Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1992, Publication: 79th ILC session (1992)

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

The Government has communicated the following information:

With reference to the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) concerning the practice of compulsory portering, the Government wishes to indicate that it is true that armed forces have to employ porters for transportation of equipment and things over difficult terrain in remote jungles and mountains near the frontiers where military campaigns against the armed insurgents are launched. Where the terrain is inaccessible by car or other motorised vehicles, the Myanmar army has to employ porters for transport of supplies and equipment. However, it is not true that porters are treated harshly and inhumanely by the Myanmar armed forces. All these allegations about the treatment of porters by the armed forces are untrue. They mainly emanate from outside sources with ulterior political motives.

As a matter of fact, there are volunteer porters and professional porters who offer to work as porters on behalf of others to earn their living. Porters are recruited and employed by the armed forces after consultation with local authorities. This has been in practice in Myanmar since she regained her independence in 1948. Recruitment and employment are in accordance with section 8, subsection 1(n), of the Village Act of 1908 and section 7, subsection 1(m), of the Town Acts of 1907. Recruitment is based on the following three criteria:

(a) they must be unemployed;

(b) they must be physically fit to work as porters;

(c) a reasonable amount of wages must be fixed and agreed to beforehand.

Porters thus recruited are never required to accompany the troops to the actual scene of battles; neither are they exposed to danger. They are sent back as soon as their assignment is completed. They are paid equitably and in the unlikely event of a loss of life or limb unconnected with any armed conflict they or their families are compensated in accordance with the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1925. They are entitled to medical treatment like soldiers in accordance with the Armed Forces Act. They are placed in safe places during operations.

In addition, a Government representative of Myanmar referred to written information provided by his Government and stressed that in his country there was no coercion with regard to the employment of workers. Comprehensive and elaborate laws effectively prevented the use of forced labour. In response to the allegations made against his Government that equated the use of porters by the armed forces of Myanmar with forced labour, he stressed that the use of porters was not the same as the use of forced labour. He said that the allegation emanated from outside sources who had ulterior political motives.

The Workers' members stated that they regretted hearing the Government representative say that there was no forced labour in Myanmar. They referred to the report of the Committee of Experts which had noted the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention in Myanmar. The ICFTU had indicated that the practice of compulsory portering was widespread and involved thousands of workers, who were forcibly recruited and harshly exploited. These porters were rarely paid, and were forced to carry excessive loads and endure physical hardship and danger. Some died as a result or were killed, sometimes during the course of military actions. They noted that the comments of the ICFTU were detailed and specific, and that it was customary for the Committee to rely on the accuracy of the Committee of Experts' reports. However, they acknowledged that there was a contradiction between the facts referred to in the report and the statement by the Government representative. They expressed the hope that the Committee of Experts would receive a detailed report on this matter.

The Employers' members stated that they would not go as far as the Workers' members in their assessment of the situation at the time. The Committee of Experts' comments had summarised serious allegations made against the Government, and the Government was responding to the request for its comments. Upon review, the Committee of Experts may decide that further information should be provided and make an explicit determination regarding the merits of their claims. They appreciated that the Government had cooperated by providing some information, and asked it to send any other relevant information to the Committee of Experts so that it might reach a conclusion as to whether or not the Convention had been contravened.

A Workers' member of France stated that he was a member of the organisation which had made the comments, and was surprised at the reaction of the Government representative. He emphasised that the ICFTU had provided all the elements of proof for this very serious case. He believed that the conclusions of the Committee should be pertinent and uncompromising with respect to the necessity to provide evidence of both the Government's will and practical measures that it would take to remedy a situation which he was certain continued to exist today.

The Government representative reiterated that the porters were not forced labour, which did not exist in his country. He stated that even if the employment of porters by the armed forces was considered to be forced labour, such porters had ceased to be employed by the military, because the Government was no longer conducting military campaigns. He stressed that the Government wished to establish national unity and peace, and to remove all differences by amicable discussion rather than fighting among the different races in his country.

The Workers' members disagreed with the observations made by the Employers' members, because in their view a presumption resulted from the fact that the Committee of Experts had set out the facts as stated in its report, and had expressed its hope that corrective measures would be taken. Although a written reply had been supplied by the Government beyond the prescribed time-limit that had not been referred to in the report, it was similar in content, although more expansive than that to which the Government representative had related. They suggested that what had been stated in the Committee and the written reply be forwarded to the Committee of Experts for its evaluation and report.

The Committee noted that the Government had not supplied a report within the prescribed time. It also took note of the written and oral information given by the Government. In view of the seriousness of the allegations mentioned by the Committee of Experts, on the one hand, and the lack of reporting by the Government, on the other hand, it urged the Government to report in full to the ILO in the very near future.