and Bukharin’s speech on the Program of the Communist International in De Communistische Gids, 1923, p. 480).11 In particular they set themselves the task of drawing the working class into revolutionary action through communist means, in accordance with the principles of the Comintern—to carry out the revolutionary struggle in deeds as well as words until the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In a pluralistic society like that of Indonesia, such undermining of authority cannot be tolerated (See statement of 1 January 1922 in Kol. Verslag 1922, Chapter B, headed Pawnshop Workers’ Strike, p. 18). Government Decisions Nos. la and 2a of 2 March 1922 imposed on Bergsma and Tan Malaka the administrative procedures of externeering en interneering [exile and internal exile respectively].12 Tan Malaka, who for some years had specialised in providing education and instruction to young people on the basis of the principles of the Communist International (in the Malaka schools), had Kupang [Timor] assigned as his place of residence. He requested to leave the Dutch East Indies, and this request was granted in Government Decision No. 2 of 10 March 1922.13
As mentioned above, a Dutch Communist, Bergsma, was arrested along with me. I consider it to be a point of national honor to recognize the services of someone from another nation, even if that other nation is seen as the oppressor and exploiter.
[80] The final syllable, “ma,” in Bergsma’s name reminds us of the “ma” in a name I have frequently mentioned here, that of my teacher Horensma. They were both Frisians, well known as an obstinate people, de koppige Fries [the stubborn Frisians]. In the Netherlands, even though they have been united with the Holland, Drente, Brabant and other peoples for hundreds of years, Frisians still use their own language when speaking among themselves. I recall that in Amsterdam they had their own club. But in addition to their characteristic stubbornness, which was apparent indeed in those two individuals, they were also endowed with honesty.
Piet Bergsma was a former sergeant in the Dutch East Indies army, clearly from a proletarian background and a member of the Soldaten Bond at the time of Brandsteder and Sneevliet.14 He was not like Ir. Baars, whose “great intellect” enabled him to waltz from communism to fascism, as reported in the newspapers.15 Actually, I do not know what happened to Piet Bergsma after we parted in Moscow in 1922. Indeed, during the German occupation of the Netherlands in the Second World War, many Communists and Socialists became Fascists, either under duress or of their own will. I do know that before the war Piet Bergsma, with his Indonesian wife from Ambon and their four or five children, had many difficulties living in that cold country [the Netherlands]. How it was during the German occupation, I have no idea.
It is actually very difficult to evaluate the character, beliefs, or actions of human beings before their deaths. This is so with Semaun and Darsono, for instance. As to Bergsma, I can only account for the period up to our parting in 1922. I consider that Bergsma, Sneevliet, and other Dutch people left their imprint on the socialist and trade-union movements in Indonesia just as Semaun and Darsono did. And when the Indonesian proletariat has achieved its glorious destiny, however small their services may appear from any one point of view, the role played by these leaders will have to be recorded in our history and handed down to our descendants.
[81] Let us return to the Dutch East Indies government’s action against me, as mentioned in the Encyclopaedie. The administrative measures against me were not legal actions like those of democratic societies. These measures exiling us Indonesians into the jungle, to islands, or even to another country, isolated from our own families, society, and work, were part of the exorbitante rechten held by the governor general of the Dutch East Indies. This administrative measure did not differ markedly from the lettre de cachet whereby the king had the right to “hang high or send far away,” prior to the Rights of Man and the French Revolution of 1789.16 As with the lettre de cachet, under the exorbitante rechten anyone considered by the Dutch PID to be “dangerous to the public order” (that is, the order of the Dutch imperialists) could be arrested and jailed prior to being exiled either within or outside the Dutch East Indies.
The procedures followed from the time of a person’s arrest to the time of sentencing did not correspond to those known in the democratic world. The only guarantee was that the arrest would be carried out by officials of a body of the Dutch East Indies government, on behalf of that official body, on the basis of the opinion that the person was dangerous to the order of the Dutch East Indies, which opinion was based on evidence gathered by intelligence agents.17
First, in order to take administrative measures, the Dutch East Indies did not require the laying of a charge based on evidence provided by witnesses under oath in front of the accused, evidence revealing a violation of state law passed by a popular legislature. Second, in order to exercise his exorbitante rechten, the governor general was not even required to order a preliminary investigation in which the accused would be permitted to present his or her own witnesses and lawyers. Finally, the exorbitante rechten held by the governor general did not recognize such niceties as the right of the accused, after a preliminary investigation, to be sent before a judge in an open court; to be placed on the same level as the accuser with regard to facilities for self-defense (use of witnesses and lawyers); and, if found guilty in open court of having violated a certain section of a state law, to be sentenced according to regulations laid down and validated by a popular legislature.
[82] In essence, these exorbitante rechten meant that the procedures of arrest, investigation, and sentencing of a person considered guilty were all in the hands of one person. A person considered dangerous was arrested in order to be exiled. It was irrelevant whether or not the person had committed a violation of established regulations. The intention to exile and the right to carry it out were in existence prior to a person’s arrest: Barbertje moet hangen (sentenced whether guilty or innocent).18
The procedures that I experienced from the time I was being tailed everywhere by intelligence agents until I was arrested and exiled were perfunctory considering the gravity of the sentence. I was spied upon in order to be arrested, and arrested in order to be exiled. What was the point of having a proper preliminary investigation, open trial, and defense?
After being held for several days in the Semarang jail, I was taken to the Resident’s office to be questioned.19 If I recall correctly, there were nearly fifty questions that they wanted to ask me before the Resident of Semarang. These questions related to four issues: first, my actions with relation to education; second, the pamphlet that I wrote in Deli entitled Parlemen atau Soviet? [Parliament or Soviet?];20 third, my attempts to reunite the various SI branches separated by the CSI’s party discipline, to revoke that discipline, and to establish cooperation between the Communists and the Muslims in opposition to Dutch imperialism; fourth, my efforts to support the pawnshop workers’ strike by mobilizing the trade unions affiliated with the Vakcentrale. All these efforts of mine were linked by the Dutch East Indies government to the “Moscow Program,” outlined in the magazine De Communistische Gids of 1923 and the June and July issues of the newspaper De Tribune in the Netherlands.21 All my efforts were seen as part of an implementation of the Moscow Program, and this action, within the “pluralistic” Dutch East Indies, was regarded as an attempt to overthrow Dutch authority. I was therefore seen as someone dangerous to the public order who must be exiled either within or outside the Dutch East Indies.
It was like the story in which a young goat, a stupid and helpless animal, was suddenly confronted by the king of the jungle, the tiger, on the bank of a river.
The tiger said: “It’s fortunate that I meet you, and now I shall impose your punishment. Are you not the one who is always muddying the water I wish to drink?”
The young goat replied: “Have mercy, my lord. How could I muddy the water you wish to drink when I am standing downstream from you?”
[83] The tiger then said: “Maybe you’re not muddying my water now, but last year it was definitely you who did so.”
The young goat answered: “Have mercy, my lord, I beg a thousand mercies. How could my lowly self have muddied your drinking water last year when I wasn’t even born then?”
The tiger said: “If it wasn’t you who muddied my drinking water,