, highlighting the difficulties of managing a diverse and transient workforce.

1. Violations of Planters’ Agreements:
   • Planters repeatedly violated agreements, such as giving unauthorized advances to laborers or hiring workers on invalid documents. Offenders were fined or dismissed, though enforcement was difficult and often delayed.
2. Efforts to Curb Desertions:
   • New ordinances were introduced to penalize harboring or employing deserters, with fines or forced labor for violators. Local rulers were urged to enforce these measures to prevent desertions being aided by local populations.
3. Extension of Agreements with Chinese Leaders:
   • The agreement with Chinese leaders (Associatie van 1880) was extended annually. Chinese leaders managed laborers’ documentation, including issuing discharge letters and monitoring deserters. Their responsibilities expanded as labor demands increased, necessitating the hiring of subordinates and raising their allowances.
4. Labor Recruitment and Protector Oversight:
   • Labor recruitment from Penang and Singapore faced issues with “coolie brokers” sending unfit workers. To address this, the British Protector of Chinese required workers to undergo medical examinations and sign contracts under his supervision. A maximum of 15% of any recruited group could consist of non-medically examined dependents, provided two approved workers acted as guarantors.
5. Infrastructure Developments:
   • The Deli Railway Company received a preliminary concession to build rail lines connecting plantations with ports, improving logistics. This development later formalized in 1883.
6. Statistical Improvements:
   • Efforts were made to improve statistical records of labor immigration, requiring agents and brokers to submit detailed recruitment reports, including names, desired worker numbers, and financial arrangements.
7. Disputes with the Protector of Chinese:
   • The British Protector of Chinese in Singapore criticized the system, citing low wages and exploitation. In response, the Planters’ Committee published a rebuttal to defend their practices and invited the Protector to visit Deli to witness conditions firsthand.
8. Environmental Concerns:
   • Heavy rains caused flooding and debris blockages in rivers, resulting in the loss of goods and tobacco valued at around 250,000 guilders. The Planters’ Committee requested government assistance to clear the rivers using dynamite.
9. Issues with Chinese Leaders:
   • Complaints arose regarding misconduct by Chinese leaders and their representatives, including extortion of workers. The Planters’ Committee demanded stricter adherence to their duties and fair treatment of laborers.

Inadequate Legal and Policing System:

• The legal system in Sumatra was insufficient, with different courts for Europeans (in Batavia) and local/Chinese workers (in Laboean). This created logistical and financial burdens, discouraging prosecution for minor offenses.
• A lack of police forces, especially in Langkat and Serdang, exacerbated problems like labor desertion and crime, leaving plantations vulnerable.

Planters Taking Justice into Their Hands:

• Due to the limited effectiveness of existing systems, planters often resorted to punishing offenses themselves to maintain order on their estates.
• Growing labor unrest and desertion prompted an urgent need for better organization among planters.

Planters’ Meeting in 1875:

• Jacob Theodoor Cremer convened a meeting of planters to discuss shared challenges and propose measures to protect their interests.
• Agreements were made to improve cooperation among planters and address common issues like labor management and safety.

Opium Dependency and Desertion:

• Many imported Chinese laborers were dependent on opium, and its high cost contributed to desertions, especially on estates where opium was not available.
• The Planters’ Committee recommended setting fair maximum prices for opium during the next lease term to curb smuggling and maintain labor stability.

Administrative Challenges:

• The labor ordinance of 1880 allowed planters to control workers’ movement, but large gatherings on paydays led to concerns about unrest, which the limited police presence could not manage effectively.

Proposed Police Reforms:

• A proposal was made by the Dutch government’s commissioner, T. H. der Kinderen, to assign limited police powers to plantation staff. These “police chiefs” would ensure order and security within plantation boundaries.
• The planters welcomed this initiative, as it promised a practical solution to their immediate safety and labor control issues.

key challenges and efforts by the Planters’ Committee in Deli between 1884 and 1887, including immigration issues, labor recruitment costs, and collaboration with the British Indian government for labor supply.

1. Extension of Agreements with Chinese Leaders:
   • Agreements with Chinese leaders were extended, with fees established for managing laborers returning to plantations after imprisonment.
2. Violation of Agreements Among Planters:
   • A planter violated the agreement not to purchase tobacco grown by local Inlanders or Chinese, undermining collective plantation interests.
3. Immigration from British India:
   • The Planters’ Committee sought laborers from British India (Klingalees or Tamil workers), recognizing their potential benefits. Initial negotiations failed as the British Indian government demanded an official in Deli to protect immigrant workers’ interests—a condition the Dutch could not meet. Later, in 1886, this requirement was revised, and the Dutch government considered the proposal.
4. Rising Recruitment Costs for Chinese Workers:
   • Recruitment costs in Penang and Singapore were increasing, leaving planters at the mercy of brokers. In 1885, the committee attempted to set maximum fees for new immigrants (sinkehs) and returning workers (laokehs), adjusting rates based on workers’ origins (e.g., Hakka laborers received lower fees). However, brokers resisted these caps, and the planters struggled to enforce them.
5. Failed Efforts for Longer Contracts:
   • To reduce turnover and costs, the committee proposed extending labor contracts from one to three years without increasing upfront payments. However, resistance from brokers in Singapore and Penang derailed this plan.
6. Challenges with Labor Supply:
   • Brokers refused to provide workers under the set rates, creating severe labor shortages. By 1887, the committee abandoned the maximum fee policy, as many plantations faced closure without additional workers.

Labor Immigration Challenges:

• Planters faced significant difficulties with the rising costs of recruiting Chinese workers through brokers in Penang and Singapore. Brokers inflated fees and engaged in unethical practices, such as encouraging contract breaches among existing workers.
• A scandalous article in the Chinese newspaper Lat Pau misrepresented the treatment of workers in Deli, forcing the Planters’ Committee to issue a public rebuttal.

Inspection and Legal Reforms:

• A Chinese government commission inspected labor conditions in Deli and raised concerns about the 1880 Coolie Ordinance, including issues such as gambling on plantations.
• These findings contributed to the drafting of a revised Coolie Ordinance in 1889, which addressed some grievances and introduced stricter regulations.

Direct Immigration from China:

• Efforts were made to bypass Straits brokers by directly recruiting workers from China. In 1885, the Planters’ Committee authorized Dr. J. J. M. de Groot to oversee direct recruitment in China. However, bureaucratic and diplomatic challenges, such as opposition from the Chinese Viceroy of Guangdong, delayed progress.
• Support from German consuls and Dutch diplomatic efforts eventually led to the approval of direct immigration in 1888, but initial results were limited due to logistical challenges.

Proposed Legal Improvements:

• Planters sought legal reforms to address labor issues, including:
  • Increasing penalties for labor contract breaches.
  • Penalizing unauthorized employment of contracted workers.
  • Introducing stricter regulations inspired by colonial laws in Suriname.
• The planters agreed to hire a legal expert to draft and advocate for these reforms, allocating significant funds for the effort.

Unified Efforts Among Planters:

• The Planters’ Committee played a crucial role in maintaining unity and organization among planters. Despite disagreements and financial pressures, collaboration was essential to resolve disputes and ensure the stability of the tobacco industry in Deli.

Land Contract Transfers (1879-1880):

Planters petitioned the Governor-General to ease restrictions on transferring plantation land contracts, but the government rejected the requests, maintaining that such transfers required explicit approval unless otherwise stated in the contract.

Labor Taxation:

• Discussions arose on how to tax laborers who couldn’t afford payments, emphasizing the careful handling of government-mandated tax rolls.

Agreement with Chinese Leaders (1880):

• To reduce labor desertions, planters entered into a formal agreement (Associatie van 1880) with Chinese leaders in Deli, Langkat, and Serdang.
• These leaders acted as agents, managing immigration papers, employment contracts, and deserters. They were compensated based on the number of laborers recruited or managed.

Labor Contracts and Penal Regulations:

• The association sought to regulate labor through strict documentation (discharge letters and passes), preventing unauthorized employment.
• Planters enforced penalties for non-compliance with labor recruitment protocols.

Worker Desertion and Penal Law:

• Workers breaching labor agreements were penalized under colonial laws (Article 2 No. 27, Stbl. 1872), which criminalized contract breaches. However, penalties released workers from their obligations, leaving planters short of labor.

Judicial and Administrative Reforms:

• Judicial oversight was centralized in a Resident Court, handling minor offenses and contractual disputes. A higher Resident Council addressed severe crimes and civil matters, operating mainly in Deli.

The summary highlights the challenges, measures, and developments in Chinese emigration to Deli during the 1920s:

1. 1923 Difficulties:
   • Emigration faced obstacles due to unrest in southern China and inadequate connections with coastal ports.
   • Measures like better financial arrangements for emigrants’ families and incentives for recruiting “sinkehs” (new immigrants) were introduced.
   • Despite improvements in mid-1923, by year-end, dissatisfaction with certain recruitment methods (“Tek Piak laokehs”) led to their discontinuation.
2. 1924 Developments:
   • Emigration numbers declined compared to 1923, influenced by a large rice harvest reducing migration interest and stricter health checks due to disease outbreaks.
   • Vaccination against meningitis was introduced, and logistical improvements reduced costs and emigration-related absconding.
3. 1925 Challenges:
   • Political instability and conflicts in southern China, including strikes and a financial transfer ban, disrupted migration flows.
   • Despite difficulties, emigration continued on a limited scale with creative use of various transport methods.
   • Hong Kong served as the central hub for emigration logistics and processing.
4. Provincial Origins:
   • Emigrants primarily originated from Guangdong (notably Teochew and Hakka areas), Fujian (mostly Zhangzhou), and Hunan provinces.
5. Infrastructure and Oversight:
   • Hong Kong’s North Street housed boarding houses and offices for processing emigrants.
   • Measures to improve remittance efficiency and staff training, including a European study program, were implemented.

The challenges and measures taken to manage Chinese labor migration to Deli (1923–1925), addressing logistical, economic, and political factors.

1. Challenges in 1923:
   • Political unrest and troop movements in southern China disrupted emigration efforts.
   • Measures included allowing emigrants’ families earlier access to funds, covering travel costs, and using “Tek Piak” laokehs for recruitment. However, these efforts caused accountability issues and were discontinued by the year’s end.
   • The Hoofdtandilbond, a 1920 initiative to regulate recruitment, was disbanded due to ineffectiveness.
2. 1924 Developments:
   • Migration numbers dropped due to a good rice harvest (reducing the incentive to emigrate) and stricter health checks, including meningitis vaccinations for workers.
   • Transport challenges persisted, but cost-saving measures like flexible shipping contracts reduced absconding.
   • Worker recruitment and documentation processes were tightened, emphasizing proper instructions and introduction letters.
3. 1925 Difficulties:
   • Civil unrest in southern China, strikes, and a financial transfer ban worsened emigration logistics.
   • Shipments from Swatow to Hong Kong were halted temporarily, impacting migration flows. Despite challenges, smaller groups of workers were transported during the year.
   • The transport system relied heavily on small boats and junks from coastal towns to Hong Kong and larger vessels for the Hong Kong–Deli route.
4. Worker Origins:
   • Migrants primarily came from Guangdong (notably Teochew and Hakka regions), Fujian (Zhangzhou), and Hunan provinces, reflecting regional labor supply networks.
5. Improvements and Infrastructure:
   • Hong Kong operations were centralized at the D.P.V.’s buildings in North Street.
   • Remittance systems were enhanced, with emigrant letters prepared in Hong Kong before departure, streamlining communication with families in China.
6. Future Planning:
   • A. Reinshagen was sent to Europe for Chinese language training to better handle migration-related issues.
   • The D.P.V. sought to maintain and adapt operations amidst political instability, improving worker welfare and logistical efficiency.

“Tek Piak” refers to a recruitment system or method used historically in Chinese labor migration, particularly in the context of workers emigrating to plantations in Deli (modern-day Indonesia). It was a middleman-based recruitment mechanism involving agents or recruiters (“laokehs”) who were tasked with identifying and bringing laborers (“sinkehs”) from rural areas in China to emigration hubs or directly to the plantations.

Characteristics of Tek Piak:

1. Middlemen System:
   • Recruitment was carried out by intermediaries (“Tek Piak laokehs”) who were paid incentives based on the number of workers they brought.
2. Financial Arrangements:
   • Workers were often advanced funds, some of which went to the laokehs as recruitment fees. These funds were deducted from the workers’ wages after they began employment.
3. Issues with Accountability:
   • The system sometimes led to exploitation, fraud, or inefficiencies. Middlemen prioritized numbers over quality, often recruiting unfit or unsuitable workers.
   • Employers and organizations faced challenges in ensuring the reliability and responsibility of these recruiters.
4. Abolishment in Deli (1923):
   • By late 1923, the Tek Piak system was discontinued in Deli due to corruption, lack of accountability, and dissatisfaction with the quality of workers recruited.

Meaning in Chinese:

The term “Tek Piak” likely originates from Chinese dialects like Hokkien or Teochew, commonly spoken in southern China. While the exact characters may vary, it could relate to phrases meaning “to recruit” or “to take charge.” For example:

• “Tek” (得): Means “to obtain” or “to gain.”
• “Piak” (拍): Means “to assign” or “to manage.”