National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation
Employment protection legislation database
Display in: French - SpanishView all
1. Compulsory porterage. In comments made for a considerable number of years, the Committee has noted that section 8(1)(g), (n) and (o), read together with sections 11(d) and 12 of the Village Act (1908) and section 7(1), (m), read together with sections 9(b) and 9A of the Towns Act (1907), provide for the exaction of labour and services, in particular porterage service, under the menace of a penalty from residents who have not offered themselves voluntarily. In 1991, the Committee noted observations submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) alleging that the practice of compulsory portering was widespread in the country. In 1993, the ICFTU made a representation under article 24 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance of the Convention, and the Committee suspended consideration of this matter, pending the examination of the representation by the Governing Body. The Committee has now taken note of the conclusions and recommendations made by the Committee set up by the Governing Body to examine this representation, which were adopted by the Governing Body at its 261st Session (November 1994). The Committee set up by the Governing Body observed that the exaction of labour and services, in particular porterage service, under the Village Act and the Towns Act is contrary to the Convention, ratified by Myanmar in 1955, and the Governing Body urged the Government to take the necessary steps:
(i) to ensure that the relevant legislative texts, in particular the Village Act and the Towns Act, are brought into line with the Convention; and
(ii) to ensure that the formal repeal of the powers to impose compulsory labour be followed up in practice and that those resorting to coercion in the recruitment of labour be punished.
The Committee notes the Government's statement at the 261st Session of the Governing Body, indicating that Myanmar was undergoing a major transformation in changing from one political and economic system to another and that a basic step in this process was the amendment of laws which no longer pertain to current circumstances and situations. Recalling that in its reports on the application of the Convention, the Government has indicated ever since 1967 that the authorities no longer exercised the powers vested in them under the provisions in question of the Village Act and Towns Act, which were established under colonial rule, did not meet the standard and the needs of the country's new social order and were obsolete and soon to be repealed, the Committee hopes that this will now be done and that the Government will supply full details on the steps taken both as regards the formal repeal of the powers to impose compulsory labour and the necessary follow-up action, with strict punishment of those resorting to coercion in the recruitment of labour. As pointed out by the Governing Body Committee, this follow-up appears all the more important since the blurring of the distinction between compulsory and voluntary labour, recurrent through the Government's statements to the Committee, is all the more likely to occur also in actual recruitment by local or military officials.
2. Imposition of labour for public works. In its previous observation, the Committee noted the report by a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at its 49th Session, February-March 1993 (document E/CN.4/1993/37 of 17 February 1993). In his report, the Special Rapporteur refers, inter alia, to the testimony of persons taken to provide labour in the construction of railroads (Aungban-Loikaw railroad) and of roads or the clearing of jungle areas for the military, that hundreds of persons were killed by the military when, as with porters, they were unable to carry loads and to continue the hard labour. The labour projects reportedly included two major railway projects, other border development projects of the Government, particularly along the Thai-Myanmar border and labour for the military, particularly in the areas of conflict in the Karen, Karenni, Shan and Mon areas.
It was reported that the labourers died frequently as a result of constant beatings, unsanitary conditions, lack of food and lack of medical treatment once they became sick or wounded and unable to continue work. Witnesses also provided information that some friends or relatives who returned from the work in the border development projects died afterwards as a result of the wounds and diseases contracted during their labour.
The Committee requested the Government to comment on the detailed testimony reported by the UN Special Rapporteur.
The Committee notes that no report has been sent by the Government under article 22 of the Constitution on the application of the Convention; the Government has, however, addressed these matters in its written statement and additional detailed statement presented in May and October 1993 to the Governing Body Committee to consider matters relating to the observance of Convention No. 29.
In its written statement presented in May 1993 the Government indicates that allegations that the Myanmar authorities are using forced labour for the construction of railways, roads and bridges are false and based on fabrications by people who wish to denigrate the image of the Myanmar authorities and do not understand the tradition and culture of the Myanmar people. In Myanmar, voluntary contribution of labour to build shrines and religious temples, roads, bridges and clearing of obstruction on pathways is a tradition which goes back thousands of years. It is a common belief that the contribution of labour is a noble deed and that the merit attained from it contributes to a better personal well-being and spiritual strength. In the villages and in the border areas, Tatmadaw men (the Myanmar armed forces) and the local people in the region have been contributing voluntary labour towards building roads and bridges for the past four years or so. There is no coercion involved. In Myanmar history, there has never been "slave labour". Since the times of the Myanmar kings, many dams, irrigation works, lakes, etc., were built with labour contributed by all the people from the area. Accordingly those who accuse the Myanmar authorities of using forced labour patently reveal their ignorance of the Myanmar tradition and culture.
In its additional detailed statement, the Government specifies that allegations made on the use of forced labour for the railway projects in southern Shan State relate to the construction of two sections, from Aungban to Pinlaung and from Pinlaung to Loikaw. The purpose of this project is to promote and develop smooth and speedy transportation in the region for economic and social development. Labour contributed to this project was purely voluntary. The armed forces personnel (Tatmadaw) numbering 18,637 from military units stationed in the area and 799,447 working people from 33 wards and villages of Aungban township and 46 wards and villages of Pinlaung township contributed voluntary labour. Fifteen heavy machines belonging to the Public Works and Irrigation Department and Myanmar Timber Enterprises were utilized. In addition, technicians and labourers from the Myanmar Railways (state organization) also contributed their labour. For the purely voluntary labour contributed by the people of the region, the Government disbursed a lump sum of 10 million kyats (US$1.6 million) for the Aungban-Pinlaung sector and another 10 million kyats for the Pinlaung-Loikaw sector.
The Government adds that the entirely voluntary labour which contributed towards the construction of this railroad was witnessed by the members of the diplomatic corps in Yangon, who visited the construction site in January and May 1993. The members of the diplomatic corps met the people who contributed this labour and there were no instances where complaints were made to them.
The Government further considers that, under Article 2, paragraph 2(e), of the Convention, the building of the railroad can be regarded as a communal service performed by the members of the community for the members of the community in direct interest of the community. Prior to the construction of the project, consultation in a free and spontaneous manner was made with the people of the community and the project was carried out with spontaneous enthusiasm on their part to contribute their labour.
The Committee takes due note of these indications. As regards Article 2, paragraph 2(e), of the Convention, which exempts from the provisions of the Convention minor communal services, the Committee refers to paragraph 37 of its General Survey of 1979 on the Abolition of Forced Labour, where it recalled the criteria which determine the limits of this exception: the services must be minor services, i.e. relate primarily to maintenance work; and the services must be communal services, performed in the direct interest of the community and not relate to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group. The construction of a railroad would not appear to meet either of these criteria, even where the third condition is met, namely that the members of the community or their direct representatives, must have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services.
The Committee further notes that the provisions of the Village Act and the Towns Act mentioned in point 1 above confer sweeping powers on every headman to requisition residents to assist him in the execution of his public duties. Where such powers exist, it is difficult to establish that residents performing work at the request of the authorities are doing so voluntarily.
The Committee accordingly hopes, with regard to public works projects as well as regarding porterage services, that the powers vested in the authorities under the Village Act and the Towns Act will now be repealed, and that the Government will supply full information on the measures taken to this effect as well as on the follow-up action mentioned in point 1 above.
[The Government is asked to report in detail by 1 September 1995, at the latest.]