Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Myanmar (Ratification: 1955)

Historical background

1. In its previous comments the Committee has discussed in detail the history of this extremely serious case, which has involved gross, methodical and pervasive breaches of the Convention enduring for many years, and which is also manifested by the long-standing failure of the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, appointed by the Governing Body in March 1997 under article 26 of the Constitution.

2. The Committee recalls that the Commission of Inquiry concluded that the obligation under the Convention to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour was being violated in Myanmar in national law as well as in actual practice in a widespread and systematic manner. In its recommendations (paragraph 539(a) of the Commission’s report of 2 July 1998), the Commission urged the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure:

–      that the relevant legislative texts, in particular the Village Act and the Towns Act, be brought into line with the Convention;

–      that in actual practice, no more forced or compulsory labour be imposed by the authorities, in particular the military, an outcome which required concrete action to be taken immediately for each and every of the many fields of forced labour and to be accomplished through public acts of the Executive, promulgated and made known to all levels of the military and to the whole population; and

–      that the penalties which may be imposed under section 374 of the Penal Code for the exaction of forced or compulsory labour be strictly enforced, which required thorough investigation, prosecution and adequate punishment of those found guilty.

Developments since the Committee’s previous observation

3. There have been numerous discussions and conclusions reached by ILO bodies, as well as further documentation received by the ILO, which have been considered by the Committee. These include the following:

–      the report of the ILO Liaison Officer (ILC, 98th Session, Provisional Record No. 16, Part Three, Doc. D.5.C) submitted to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards during the 98th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2009, as well as the discussions and conclusions of that Committee (ILC, 98th Session, Provisional Record No. 16, Part Three, A and Doc. D.5.B);

–      the documents submitted to the Governing Body at its 304th and 306th Sessions (March and November 2009), as well as the discussions and conclusions of the Governing Body during those sessions;

–      the communication by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received in September 2009 which includes an appendix of 74 documents amounting to more than 1,000 pages, a copy of which was transmitted to the Government for comments on the matters raised therein;

–      the Agreement of 26 February 2009 to extend the trial period of the Supplementary Understanding of 26 February 2007; and

–      the reports of the Government of Myanmar received on 10 and 24 March, 1 and 4 June, 27 August, 6 and 21 October 2009.

4. The Supplementary Understanding of 26 February 2007 – extension of the complaints mechanism. The Committee notes that the trial period of the complaints mechanism under the Supplementary Understanding (SU) of 26 February 2007 between the Government and the ILO was extended on 26 February 2009 for one year, until 25 February 2010 (ILC, 98th Session, Provisional Record No. 16, Part Three, Doc. D.5.F., Appendix II). The SU supplements the Understanding of 19 March 2002 concerning the appointment of an ILO Liaison Officer in Myanmar and has as its object to “formally offer the possibility to victims of forced labour to channel their complaints of forced labour through the services of the Liaison Officer to the competent authorities with a view to seeking remedies available under the relevant legislation and in accordance with the Convention”. Information about the functioning of this important mechanism is discussed below in the sections on monitoring and enforcement.

5. Discussion and conclusions of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. The Committee on the Application of Standards once again discussed this case in a special sitting during the 98th Session of the Conference in June 2009. The Conference Committee, inter alia, acknowledged some limited steps on the part of the Government of Myanmar: the further extension of the SU for another year; certain activities concerning awareness raising of the complaints mechanism established by the SU; certain improvements in dealing with under-age recruitment by the military; and the distribution of publications relating to the SU. The Committee was however of the view that those steps were totally inadequate, and it strongly urged the Government to fully implement without delay the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

6. Discussions in the Governing Body. The Governing Body also continued its discussions of this case during its 303rd and 306th Sessions in March and November of 2009 (GB.304/5(Rev.), GB.306/6). Following the discussion in November 2009 the Governing Body, inter alia, reconfirmed the continuing validity of its previous conclusions and those of the International Labour Conference. It noted the Government’s cooperation regarding complaints of forced labour submitted under the SU, as well as the joint Government–ILO awareness-raising activities. However, it called on the Government to strengthen the capacity of the ILO in the framework of the SU to deal with complaints throughout the country and, in particular, to facilitate adjustments to the staff capacity of the Office of the Liaison Officer, as provided for in article 8 of the SU, so that an increased workload could be met. It also called for the immediate release of all persons currently detained being complainants, facilitators and others associated with the SU complaints mechanism. It further called for particularly accessible material in local languages for awareness raising, and it reiterated the need for an authoritative statement by the senior leadership against the continued use of forced labour and the need to respect freedom of association.

7. Communication received from the International Trade Union Confederation. The information contained in the communication from the ITUC received in September 2009, referred to in paragraph 3, is discussed below in the section on current practice.

8. The Government’s reports. The reports received from the Government, referred to in paragraph 3, include replies to the Committee’s previous observation. They include information, inter alia, about joint ILO–Ministry of Labour (MOL) publicity, awareness-raising and training activities on forced labour; the Government’s continued cooperation with the various functions of the ILO Liaison Officer including monitoring and investigating the forced labour situation, the operation of the SU complaints mechanism, and the implementation of technical projects; and ongoing efforts the Government is making to enforce the prohibitions of forced labour. The reports also include a reply to the ITUC communication of September 2008 by way of a categorical dismissal of the allegations of forced labour contained therein. The Government also indicates that no action was being contemplated to amend or repeal the Village Act and Towns Act or to amend section 359 of the New State Constitution. Further references to the Government’s reports are made in the discussion below.

Assessment of the situation

9. Assessment of the information available on the situation of forced labour in Myanmar in 2009 and in relation to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and compliance with the Convention by the Government will be discussed in three parts, dealing with: (i) amendment of legislation; (ii) measures to stop the exaction of forced or compulsory labour in practice; and (iii) enforcement of penalties prescribed under the Penal Code and other relevant provisions of law.

I.         Amendment of legislation

10. With regard to the Village Act and the Towns Act, referred to in paragraph 2, the Committee notes the statement of the Government in its report received on 27 August 2009 that these laws “have been put into dormant [sic] effectively and legally” by Order No. 1/99 (Order Directing Not to Exercise Powers Under Certain Provisions of the Town Act, 1907, and the Village Act, 1907) as supplemented by the Order of 27 October 2000. In its previous comments, the Committee has observed that the latter orders have yet to be given bona fide effect and do not dispense with the separate need to eliminate the legislative basis for the exaction of forced labour. Noting the indication of the Government representative, during the discussion in the Governing Body at its 306th Session in November 2009, that these Acts were under review by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Committee urges the Government to take the long overdue steps to amend or repeal them and thereby to bring its law into conformity with the Convention. The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will provide information confirming that such steps have been taken.

11. In its previous observation the Committee noted that the Government has included in section 359 of the New State Constitution (Chapter VIII – Citizenship, Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens) a prohibition of forced labour containing an exception for “duties assigned by the Union in accordance with the law in the interest of the public”. The Committee observed that the exception encompasses permissible forms of forced labour that exceed the scope of the specifically defined exceptions in Article 2(2) of the Convention and could be interpreted in such a way as to allow a generalized exaction of forced labour from the population. The Committee notes with regret the statement of the Government in its report received on 27 August 2009, that section 359 of the New State Constitution “adequately captures the spirit” of the Convention. The Committee once again urges the Government to take steps to amend section 359 of Chapter VIII of the new Constitution, in order to bring its law into conformity with the Convention.

II.        Measures to stop the exaction of forced or compulsory labour in practice

12. Information available on current practice. The Committee notes from the ITUC’s communication referred to above, the well-documented allegations that forced and compulsory labour continued to be exacted from local villagers in 2009 by military and civil authorities and to have occurred in all but one of the country’s states and divisions. The information in the appendices refers to specific dates, locations and circumstances of the occurrences, and to specific civil bodies, military units and individual officials responsible for them. According to these reports, forced labour has been requisitioned both by military personnel and civil authorities such as village heads, and has taken a wide variety of forms and involved a variety of tasks, including: construction of bridges and roads; forced portering for military personnel; prison labour, construction and maintenance of army camps; confiscation of food supplies and extortion of money; forced recruitment of child soldiers; forced sentry duty; and human minesweeping. The appendices also include translated copies of more than 100 Order documents and Order “letters” for the requisition of forced (and uncompensated) labour issued between December 2008 and June 2009 to villagers and village heads in Chin, Karen, Mon, and Rakhaing States and in Irrawaddy, Pegu, and Tenasserim Divisions. The tasks and services demanded by these call-up orders involved, inter alia, portering for the military; road repair and other infrastructure projects, and on paddy plantations; production and delivery of thatch shingles and bamboo poles; recruitment of children as soldiers; attendance at meetings; provision of money and alcohol; provision of information on individuals and households; registration of villagers in State-controlled NGOs; and restrictions on travel and use of muskets. Noting the conspicuous absence of any comment from the Government on such Order letters forwarded by the ITUC in previous years, the Committee requests that in its next report the Government respond in detail to the entirety of the September 2009 communication of the ITUC, and in particular to the Order letters referred to above which constitute conclusive evidence of the continued systematic imposition of forced labour by military and civil authorities throughout the country in 2009.

13. The Committee notes the observations of the ILO Liaison Officer that the SU mechanism continues to function, yet “the overall forced labour situation remains serious in the country”. (GB.304/5/1(Rev.), paragraph 2). Victims of under-age military recruitment with substantiated complaints are regularly discharged from the military, yet the “continued and repeated illegal recruitment of children by military personnel” is also confirmed (GB.306/6, paragraphs 5 and 7). In terms of the experience with the SU complaints mechanism, the Liaison Officer refers to action taken by the authorities “to ensure that the practice of forced labour does not continue and further complaints are not received from that area” from which they originate (GB.306/6, paragraph 10). However, he also refers to the behaviour of local authorities, both civil and military, as well as judicial, who refuse to accept the validity of settlement agreements reached under the SU process, continue traditional forced labour practices, and harass those who attempt to exercise their rights under the law (GB.306/6, paragraph 15).

14. In its previous observations the Committee, recalling the Commission’s recommendation that concrete action needed to be taken immediately for each and every of the many fields of forced labour, identified four types of “concrete action” the Government needed to take, without which an end to imposition of forced labour in practice could not be achieved: issuing specific and concrete instructions on forced labour and on its prohibitions to civilian and military authorities; giving wide publicity to the prohibitions on forced labour; making adequate budgetary provisions for replacing forced labour with free wage labour; and monitoring the practice of forced labour and efforts to enforce its prohibitions.

15. Issuing specific and concrete instructions. In its previous observations the Committee has emphasized that specific, effectively conveyed instructions to civil and military authorities, and to the population at large, are required which identify each and every field of forced labour, and which explain concretely for each field the means and manner by which the tasks or services involved are to be carried out without recourse to forced labour. The Committee has noted that, with one exception (namely, the “Additional Instruction” issued by the Department of General Administration of the Ministry of Home Affairs, No. 200/108/Oo, dated 2 June 2005 and noted by the Committee in its 2005 observation), the series of instructions and letters issued by Government authorities in 2000, 2004 and 2005, which were intended to secure compliance with the prohibition of forced labour under Order No. 1/99 and its supplementing Order of 27 October 2000, were not shown to have met these criteria.

16. The Committee notes that in its report received on 1 June 2009 the Government states only that “the various levels of administrative authority are well aware of the orders and instructions related to forced labour prohibition issued by the higher levels”. The document submitted to the Governing Body in March 2009 (GB.304/5/1(Rev.)) includes an indication, without a date specified, that the General Administration Department had issued instructions through the state and divisional administrative structures reconfirming the prohibition of forced labour; and that this instruction had been transmitted to township and village tract levels (paragraph 6). The Government indicates in its report received on 27 August 2009 that all instructions and directives “contain the details [sic] necessary measures for the implementation of the Orders”. The Committee also notes the observation of the ILO Liaison Officer that a number of forced labour complaints, particularly involving confiscation of farmers’ croplands, result from the improper application of economic and agricultural policies not directly concerned with the practice of forced labour, yet the Government has not agreed to consider policy-application training designed to stop the application of such policies in a way that leads to the imposition of forced labour (Report to the Conference Committee, paragraph 14; GB.304/5/1(Rev.), paragraph 9). The Committee notes that once again the information provided by the Government is grossly deficient. It reiterates the need for concrete instructions to be issued to all levels of the military and to the whole population, which identify all fields and practices of forced labour and provide concrete guidance as to the means and manner by which tasks or services in each field are to be carried out, and by which any other relevant government policies are to be implemented, without recourse to forced labour or forced contributions from the population, and for steps taken to ensure that such instructions are fully publicized and effectively supervised. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report information about the measures of this nature it is taking, including a translated and dated copy of the text of the instructions it states have been issued reconfirming the prohibition of forced labour and of the “necessary details” it states are contained in its directives and instructions.

17. Making adequate budgetary provisions for the replacement of forced and unpaid labour. The Committee recalls that in its recommendations the Commission of Inquiry drew attention to the need to make adequate budgetary provisions to hire free wage labour for the public activities which are today based on forced and unpaid labour. In its report received on 27 August 2009, the Government has reiterated previous indications in stating that it “provides the budget allotment including labour costs for all Ministries to implement their respective projects”. In previous observations the Committee, noting the information available on actual practice which shows that forced labour continues to be imposed in many parts of the country, particularly in those areas with a heavy military presence, has considered it obvious that any budgetary allocations that are specifically designated for the recruitment of free wage labour have not been adequate or adequately utilized. The Committee once again urges the Government to use state budget allotments to provide civil and military authorities at all levels the financial means for utilizing voluntary paid labour for needed tasks and services, and which are adequate enough to eliminate the material incentives for recourse to forced and unpaid labour, and that it report in detail on the steps taken to that end and on the effect of such measures in actual practice.

18. Giving publicity to and raising awareness about forced labour and its prohibitions. The Committee notes from the Government’s reports and the documents submitted to the Governing Body and to the Conference Committee, the indications that a number of activities to give publicity to and raise awareness about the forced labour situation, the legal prohibitions of forced labour and existing avenues of recourse for victims were carried out in 2009. These included, inter alia, a joint ILO–MOL awareness-raising seminar for civil and military personnel held in Karen State and Northern Shan State in April and May of 2009; a joint seminar held in Rhakine State with participants representing both the civil and military authorities; and a joint presentation to a refresher training programme for senior township judges. A booklet comprised of the texts of the SU and related documents and translated into the Myanmar language, was prepared (GB.304/5/1(Rev.), paragraph 4) and distributed to civilian and military authorities nationwide, to civil society groups, and the general public for awareness-raising purposes (Report to the Conference Committee, paragraph 18). Some 16,000 copies had been circulated as of November 2009; however, the Government had yet to agree to the production of a simply-worded brochure, translated into local languages, which outlined the law against forced labour and the procedures available to victims to exercise rights under the law (GB.306/6, paragraph 10). The Government, in its reports received on 6 and 21 October 2009, refers to a number of activities carried out in May and August of 2009 by the Committee for the Prevention of Military Recruitment of Under-Age Children, including law lectures for officer trainees at military camps; supervision of training on recruitment procedures at military training schools and basic training units; and informational visits to numerous regiments and recruitment centres. A rural infrastructure project in the cyclone-affected area of the Irrawaddy Delta implemented by the Office of the ILO Liaison Officer with cooperation from the MOL, a second phase of which was carried out through September of 2009 but with a further extension declined by the Government, included awareness-raising seminars (GB.306/6, paragraph 22) and was reported to have played a valuable role in raising awareness in the cyclone-affected area as to the rights and responsibilities in employment, in particular those relating to the prohibition of forced labour (GB.304/5/1(Rev.), paragraph 23). The Committee notes the indication of the Liaison Officer in November 2009 of an increase in new complaints filed under the SU complaints mechanism during the five-and-a-half-month period from mid-May through 28 October 2009, which he considered to be due to heightened awareness generally of citizens’ rights, the maturing and expansion of the facilitators’ network, and an increased readiness to present complaints. The Liaison Officer further observed, however, that awareness levels, particularly in rural areas, remained low (GB.306/6, paragraph 4). The Government had also yet to issue an authoritative public statement at the highest level, as called for by ILO supervisory organs, to clearly reconfirm its policy prohibiting all forms of forced labour throughout the country and its intention to prosecute perpetrators, both civilian and military (Report to the Conference Committee, paragraph 24, GB.306/6, Conclusions).

19. The Committee considers the publicity and awareness-raising activities noted above to represent a step forward, and the recent increase in new complaints received under the SU and partly attributed to such activities to be a positive sign; however, these measures continue to be largely ad hoc, partial and piecemeal in nature. The Committee reiterates the need for the Government to commit itself more fully to publicity and awareness-raising activities, to conceive and undertake them in a more coherent and systematic way, and with a view to the tangible effect they have on the observance in practice by civil and military authorities and personnel at all levels, and in all areas of the country, of their legal obligation not to exact forced labour, and on the efforts of victims of forced labour throughout the country to seek legal recourse. The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will supply information on measures of this nature being taken or contemplated, including information about their practical effect, observed or anticipated.

20. Monitoring the situation of forced labour including efforts to enforce its prohibitions. The Committee notes the important role in assisting the Government with monitoring and investigating the situation of forced labour in Myanmar, including enforcement of rights and obligations arising out of the prohibitions of forced labour, which has been accorded to the ILO Liaison Officer, both under the broad mandate of the Understanding of 2002 and in the framework of the SU complaints mechanism. The Committee notes that several ad hoc investigation missions and inspection tours were carried out by the Liaison Officer and the Ministry of Labour in late 2008 and early 2009, and that presentations were made to NGOs and civil society groupings, in part, to seek their support in forced labour observation and reporting (GB.304/5/1(Rev.), paragraphs 5 and 6). A small sub-unit of the Office of the Liaison Officer has been established for dealing with under-age recruitment complaints and for monitoring and reporting on the child soldier situation nationwide (GB.306/6, paragraph 21). The Committee considers these to be positive steps. At the same time, however, the reach of the SU mechanism in a country the size of Myanmar is still very limited (GB.304/5/1(Rev.), paragraph 10); the ILO Liaison Officer is based in Yangon and is provided meagre facilities and a small staff (paragraph 12); he does not have the authority to initiate complaints on the basis of his own observation or information (GB.306/6, paragraph 6) or his own investigations of under-age military recruitment (GB.304/5/1(Rev.), paragraph 7); and there are continuing practical impediments to the physical ability of victims of forced labour or their families to complain, such that a network of complaints facilitators remains a necessity (Report to the Conference Committee, paragraph 12). The complaints mechanism of the SU is being undermined (GB.306/6, paragraph 4) by the continued imprisonment of labour activists with a record of support in the facilitation of complaints under the SU (GB.306/6, paragraphs 14 and 16), by serious cases of apparent harassment and judicial retaliation against complaining victims, facilitators and other persons associated with complaints filed with the ILO (GB.306/6, paragraphs 11–14; Report to Conference Committee, paragraph 10), and by the refusal of local civil and military authorities, as well as local courts, to respect the terms of formal complaint settlements, notably the agreements in several land-confiscation cases that resulted from joint ILO–MOL investigative missions carried out in Magwe Division in December 2008 and March 2009 (GB.306/6, paragraphs 13 and 15). In this regard notations in the Register of cases under the SU mechanism indicate a number of cases, including Cases Nos 149, 150, 151, 204, 205 and 206, in which complainants chose not to pursue their claims out of fear of reprisals (GB.306/6, Appendix IV). A formal proposal of the ILO Liaison Officer to the Working Group for joint action to address these issues with a view to achieving lasting solutions has not been accepted by the Government (GB.306/6, paragraph 15). Noting the obligation of the Government under the 2002 Understanding and the 2007 SU to take appropriate steps to enable the ILO Liaison Officer to effectively discharge the work and responsibilities arising therein, including extending to his Office the requisite facilities and support, the Committee strongly urges the Government to take immediate steps to address the serious problems noted above, and it requests information from the Government in its next report on the progress of those steps. More generally, the Committee urges the Government to take necessary measures to ensure that a climate exists for a monitoring and investigation process that is effective, national in its reach and scope, and fully respected by all elements and all levels of society. It requests that in its next report the Government supply information on the progress of measures so taken or contemplated.

III.       Enforcement of penalties

21. The Committee recalls that section 374 of the Penal Code provides for the punishment, by a term of imprisonment of up to one year, of anyone who unlawfully compels any person to labour against his or her will, and that Order No. 1/99 and its supplementing Order of 27 October 2000, as well as the series of instructions and letters, issued by Government authorities in 2000, 2004 and 2005 with a view to securing the enforcement of those orders, provide for persons “responsible” for forced labour, including members of the armed forces, to be referred for prosecution under section 374 of the Penal Code or other applicable provisions of law. The Committee notes that none of the complaints under the SU mechanism assessed and forwarded by the ILO Liaison Officer to the Working Group for investigation and appropriate action resulted, in 2009, in a decision to prosecute perpetrators of forced labour. The notations in the Register of cases under the SU mechanism (as of 23 October 2009) indicate that in at least 14 of the closed cases, the Liaison Officer considered the penalties or punishment imposed or disciplinary actions taken to be inadequate, and that the Working Group has routinely rejected recommendations made for more serious sanctions to be applied (GB.306/6, Appendix IV). Recent cases involving complaints of under-age military recruitment have resulted in the discharge of the child victims but with only administrative sanctions, if any, imposed on the perpetrators; there have been no prosecutions under criminal law (GB.304/5/1, paragraph 7). In Case No. 127 an explicit recommendation by the Liaison Officer for criminal prosecution was rejected. The Committee notes the observation of the Liaison Officer that the need for the imposition of meaningful penalties on perpetrators “continues to be a concern, particularly in respect of cases involving military personnel” (GB.306/6, paragraph 7), and that in the most serious cases of under-age military recruitment the penalties remained inadequate (Report to the Conference Committee, paragraph 15). The Committee urges the Government once again to take measures to ensure that the penalties imposed by law for the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour are adequate and strictly enforced, as required by Article 25 of the Convention, and it requests the Government to supply information in its next report on the progress of measures taken to that end. The Committee hopes that fulfilment of the Government’s commitments as a party to the SU will be better reflected in the processing of cases forwarded to the Working Group by the ILO Liaison Officer, in terms of greater weight being accorded to the preliminary assessments of the Liaison Officer and a greater number of investigations leading to prosecutions, convictions and the imposition of criminal penalties rather than to case closures, and it requests information on progress being made in that vein.

Concluding comments

22. In summary, the Committee observes that the Government has yet to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry; to wit: it has failed to amend or repeal the Towns Act and the Village Act; it has taken no concrete actions shown to have brought about in any significant and lasting way an end to the exaction of forced labour in practice; and it has failed to ensure that penalties for the exaction of forced labour under the Penal Code or other relevant provisions of law have been strictly enforced against civil and military authorities and personnel who are responsible for it. While the Office of the ILO Liaison Officer, by virtue of the broad mandate set forth under the Understanding of 19 March 2002, and the procedures and mechanisms provided for under the SU, has been accorded a critical role in assisting the Government in its efforts to bring about the elimination of forced labour, the robust and fully fledged cooperation of the Government that is vital to the fulfilment of that role, including the cooperation needed in extending the requisite facilities and support and in engendering full respect for, and trust in, these special organs by the society at large, leaves much room for improvement. The Committee once again urges the Government to give credence to its expressed commitment to eliminate the use of forced labour in Myanmar and take the long overdue steps that are required to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and achieve compliance with the Convention in law and in practice.