[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

SLORC's representative accusing the



>
>Mr. MIN HLA, Workers' delegate
>
>Myanmar
>
>- Mr. President, allow me to congratulate you on your election to preside
>over the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference. I am
>confident that this Conference will achieve positive results under your
>direction.
>
>It is also opportune for me to express my best regards to the
>Director-General, Mr. Michel Hansenne, who has borne the responsibilities
>of the International Labour Office for two consecutive terms. At the same
>time I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations and warmest
>welcome to the Director-General elect, Mr. Juan Somavia of Chile. I am
>confident that he will successfully guide the Office with renewed vision
>and foresight to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.
>
>On this occasion I also have to commend the Report of the Director-General.
>It is indeed an excellent Report, produced in a new format with important
>contents. The Report vividly illustrates the achievements of the ILO during
>the reporting period and the challenges that lie ahead.
>
>Taking this opportunity, I would like to inform this forum that my
>Government can look back on some impressive achievements in its endeavour
>to achieve national reconciliation. Building peace has been a daunting task
>for the country. It is time for all of us to make concerted endeavours in
>all sectors of the economy in the period of national reconciliation if we
>are to attain our goal of a peaceful, modern and developed nation.
>
> In these days in Burma, workers and peasants alike can pursue their
>livelihood in peace and security. Workers can develop and improve their
>skills through various forms of training and have the right to freely
>choose employment. They also have free access to the public employment
>service provided by the Government to all job seekers. Several labour laws
>have been enacted to guarantee the legitimate rights of workers. These laws
>are not inferior in their provisions to the international labour standards.
>
>In Myanmar workers have the right to establish their own organizations in
>the form of workers' welfare associations throughout the country. There are
>now more than 2,000 of these associations. This shows that freedom of
>association is an established fact in Myanmar. These workers' welfare
>associations are established to protect the legitimate rights of workers
>and promote their welfare by improving workers' education and information
>and their physical development.
>
>In the recent few years we have come to learn about the movements of a
>handful of expatriates who have called themselves representatives of the
>Free Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB). These expatriates have fled their
>country of origin, committed criminal offenses and founded illegal
>organizations abroad with a view to camouflaging their crimes. The
>so-called FTUB does not represent a single worker in Myanmar. It has now
>been involved in anti-government activities disseminating false and
>fabricated information to damage the image of the present legitimate
>Government of Myanmar. This illegal organization has been directly involved
>in and responsible for the terrorist acts which took place in my country
>just a few months ago. We, the workers of Myanmar, are strongly against
>their unlawful acts and accordingly condemn the illegal FTUB organization
>in unison.
>
>Before concluding, I would like to make it clear that the Myanmar workers
>enjoy the fill protection of the Government. Workers are also actively and
>enthusiastically involved in all the Government's development efforts.
>Here, I would like to stress that there will soon be a new era for Myanmar
>workers with the emergence of the new State Constitution, which will ensure
>the rights of workers within the new framework. Finally, I would like to
>express my sincere wishes for the success of this Conference. Thank you.
>
>----------------end--------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE 
>86th Session, Geneva, June 1998 Committee on the Application of Standards
>
>C. App./PV.17
>13.06.98 Morning.
>
>Committee on the Application of Standards
>
>17th sitting, 13 June 1998, 1O.O5 a.m.
>Chairman. Mr. van der Hezjden
>
>Work of the Committee
>
>The deputy representative of the Secretary-General (Mr. ZENGER) announced
>that PV. 14 had been distributed and that, in view of the time constraints,
>amendments would have to be  submitted before the end of the afternoon
>sitting.
>
>Discussion of individual cases (cont.)
>Convention No.87: Freedom of Association and	-	- -
>Protection of the Right to Organization, 1948
>
>Myanmar (ratification: 1955). The Government representative (Mr. TUN SHWE)
>drew the attention of the Committee to the progress report submitted by his
>delegation at the 85th Session of the Conference. He said that, in
>compliance with the remarks and recommendations made by the Central Laws
>Scrutiny Body on the draft trade union law submitted to it by the
>Department of Labour, the Labour Laws Reviewing Committee of the Ministry
>of Labour had made the necessary modifications and redrafting over the past
>year. Moreover, as recommended by the Central Laws Scrutiny Body, the
>Department of Labour had extensively sought views and comments on the
>redrafted trade union law from the concerned parties, which included
>workers' welfare associations and employers' organizations, such as the
>Union of Myanmar Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and various
>representatives from public and private enterprises. The numerous technical
>points in the redrafted version of the trade union law evidently required
>thorough consideration by the concerned parties. The replies which had been
>received from some of these organizations had been compiled and collated.
>When replies had been received from all the organizations a received draft
>would be submitted by the Labour laws Reviewing Committee to the Central
>Laws Scrutiny Body. The review and redrafting process was being undertaken
>in anticipation of the emergence of a new state Constitution which would
>ensure the protection of workers through the enactment of the necessary
>labour laws. However, he warned that tile process of adopting legislation
>took time, especially in the case of labour laws, which required tripartite
>consultations. He emphasized in that connection that the workers in the
>country were currently well protected by the existing laws, which had been
>enacted several decades ago but still reflected the provisions of the ILO
>Conventions ratified by the country. Although, as pointed out by the
>Committee of Experts, there existed a few discrepancies between the
>Convention and national laws, these could be rectified in the new labour
>laws. With regard to the right to freedom of association, there were more
>than 2,000 workers' welfare associations in the country, which were
>grass-roots level associations that looked after the general well-being and
>interests of the workers. In conclusion, be stated that the efforts to
>review and redraft existing labour laws were directed towards the
>observance of the provisions of the Conventions which had been ratified by
>the country.
>
>The Worker members noted with sadness that, taking up this case once again
>on the 50th anniversary of the Convention, it dramatically illustrated the
>distance that still needed to be traveled in many countries throughout the
>world for freedom of association to be truly respected in both law and
>practice. It was hard to believe that the Committee had felt it necessary
>to review Myanmar's failure to apply the Convention on 12 occasions in the
>last 17 years, and now for the eighth year in succession. On five
>occasions, the Committee had been compelled to place its conclusions in a
>special paragraph of its report.  Moreover, in 1996 and 1997, the Committee
>had cited Myanmar's continued failure to apply the Convention in a special
>paragraph. It should not be forgotten that Myanmar had also merited three
>other special paragraphs since 1982 for failure to apply other ratified
>Conventions, that an article 24 representation on forced labour had been
>accepted by the Governing Body in 1993, follow by the establishment of a
>Commission of Inquiry in 1997 to investigate an article 26 complaint
>concern the widespread use of forced labour by Myanmar. This very dubious
>record set Myanmar apart as one of the most long standing, widespread and
>egregious violators of basic workers' rights and international labour
>standard's in the history, of the ILO. Furthermore, the Government
>continued to show its utter disdain for the application of the standards
>machinery by its refusal to submit reports to the Committee of Experts,
>despite repeated requests. The Committee of Experts had expressed its
>"profound regret" at not having received a single report from the
>Government for over three years. In addition, a direct contacts mission,
>which was to have taken place in May 1996, had been cancelled by the
>Government at the last minute with no real explanation as to why. The
>Government had expressed no interest whatsoever in rescheduling the
>mission. The same lack of cooperation had been exhibited by the Government
>earlier this year when it had refused to allow the Commission of inquiry to
>enter the country to investigate the allegations of forced labour. 
>
>Finally, Myanmar's continuing disdain for the proceedings of the
>supervisory bodies was in evidence once again today, given the total lack
>of sincerity and substance contained in the Government representative's
>remarks, which amounted to no more than a repetition of what it had said in
>the past.
>
>The Committee of Experts had noted that for the past 40 years it had been
>urging the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the right of
>workers to establish, without previous authorization, and join fast-level
>unions, federations and confederations of their own choosing for the
>furtherance and defence of their own interests, and to ensure that such
>union structures had the right to affiliate to international organizations.
>However, all this had been to no avail. The fact remained that,
>notwithstanding the comments of the Government representative, there was no
>trade union law in Myanmar and no legal structure whatsoever to protect
>freedom of association. Although the adoption of the necessary legislation
>evidently took time, as pointed out by the Government representative, no
>progress in this respect had been made for the past 40 years. The military
>junta had issued a decree in 1988, shortly after it had massacred several
>thousands of its own citizens, called the law on the Formation of
>Associations and Organizations, under which unions had to obtain permission
>from the Ministry of Home and Religious Affairs before they could be
>established. The law stated that the associations and other organizations
>that it covered would be disbanded if they attempted, incited, encouraged
>or assisted in undermining the prevalence of law and order, local peace and
>security, and the smooth and secure operation of transport and
>communications The consequence for workers in the country was the total
>lack of any legal protection concerning freedom of association. Indeed, in
>June 1997, within days of the examination of the case by this Committee,
>two members of the executive Committee of the Federation of Trade Unions -
>Burma, namely Myo Aung Thant and Khin Kyaw, had been arrested in the
>country, both of whom had been designated prisoners of conscience by
>Amnesty International. Myo Aung Thant, a member of the All Burma Petrol
>Chemical Corporation Union, formed during the l988 pro-democracy movement,
>had been arrested at the airport in Rangoon along with his wife and
>children. Amnesty International reported that it was not known if they were
>still in custody. Myo Aung Thant had been charged with high treason among
>other things. At a secret trial conducted last August, he had been
>convicted to transportation for Life, plus ten years, three years of which
>was for violating the Law on the Formation of Associations and Organizations.
>
>Another trade Unionist, Khin Kyaw, from the underground Seamen's Union of
>Burma) had not been seen since his arrest a year ago by his family or his
>lawyer, and his whereabouts where unknown.  Amnesty International had
>written that it feared for his safety given the harsh conditions and high
>incidence of torture in Myanmar's prisons. The Worker members called on the
>Government representative to provide the Committee with an account of the
>situation of Khin Kyaw. For many years, the Worker members had been raising
>the matter of the seafarers of Myanmar and had been asking the Government
>to confirm that they were no longer forced to sign contracts obliging them
>not to contact international trade union organizations and that they would
>no longer be harassed and intimidated if they exercised their rights in
>accordance with the Convention. The response of the Government could be
>seen in the arrest of Khin Kyaw.
>
>There were reports of growing worker unrest throughout the country, due to
>the increasing economic hardship and the absolute refusal of the Government
>to allow workers to organize unions, rather than workers' welfare
>associations, as mentioned by the Government representative. Attempts to
>organize unions had been made at a number of workplaces and the Worker
>members had been shown a list of workers who had been dismissed for their
>efforts. However, this information could not be shared with the Committee
>out of concern for the safety of these courageous workers. In conclusion,
>the Worker members warmed the Government that changing the name of the
>military junta that ran the country from the State Law and Order
>Restoration Council to the State Peace and Development Council, hiring
>expensive public relations firms to improve international image or
>retaining well-known lobbyists in Washington and elsewhere an attend to
>influence policy towards Myanmar would not end the country's pariah status
>as one of the world's worst abusers of human and worker's' rights. What was
>needed was profound change without any further delay which recognized the
>way of the Burmese people, as expressed in the 1990 parliamentary
>elections, and which respected once and for all the right of workers to
>organize into unions of their own choosing in compliance with the
>Convention. Anything less would be simply unacceptable and the Worker
>members urged the Committee, as it had in the past, to express this view in
>the strongest possible terms.
>
>The employer members agreed with the Worker members in noting the absence
>of any progress in a case which had already been discussed several times,
>had been the object of a special paragraph in the report of the Committee
>on several occasions and had been cited last year as a case of continued
>failure to apply the Convention. The facts remained unchanged and the
>Government's reporting bad become increasingly meaningless, even when it
>provided a report which it had not done for the past three years. The
>Government had very clearly demonstrated its refusal to cooperate with the
>supervisory bodies. 1t had moreover, cancelled a direct contacts mission
>which had been planned. The situation remained unchanged in law and in
>practice. The cases cited by the Worker members amply demonstrated that the
>Government was not prepared to allow workers to join organizations of their
>own choosing or to let organizations affiliate with national or
>international federations. When reminded of the obligations set forth in
>the Convention, the Government responded in bad faith. The Government
>representative had referred to a draft law which it said had been
>distributed to bodies for comments. It had already claimed many years ago
>that a draft law would correct the situation; such a statement now was very
>hard to believe. The Committee should therefore note once again that the
>Situation remained very far from complying with the requirements of the
>Convention and regretted that it could not note any progress. It should
>once again require that measures be finally taken by the Government to
>honour its commitments.
>
>The Government member of the United Kingdom (Mr. TIIOMAS), also speaking on
>behalf of the Government members of Austria; Canada, Denmark, Finland,
>Germany, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Sweden,
>expressed his dissatisfaction with the report on the Convention recently
>submitted by the Government, as contained in document D.6. The submission
>of such an inadequate document at such a late stage could only be seen as
>an attempt to frustrate the work of both the Committee of Experts and the
>Conference Committee and to delay a detailed and up-to-date examination of
>the case. This behavior reflected the flagrant disregard of the (government
>for its international obligations and was one more symptom of the lack of
>democratic reform and respect for human rights in the country. He noted in
>this respect the recent resolution adopted by consensus in the United
>Nations Commission on Human Rights (resolution 1998/63) which highlighted
>the widespread use of forced and child labour in the country. He therefore
>urged the Ruling State Peace and Development Council to co-operate fully in
>allowing the ILO access to the county to monitor and advise on the labour
>situation. He strongly supported the conclusion of the Committee of Experts
>that the national authorities should take immediate steps to guarantee
>genuine freedom of association. Bearing in mind the special paragraph
>adopted by the Committee on the case last year, he asked the Government
>representative to account for his Government's continued failure to
>implement this fundamental Convention.
>
>The Worker member of France (Mr. RETURBAU) regretted that it would not be
>possible to be brief on the subject of freedom of association in Myanmar
>since as in the case of all other basic freedoms. It did not exist Worker
>members were extremely concerned at the systematic repression of the
>military regimes. Its methods included forced labour, imprisonment, torture
>and disappearances. The Government representative had, in the same spirit,
>referred to the consultations which had been taking place for
>one-and-a-half years for the elaboration of a new Constitution. However,
>those being consulted had been designated by the Government itself. Those
>elected in the 1990 elections were the only legitimate representatives with
>the right to adopt a new Constitution and the argument advanced by the
>military regime that a legislative process had been launched with a view to
>the observance of the ratified Conventions fooled none. The statement of
>the Government representative had been vague and contained no new
>information. In view of the practices of the authorities, as described in
>the report of the Committee of Experts, these were not in good faith. Faced
>with massive and systematic violations of human rights and a non-responsive
>Government, it was undoubtedly necessary to look beyond the law and express
>solidarity with the peaceful and courageous people of the country, and help
>them recover the freeborn which had been taken from them and end their
>suffering.
>
>The Worker member of Italy (Ms. BRIGHI) emphasized that no change, however,
>slight, had occurred in the country, except in the name of the ruling
>Council. The situation in which the basic trade union rights, of  workers
>were constantly violated gave rise to great concern by trade unions
>throughout the world at the national and international levels. It was
>totally intolerable that a Member of the ILO; refused to supply reports on
>the implementation of fundamental Conventions relating to freedom of
>association. Moreover, the country also violated other basic human rights
>through the persecution, arrest and torture of workers. The national
>authorities should therefore take immediate concrete steps to resolve the
>unacceptable situation. She recalled that trade unions at the European and
>international levels had been exerting pressure for practical measures to
>be taken and had succeeded in obtaining the suspension of the European
>system of preferences for the country. Governments and employers throughout
>the world should show consistency with the position adopted in this
>Committee and should take such concrete measures as discontinuing their
>business and other relations with the country. The European Community
>should also maintain the withdrawal of its system of preferences.
>
>
>The Government member of the United States (Ms. MISNER) expressed strong
>support for the statement by the Government member of the United Kingdom
>and reaffirmed her Government's long-standing grave concern about the
>situation as regards freedom of association in the country. It was an
>understatement to say that this was a serious case. For years', the members
>of the Committee had been hearing from the Government about its commitment
>to uphold the principles of the ILO  it intention to revise its labour
>legislation to bring it into conformity with the Convention or on other
>occasions its desire for ILO assistance. However, its commitment had not
>been translated into practice its intentions had never turned into reality
>and it had largely avoided ILO assistance and monitoring. Once again, as on
>so many occasions in the past; it was necessary to note with deep regret
>that there was in effect no genuine freedom of association in the country.
>Those who wished to undertake independent trade union activities were kept
>under constant surveillance by the police and the military and lived in
>permanent fear of arrest and torture. It was sad to note that there was a
>fundamental absence of respect for human rights in the country which went
>well beyond trade union rights. The inevitable conclusion in these
>circumstances was that the Burmese authorities had complete contempt for
>their international obligations under the Convention, no concern for the
>recommendations of the ILO, the United Nations General Assembly, the United
>Nations Commission on Human Rights and, worst of all, that they displayed
>utter disregard for the rights of their own citizens, It was difficult to
>conceive of a conclusion that could motivate the Government to take the
>sincere, concrete measures that had been recommended for over 40 years. She
>therefore trusted that the Committee would not fail to note in the
>strongest possible terms its profound concern at the Government's
>persistent and deplorable failure to implement the fundamental right of
>freedom of association in law and in practice.
>
>The Worker member of Japan (Mr. NAKAJIMA) noted that, as in the past, the
>Government representative had provided no new information or examples to
>support its claims that action was being taken. Its statement amounted to
>no more than contempt for the ILO supervisory system. There was no freedom
>of activity for the trade union movement in the country and indeed the
>Federation of Trade Unions of Burma, set up in 1991, had no choice but to
>remain outside the country. Amnesty International and the ICFTU had
>confirmed that trade union activists were always under surveillance by the
>police and military intelligence services and that they lived under the
>threat of arrest and torture. Yet, when the Convention had been drafted 50
>years' ago, the Government had served as a member of the Committee which
>drafted the Convention and had at that time played a role of which it could
>be proud. In Contrast, it was now one of the most serious violators of
>international standards. The Government therefore needed to regain its
>pride of 50 years ago and make far-reaching changes to the situation as
>rapidly as possible.
>
>The Worker member of Pakistan (Mr. AHMED) recalled that Myanmar was a
>beautiful country with a hard-working people. Unfortunately, its denial of
>fundamental trade union and human rights was affecting the development of
>the country. On the many occasions that the Committee had discussed the
>case, the Government representative had stated that specific measures were
>being taken to give effect to ratified Conventions. However, these
>statements were placed in their proper context by the failure even to
>supply the necessary reports. Moreover, serious violations continued to
>occur in the country of other fundamental Conventions, such as Convention
>No.29 on forced labour. The previous year, the Government representative
>had expressed the hope that amendments would be adopted to the relevant
>legislation, but trade unionists were still held in detention and their
>rights denied. At the end of the twentieth century, it was no longer
>possible for countries to deny public opinion and refuse to establish
>democratic systems. He therefore urged the Government to take the necessary
>measures to establish a democratic system, which would enable the people of
>the country to participate in economic and social development.
>
>The Government representative said that be had listened with great patience
>to the views that had been expressed. He appealed, for the understanding of
>the members of, the Committee. It took time to enact' the necessary
>legislation, particularly where tripartite consultation was required, as in
>the present case. Laws which were passed hastily would rot stand the test
>of time or changing circumstances. As he had stated, the draft trade union
>law had been submitted to the Central laws Scrutiny Body. It was therefore
>going through the legislative process which had to be followed, as in every
>other country. Once adopted, the new law would take into account the
>provisions of the Convention and the principles of the new State
>Constitution that was currently being formulated. If the Government had had
>no intention of complying with the provisions of the Convention, it would
>not have undertaken the process required for the formula of such
>legislation in consultation with the parties concerned. In response number
>of the specific cases raised by members of the Committee, he ratified that,
>as in every other country, when persons were in breach of the Law necessary
>measures needed to be taken under the terms of the Penal Code, which had
>been drafted in his country in the late nineteenth century, before
>independence. He also stated that the issues relating to seafarers had been
>resolved in 1996 should therefore be understood that the Government was
>doing its best, within confines of national procedure, to comply with the
>recommendations made should therefore be entitled to the benefit of the
>doubt. It was undertaking make programmes, such as the development of a new
>state Constitution in consultation with the representatives of all strata
>of society. Fina1ly, he recalled that the off' name of his country, as
>recognized by' the United Nations, was Union of Myanmar.
>
>The Committee noted the written information communicated by Government and
>the statement made by the Government representative and detailed discussion
>which took place thereafter. It recalled that this case had been discussed
>by the Committee consistency for over a decade in 1987, 1989, 1990,
>1994,1995, 1996 and 1997. The Committee could not but deplore the fact that
>government report had been received by the Committee of Experts on
>application of this Fundamental Convention for over three years, despite
>repeated calls upon the Government by this present Committee to do so,
>include in the last two years in special paragraphs for continued failure
>to apply Convention. The Committee was once again obliged to express its
>profound regained that serious divergencies between the national
>legislation and practice, on the one hand, and the provisions of the
>Convention, on the other continued to exist and deplored the absence of
>cooperation on the part of the Government in this regard. Extremely concern
>over the total absence of progress in the application of this Convention,
>the Committee once again strongly urged the Government to adopt, as a
>matter of urgency, the measures and mechanisms necessary to guarantee, in
>legislation and in practice, to all workers and employers, without
>distinction whatsoever and without previous authorization, the, right to
>join organizations of their own choosing to protect their interests and
>right to affiliate with federations, confederations and international
>organizations, without interference from the public authorities. The
>Committee also strongly urged the government to realize without delay
>substantial progress in the application on the Convention in law and
>practice in the very near future and urged the Government to supply a
>detailed report to the Committee of Experts this year. With the agreement
>of the Employer and Worker members the Committee once again decided that
>its conclusions would figure in a special paragraph of its report and to
>mention this case among the cases of continued failure to implement
>Convention No.87.
>
>
>
>