ILO Conference : Burma - Conv.29 (P

[asb@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: ILO Conference : Burma - Conv.29 (Part 1)

Convention No. 29: Forced Labour, 1930 Myanmar (ratification: 1955). 
The Government has supplied the following written 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 above-mentioned 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 implements 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,
divisional, 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).
16.  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 unduly criticized.
Such an exercise will no doubt serve as a reminder to those who have not
yet signed the 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.
A Government representative reiterated the written information provided by
his Government on the case, set forth in the preceeding paragraphs.
The Worker members recalled that in the Committee's general discussion the
Government member of India had stated that the article 26 constitutional
procedure was an extreme measure designed to address an extreme situation,
reached only when a member State wilfully and deliberately refused to take
measures to comply with the suggestions and recommendations of the
supervisory bodies. He had concluded that article 26 should only be applied
as a last resort. By that measure, the Government of Myanmar was
particularly
deserving of the strongest and most extreme measures available to the
supervisory bodies for its stubborn refusal to abide by its commitments
under the Convention.
For over 35 years, the Committee of Experts had been denouncing the evils
of forced labour in Burma. However, no action whatsoever had been taken by
the Government to end the practice. On the contrary, in recent years the
practice had grown. This was the fourth time in the past eight years that
the Conference Committee had examined the case. In the meantime, an article
24 representation had been accepted by the Governing Body. In 1994, the
Governing Body had adopted tripartite conclusions confirming that Myanmar
was in fundamental violation of the Convention and calling on the
Government to make the necessary changes in
the law, to enforce the law, and to punish those responsible for the
continued exploitation of forced labour throughout the country. Once again,
no action had been taken by the Government in either law or practice.
The Conference Committee had expressed its deep concern at the serious
situation in the country in both 1995 and 1996. It had restated in ever
stronger terms its admonition to the Government to abolish all legal
provisions and immediately abandon all practices which were contrary to the
Convention. To emphasize its concern, it had set its conclusions aside in
special paragraphs to its report and in 1996 had cited the case as one of
persistent failure to implement a ratified Convention. Yet there had still
been no action on the part of the
Government, except for denials, delays and deception. Finally, after many
years of attempting to persuade the Government to fulfil its treaty
obligations and end the misery of hundreds of thousands of victims of this
egregious practice, a complaint had been submitted under article 26 of the
Constitution and rapidly accepted by the Governing Body. A Commission of
Inquiry had been established in March 1997, which had held closed hearings
in November 1997 and visited the region early in 1998. The military regime
could have participated in the hearings and presented its own witnesses. It
could have cooperated with the Commission of Inquiry when it travelled to
the region, but it had chosen not to and had barred the Commission from
even entering the country.
Despite this total lack of cooperation, the Commission of Inquiry had
completed its work and submitted a document of almost 400 pages. The
Commission had concluded that there was abundant evidence showing the
pervasive use of forced labour imposed on the civilian population
throughout Myanmar by the authorities and the military for portering, the
construction, maintenance and servicing of military camps, other work in
support of the military, agricultural work and work on other production
projects undertaken by the authorities or the military, sometimes for the
profit of private individuals, as well as the construction and maintenance
of roads, railways, bridges and other infrastructure. The Commission of
Inquiry had also concluded that forced labour in the country was widely
performed by women, children and elderly persons and that the burden of
forced labour was particularly great for non-Burman ethnic groups,
especially in areas where there was a strong military presence.
The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been taken up by the
Committee of Experts. These included urging the Government to take all
necessary steps to ensure that the relevant legislative texts, and
particularly the Village Act and the Towns Act, were brought into
conformity with the Convention, as the Government had been promising to do
for over 30 years. The Commission of Inquiry had also insisted that no more
forced labour should be imposed by the authorities, and particularly by the
military. Finally, the Commission of
Inquiry had emphasized that the power to impose compulsory labour would
continue to be taken for granted unless legal action were taken against
those responsible. Information was, therefore, required on whether any
offenders had actually been punished.
At its session in March 1999, the tripartite members of the Governing Body
had called on the Government to make all the necessary changes in the laws
to bring them into compliance with the Convention by 1 May 1999. It had
also requested the Director-General to submit a report by 21 May 1999
concerning the measures which the Government had taken to comply with the
recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Director-General and the
Office were to be congratulated on producing such an exhaustive and
well-documented report in such a short period.
The Director-General had invited the Government to inform him in detail by
3 May 1999 at the latest of any measures taken on each of the
recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. He had also invited member
States and workers' and employers' organizations to provide information.
Fourteen governments, the FAO, UNHCR,UNIDO, IMF and the World Bank, as well
as many labour organizations, employers' and human rights organizations, in
addition to the exiled Federation of Trade Unions of Burma, had responded
to the call to provide information. The Director-General's Report contained
new documentation substantiating the conclusions of the Commission of
Inquiry that a variety of forms of forced labour were prevalent throughout
the country. It provided further evidence of the continued use of forced
labour in virtually every ethnic state of the country as part of the
campaign to put down the aspirations of ethnic minorities. It also
contained evidence of the continued use of forced labour in the Burman
areas. The scope and breadth of the information contained in the report of
the Commission of Inquiry and of the Director-General were staggering.
The above information provided the context for the information supplied by
the Government.
It had indicated in a letter of 18 May 1999 to the Director-General that
Order No. 1/99 directed the relevant authorities not to exercise the powers
conferred upon them by the Village Act and the Towns Act. This letter was a
clear admission that the Government had not changed the law by 1 May 1999,
as requested by the Governing Body. Indeed, the Director-General had
recognized in his Report that the Order did not represent a change in the
two Acts, as recommended by the Commission of Inquiry. Moreover, it could
be reversed at any time.
Nor had the Government representative provided any new information to
suggest that it had implemented the other recommendations. The only new
element put forward by the Government representative was the suggestion
that all the evidence previously collected had been prior to 14 May 1999,
and that the coming into force of the new Order had radically changed the
situation.
The Worker members recalled that, as recently as 1 May 1999, the Chairman
of the State Peace and Development Council, Senior General Than Shwe, had
urged workers to beware of new colonialists meddling and exerting control
in international organizations with an air of safeguarding human rights and
workers' rights. Two weeks later, at a press conference held during the
13th meeting of ASEAN Labour Ministers, the military regime had reiterated
its long-standing blanket denial of the existence of forced labour in Burma
and had argued once again that it was one of the noble traditions of the
Burmese people to give freely of their
labour, since they believed that voluntary labour would bring benefits to
them in their present and future existence. These comments revealed the
true nature of the regime's cooperation with the ILO.
In conclusion, the Worker members quoted from the conclusions of the
Commission of Inquiry, which had considered that "the impunity with which
government officials, in particular the military, treat the civilian
population as an unlimited pool of unpaid forced labourers and servants at
their disposal is part of a political system built on the use of force and
intimidation to deny the people of Myanmar democracy and the rule of law.
The experience of the past years tends to prove that the establishment of a
government freely chosen by the people and the submission of all public
authorities to the rule of law are, in practice, indispensable
prerequisites for the suppression of forced labour in Myanmar." The
Commission of Inquiry had hoped and trusted that in the near future the old
order would change, yielding place to the new, where everyone in Myanmar
would have an opportunity to live with human dignity and to develop his or
her full potential in a freely chosen manner, and that there would be no
subjection or enslavement of anyone by others. It had concluded that this
could only happen if democracy were restored, so that the people as a whole
could wield power for their common good. The Worker members reaffirmed
that, until such fundamental change occurred, the challenge of ridding the
country of decades of forced labour could not even begin.
The Employer members noted that the Committee of Experts had begun
publishing observations in this case in the beginning of the 1990s and that
the case was not new to the Conference Committee, which had indeed noted it
in special paragraphs in the past. In the meantime, there had also been a
representation submitted pursuant to article 24 of the Constitution and a
complaint under article 26. They emphasized that all the information
presently before them could only confirm their previous apprehensions as to
the gravity of the situation in Myanmar. They contended that the situation
was simple but sad, and in that regard quoted the following from the report
of the Commission of Inquiry:
"There is abundant evidence showing the pervasive use of forced labour
imposed on the civilian population throughout Myanmar by the authorities
and the military for portering, the construction, maintenance and servicing
of military camps, other work in support of the military, work on
agriculture, logging and other production projects undertaken by the
authorities or the military, sometimes for the profit of private
individuals, the construction and maintenance of roads, railways and
bridges, other infrastructure work and a range of other tasks ... Forced
labour in Myanmar is widely performed by women, children and elderly
persons as well as other persons otherwise unfit to work ... All the
information and evidence before the Commission shows utter disregard by the
authorities for the safety and health as well as the basic needs of the
people performing forced or compulsory labour ... and many are killed or
injured ..."
They recalled that the concerns raised were based on provisions of the
Village Act and Towns Act, and more particularly on the problems in
practice. While there was indeed a law providing for the punishment of
those compelling any person to labour against their will (section 374 of
the Penal Code), they stressed that this provision had not been implemented
and that forced labour was being carried out and ordered by the
authorities.
They remarked that a Commission of Inquiry seldom uses such forceful terms
as those found in its report on forced labour in Myanmar which referred to
the "widespread and systematic" use of forced or compulsory labour "with
total disregard for the human dignity, safety and health and basic needs of
the people of Myanmar". They emphasized the three main recommendations of
the Commission of Inquiry: (i) that the relevant legislative texts be
amended as had been requested by the Committee of Experts and promised by
the Government for over 30 years; (ii) that in actual practice, no more
forced or compulsory labour be imposed by the authorities, in particular
the military; (iii) that the penalties that may be imposed under the Penal
Code be strictly enforced since the power to impose compulsory labour will
not cease to be taken for granted unless those used to exercising it are
actually brought to face criminal responsibility. According to the Employer
members, since the line between ordinary labour and forced labour had
become so blurred, as confirmed by the statement of the Government
representative to the effect that people have traditionally contributed
labour so that projects for the improvement of the country's infrastructure
could be completed sooner, enormous efforts would need to be taken to
change attitudes and to inform the population of changes in practice. They
then referred to the statement of the Government representative to the
effect that the Report of the Commission of Inquiry was full of unfounded
and biased charges and that the alleged facts were manifestly false
accusations
which were politically motivated. The Employer members were of the view
that this illustrated the attitude of the Government that no changes were
needed and none would be carried out. However, the Government had also
indicated its intention to cooperate with the ILO to comply with the
recommendations. The Employer members viewed the Government's response as
continuing to illustrate its contradictory attitude and approach and a lack
of credibility. Referring to Order No. 1/99 issued on 14 May 1999, they
queried whether such an instrument could amend a law, and whether indeed
the Government intended to comply with the recommendations at all. Since
the Order provided that any Acts or laws in force should be applied if
provisions of the Order were not implemented, the Employer members asserted
that this showed clearly that the Government had no intention of abrogating
or amending the legislation at issue.
Concerning the recommendation that concrete action be taken to stop the
present practice through public acts of the executive promulgated and made
known to all levels of the military and to the whole population, the
Government representative had pointed out that the new Order had been
distributed to 16 authorities and thus in its view it had complied with
this requirement. The Government representative had also said that anyone
not complying with the new Order would be subject to penalties; however, in
the view of the Employer members, such statements could only be evidence of
a continuation of the Government's refusal to amend the laws and to apply
penalties under existing laws.
The Employer members regretted that they had not heard any clear statement
from the Government representative indicating a political willingness to
change the existing law and practice. They called on the Committee to note
with deep regret the continuation of the practice of forced labour in
Myanmar and to urge the Government in the strongest possible terms to meet
its obligations.
The Government member of China hoped that the Committee would take note of
the new progress achieved by the Government in the application of the
Convention, as reported by the Government representative.
The Government member of the United Kingdom, also speaking on behalf of the
Government members of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany,
Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden, stated that the
report of the Committee of Experts once again provided disturbing evidence
of the use of forced labour and other human rights abuses in Burma. The
Governments on behalf of whom he was speaking had expressed grave concern
at this deplorable situation on a number of occasions, both in the
Conference Committee and elsewhere.
He recalled the findings of the Commission of Inquiry, which had concluded
that the military regime in Burma had absolute authority to exploit forced
labour under threat of torture, rape and murder, and that the burden of
forced labour in the country was felt disproportionately by ethnic
minorities and other vulnerable groups, including women, children and the
elderly. The Commission of Inquiry had recommended that the use of forced
labour should be halted with immediate effect and that the authorities
should bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and
enforce existing legal penalties. Despite the repeated assurances made by
the Government representative that the regime was taking action to end the
use of forced labour, the recent report of the Director-General once again
made it clear that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had not
been implemented and that the people of Burma continued to suffer gross and
systematic human rights abuses.
When adopting the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work,
all 174 member States of the ILO had reaffirmed their commitment to the 
organization's core human rights principles, including the abolition of
forced labour. He warned of the clear danger that the entire Organization
and its supervisory system would be discredited if decisive action were not
taken to ensure that the Burmese authorities complied with their
obligations to the ILO without further delay. All the available options
should be considered to secure the compliance of the Burmese authorities
with their obligations to the Organization and the Conference Committee
should give the clearest possible mandate for such action.
The Government member of Canada noted once again that the situation in
Burma remained unchanged. Freedom of association had not been truly
respected, the use of forced labour and child labour was pervasive. Burma
was the most long-standing and egregious violator of basic workers' rights
and international labour standards and continued to show its utter disdain
for the proceedings of the ILO and the opinion of the international
community, as shown by the total lack of sincerity and substance in the
statement of the Government  representative.
The case had been discussed by the ILO since 1987, but there had been a
consistent lack of concrete action by the Burmese authorities to comply
with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. She therefore
strongly urged the Burmese authorities to take immediate concrete steps to
resolve the unacceptable situation in the country. She expressed agreement
with the statement made by the Government member of the United Kingdom that
there was a clear danger that the entire Organization and its supervisory
system would be discredited if decisive action were not taken to ensure
that the Burmese authorities complied with their commitments to the ILO.
All the available options should be considered in  securing the compliance
of Burma with its obligations to the ILO.