Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1999, Publication: 87th ILC session (1999)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - 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.

The Worker member of Colombia expressed incredulity that, at the close of the century, forced labour or conditions similar to slavery still existed in Myanmar. For years, the Committee of Experts, the Commission of Inquiry and the members of the Committee on the Application of Standards, had called for an urgent solution to the problem, yet the only outcome had been inconclusive promises on the part of the Government of Myanmar. He recalled that the Commission of Inquiry had concluded that, despite Government denials, there was forced labour in Myanmar, involving men, women and children. He said that the Government representative of Myanmar should be asked what type of society it was seeking to build by violating human dignity and how long the members of the Committee would have to listen to justifications that did not resolve the issue. He concluded by urging the Government to end its rhetorical references to legal texts, and to adopt practical measures to bring forced labour to an end.

The Worker member of Ireland emphasized that deception and double-speak had been the hallmarks of the attitude adopted by the Burmese authorities towards the international community in general and the ILO in particular, as demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt by the issue of forced labour and its failure to comply with the Convention. The situation was graphically described in the reports of the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee of Experts. The persistence of forced labour on a massive scale had been fully revealed, as well as the personal and individual responsibilities of those who perpetrated this crime against humanity. The Commission of Inquiry had demanded the amendment of the Village Act and the Towns Act, an end to the imposition of forced or compulsory labour, and the adoption of legal action under section 374 of the Penal Code against those who imposed forced labour. As demonstrated by the Director-General's Report to the Governing Body in May 1999, these conditions had not been met and the authorities had once again resorted to deception. The authorities had claimed, in a letter to the Director-General, that the offending provisions of the two Acts had been suspended, as required by the ILO, and that this measure had been widely publicized. However, not only had the measure been found to be null and void by the latest ILO report, but information about the change had been suppressed in the country's radio, television and newspapers. It clearly amounted to no more than a cosmetic change designed to deceive the ILO and the international community.

However, she stated that the international labour movement and the international community would not be distracted by yet another promise. The problem of forced labour was not confined to the Village Act and the Towns Act, but had its roots in the fact that it was used by the regime itself. The regime could, therefore, end the practice forthwith if it so wished.

She concluded that all possible steps would have to be taken by the ILO to bring this abominable practice to an end. The findings and conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry needed to be widely disseminated throughout the United Nations system, and particularly to the agencies working in Burma. The ILO would have to continue to closely monitor the situation for as long as it persisted. It should also be taken into account that the data gathered by the ILO might one day be referred to the International Criminal Court. Above and beyond the violation of the Convention, forced labour and slavery constituted crimes against humanity and should be condemned as such. Moreover, the ILO should consider revoking or restricting the privileges accorded to the country as a member State of the ILO until it fully complied with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and basic international standards of decency and respect for humanity, as set forth in the Convention.

The Worker member of Pakistan joined with previous speakers in emphasizing his concern at the situation in the country. The difference between freedom and slavery lay in the right to take up freely chosen, remunerated and productive employment. Slavery consisted of the imposition of labour against the will of the persons concerned. All those who believed in human dignity and respect condemned forced labour and slavery. Indeed, it was one of the basic objectives of the labour movement as a whole to combat these scourges, which destroyed the dignity of mankind in all countries. These principles were adequately established in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration adopted by the Social Summit and the ILO's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Forced labour was a crime against humanity and needed to be stopped wherever it occurred. The Commission of Inquiry had established beyond any doubt that the population of the country, including women, children, the sick and injured, were forced to perform work against their will, under threat of abuse, torture and rape.

Although the Commission of Inquiry had made it clear that the current legislation needed to be amended, the authorities had merely adopted an executive order, which did not have the legal authority to suspend the two Acts in question. Nor had any information been provided on the numbers of persons who had been convicted for the imposition of forced labour, or the other measures adopted. The Committee should express great concern at the situation and demand the country, instead of paying lip-service to the principles involved, to take concrete action to fulfil its obligations towards the international community and give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Worker member of Canada emphasized that the evidence was overwhelming and the crime was heinous. The workers of Canada were deeply offended by the Government's lack of cooperation with the ILO and the continued practice of forced labour in the country. The Government had supplied written information in which it stated that hostile elements had succeeded through false allegations in persuading a few members of the Workers' group to file a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution. However, in practice, the complaint had been submitted by 25 Workers' delegates to the 83rd Session of the ILC, who had all been members and substitute members of the Governing Body. The tripartite Governing Body had decided as a whole to accept the article 26 complaint and establish the Commission of Inquiry.

In accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the Governing Body had requested the Government to amend the offending legislation by 1 May 1999. The Government had not done so and, from its written statements, appeared to be disparaging those recommendations. He, therefore, supported the call for the Committee to adopt the strongest possible conclusions on this worst of cases.

The Worker member of Zimbabwe recalled the conclusion of the Commission of Inquiry that there was abundant evidence of the pervasive use of forced labour imposed on the civilian population by government authorities and the military. Forced labour was used for various purposes, including logging, agricultural work, construction, the maintenance of roads, railways and bridges, and sometimes for the profit of individuals. The worst aspect was that forced labour was performed by women, children and elderly people, including persons who were unfit for work. This was totally unacceptable by any standards. Yet the Commission of Inquiry had also concluded that the Government showed utter disregard for the safety and health and basic needs of the victims of forced labour. Moreover, some of those who were forced to work were beaten whilst engaged in forced labour. In contrast with the Government representative's claims that these were false and politically motivated allegations, it had to be acknowledged that the situation in the country did indeed constitute an extreme case of abuse, torture and slavery of its citizens.

He strongly urged the Government to take the necessary measures immediately to comply with all the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. He called upon the Committee to use the strongest possible language in its conclusions in the hope that the Government would fulfil its obligations.

The Worker member of Greece pointed out that, close to Geneva, a war was being waged in which the international community had decided to defend an ethnic minority whose rights were being violated. After reading the observation of the Committee of Experts, it was time to consider what action the international community should take to defend ethnic groups whose rights were being violated in Myanmar and whose lives depended on an oligarchy. Should the Committee simply take note of the changes announced or should it take practical measures to end the suffering of the Burmese people? While emphasizing that the Committee was not a court, he expressed the conviction that if it had been, the Government would have been given the maximum sentence. The Burmese people had already suffered for too long and their suffering should be ended.

He asked the Government representative of Myanmar about the situation of two trade unionists, asking for confirmation that, on 13 June 1997, Myo Aung Thant and Khin Kyaw had been sentenced to life imprisonment plus seven years and 17 years' imprisonment respectively, and if so on what grounds?

The Government member of Indonesia stated that he had followed the present case with great interest in the Governing Body and the Conference Committee and shared the concerns expressed by the Employer and Worker members and several Government members. In March 1999, his delegation had joined with those of several other countries in requesting the Governing Body to give the Government time to respond to the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry. He had also stated that he would convey the concerns of the Governing Body to the Government. In May 1999, he had visited the country and had met representatives of the Government. He had been informed that two national teams had been established, one composed of senior officials and one at the ministerial level to prepare the reply and communications to the ILO concerning the case. Both teams had taken several steps in relation to the conclusions of the Governing Body and the Commission of Inquiry. Before he had left the country, the Government had issued Order No. 1/99 prohibiting the exercise of powers under certain provisions of the Towns Act and the Village Act. This appeared to him to be an important step by the Government leading in the right direction towards concrete action. From the informal talks which he had held with government officials and the statement made by the Government representative, he had gained the impression that the Government was committed to reviewing the two Acts.

He expressed the conviction that, after a certain period of time, the Government would be able to comply with the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry and with the Convention. However, it had to be understood that several years were required to amend legislation. The Committee should, therefore, provide support to the Government so that it could proceed with the steps that it had taken.

The Government member of the United States expressed full support for the statements made by the Government members of the United Kingdom and Canada and recalled that the Committee had been making strong comments on the flagrant violation of the Convention by Burma for a number of years. The allegations of the pervasive use of forced labour imposed on the civilian population by the authorities and the military were supported by thousands of pages of evidence. The abuses affected women, children and the aged and included physical abuse, murder and rape.

At each of the sessions of the Conference Committee and the Governing Body, the authorities had promised change, but none had been forthcoming. The Commission of Inquiry had recommended that these horrible practices cease immediately and had established a deadline of 1 May 1999 for legislative changes. In response to a request by the Governing Body, the Director-General had issued a report on the follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. No fewer than ten international organizations and 14 member States had contributed information to the report. The Director-General had concluded that, despite the Order issued on 14 May 1999, there was no indication that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had yet been followed up. The Village Act and the Towns Act had not been amended; the practice of forced and compulsory labour continued to be widespread; and no action appeared to have been taken under section 374 of the Penal Code to punish those exacting forced labour. The collective lives of thousands of citizens were still at risk and patience had run out. It was time for the Organization to take its most serious measures to ensure compliance with the obligations accepted voluntarily by the Government when it ratified the Convention.

The Worker member of Germany stated that if any further proof were needed of the lack of the political will by the Government of Myanmar to improve the situation, it was provided in abundance by its reaction to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The written information provided by the Government showed that it considered that it had already fulfilled the second of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations by issuing Order No. 1/99 of 14 May 1999. The Commission of Inquiry had urged the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that no forced or compulsory labour was imposed by the authorities. The Government gave the impression that it believed it had dealt with the problem by issuing a piece of paper and transmitting it to 16 official entities. He agreed with previous speakers that the strongest measures should be recommended by the Committee in its conclusions on the case.

In reply, the Government representative stated that he had listened with great patience to all the speakers. It was necessary to bear in mind the particular situation of each country and the circumstances of its law-makers. The Convention was an international treaty in the domain of international law. However, every country had its own system of national law or municipal law through which the provisions of the Convention would be put into effect. There was, therefore, no uniform practice for the implementation of treaties at national level. His country had its own system of implementing and amending legislation. If there had not been any political will, no measures would have been adopted.

Scholars of international law in their works had written as their opinion that there is not uniform practice concerning the application with the municipal sphere, each country has its own particularities as regards promulgation or publication of treaties, legislative approval of treaties and so on. As to the manner in which its municipal law it framed, the State has under international law a complete liberty of action, and its municipal law is a domestic matter in which no other State is entitled to concern itself, provided that the municipal law is such as to give effect to all the international obligation of the State. This is the international opinion and practice of the international legal scholars which is a source of international law.

The Order 1/99 is a strict municipal law measure, made under practice as referred to above. The legislature which the legal authority to make laws can provide amendments of laws through an order in the Myanmar's legal system. Here, it gives Orders to the Home Ministry through a memorandum to issue an order to stop the implementation of the offending provision of the Village and Towns Act. Thus, offending provisions that are not in line with Convention No. 29 are stopped. In Myanmar Orders can stop the implementation of certain laws to be in line with the treaty. It is the modus operandi as how to put the municipal law in line with the Convention. This right is given to municipal law by international law and Myanmar has fulfilled this condition.

As already stated, Myanmar made these stops of implementation in accordance with its own sovereign rights under municipal law according to its internal legal practice by international law. The order has been given by the Legislature and an Order has been issued by the Executive.

However, the adoption of Order No. 1/99, constituted a step forward. The instruction had been given by the legislative authority and the Order had been adopted by the executive. The effect was to bring an end to the offending provisions of the Village Act and the Towns Act. He noted in this respect that a press conference had been held on 15 May 1999, on the occasion of the Asian Labour Ministers' meeting, at which publicity had been given to the fact that measures had been taken to bring an end to the implementation of the offending provisions, in accordance with the legal system in the country. He reaffirmed the liberty of action of each State to give effect to the necessary measures according to its own system.

In response to the questions raised by the Worker member of Greece, he affirmed that if the evidence proved that a person had broken the law, that person would be subject to the relevant penalties. He said that in Myanmar no person is above the law. And if any individual is in breach, he shall be penalized. In the same way, the individual mentioned in the breach of criminal law is penalized as a result of it, and not because he/she is a worker. If there are any cases where anybody has broken the law under forced labour after issue of the law, and if there be just one case, once informed the authorities in Myanmar will take legal action. He emphasized that his country was now totally at peace and was not engaged in any wars. That peace is unprecedented since independence. If an official request were to be made in writing for information on the cases in question, it would be given due consideration.

He reaffirmed the differences in national legal systems and circumstances and reiterated that, if there had been no political will, Order No. 1/99 would not have been adopted. The country was in the process of developing a new Constitution. Once the Constitution had been adopted, all of its laws would be reviewed. The members of the Committee needed to show proof of consideration and understanding for the situation of the country. Compliance with the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry required a change in the law. In this respect, Order No. 1/99 had been publicized.

The Government member of Sri Lanka proposed that, in view of the legal steps taken by the Government to change the law, the Committee should give consideration to the establishment of a time frame for the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Worker member of Greece stated that the Government representative of Myanmar had not replied to the questions concerning the conviction of the two persons previously mentioned and requested that the minutes reflect that fact. He also queried the nature of the peace that the Government affirmed it wished to establish in the country.

The Worker members, in view of the continued failure of the Government to implement the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry, called for the Committee to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report on the grounds of flagrant, persistent and repeated failure to comply with the provisions of a ratified Convention.

The Employer members observed that the case was particularly serious and that the Committee had already dealt with it on several occasions in the past by expressing its deep concern in a special paragraph of its report. It would, therefore, be consistent and appropriate once again to place its conclusions in a special paragraph for consistent failure to comply with the provisions of a ratified Convention.

The Committee decided to include this case in a special paragraph in its report and to mention it as a case of continued failure to implement a ratified Convention.

The Committee noted the written and oral information supplied by the Government, and the discussion which followed. It noted in particular the Government's position that the findings of the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee of Experts had no basis, and that the Report of the Director-General of 21 May 1999, supplied to members of the Governing Body, on the measures taken by the Government to comply with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, was based on false and misleading information. The Committee also noted the issuance of Order No. 1/99 of 14 May 1999, directing that the power to requisition forced labour under the Towns Act, 1907, and the Village Act, 1907, not be exercised.

The Committee recalled the long history of the case and the series of actions taken by the ILO supervisory bodies, including the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established by the Governing Body. It considered that the explanations provided by the Government did not respond to the detailed and well-substantiated findings and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee of Experts. It noted with deep concern the findings of the Commission of Inquiry that there was convincing information available that forced and compulsory labour on a very large scale still occurred in Myanmar. The Committee regretted that the Government had not allowed the Commission of Inquiry to visit the country to verify the situation for itself. It could also have been the occasion for the Government to present its own position before the Commission in a very objective and impartial manner. It regretted that the Government had shown no inclination to cooperate with the ILO in this respect.

It called upon the Governing Body, the Committee of Experts and the Office to continue taking all possible measures to secure the observance by Myanmar of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, which confirmed and expanded the Committee of Experts' own previous conclusions.

The Worker members, in view of the continued failure of the Government to implement the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry, called for the Committee to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report on the grounds of flagrant, persistent and repeated failure to comply with the provisions of a ratified Convention.

The Employer members observed that the case was particularly serious and that the Committee had already dealt with it on several occasions in the past by expressing its deep concern in a special paragraph of its report. It would, therefore, be consistent and appropriate once again to place its conclusions in a special paragraph for consistent failure to comply with the provisions of a ratified Convention.

The Committee decided to include this case in a special paragraph in its report and to mention it as a case of continued failure to implement a ratified Convention.