[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
SPDC REPLIES TO ILO DG
--=====================_42377324==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MORE FUN STUFF FROM THE STATE PANTO(MIME) AND DRAMA CLUB
On 8 and 9 June, the SPDC delegate gave a rousing performance before the ILO
Committee on the Application of Standards, which departed from its somber norm
and broke into laughter at some of his jokes. I'll put the transcripts on the
net in a few days, so you can all share in the merriment.
In the meantime, here is another rib-tickling document, the Club's replies to
the ILO Director-General's report of 21 May (posted on the nets the same day,
and on the ILO website at:
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/20gb/docs/gb274/dg-myanm.htm
The jokes begin early in the text, with such beauties as:
"It has been a consistent policy of successive governments of Myanmar to
promote the welfare of labour" and
"Myanmar is determined to build a society where peace and prosperity prevail
and where rights of women and children are given all the encouragement and
protection which they rightly deserve".
Further down, the SPDC, having said how good it is at building bridges etc. and
indulged in a bit of culturally relative philosophising refers to the ILO
Commission of Inquiry into forced labour in Myanmar (Burma) and states that the
Commission:
"based on reports of certain terrorist organizations, both inside and outside
Myanmar, and also on information given by certain other sources, came up with
recommendations in July 1998 ..."
In fact, the Commission of Inquiry, made up of two former Chief Justices and
another senior jurist, carried out what is probably the most thorough,
well-documented and legally meticulous inquiry ever conducted by the ILO. They
spent a couple of years and received more than 9,000 pages of written evidence
from governments, UN agencies, international human rights and trade union
organisations, as well as the organisations of various ethnic groups in Burma.
They held quasi-judicial hearings in Geneva, inviting experts and direct
witnesses to give testimony. The Club was invited to these hearings, but to the
disappointment of the distinguished lovers of a good show, did not turn up.
Then the Commission went on the road, and interviewed 246 witnesses in the
region round Burma, also in judicially meticulous conditions. Once more the
Commission of Inquiry was disappointed, this time at the Club's refusal to
allow them to visit the country and be shown the "truth". Then, based on this
massive body of evidence, the Commission wrote their very thorough report
(accessible on the ILO website at:
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/20gb/docs/gb273/myanmar.htm
Where one can see for oneself what proportion of the evidence was from
"terrorist" groups.
I will not be so heavy-handed as to point out all the shifts of mood, from
bombastic to querulous to (at the end) almost threatening, or all the gems that
await below; but I couldn't resist this one:
"In Myanmar's legal system, the State Peace and Development Council is the
Legislature of Myanmar."
Here, the pantomime reaches a supreme level of acrobatic skill as the SPDC, an
over-staying martial-law administration, attempts to pull itself up by
bootstraps of its own peculiar invention and do an elaborate double back-flip
somersault to establish itself as the Legislature (the People's Assembly, or
Pyithu Hluttaw, elected in 1990, but not allowed to convene). This
identification of the State Panto and Drama Club with the body of elected
representatives is an acrobatical tour de force worthy of the great zen
exponents of paradoxical logic, or even that arch-deconstructionist, Nagarjuna.
But wait a moment -- isn't that way out of the court of Theravada orthodoxy?
Mightn't it be heresy, with disastrous implications for future lives?
...Be that as it may, to cap it all, and despite the statement in the canonical
Announcement 1/90 that:
(para 6) "The [SLORC] (Tatmadaw) is not an organization that observes any
constitution; it is an organization that is governing the nation by Martial
Law. It is common knowledge that the [SLORC] is governing the nation as a
military government...",
the Club now states that Myanmar is a country under constitutional law:
"...As in all other countries under constitutional law...".
(Grammatically, it's the "other" that includes Myanmar among those happy
countries)
This is true, of course. Given that according to the 1974 Constitution, only
the Pyithu Hluttaw can supend, amend or annul the Constitution, or indeed enact
any form of legislation, SLORC/SPDC's claim to have dissolved it is
meaningless, and its various acts of "legislation" illegal.
***********************
Now back to serious business:
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE C. App./D.8
87th Session, Geneva, June 1999
Committee on the Application of Standards
Replies to observations of the Committee of Experts
and other information supplied by governments
Mayanmar (sic): Convention No. 29
Myanmar
Convention No. 29: Forced Labour, 1930
Myanmar (ratification: 1955). The Government has supplied the following
information.
The Permanent Mission of the Union of Myanmar to the United Nations Office
and other international organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the
ILO, and with reference to the Report of the Director-General to the members of
the Governing Body on measures taken by the Government of Myanmar following the
recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine its
observance of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), dated 21 May 1999,
has the honour to attach herewith a Memorandum in response to the
abovementioned Report.
The Permanent Mission of the Union of Myanmar would like to request that
this Memorandum be treated as an official document in response to the
Director-General's Report for use in any proceedings of the Governing Body and
other relevant meetings.
Myanmar became a Member of the ILO a few months after its independence in
1948. As a responsible Member it has a long record of cooperation with the ILO
and had settled several issues in the best spirit of cooperation.
It has been a consistent policy of successive governments of Myanmar to
promote the welfare of labour. Myanmar is determined to build a society where
peace and prosperity prevail and where rights of women and children are given
all the encouragement and protection which they rightly deserve.
From around 1990 allegations were made to the effect that there is use of
forced labour in Myanmar. Myanmar strongly feels that these allegations were
largely the result of misconceptions and misunderstandings of the situation and
the mentality of the Myanmar people.
Since a sound infrastructure is essential for economic development, the
Government of Myanmar has placed special emphasis on this sector. Hence, a
substantial effort to improve the infrastructure of the country's economy by
building roads, bridges, dams and reservoirs has been undertaken. Realizing the
benefits to the country from these projects, people have traditionally
contributed labour so that they can be completed sooner. Moreover, it is
Myanmar's thinking that "you reap what you sow before death in the present
world or in the future cycles of life".
This is the background thinking of our people, and without understanding of
these facts people tend to make all kinds of false allegations.
International organizations must not be used as forums to put pressure on
member States by the powerful and influential quarters as a means to achieve
their political objectives.
However, as stated earlier, since the early 1990s, Myanmar has been the
subject of political pressure from some quarters who do not understand the
reality in Myanmar. They tend to act largely on information from
anti-government elements. They are making these politically motivated
allegations to tarnish the image of the Government using every opportunity
including various international fora.
In a move to further apply political pressure on Myanmar the anti-government
elements succeeded through false allegations in persuading a few members of the
Workers' group to file a complaint against Myanmar under article 26 of the ILO
Constitution. This resulted in the formation of the Commission of Inquiry in
1996. Myanmar on the other hand very firmly stood up against such allegations.
However, the Commission, based on reports of certain terrorist organizations,
both inside and outside Myanmar, and also on information given by certain other
sources, came up with recommendations in July 1998 that:
(1) Myanmar must bring the Village Act, 1907, and Towns Act, 1907, in line
with the forced labour Convention namely: Convention No. 29 of 1930. Certain
provisions of this law are also to be put in line with the Convention;
(2) to take measures to stop current practice through public acts and make
them public and not through secret directives;
(3) to enforce penalties upon offenders for extraction of forced or
compulsory labour.
As we have said earlier, Myanmar is building a modern nation and a society
where peace and prosperity shall prevail. In this process, Myanmar does realize
that these recommendations were based on false allegations. But with the spirit
of cooperation, goodwill and sincerity towards the ILO, it never rejected these
recommendations. Furthermore, it is in the process of revising on its own
independent sovereign right old laws that are not in conformity with the
present situation. Under public international law, it has every right to
perform this task on its own.
Myanmar finds that these recommendations were not too difficult to
accommodate. But at the same time, one must take into account that Myanmar is
inhabited by some 135 national races, with a changing economic system.
Thus, when Myanmar received the recommendations and the report of the
Commission it made several communications to the ILO which shows that these
recommendations were not neglected. As evidence, these communications are:
letters dated 23 September 1998, 4 February 1999, 18 February 1999, 12 May 1999
and 18 May 1999.
The fact remains on record that in the letter dated 23 September 1998, the
Ministry of Labour said, "We do not see any difficulty in implementing the
recommendations contained in paragraph 539 of the report".
True to its word, Myanmar firmly acted in accordance with its legal system
and acted in accordance with the law of the land.
The recommendations made by the Commission were: firstly, that the Village
Act and Towns Act be brought in line with Convention No. 29. The essence of the
recommendation "brought in line" is in the domain of Convention No. 29. But on
the other hand, it is the domain of national law or municipal law as to how to
put into effect the provisions of the Convention which is not in the domain of
the Convention. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that legal systems of
the world differ from State to State. One legal system in a State cannot be the
same with the system of another. The modus operandi for putting in effect the
essence of the Convention into national law might be different between two
States.
Myanmar in its own legal system has on 14 May 1999 put a "stop" to the
offending provisions of the above two laws through an Order from the
Legislature to the ministry concerned not to exercise powers for the offending
provisions under these two laws. In Myanmar's legal system, the State Peace and
Development Council is the Legislature of Myanmar. As in all other countries
under constitutional law, it is above the Executive. Executive encompasses the
various ministries which includes the Ministry of Home Affairs, which implement
these two laws. The Memorandum of the State Peace and Development Council was
issued on 14 May 1999 and under it the Ministry of Home Affairs issued Order
No. 1/99 of 14 May 1999 ordering all implementing authorities not to exercise
powers under Towns Act, section 7, subsection (1)(L) and (m), and section 9 and
9A, and similarly in the Village Act, section 8, subsection (1)(g), (n) and
(o), and section 11(d) and section 12. This Order has the force of law to stop
all implementing authorities from exercising the offending powers of these
provisions.
Thus, under our legal system this measure is taken in compliance with the
related recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry.
The second recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry stipulates that the
Order be made public. The Order has been made public and distributed
immediately to 16 authorities. Besides this step, it will be published in the
Myanmar Gazette where all laws are published. There is complete transparency.
For the sake of the record, it has been circulated for action to the following
16 authorities:
1. Office of the Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council.
2. Office of the State Peace and Development Council.
3. Office of the Government.
4. Supreme Court.
5. Office of the Attorney-General.
6. Office of the Auditor-General.
7. Public Services Selection and Training Board.
8. All ministries.
9. Director-General, Department of General Administration (forwarded
for
information and further circulation of the copy of this Order to the
State,
visional, district and township administrative
officers subordinate to him).
10. Police Major General, Myanmar Police Force (forwarded for information and
for further circulation of the copy of this Order to the relevant departments
and organizations subordinate to him).
11. Director-General, Bureau of Special Investigation.
12. Director-General, Prisons Department.
13. All State and Divisional Peace and Development Councils.
14. All District Peace and Development Councils.
15. All Township Peace and Development Councils (forwarded for information and
for further circulation of the copy of this Order to the Chairman of
the Ward and Village Tract Peace and
Development Councils subordinate to him).
15. Managing Director, Printing and Publishing Enterprise (with a request for
publication in the Myanmar Gazette).
Thus Myanmar firmly believes that the second recommendation is fully
complied with.
The third recommendation says that penalties should be imposed for persons
under section 374 of the Penal Code for transgression. It is pertinent to draw
attention to paragraph 6 of the above-mentioned Order which reads: "any person
who fails to abide by this Order shall have action taken against him under
existing laws". This is beyond all reasonable doubt that offenders will be
punished under section 374 of the Penal Code which is enacted as follows:
Unlawful compulsory labour
374. Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of
that
person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Despite these positive actions and steps taken decisively and effectively by
the Government, the ILO office on 21 May 1999 issued the "Report of the
Director-General to the members of the Governing Body on measures taken by the
Government of Myanmar following the recommendations of the Commission of
Inquiry established to examine its observance of the Forced Labour Convention,
1930" that:
(1) the Village and Towns Act had not been "amended";
(2) in actual practice, forced or compulsory labour continues to be imposed
in a widespread manner;
(3) no action appears to be have been taken under section 374 of the
Penal Code to punish those extracting forced labour.
The facts of the report are inaccurate. The alleged facts mentioned in
the report are based on allegations supposed to have taken place prior to 14
May 1999. Not a single allegation is found after the Order of 14 May 1999 was
issued. Thus, in legal language, one can say of this situation that "things
speak for themselves". If there be any alleged acts that supposedly took place
after 14 May 1999, the authorities should be directly informed of such
allegations.
Myanmar on the other hand continues to be objective and steadfast in its
course of building a modern nation where peace and prosperity prevails, taking
into account the circumstances as they stand today. Moreover, Myanmar is in the
process of making a new Constitution, when after its completion, all laws will
be adjusted to meet the requirements of a modern nation.
Meanwhile, Myanmar takes the spirit that it has "charity towards all and
malice towards none". There is a saying in law that justice must not only be
done but must also be seen to be done. Justice must also be fair. Thus, Myanmar
appeals to all Members of the ILO to understand the true facts and seek your
help to support it in the discussions at the ILC.
Observations and conclusions
The most pertinent observations to be made of the report of the ILO Office
dated 21 May 1999 are on the three negative points contained in paragraph 61.
Although these three points have been adequately countered and addressed in
Order No. 1/99 dated 14 May 1999 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the
Government of the Union of Myanmar, which is the Order Directing Not to
Exercise Powers Under Certain Provisions of the Towns Act, 1907, and the
Village Act, 1907, the explanations given in Order 1/99 have not been mentioned
in the Director-General's Report, except for the fact that Order 1/99 was
simply annexed as Appendix III to the Report.
It may be recalled that in an earlier communication from the
Director-General of the ILO, some deadlines had been mentioned for a response
to be received from the Myanmar side. Please note that Order 1/99 was issued on
14 May 1999 which, inter alia, specifically orders that the offending
paragraphs of the Village Act, 1907, and Towns Act, 1907, not be exercised;
that any and all unpaid labour or compulsory labour be terminated henceforth;
that any person who fails to abide by this Order have action taken against him;
that Order 1/99 is not a secret order but is circulated to all government
ministries among others; that it be publicly and openly published in the
Myanmar Gazette for all to see, complies with all recommendations of the
Commission of Inquiry.
Hence, it can be seen that Myanmar had adequately and specifically taken
action to respond to, and to rectify the provisions of the Village and Towns
Acts, and also taken additional measures as called for in the recommendations
of the Commission of Inquiry. All this had been done in a timely manner.
But the question arises as to why such action taken by the Myanmar
authorities was not reflected in the Director-General's Report, which, as a
result led to the three negative observations as seen in paragraph 61 of the
Report.
The answer would seem to be that Order 1/99 was issued only on 14 May, which
was only five working days away from the 21 May deadline. It may be concluded
that time constraints prevented any examination of this Order and compelled the
drafters of this Report to only affix it to the Report as Appendix III.
But nevertheless, this time constraint cannot be used as an argument to the
effect that Myanmar had not complied with the recommendations.
The Report in question contains oversights and omissions as stated above.
Furthermore, the following additional observations and conclusions can be
found.
The Report is full of unfounded and biased charges deliberately levelled at
Myanmar and the Myanmar Government.
The alleged facts in this Report are manifestly false accusations concocted
with evil intent to bring about the destruction of Myanmar by Myanmar
expatriate organizations abroad and renegade groups that oppose all measures
undertaken by the Myanmar Government. They are also based on blatantly false
accusations made verbally, in writing and in the form of announcements by the
National League for Democracy (NLD), whose only aim is to create difficulties
for the Government to place it in an untenable position.
At present the Government is implementing construction projects with
systematic planning and proper budget appropriations. Moreover most of the work
being done on these projects is through the use of mechanized implements and
machinery. In any project where human labour has to be unavoidably employed,
there is a budget allotment for payment of wages to the workers. Any worker so
employed is paid fair wages and there is not a single instance or a shred of
evidence that forced labour is being used in these projects.
Work on the highways under construction in various regions, including the
union highway in the Shan State, and new railroads being laid, are being done
by servicemen of the armed forces. There is not a single civilian working on
them.
Any jobs in which the people are involved are confined to the digging of
small irrigation ditches to convey water to their own private cultivation
plots. The larger state projects for the building of irrigation canals and dams
do not use forced or conscripted labour of civilians. As stated, if people are
at work at all, they are working in their own interest and according to their
own plans and schedules on their privately owned plots of land.
State construction projects employ only military servicemen. So the
accusation that the Government is using forced labour on these projects is
baseless and flagrantly false. Since only members of the armed forces are
employed in the construction of rail and motor roads, to say that forced labour
is being used is utterly meaningless.
Other ongoing projects such as the reclamation of vacant and fallow lands
and the construction of residential housing and hotels are all ventures by
private entrepreneurs who have made capital investments. The use of forced
labour in such cases is totally out of the question. In fact when incidents
arise over labour grievances, the Government stands firmly on the side of the
workers in settling such disputes.
Concerning the charge that the army conscripts porters in its military
operations, it could be said that this was the practice in former times when
the insurgencies were rampant. But the fact remains that these porters were
always paid and the defence budget always had an allotment for payment of their
wages. These porters enjoyed the same rights as a soldier. He was given the
same rations and paid the same wages. Moreover, a porter, if wounded, obtained
equal compensation with a serving soldier and he was entitled to the same
hardship allowances. But this issue of military porters is no longer relevant
and has become a non-issue since military operations are no longer an urgent
necessity.
The Myanmar Government categorically refutes all the false information
deliberately fed by the NLD.
An esteemed organization like the ILO should not give credence to fabricated
news and lies supplied by those who only see Myanmar and the present Government
through hostile and resentful eyes, and who are moreover bent upon destroying
the country to put the Government in a predicament.
Finally, it is relevant to reiterate that Myanmar, as a responsible Member
of the ILO, has a long record of cooperation with the ILO, and has in the past
settled issues in a spirit of cooperation. This spirit of cooperation will
continue in the future.
As examples of this cooperation, Myanmar had signed a considerable number of
ILO Conventions, including some core Conventions.
At present the ILO is in the process of inviting and persuading countries
that have not done so, to sign, to ratify or accede to those Conventions that
they had not yet become State parties.
In this positive atmosphere being created at present by the Members of the
ILO, it would indeed be unfortunate, even counter-productive, to have more and
more ILO Members become State parties to core Conventions, if one Member who
had signed a core Convention, in this case the Union of Myanmar, is singled out
unfairly and been unduly criticized.
Such an exercise will no doubt serve as a reminder to those who have not yet
signed core Conventions to maintain their status quo, and will certainly help
to dissuade them from signing the core Conventions, much to the detriment of
the ILO membership as a whole.
7 June 1999.
Internet ProLink PC User
--=====================_42377324==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<font face=3D"Courier New, Courier">MORE FUN STUFF FROM THE STATE
PANTO(MIME) AND DRAMA CLUB<br>
<br>
On 8 and 9 June, the SPDC delegate gave a rousing performance before the
ILO Committee on the Application of Standards, which departed from its
somber norm and broke into laughter at some of his jokes. I'll put the
transcripts on the net in a few days, so you can all share in the
merriment. <br>
<br>
<br>
In the meantime, here is another rib-tickling document, the Club's
replies to the ILO Director-General's report of 21 May (posted on the
nets the same day, and on the ILO website at:<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.ilo.org/public/english/20gb/docs/gb274/dg-myanm.htm"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.ilo.org/public/english/20gb/docs/gb274/dg-mya=
nm.htm</a><br>
<br>
<br>
The jokes begin early in the text, with such beauties as:<br>
<br>
"It has been a consistent policy of successive governments of
Myanmar to promote the welfare of labour" and<br>
<br>
"Myanmar is determined to build a society where peace and prosperity
prevail and where rights of women and children are given all the
encouragement and protection which they rightly deserve".<br>
<br>
<br>
Further down, the SPDC, having said how good it is at building bridges
etc. and indulged in a bit of culturally relative philosophising refers
to the ILO Commission of Inquiry into forced labour in Myanmar (Burma)
and states that the Commission: <br>
<br>
"based on reports of certain terrorist organizations, both inside
and outside Myanmar, and also on information given by certain other
sources, came up with recommendations in July 1998 ..." <br>
<br>
In fact, the Commission of Inquiry, made up of two former Chief Justices
and another senior jurist, carried out what is probably the most
thorough, well-documented and legally meticulous inquiry ever conducted
by the ILO. They spent a couple of years and received more than 9,000
pages of written evidence from governments, UN agencies, international
human rights and trade union organisations, as well as the organisations
of various ethnic groups in Burma. They held quasi-judicial hearings in
Geneva, inviting experts and direct witnesses to give testimony. The Club
was invited to these hearings, but to the disappointment of the
distinguished lovers of a good show, did not turn up. Then the Commission
went on the road, and interviewed 246 witnesses in the region round
Burma, also in judicially meticulous conditions. Once more the Commission
of Inquiry was disappointed, this time at the Club's refusal to allow
them to visit the country and be shown the "truth". Then, based
on this massive body of evidence, the Commission wrote their very
thorough report (accessible on the ILO website at:<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.ilo.org/public/english/20gb/docs/gb273/myanmar.htm"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.ilo.org/public/english/20gb/docs/gb273/myanma=
r.htm</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Where one can see for oneself what proportion of the evidence was from
"terrorist" groups.<br>
<br>
<br>
I will not be so heavy-handed as to point out all the shifts of mood,
from bombastic to querulous to (at the end) almost threatening, or all
the gems that await below; but I couldn't resist this one:<br>
<br>
"In Myanmar's legal system, the State Peace and Development Council
is the Legislature of Myanmar." <br>
<br>
Here, the pantomime reaches a supreme level of acrobatic skill as the
SPDC, an over-staying martial-law administration, attempts to pull itself
up by bootstraps of its own peculiar invention and do an elaborate double
back-flip somersault to establish itself as the Legislature (the People's
Assembly, or Pyithu Hluttaw, elected in 1990, but not allowed to
convene). This identification of the State Panto and Drama Club with the
body of elected representatives is an acrobatical tour de force worthy of
the great zen exponents of paradoxical logic, or even that
arch-deconstructionist, Nagarjuna. But wait a moment -- isn't that way
out of the court of Theravada orthodoxy? Mightn't it be heresy, with
disastrous implications for future lives?<br>
<br>
...Be that as it may, to cap it all, and despite the statement in the
canonical Announcement 1/90 that:<br>
<br>
(para 6) "The [SLORC] (Tatmadaw) is not an organization that
observes any constitution; it is an organization that is governing the
nation by Martial Law. It is common knowledge that the [SLORC] is
governing the nation as a military government...",<br>
<br>
the Club now states that Myanmar is a country under constitutional
law:<br>
<br>
"...As in all other countries under constitutional law...".
<br>
<br>
(Grammatically, it's the "other" that includes Myanmar among
those happy countries)<br>
<br>
This is true, of course. Given that according to the 1974 Constitution,
only the Pyithu Hluttaw can supend, amend or annul the Constitution, or
indeed enact any form of legislation, SLORC/SPDC's claim to have
dissolved it is meaningless, and its various acts of
"legislation" illegal. <br>
<br>
***********************<br>
<br>
Now back to serious business:<br>
<br>
<br>
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE<x-tab> </x-tab>C. App./D.8<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><br>
87th Session, Geneva, June 1999<br>
<br>
<br>
Committee on the Application of Standards<br>
<br>
<br>
Replies to observations of the Committee of Experts<br>
and other information supplied by governments<br>
<br>
<br>
Mayanmar
(sic):<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> =
</x-tab>Convention
No. 29<br>
<br>
Myanmar<br>
<br>
Convention No. 29: Forced Labour, 1930<br>
<br>
Myanmar (ratification: 1955). The Government has supplied the following
information.<br>
<br>
The Permanent Mission of the Union of Myanmar to the United
Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva presents
its compliments to the ILO, and with reference to the Report of the
Director-General to the members of the Governing Body on measures taken
by the Government of Myanmar following the recommendations of the
Commission of Inquiry established to examine its observance of the Forced
Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), dated 21 May 1999, has the honour to
attach herewith a Memorandum in response to the abovementioned
Report.<br>
<br>
The Permanent Mission of the Union of Myanmar would like to
request that this Memorandum be treated as an official document in
response to the Director-General's Report for use in any proceedings of
the Governing Body and other relevant meetings.<br>
<br>
Myanmar became a Member of the ILO a few months after its
independence in 1948. As a responsible Member it has a long record of
cooperation with the ILO and had settled several issues in the best
spirit of cooperation.<br>
<br>
It has been a consistent policy of successive governments of
Myanmar to promote the welfare of labour. Myanmar is determined to build
a society where peace and prosperity prevail and where rights of women
and children are given all the encouragement and protection which they
rightly deserve.<br>
<br>
From around 1990 allegations were made to the effect that
there is use of forced labour in Myanmar. Myanmar strongly feels that
these allegations were largely the result of misconceptions and
misunderstandings of the situation and the mentality of the Myanmar
people.<br>
<br>
Since a sound infrastructure is essential for economic
development, the Government of Myanmar has placed special emphasis on
this sector. Hence, a substantial effort to improve the infrastructure of
the country's economy by building roads, bridges, dams and reservoirs has
been undertaken. Realizing the benefits to the country from these
projects, people have traditionally contributed labour so that they can
be completed sooner. Moreover, it is Myanmar's thinking that "you
reap what you sow before death in the present world or in the future
cycles of life".<br>
<br>
This is the background thinking of our people, and without
understanding of these facts people tend to make all kinds of false
allegations.<br>
<br>
International organizations must not be used as forums to
put pressure on member States by the powerful and influential quarters as
a means to achieve their political objectives.<br>
<br>
However, as stated earlier, since the early 1990s, Myanmar
has been the subject of political pressure from some quarters who do not
understand the reality in Myanmar. They tend to act largely on
information from anti-government elements. They are making these
politically motivated allegations to tarnish the image of the Government
using every opportunity including various international fora.<br>
<br>
In a move to further apply political pressure on Myanmar the
anti-government elements succeeded through false allegations in
persuading a few members of the Workers' group to file a complaint
against Myanmar under article 26 of the ILO Constitution. This resulted
in the formation of the Commission of Inquiry in 1996. Myanmar on the
other hand very firmly stood up against such allegations. However, the
Commission, based on reports of certain terrorist organizations, both
inside and outside Myanmar, and also on information given by certain
other sources, came up with recommendations in July 1998 that:<br>
<br>
(1)<x-tab> </x-tab>Myanmar must bring the
Village Act, 1907, and Towns Act, 1907, in line with the forced labour
Convention namely: Convention No. 29 of 1930. Certain provisions of this
law are also to be put in line with the Convention;<br>
<br>
(2)<x-tab> </x-tab>to take measures to stop
current practice through public acts and make them public and not through
secret directives;<br>
<br>
(3)<x-tab> </x-tab>to enforce penalties upon
offenders for extraction of forced or compulsory labour.<br>
<br>
As we have said earlier, Myanmar is building a modern nation
and a society where peace and prosperity shall prevail. In this process,
Myanmar does realize that these recommendations were based on false
allegations. But with the spirit of cooperation, goodwill and sincerity
towards the ILO, it never rejected these recommendations. Furthermore, it
is in the process of revising on its own independent sovereign right old
laws that are not in conformity with the present situation. Under public
international law, it has every right to perform this task on its
own.<br>
<br>
Myanmar finds that these recommendations were not too
difficult to accommodate. But at the same time, one must take into
account that Myanmar is inhabited by some 135 national races, with a
changing economic system.<br>
<br>
Thus, when Myanmar received the recommendations and the
report of the Commission it made several communications to the ILO which
shows that these recommendations were not neglected. As evidence, these
communications are: letters dated 23 September 1998, 4 February 1999, 18
February 1999, 12 May 1999 and 18 May 1999.<br>
<br>
The fact remains on record that in the letter dated 23
September 1998, the Ministry of Labour said, "We do not see any
difficulty in implementing the recommendations contained in paragraph 539
of the report".<br>
<br>
True to its word, Myanmar firmly acted in accordance with
its legal system and acted in accordance with the law of the land.<br>
<br>
The recommendations made by the Commission were: firstly,
that the Village Act and Towns Act be brought in line with Convention No.
29. The essence of the recommendation "brought in line" is in
the domain of Convention No. 29. But on the other hand, it is the domain
of national law or municipal law as to how to put into effect the
provisions of the Convention which is not in the domain of the
Convention. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that legal systems
of the world differ from State to State. One legal system in a State
cannot be the same with the system of another. The modus operandi for
putting in effect the essence of the Convention into national law might
be different between two States.<br>
<br>
Myanmar in its own legal system has on 14 May 1999 put a
"stop" to the offending provisions of the above two laws
through an Order from the Legislature to the ministry concerned not to
exercise powers for the offending provisions under these two laws. In
Myanmar's legal system, the State Peace and Development Council is the
Legislature of Myanmar. As in all other countries under constitutional
law, it is above the Executive. Executive encompasses the various
ministries which includes the Ministry of Home Affairs, which implement
these two laws. The Memorandum of the State Peace and Development Council
was issued on 14 May 1999 and under it the Ministry of Home Affairs
issued Order No. 1/99 of 14 May 1999 ordering all implementing
authorities not to exercise powers under Towns Act, section 7, subsection
(1)(L) and (m), and section 9 and 9A, and similarly in the Village Act,
section 8, subsection (1)(g), (n) and (o), and section 11(d) and section
12. This Order has the force of law to stop all implementing authorities
from exercising the offending powers of these provisions.<br>
<br>
Thus, under our legal system this measure is taken in
compliance with the related recommendation of the Commission of
Inquiry.<br>
<br>
The second recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry
stipulates that the Order be made public. The Order has been made public
and distributed immediately to 16 authorities. Besides this step, it will
be published in the Myanmar Gazette where all laws are published. There
is complete transparency. For the sake of the record, it has been
circulated for action to the following 16 authorities:<br>
<br>
1. Office of the Chairman of the State Peace and Development
Council.<br>
<br>
2. Office of the State Peace and Development Council.<br>
<br>
3. Office of the Government.<br>
<br>
4. Supreme Court.<br>
<br>
5. Office of the Attorney-General.<br>
<br>
6. Office of the Auditor-General.<br>
<br>
7. Public Services Selection and Training Board.<br>
<br>
8. All ministries.<br>
<br>
9. Director-General, Department of General Administration (forwarded
for &=
nbsp;  =
;
<br>
information and further circulation of the copy of this Order to the
State, &nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =
&nbs=
p;
visional, district and township administrative officers subordinate to
him).<br>
<br>
10. Police Major General, Myanmar Police Force (forwarded for information
and for further circulation of the copy of this Order to the relevant
departments and organizations subordinate to him).<br>
<br>
11. Director-General, Bureau of Special Investigation.<br>
<br>
12. Director-General, Prisons Department.<br>
<br>
13. All State and Divisional Peace and Development Councils.<br>
<br>
14. All District Peace and Development Councils.<br>
<br>
15. All Township Peace and Development Councils (forwarded for
information and <br>
for further circulation of the copy of this Order to the Chairman of
the &=
nbsp;  =
;
Ward and Village Tract Peace and Development Councils subordinate to
him).<br>
<br>
15. Managing Director, Printing and Publishing Enterprise (with a request
for <br>
publication in the Myanmar Gazette).<br>
<br>
Thus Myanmar firmly believes that the second recommendation
is fully complied with.<br>
<br>
The third recommendation says that penalties should be
imposed for persons under section 374 of the Penal Code for
transgression. It is pertinent to draw attention to paragraph 6 of the
above-mentioned Order which reads: "any person who fails to abide by
this Order shall have action taken against him under existing laws".
This is beyond all reasonable doubt that offenders will be punished under
section 374 of the Penal Code which is enacted as follows:<br>
<br>
<br>
Unlawful compulsory labour<br>
<br>
374.<x-tab> </x-tab>Whoever unlawfully compels any
person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one
year, or with fine, or with both.<br>
<br>
Despite these positive actions and steps taken decisively
and effectively by the Government, the ILO office on 21 May 1999 issued
the "Report of the Director-General to the members of the Governing
Body on measures taken by the Government of Myanmar following the
recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine its
observance of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930" that:<br>
<br>
(1)<x-tab> </x-tab>the Village and Towns Act
had not been "amended";<br>
<br>
(2)<x-tab> </x-tab>in actual practice,
forced or compulsory labour continues to be imposed
in &n=
bsp;
<x-tab> </x-tab>a widespread manner;<br>
<br>
(3)<x-tab> </x-tab>no action appears to be
have been taken under section 374 of the
Penal  =
;
<x-tab> </x-tab>Code to punish those extracting forced
labour.<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>The facts
of the report are inaccurate. The alleged facts mentioned in the report
are based on allegations supposed to have taken place prior to 14 May
1999. Not a single allegation is found after the Order of 14 May 1999 was
issued. Thus, in legal language, one can say of this situation that
"things speak for themselves". If there be any alleged acts
that supposedly took place after 14 May 1999, the authorities should be
directly informed of such allegations.<br>
<br>
Myanmar on the other hand continues to be objective and
steadfast in its course of building a modern nation where peace and
prosperity prevails, taking into account the circumstances as they stand
today. Moreover, Myanmar is in the process of making a new Constitution,
when after its completion, all laws will be adjusted to meet the
requirements of a modern nation.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, Myanmar takes the spirit that it has
"charity towards all and malice towards none". There is a
saying in law that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to
be done. Justice must also be fair. Thus, Myanmar appeals to all Members
of the ILO to understand the true facts and seek your help to support it
in the discussions at the ILC.<br>
<br>
<br>
Observations and conclusions<br>
<br>
The most pertinent observations to be made of the report of
the ILO Office dated 21 May 1999 are on the three negative points
contained in paragraph 61.<br>
Although these three points have been adequately countered and addressed
in Order No. 1/99 dated 14 May 1999 issued by the Ministry of Home
Affairs of the Government of the Union of Myanmar, which is the Order
Directing Not to Exercise Powers Under Certain Provisions of the Towns
Act, 1907, and the Village Act, 1907, the explanations given in Order
1/99 have not been mentioned in the Director-General's Report, except for
the fact that Order 1/99 was simply annexed as Appendix III to the
Report.<br>
<br>
It may be recalled that in an earlier communication from the
Director-General of the ILO, some deadlines had been mentioned for a
response to be received from the Myanmar side. Please note that Order
1/99 was issued on 14 May 1999 which, inter alia, specifically orders
that the offending paragraphs of the Village Act, 1907, and Towns Act,
1907, not be exercised; that any and all unpaid labour or compulsory
labour be terminated henceforth; that any person who fails to abide by
this Order have action taken against him; that Order 1/99 is not a secret
order but is circulated to all government ministries among others; that
it be publicly and openly published in the Myanmar Gazette for all to
see, complies with all recommendations of the Commission of=20
Inquiry.<br>
<br>
Hence, it can be seen that Myanmar had adequately and
specifically taken action to respond to, and to rectify the provisions of
the Village and Towns Acts, and also taken additional measures as called
for in the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. All this had
been done in a timely manner.<br>
<br>
But the question arises as to why such action taken by the
Myanmar authorities was not reflected in the Director-General's Report,
which, as a result led to the three negative observations as seen in
paragraph 61 of the Report.<br>
<br>
The answer would seem to be that Order 1/99 was issued only
on 14 May, which was only five working days away from the 21 May
deadline. It may be concluded that time constraints prevented any
examination of this Order and compelled the drafters of this Report to
only affix it to the Report as Appendix III.<br>
<br>
But nevertheless, this time constraint cannot be used as an
argument to the effect that Myanmar had not complied with the
recommendations.<br>
<br>
The Report in question contains oversights and omissions as
stated above. Furthermore, the following additional observations and
conclusions can be found.<br>
The Report is full of unfounded and biased charges deliberately levelled
at Myanmar and the Myanmar Government.<br>
<br>
The alleged facts in this Report are manifestly false
accusations concocted with evil intent to bring about the destruction of
Myanmar by Myanmar expatriate organizations abroad and renegade groups
that oppose all measures undertaken by the Myanmar Government. They are
also based on blatantly false accusations made verbally, in writing and
in the form of announcements by the National League for Democracy (NLD),
whose only aim is to create difficulties for the Government to place it
in an untenable position.<br>
<br>
At present the Government is implementing construction
projects with systematic planning and proper budget appropriations.
Moreover most of the work being done on these projects is through the use
of mechanized implements and machinery. In any project where human labour
has to be unavoidably employed, there is a budget allotment for payment
of wages to the workers. Any worker so employed is paid fair wages and
there is not a single instance or a shred of evidence that forced labour
is being used in these projects.<br>
<br>
Work on the highways under construction in various regions,
including the union highway in the Shan State, and new railroads being
laid, are being done by servicemen of the armed forces. There is not a
single civilian working on them.<br>
<br>
Any jobs in which the people are involved are confined to
the digging of small irrigation ditches to convey water to their own
private cultivation plots. The larger state projects for the building of
irrigation canals and dams do not use forced or conscripted labour of
civilians. As stated, if people are at work at all, they are working in
their own interest and according to their own plans and schedules on
their privately owned plots of land.<br>
<br>
State construction projects employ only military servicemen.
So the accusation that the Government is using forced labour on these
projects is baseless and flagrantly false. Since only members of the
armed forces are employed in the construction of rail and motor roads, to
say that forced labour is being used is utterly meaningless.<br>
<br>
Other ongoing projects such as the reclamation of vacant and
fallow lands and the construction of residential housing and hotels are
all ventures by private entrepreneurs who have made capital investments.
The use of forced labour in such cases is totally out of the question. In
fact when incidents arise over labour grievances, the Government stands
firmly on the side of the workers in settling such disputes.<br>
<br>
Concerning the charge that the army conscripts porters in
its military operations, it could be said that this was the practice in
former times when the insurgencies were rampant. But the fact remains
that these porters were always paid and the defence budget always had an
allotment for payment of their wages. These porters enjoyed the same
rights as a soldier. He was given the same rations and paid the same
wages. Moreover, a porter, if wounded, obtained equal compensation with a
serving soldier and he was entitled to the same hardship allowances. But
this issue of military porters is no longer relevant and has become a
non-issue since military operations are no longer an urgent
necessity.<br>
<br>
The Myanmar Government categorically refutes all the false
information deliberately fed by the NLD.<br>
<br>
An esteemed organization like the ILO should not give
credence to fabricated news and lies supplied by those who only see
Myanmar and the present Government through hostile and resentful eyes,
and who are moreover bent upon destroying the country to put the
Government in a predicament.<br>
<br>
Finally, it is relevant to reiterate that Myanmar, as a
responsible Member of the ILO, has a long record of cooperation with the
ILO, and has in the past settled issues in a spirit of cooperation. This
spirit of cooperation will continue in the future.<br>
<br>
As examples of this cooperation, Myanmar had signed a
considerable number of ILO Conventions, including some core
Conventions.<br>
<br>
At present the ILO is in the process of inviting and
persuading countries that have not done so, to sign, to ratify or accede
to those Conventions that they had not yet become State parties.<br>
<br>
In this positive atmosphere being created at present by the
Members of the ILO, it would indeed be unfortunate, even
counter-productive, to have more and more ILO Members become State
parties to core Conventions, if one Member who had signed a core
Convention, in this case the Union of Myanmar, is singled out unfairly
and been unduly criticized.<br>
<br>
Such an exercise will no doubt serve as a reminder to those
who have not yet signed core Conventions to maintain their status quo,
and will certainly help to dissuade them from signing the core
Conventions, much to the detriment of the ILO membership as a=20
whole.<br>
<br>
<br>
7 June 1999.<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<div>Internet ProLink PC User</div>
</html>
--=====================_42377324==_.ALT--