Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1996, Publication: 83rd ILC session (1996)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Myanmar (Ratification: 1955)

A Government representative of Myanmar reaffirmed his Government's firm commitment to freedom of association principles. His Government was committed to a multi-party democratic system, a free-market economy and a modern and developed State in which all segments of society would enjoy justice and human rights. To this end, representatives of the people were discussing and setting out the basic and fundamental principles that would have to be embodied in the new Constitution. Workers' representatives were included in this exercise. The Laws Scrutiny Central Body was reviewing a draft trade union law so as to protect the rights of workers. In the not too distant future the body of laws pertaining to freedom of association in Myanmar would be in line with Convention No. 87. It was a critical time for the country and the Government was doing all it could given the complex prevailing situation. He recalled once again that the Government had formally requested the ILO for technical assistance in the drafting of the trade union law. The ILO mission was welcome to visit Myanmar at a mutually convenient date so that its input could be incorporated in the new legislation.

The Workers' members pointed out that Convention No. 87 had been the subject of discussion in this Committee on nine occasions since 1981. The Committee of Experts had commented on its application in Myanmar in 12 of its last 15 reports. Yet, the ILO had not received any report from the Government as requested by the Committee in a special paragraph of its report in 1995. This was despite the assurances given by the Government at last year's Conference of a willingness to obtain advice from the Office with regard to its draft Trade Unions Act. To date, no developments whatsoever, either in law or in practice, had been conveyed to the Office. This was a clear demonstration that the Government lacked the political will to comply with Convention No. 87.

The events of recent days moreover suggested that freedom of association was not a high priority for the military regime which had threatened peaceful gatherings of people who did no more than listen to a Nobel prizewinner. In such an environment it would be an enormous step towards social harmony to allow, in accordance with the Convention, the creation of unions established by workers in defence of their social and economic interests. However, this year, rather than sending a Workers' representative to the ILO Conference, the Government had brought a railway supervisor. The very plain and simple fact was that there were no trade unions in Myanmar at the present time. Although the Committee was told of national conventions, new constitutions and new labour laws year after year, it was never provided with any evidence of freedom of association.

The Workers' members felt strongly that the Government should act on the intention it had professed in 1995. It should, as a matter of urgency, accept the right for unions to organize without prior authorization and to affiliate freely with international organizations. Pending such efforts, the Committee should take the strongest possible measures in this case, including a special paragraph for continued failure to implement the Convention.

The Employers' members stated that the situation was very negative since the Government of Myanmar had not fulfilled the requirements of the Convention it had ratified. The establishment of organizations of workers or employers in this country required in effect prior authorization from the authorities at each stage. Despite the long discussions on this case, the Government representative had merely confined himself to making a general statement that the country was in a state of transition and that changes would occur in the future without giving any specific information on legislative reforms. As this statement contained no room for optimism, the Employers' members believed it would be appropriate to ask for specific measures in view of the fact that the situation had remained static for many years. Since the Government representative had stated that he was willing to accept ILO technical assistance, the Employers' members wished to receive some clarification from the Office on its position on this matter. They reiterated their deep concern over this case.

The representative of the Secretary-General recalled that in the Committee's conclusions of last year, there was a possibility mentioned of a direct assistance mission by the Office to Myanmar. On 4 April of this year the Office received a letter from the Government of Myanmar requesting such technical cooperation. The Office responded that it was ready and willing to undertake a mission to Myanmar indicating the names and the dates on which designated persons would be present in Myanmar. A high-level official from the Standards Department did indeed travel to Myanmar, but while he was in Bangkok, at a stopover, he received a fax from the Government of Myanmar informing him of the postponement of the mission due to unexpected circumstances. Naturally, the Office immediately acknowledged receipt of this message and expressed regret that the mission could not take place.

The Workers' member of Sweden stated that, without any confirmation on actual measures being taken in Myanmar, he had no alternative but to conclude that the Government had no intention in reality of complying with the Convention. At the discussion in this Committee last year, the Government representative indicated some changes concerning freedom of association for Myanmar seafarers following the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association. Unfortunately there was no evidence that actual changes had taken place. He therefore hoped that the Government representative could confirm, for instance, that Myanmar seafarers no longer had to sign contracts obliging them not to contact international trade union organizations and that no intimidation or sanctions whatsoever were applied against seafarers who exercised their rights in accordance with Convention No. 87. This year the Government representative made a reference to the work of the national body concerned with the formulation and revision of the Trade Union Act. The speaker doubted, however, its success since the workers' representatives on this body were selected and controlled by the Government. Due to the continued serious violation of the right to freedom of association in Myanmar, this Committee had to express its strong dissatisfaction with the present situation in a special paragraph.

The Workers' member from Togo stated that last year the case of Myanmar was already in the report of the Committee of Experts under Convention No. 87, which was certainly a fundamental instrument. This year, the situation was worse in that the Committee of Experts had not received the Government's report requested by the present Committee. Since Myanmar ratified Convention No. 87 in 1955, it had regularly been the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts, and for 40 years had shown its inability to align its legislation and practice concerning Convention No. 87. The necessary measures had not been taken in order to ensure workers the right, without prior authorization, to form organizations of their choice to effectively defend their interests, and to guarantee organizations of workers and employers the right to affiliate with international organizations of the same kind, as provided in Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention.

In Myanmar, human rights violations - of which union rights were a part - were notorious. For 40 years there had not been a single union worthy of this name. Under these conditions, any request by Myanmar for an ILO mission must be ignored and be considered as a manipulating tactic. The speaker considered that this case was not making any progress and requested a special paragraph to remind Myanmar of its commitment to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention.

The Workers' member of Greece, associating himself with the previous speakers from the Workers' bench, underlined that the case of Myanmar was unfortunately a very simple one: no progress had been accomplished. It was hardly believable that the ILO technical assistance to Myanmar had not finally taken place. He understood, from the explanations given by the Government representative, that the Office had not been able to provide the required technical assistance because of budgetary restrictions.

Referring to the declaration that seafarers had to sign under oath, the speaker stressed that it contained the following statement: "I declare being fully aware of the danger which prevents any intervention by the International Federation of Transport Workers". There was no trade union in Myanmar and the workers didn't even have the possibility to go to the international trade union organization to ensure that their wages be paid correctly by the employers. The same declaration also stated: "I hereby declare that the following information is correct: the number of the bank account, the property that I own". This sort of thing was equal to reducing people to slaves. This case was horrible and the conclusions should stress profound indignation at this continuous situation rather than express only profound preoccupation.

The representative of the Secretary-General provided additional information in connection with the Office mission to Myanmar stating that there was absolutely no budgetary limitation affecting missions that might be undertaken by the Standards Department with respect to matters involving the application of ratified Conventions. The restrictions which did affect the Standards Department were applied to other areas but they did not in any way apply to the supervisory system for the application of Conventions.

The Workers' member of India recalled that Myanmar had been under military rule for a long time, and now not only trade union rights but political and social rights were also being suppressed. The Government should feel ashamed to be accused of such an oppression of rights. The statement made by the Government representative did not carry any conviction with this Committee and the speaker requested him to convey these sentiments to his Government so that it would restore the freedom of trade unions in the country.

The Workers' member of Japan stated that this was a very serious but a very clear cut case of a violation of a fundamental human rights Convention which had already been the subject of a special paragraph last year. However, no progress whatsoever could be noted. On the contrary, the reports which had come out of the country despite the suppression of the free press and freedom of speech, indicated that cruel suppression of freedom of association had not only been continued but also had been aggravated in recent days by massive and arbitrary arrests of the people who just wanted a certain degree of freedom of assembly and speech. This had happened just a month ago and hundreds of these people were still in prison. The Government had repeatedly made a promise to harmonize law and practice with Convention No. 87 but these promises remained empty words, except in one specific area. It promised to abolish the single trade union system and kept this promise by replacing the single trade union system with no trade union system. The persistent refusal by the Government over many years to do anything at all about the observations made by the Committee of Experts deserved another special paragraph in the strongest possible wording expressing great concern and condemnation.

The Government member of Norway spoke on behalf of the five Nordic Governments represented on this Committee. These Governments had made a similar statement on this case, both in 1994 and 1995, expressing great concern for the lack of progress in implementing this Convention in Myanmar. The Nordic countries could only reiterate their great concern as regards the situation in question in the country. They once again urged the Government to adopt as a matter of urgency the necessary democratic measures to ensure fully the right to organize and the right to affiliate with international organizations without impediment.

The Government member of the Netherlands supported the observations made by the previous speaker. It was clear that the present question was an extremely serious one, and one could only ask how many interventions were still needed in order for the situation to improve. It was virtually unbelievable that a country could remain so insensible to the opinion of the Committee. Some people would like perhaps to see trade measures being adopted, but this would not be an appropriate solution. Rather, what was needed was that the Government of Myanmar realized that it could no longer ignore world public opinion and that declarations of goodwill were not sufficient any more. He once again urged the Government to undertake concrete efforts to put its legislation in conformity with Convention No. 87.

The Government member of the United States stated that this case was a basic flagrant long-standing violation of a ratified Convention. There were no trade unions in Burma as there was no freedom of association. Just as with Convention No. 29, the Government's failure to apply Convention No. 87 had been recognized not just by the various ILO supervisory bodies, but also by the United Nations General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission. The Government said one thing and then did another. Last year, it had expressed a "genuine" desire to cooperate with the ILO and to obtain technical advice from the Office. It wanted to invite another mission from the Office to their country. That mission had never happened and this year the Government had not even sent a report on the Convention. The Committee of Experts had been expressing the very same concerns about this Convention for 40 years now, and over the past 15 years in this Committee, it was the tenth time that it had discussed this case with special paragraphs adopted on three occasions. Was the Government trying to mislead the Committee? That was the inevitable conclusion that it must reach in the face of repeated promises and a persistent failure to turn any of those words into actions. The speaker deplored the Government's deliberate campaign to wipe out democracy and the rule of law in the country. Therefore, as for Convention No. 29, she believed that this case merited the Committee's strongest conclusions in order to draw the attention of the Conference to the continued failure of the Government of Burma to apply Convention No. 87.

The Workers' member of Panama believed that this was yet one more case of very clear manipulations by the Government of Myanmar. The very fact of having suspended the ILO mission after the official conducting the mission had already left Geneva, clearly pointed to a deliberate manipulation. There was no intention on the part of the Government to correct the violations of trade union rights in the country. The new request for assistance that had been made by the representative of the Government was simply an attempt to once again fool the Committee. This Conference should take a very firm stand against the Government of Myanmar which had shown so much disrespect for the ILO, including its failure to submit the requested reports.

The Committee took note with great concern of the statement made by the Government representative which only repeated, as in previous years, the Government's intention to apply the Convention without giving an account of any positive development in law and in practice. The Committee deplored that the Government had not yet adopted any specific measure to give effect to the observations which the Committee of Experts had been formulating for many years. The Committee deeply regretted the fact that very serious and persistent violations of the fundamental principles of the Convention were continuing in Myanmar. The Committee could only observe that there were no trade unions in the country whose objective was the defence and the promotion of the interests of the workers in the sense of the Convention. The Committee urgently requested the Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee the workers and the employers the right to set up the organizations of their choice, without previous authorization, as well as the right of the organizations to become affiliated to international workers' and employers' organizations.

The Committee regretted that the ILO mission which had been scheduled by common agreement for May 1996, could not finally be received in Myanmar. It expressed the firm hope that the Government would now cooperate more intensively with the ILO so that the very serious discrepancies between the law and practice on the one hand, and the Convention, on the other hand, will be eliminated in the very near future.

The Committee had decided to mention this case in its report as a case of continued failure to apply Convention No. 87, taking into account that since many years and despite many encouragements there were very serious and persistent discrepancies in law and in practice.