THE WILD SCHOOLS ORDINANCE IN THE DUTCH EAST INDIES, 1932—1933

In the decade of the 1920s, the government of the Dutch East Indies passed two educational ordinances in relation to private schools: (1) Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indie 1923 No. 136 and (2) Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indie 1925 No. 219. The first ordinance indicated that nonsubsidized schools were required to register their schools to the government, in this case to hoofd van het gewest (head of regional administration), meanwhile the teachers obliged to report their teaching materials. Since this ordinance was applied, the government began to frequently use words “wilde particulier schooltjes” (wild private schools) on their reports in referring to nonsubsidized schools. The next education policy was Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indie 1932 No. 494 (“Toezicht-ordonnantie particulier onderwijs”), which also known as the Wild Schools Ordinance (Wilde Scholen Ordonnantie), began to take effect on 1 October 1932. This ordinance aimed to control wild schools. It worked preventively ...Show moreIn the decade of the 1920s, the government of the Dutch East Indies passed two educational ordinances in relation to private schools: (1) Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indie 1923 No. 136 and (2) Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indie 1925 No. 219. The first ordinance indicated that nonsubsidized schools were required to register their schools to the government, in this case to hoofd van het gewest (head of regional administration), meanwhile the teachers obliged to report their teaching materials. Since this ordinance was applied, the government began to frequently use words “wilde particulier schooltjes” (wild private schools) on their reports in referring to nonsubsidized schools. The next education policy was Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indie 1932 No. 494 (“Toezicht-ordonnantie particulier onderwijs”), which also known as the Wild Schools Ordinance (Wilde Scholen Ordonnantie), began to take effect on 1 October 1932. This ordinance aimed to control wild schools. It worked preventively (vergunningstelsel) by requiring a permit before a private school was established. This preventive ordinance provoked oppositions since they believed that the situation was unfair as the restriction began to take effect while the government could not provide education for indigenous people adequately. The first reaction came from Soewardi Soerjaningrat—widely known as Ki Hadjar Dewantara, the leader of a private school named Taman Siswa. On 1 October 1932, on the first day of the implementation of the Wild Schools Ordinance, he sent a telegram to the Governor-General Jhr. Mr. B.C. de Jonge containing his objection on the ordinance. In his telegram, Ki Hadjar conveyed his plan on conducting passive resistance (lijdelijk verzet) in case the government persists on implementing the ordinance. Considerable supports for Ki Hadjar’s plan came from many sides, including political parties. On 13 February 1933, the government suspended the Wild Schools Ordinance by stipulating a new ordinance which was valid from 21 February 1933. Regarding the implementation period, the Wild Schools Ordinance was valid not more than 5 months counted from October 1932 to February 1933. According to this, this paper investigates the reasons behind the short implementation of the Wild Schools Ordinance. It was known that there were protests addressed to the ordinance, but the considerations taken by the government in suspending the ordinance is still unclear. Why did the government suspend the ordinance shortly after it was enacted? Most of the recent works describe the Wild Schools Ordinance only under a chapter themed education or nationalistic movement in the 1930s. There is no literature that specifically focuses on wild schools. Most related-literatures tend to use a single perspective, especially from the perspective of Taman Siswa. By looking to this fact, this paper attempts to explore in balance the sources from the government and Taman Siswa. By doing this, explanations from both perspectives can be acquired in order to investigate the case and to answer the main question thoroughly. The primary and secondary sources used by this paper rely on published archives, books, and articles. Based on the findings, this paper argues that the implementation of the Wild Schools Ordinance in the Dutch East Indies which was suspended in the early 1933s has shown (1) a colonial policy change which contains a democratic process and (2) sensibility under the frame of colonial relationship. At least, there are four reasons why the government suspended the Wild Schools Ordinance shortly after it was enacted. Firstly, the ordinance seemed not well-prepared in almost any aspects. Secondly, considerable resistance from indigenous people to the implementation of the ordinance has given great effect for the government to determine their measures afterwards. Thirdly, in facing the resistance to the ordinance it can be observed that a contestation over the repealing of the ordinance was inevitable. Last, a substantial role of the minister of colonies is unquestionable, since it brought a change in attitude of the government while endeavors from the others did not succeed.Show less

Leiden University Student Repository

Documents

In Collections

THE WILD SCHOOLS ORDINANCE IN THE DUTCH EAST INDIES, 1932—1933