Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1995, Publication: 82nd ILC session (1995)

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

The Government supplied the following information:

The Village Act and the Towns Act, the two laws in question administered by the General Administration Department of the Ministry of Home Affairs, are among the list of laws that were first reviewed on 29 January 1995, and again on 16 May 1995, by a Board comprising the Deputy Minister for Labour, as the Chairman, and representatives of the Prime Minister's Office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General's Office and the General Administration Department as its members.

The Board found that these two laws were no longer in conformity with the prevailing conditions in the country, besides not being in line with the provisions of Convention No. 29. This finding is in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the tripartite committee set up by the Governing Body of the ILO to consider the representation made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) under article 24 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).

Consequently, the Government of Myanmar, in compliance with the request from the Governing Body, "to ensure that the relevant legislative texts, in particular, the Village Act and the Towns Act, are brought in line with the Convention" and "to ensure that formal repeal of powers to impose compulsory labour be followed up in practice and that those resorting to coercion in the recruitment of labour be punished", has started the process of amending these laws.

In addition, a Government representative referred to the written information.

The Workers' members indicated that this case had been retained due to the seriousness of the violations of the Convention and because recent developments were worrying; these concerns could not be eased by the information given by the Government. For more than 30 years, the Committee of Experts had denounced the forced labour that was taking place in this country. This case had been discussed in 1992. Further to this, the Governing Body had adopted the report of the committee established to examine the representation presented by the ICFTU under article 24 of the ILO Constitution. In fact, in spite of the various situations condemned by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar in his report, the Government confined itself to stating that it wished to amend its Village Act and Towns Act, without filing any information on tangible improvements. The situation of forced labour had continued to deteriorate since the authorities had recourse to forced labour to build a touristic infrastructure, on the fallacious pretext that these constructions were needed for the population. Contrary to what the authorities said, there was no question here of voluntary work within the meaning of the exception provided for in Article 2(2)(e) of the Convention, which was aimed at maintenance work performed in the direct interest of the community concerned, as the Committee of Experts had pointed out. The Committee had further noted that the Village Act and the Towns Act allowed the requisitioning of inhabitants. In this country, the army requisitioned men, women and children to carry out auxiliary military tasks for long periods of time and in terrible conditions. It was to be feared that the Government would not undertake any amendment of its legislation, as long as it considered that it had not finished carrying out its ambitious projects. Thus, it would be desirable that the Conference Committee, like the Committee of Experts, request in its conclusions that the legislation be amended, that recourse to forced labour be abandoned, both in public works projects as well as in compulsory porterage services for the military and that the Government provide detailed information to the Committee of Experts.

The Employers' members concurred entirely with what had been stated by the Workers' members. They recalled that the Government had ratified this Convention nearly 40 years ago. They were concerned about the serious problems of compulsory porterage that was permitted under the Village Act and Towns Act and of forced labour in public works projects. Although the Government had been stating since 1967 that the authorities no longer applied the compulsory porterage provisions, it had blurred the distinction between what it considered to be compulsory labour and voluntary labour and had asked the Committee to believe that labour for public works projects was voluntary. Yet, it was reported in the Experts' observation that hundreds of porters had been killed by the military. The Experts had also commented on the existence of very poor working conditions and the numerous public works projects that had taken place in circumstances that were clearly less than voluntary. As a result, the Employers' members were somewhat sceptical about the real effect on ending forced labour of the Government's statement that the Village Act and Towns Act were being amended. While they urged the Government to amend these Acts as soon as possible, they considered that there was not going to be any real progress at all as long as the Government held the view that compulsory labour under the supervision of the public authorities and the military was really voluntary labour. The continuation of the Government's long-standing forced labour policies was clearly unacceptable and a violation of Convention No. 29 that had to be remedied as soon as possible.

The Workers' member of the United States indicated that while the Government representative had asserted that there was no forced labour in Myanmar there was ample evidence to the contrary, reflected in the voluminous documents examined by the Committee of Experts and other international bodies, such as the UN Commission on Human Rights. The Government representative had indicated that the Village Act and the Towns Act were in the process of being amended. However, only two days ago, according to a Reuters' report from a Thai military source, military authorities in south-east Myanmar were again rounding up civilians to work as porters in preparation for further attacks on ethnic minority rebels in the area. The speaker contended that there were similar stories about forced labour in Myanmar almost every week. Moreover, in the Experts' observation, the Government had stated that nearly 800,000 people had volunteered their services to build roads and railroads for little or no remuneration. However, the fact of the matter was that there were photographs of people in shackles, building what was now being called the "death railroad". There was also new information surfacing on the Government's $1 billion gas pipeline project paid for by the American corporation UNOCAL and its French counterpart, TOTAL. Villagers had not only lost their lands but had been forced to clear them to make way for the pipeline. Village after village was being razed in this manner by those who had lived in them their whole lives. This case reflected a vast system of forced labour which, to one degree or another, ensnared virtually every family in Myanmar. The stubborn refusal of the Government to dismantle its system of forced labour, as required by Convention No. 29, was an extremely serious matter.

The Workers' member of Australia pointed out that the recent resolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights, which expressed great concern at the continuing violation of human rights in Myanmar, and in particular forced labour, was sponsored by 27 governments and adopted unanimously by the 53 governments making up the Commission. It was therefore important that this Committee join with other international fora to add its weight to the condemnation of forced labour in contravention of Convention No. 29. Secondly, the current drive by the Government to promote tourism for 1996 required a range of infrastructure developments, including hotels, restaurants, tourist resorts and transportation, which meant that forced labour continued unabated. The Government, in a strategic and systematic way, was using forced labour to develop holiday resorts for tourists. For example, workers had been conscripted to clean out with bare hands the Mandalay canal, a canal ten kilometres long and more than three metres deep. Houses bordering the canal had been demolished and local people forced by military forces to work 24-hour shifts. A further 2,000 prisoners in chains had been brought in to assist. A BBC report in recent days had referred to hoards of men and women in Mandalay itself cleaning streets and historic buildings under armed guard. Some 30,000 workers had not been paid in the development of the new airport in Basang. These examples were but a few of the denial of fundamental and core labour rights of workers by the military government in Myanmar, in flagrant violation of Convention No. 29.

The Government member of the United States expressed her very grave concern about the Myanmar Government's application of Convention No. 29. While she understood the respected tradition of voluntary community service that existed in Myanmar, she pointed out that this case did not concern instances of true voluntary labour. Rather, people were being forcibly conscripted, taken from their villages and farms and being made to work, often without pay or food, under threat of heavy fines, and subjected to severe physical abuse. Some of these workers had died as a result of mistreatment and some had been murdered. The widespread and abusive use of forced labour in Myanmar was a phenomenon that was well documented by the international community. What was unacceptable and alarming was that not only had the Government failed to suppress the use of forced labour but apparently had even promoted the spread of this practice. While acknowledging that the Government had recognized that the Village Act and the Towns Act were not in conformity with Convention No. 29, and had embarked on the process of amending these texts, she stressed that these legal measures must be followed up in practice. It was absolutely essential that the Government issue the necessary orders to its military officers that compulsory porterage and forced imposition of labour for public works must cease. Alleged violations must be investigated rapidly and thoroughly, and those responsible for these violations must be prosecuted and punished. She urged the Government to undertake, without delay, all necessary measures to bring its law and practice into conformity with Convention No. 29 and, moreover, in so doing, to take full advantage of the technical assistance of the ILO.

The Workers' member of Greece pointed out that there were discrepancies, on the one hand, between the Government representative's statement according to which there was no forced labour in the country and that people worked voluntarily, and, on the other hand, the reality as reflected by detailed testimony including the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. All these overwhelming facts reflected the conditions in which thousands of individuals were in fact obliged to work. Faced with the seriousness of the situation, the Conference Committee had to go beyond its customary moderation to denounce once again in very strong terms a situation which unfortunately did not constitute an isolated case.

The Workers' member of Italy considered that the political changes referred to by the Government representatives should be understood negatively if the reality of the situation was to be acknowledged. In this country, where persons from the opposition such as the Nobel Peace Laureate, Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, were imprisoned, the military forced workers to work in public works projects which had cost innumerable human lives, as confirmed by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in this country. It was appropriate to note that children were also forced to work and that the rate of enrolment of children in schools had dropped considerably, with 40 per cent of children not finishing compulsory education. The speaker concluded by calling on private enterprises and even on States to exert pressure on this Government so that the situation would change.

The Government member of Australia joined previous speakers in expressing his grave concern at the violations of human rights in Myanmar. He was particularly concerned about the cases of forced labour in public works and compulsory porterage services for the military. He strongly urged the Government to guarantee full respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to meet without delay its obligations under Convention No. 29.

The Government representative pointed out that since Myanmar was a developing country and nearly 70 per cent of the population were agricultural workers, the Government was developing the infrastructure of the country in order to alleviate poverty and to improve the socio-economic conditions of the people. Indeed, many projects, such as the building of roads, railroads, bridges, dams, and reservoirs, were being carried out throughout the country, especially in the border regions where armed groups once operated. If the Government was really forcing the people to work in the projects as alleged, why had so many armed groups that had been fighting against successive governments for so many decades chosen to join hands with the Government for the development of their region? The answer could only be that the projects undertaken by the Government were really only for the good of the people. It was not for the Government and it was not for the military. In the tradition of using voluntary labour for the community development of each area or region, personnel from military units stationed in the area always took part in volunteering their labour. Government employees from the ministry concerned also participated.

The Government representative then referred to the UN Special Rapporteur mentioned in the Experts' observation. According to the Government representative, the Special Rapporteur who had visited a railroad project had indicated in his report that workers had been given work by the piece rather than by the day and that working hours were from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., and that each round of duty normally lasted one or two weeks. The workers were each paid 30 kyats for a piece of one cubic metre, which meant a working day for one or two persons. Wages were paid by the Government to the whole village at the end of the contribution.The Special Rapporteur had the opportunity to visit the dispensary built near the construction site to assist workers who were required to rest from work. When the illness of the workers was serious, the authorities released the sick worker from duty and sent him to an appropriate hospital. During his visit to Myanmar in November last year, the Special Rapporteur travelled to Magwe State to visit the newly completed Pakokku-Myaing-Myo Soe section of the Pakokku-Gangaw-Kalay railway. The Special Rapporteur had the opportunity to speak with the people assembling around the railway station at which the train stopped. The Special Rapporteur had reported to the Committee as follows: "Apparently, the local population seemed to enjoy the opening ceremony and was happy to benefit from the new facilities." The speaker indicated that for their contribution towards community development, remuneration was given to voluntary workers by the Government, either on a piece-rate basis or at the prevailing wage rate. In some cases, the authorities disbursed a lump sum of money for the benefit of the whole community. The Government had, up to now, disbursed a total of 133.47 million kyats to the local population who had contributed labour in the various railroad projects. A medical doctor had been assigned to each of the sections by the Myanma Railways during the construction of the railway lines, and the Chief Medical Officer had toured the area at least once a month in order to provide health care for the local populace. In case of injuries and casualties arising from the construction work, compensation was paid by the Myanma Railways to the persons concerned. With regard to the use by the military of porters, the reason why the security forces had had to use such civilian labourers was that the Government had to deal with armed groups that had terrorized the lives of Myanmar citizens. However, the Government had been inviting the armed groups to join hands with it in developing their regions and 14 such groups had done so and the problem of having to use recruited labourers no longer existed in the areas once occupied by these groups. It was not true that porters were treated harshly and inhumanely. They were recruited and employed by security forces based on the following three criteria: they had to be unemployed, physically fit and a reasonable amount of wages had to be agreed on beforehand. Apart from daily wages and food rations, they were entitled to receive rail and steamer travelling warrants or actual money to cover the cost of transport to and from their homes, and the respective military unit had the responsibility of providing accommodation, medical coverage, etc. In the unlikely event of a loss of life or limb, they or their families were compensated in accordance with the Workers' Compensation Act.

With regard to prison labour, in a great number of countries throughout the world, sentences were passed by courts of law to include compulsory labour for serious offences under national law. In Myanmar, such sentences were part of the rehabilitation process. Furthermore, prisoners could enjoy reduction of sentences through contribution of labour. For example, on 25 March 1995, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an order which stated that the sentences of over 23,000 prisoners, who had diligently contributed their labour at the various regional development work camps, had been reduced by one-third under section 401(1) of the Penal Code. As of April 1995, over 5,600 prisoners had been released. The Special Rapporteur had witnessed one of these voluntary labour worksites during his visit to Myanmar last year and had reflected this in his report to the 51st Session of the Commission on Human Rights, as follows: "Around 200 unchained prisoners were involved in the building of the moat by piling and transporting rocks. They seemed in good health. Prisoners were seen working hand-in-hand with armed forces personnel and local civilians. Generally, prisoners as well as soldiers worked eight hours a day on a voluntary basis. Once the defined part of the work was accomplished, a wage was distributed among the prisoners who were involved in the labour. Food was provided free and they were entitled to three meals a day." Another point the speaker wished to make was that disciplinary action was taken against those members of the security forces who had broken the law. Finally, the speaker pointed out that Myanmar had ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on 16 July 1991 and that a Law respecting children had been promulgated on 14 July 1993. Committees concerning the right of the child, at the national, state and district level, had been formed and up to now there had been no complaints about forced child labour. Schools were opened in Myanmar and the children were attending them as usual. There was no evidence of any drop in enrolment. If a person was found guilty of forcing a child to work in life-threatening or dangerous conditions, or to engage in work that would result in contracting diseases, that person would be sentenced to six months' imprisonment or a fine.

The Workers' members suggested that the conclusions adopted by the Committee should appear in a special paragraph of its General Report, so as to have more of an impact, given the seriousness of the situation in the country and the absence of any progress with regard to forced labour.

The Employers' members summed up this case and the Government representative's view as "the end justifies the means". Economic development and development of infrastructure, in the Government's mind, justified the use of forced labour. However, Myanmar had ratified this Convention 40 years ago and it had an international obligation to respect. In this Committee, special paragraphs were reserved for very serious cases. This case, involving forced labour, was such a case and therefore the conclusions of this case should appear in a special paragraph in the Committee's report.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative that measures were under way for amending the Village Act and Towns Act which contained provisions contravening Convention No. 29. It recalled that the Government had been told about this for nearly 30 years. It also recalled the adoption in 1994, by the Governing Body, of the recommendations of its tripartite Committee for the repeal of the offensive provisions. The Committee could not find a way to agree with the position of the Government, as reported to the Committee of Experts, that what was being alleged to be forced labour was actually voluntary labour. The Committee further recalled the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar and deprecated a situation in Myanmar as reflected in this report. In these circumstances, the Committee called upon the Government to urgently repeal the offensive legal provisions under the Village Act and the Towns Act to bring them into line with the letter and spirit of Convention No. 29, to terminate forced labour practices on the ground, to provide for and award exemplary penalties against those exacting forced labour, and to furnish a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on legislative and practical measures adopted to fall in line with Convention No. 29. The Committee also decided to mention this conclusion in a special paragraph of its General Report.