Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 1996, Publication : 83ème session CIT (1996)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Myanmar (Ratification: 1955)

A Government representative of Myanmar referred to the government report provided to the Conference Committee last year wherein it had been mentioned that a board had been formed to monitor the progress made in reviewing the Village Act of 1908 and Towns Act of 1907. During the first half of 1996, the board had held three meetings as a result of which the draft of a new unified law had been submitted to the Laws Scrutiny Central Body for approval.

With regard to the practical application of the Convention, he recalled that the use of porters was the consequence of a decades-long armed conflict between Government and insurgent groups. However, today 15 out of 16 insurgent groups had abandoned armed struggle to join hands with the Government in national development. This encouraging situation had led to greatly diminished military operations and correspondingly the use of porters would come to an end. Indeed concrete measures had been taken by his Government to this end. Specific instructions had been issued since 1995 to the local authorities, regional commanders and ministries concerned, prohibiting the recruitment of the local populace in carrying out national development projects such as the construction of roads, bridges and railways as well as the building of dams and embankments without proper and fair remuneration or compensation. Henceforth, members of the Myanmar armed forces would take part in these development projects to serve the interest of the people, in addition to their primary responsibility of defending the country. Thus he sincerely believed that substantial progress had been made in the observance of the provisions of Convention No. 29.

The Workers' members pointed out that the Government of Myanmar had had a long-standing reliance on forced labour with no improvements to date. Indeed, there was total denial by the Government that there was any problem at all. Moreover, there was no effort at sincere cooperation with the ILO and no access for those from the ILO who attempted to visit the country.

The Workers' members indicated that this was the third time that Convention No. 29 had been discussed since 1992. In 1993, there was a representation under article 24 of the ILO Constitution which resulted in the Governing Body urging the Government to amend the Village Act and Towns Act and to ensure the formal repeal of the powers to impose compulsory labour in practice. Moreover, in 1993 the experts noted the report by a Special Rapporteur to the UN Commission on Human Rights, which documented the testimony of persons who were forced to provide labour in the construction of railroads and of roads or the clearing of jungle areas for the military. However, the economic crisis caused by the regime's policies had created a desperate need for hard currency which had led to a continued and massive use of forced labour.

One of the more insidious aspects of this development was that it was serving the interests and needs of Western multinational corporations. After all, 1996 was the "Year of the Tourist" in Myanmar. As a result, special use was being made of forced labour to build roads and hotels for tourists and to renovate temples. More specifically, conscripted workers had built the Mandalay Canal with their bare hands. Houses along the route had been demolished and local people with 2,000 "volunteers" were forced to work 24-hour shifts. Thirty thousand workers had built the new airport in Basang. Pipelines had been built for Unocal and its French counterpart Total on lands taken from villages. Overall around 800,000 people had "volunteered" their services to build such infrastructure for little or no remuneration.

To date, there had been no response whatsoever to the Experts' request for legislative and practical measures to be adopted to ensure compliance with Convention No. 29. This disdain for ILO standards and procedures required the strongest possible conclusions on the part of the Committee.

The Employers' members recalled that this case had been dealt with on several occasions. They considered it important to mention that the remarks of this Committee were not meant to cover the behaviour of enterprises but was directed at the conduct of governments having ratified Conventions and which were thereby held to enforce legislation.

Although Myanmar had ratified Convention No. 29 more than 40 years ago, the situation had only continued to worsen: the population was requisitioned for porterage and public works and subjected to forced labour.

While slightly modifying its previous comments, the Government continued to claim that it was a question of voluntary work, in keeping with millenary traditions, without at the same time being able to deny that requisitions of labour took place which were not subject to fines or other sanctions. Although the tripartite Committee set up by the Governing Body had requested immediate revision of the legislation in question and the elimination of any possibility whatsoever of recourse to forced labour, the situation remained unchanged.

Previously, the Government had claimed that the practice of forced labour, an inheritance of the colonial era, no longer existed and that the obsolete legislation in question would be repealed. Today, it affirmed that there was no longer forced labour and that it was the army which was carrying out the work in question. The Experts' report showed, however, that it was rather for the army itself that this work was being carried out. The Government no longer said that the legislation would be modified nor that things would change in practice. On the other hand, it rejected proposals for technical assistance from the ILO.

Consequently, the Employers' members considered that there was no cause for optimism. They expressed their very deep concern and insisted once more that Myanmar renounce forced labour both in law and in practice.

The Workers' member of Japan stressed that this was the oldest and most outrageous case outstanding before the Committee. Although it had been discussed time and time again in the Committee no progress had been witnessed. The Government had practically run out of arguments to defend the notorious system of compulsory porterage and the imposition of labour for public works. In its report, the Committee of Experts had recalled yet again that the Village Act and the Towns Act provided "for the exaction of labour and services, including porterage service, under the menace of a penalty from residents who have not offered themselves voluntarily". The Government had repeated its earlier promises that these laws were being reviewed for possible amendment. The fact remained that these Acts were still in force. He believed that the Committee should support the Governing Body in asking the Government to make the recommended fundamental changes without further delay.

The Workers' member of Brazil stated that the situation of forced labour in Myanmar was even more serious than in Brazil where at least one was informed about the violations of Convention No. 29 and other human rights violations. The speaker, pointing to the absence of any worker representation in the Myanmar delegation, recalled that trade union organizations in this country did not exist and that those who tried to organize workers did so at great personal risk or by knowing that they would finally go into exile.

The speaker stressed that the violations of human rights and of international labour standards in Myanmar were in direct proportion to the absence of trade unions there. Myanmar, which had no democratic regime, had resorted to forced labour as if it were a state policy. People built roads, railroads and bridges under the threat of bayonets, which was a sad repetition of history when the pyramids were constructed.

The speaker deplored the fact that the Government had tried to make the analysis of the situation much more complex by not responding to the questions raised by the Committee of Experts which also reflected the absence of any consideration for that Committee. Democracy had to be re-established in Myanmar. Convention No. 29 and other human and workers' rights had to be respected there. In view of the lack of goodwill on the part of the Government, the Committee had no choice but to mention this case once again in a special paragraph.

The Workers' member of the United States stated that the widespread systematic violation of Convention No. 29 by the Burmese military regime had been before the Committee twice in recent years. In both instances the case had proceeded in a similar fashion, for it had not been denied by the military regime that hundreds of thousands of Burmese citizens had been mobilized to rebuild the country's crumbling infrastructure with little or no pay. When confronted with this irrefutable and overwhelming evidence, the Government had claimed that contributing labour was a noble "Burmese tradition" and that many of the workers were convicted criminals who had "volunteered" to work in the open air. He pointed out that in Burma today the term "convicted criminal" could embrace someone guilty of having been elected to office, of handing out leaflets calling for democracy or attempting to exercise his or her basic right to freedom of association. He further emphasized that what existed in Burma was a vast system of forced labour, which to one degree or another ensnared virtually every family in the country, and that this situation had worsened during this "Year of the Tourist". Although the Committee had repeatedly demanded in the strongest possible terms that the military regime end immediately this widespread use of forced labour, the Government had responded with absolute and total disdain for these proceedings. The speaker saw no other conclusion for this case than one which once again expressed the Committee's extreme displeasure at the Government's continuing failure to bring itself into compliance with Convention No. 29.

The Workers' member of Greece, alluding to the comparison made between the situation in Myanmar and in Brazil, noted a fundamental difference. While everyone knew that racist practices existed in virtually all countries, the apartheid regime in South Africa had been condemned because it had institutionalized this practice. Likewise, in the case of Myanmar, on reading the report of the Committee of Experts and having listened to the Government representative, the impression was that the Government did not care about the opinion of the international community. It claimed to no longer resort to forced labour, but it remained silent when confronted with proof that its army requisitioned men, women, and children under such conditions and it did not note any change in terms of the legislation. The speaker, alluding to the involvement of multinational corporations in this context, invited the Conference Committee to note the full extent of the dramatic situation in this country, also referring to the Commission on Human Rights session of 24 April 1996 as well as the report of UNICEF on the situation of children in the world, in particular in Myanmar.

The Employers' members stressed that the discussion in the Committee was limited to the question of the extent to which governments fulfilled their obligations. National legislation applied to every entity in a country, be they national or multinational enterprises. Therefore, it would not be correct to mention individual enterprises by name to level specific criticism against them. If this were to be done, the nature of the Committee would be changed. In that eventuality, individual trade unions would have to be named as well. This Committee, as well as the Committee of Experts, had the mandate of examining what governments did and what they should be doing. Up to now, it had not been customary to name individual enterprises in this Committee.

The Workers' members pointed out that since the Committee was dealing with a systemic problem, it was perfectly appropriate to note some of the elements of the system that were involved here. Indeed, the Experts had noted these elements in their report on Brazil under Convention No. 29. There was a synergistic relationship between organizations that profited from repressive practices in a country and the country itself, which was not to say that those corporations fostered the repressive legislation but, if they were going to be part of the system, then it was perfectly appropriate to note it. The Workers' members could not accept a limitation on their ability to note the elements in a systemic problem.

The Workers' members registered their strong reservation to the notion that they could not cite elements of a systemic problem. However, before pursuing this issue any further, they wished to discuss this matter with the Employers' members in order to reach some understanding.

The Employers' members stated that they were ready to discuss this issue. However, things would change considerably in the Committee if their previous position, which had been the practice followed by the Committee thus far, were not maintained.

The Workers' members stressed once again that this was not a new procedure which had just been initiated.

The Workers' member of Germany supported the previous speakers, and drew the attention of the Committee to the contents of paragraph 7 of the report of the Committee of Experts, which showed how the Government had ignored the Committee's recommendations. While last year these very serious violations were the subject of a special paragraph, now the Government merely reiterated its denials, whereas incontestable sources proved that the army continued to resort to forced labour and direct and indirect threats, as well as other atrocities. The speaker requested that the Committee condemn the situation in the strongest possible terms.

The Government member of the United States stated that this was quite a straightforward if very distressing case. On the one hand, there was legislation that was clearly not in conformity with Convention No. 29. On the other hand, there was voluminous documentation that forced labour was being exacted on a massive scale, including in tourism-related construction projects, to build railroads and to serve as porters for the military. This forced labour was being used under the cruellest of conditions. Many persons had died from lack of food or medical treatment, unsanitary conditions and beatings. Moreover, these violations of human rights had been dealt with not only before the ILO but also before other fora, such as the UN Commission on Human Rights.

However, the Government merely confined itself to asserting that this was not forced labour but voluntary community service. In 1995, the Government had indicated that it had started the process of amending the laws in question. The Committee had tried to encourage the Government by adopting a special paragraph in its report last year stressing that the Government should urgently take all the necessary legal and practical measures. However, the Experts had again noted with concern this year that the summary report provided by the Government contained no indication whatsoever that concrete measures had been taken. It was becoming abundantly clear that the situation was nothing less than a continuing flagrant and wilful violation of a freely ratified ILO Convention. Rather, it was becoming more and more evident that the Government was just trying to create a smokescreen to mask the fact that, step by step, the situation in Myanmar was being reduced to a state of total lawlessness. Her Government supported the Committee's censure of the Myanmar Government's continued failure to adopt positive measures to comply with Convention No. 29 in law and in practice. She hoped that this censure would be expressed in the strongest possible terms. Her Government also supported any other action that the International Labour Organization might initiate to highlight this serious and long-standing problem.

The Government representative reiterated that a unified Village and Towns Act had been drafted and this draft law had been submitted to the Laws Scrutiny Central Body. This central body had been set up in 1991 with the express purpose of examining those laws which needed to be amended. To date, this central body had already examined a total of more than 200 laws and would examine the unified draft law as soon as possible. With regard to the practical application of Convention No. 29, as pointed out earlier, the contribution of labour for the benefit of the community was part of an age-old Myanmar tradition of voluntary labour. However, today, 15 groups who had been in insurgency against the Government of Myanmar had come back into the legal fold. So the armed forces were now using its members for major community development projects. Thus, a significant development was that only members of the armed forces would henceforth be taking part in these projects. Moreover, as Myanmar had embarked on a market economy since 1988, private enterprises were now being invited to construct major highways and certain railroads. This would do away with what was referred to as "forced labour" and create new job opportunities for the local populace. It was quite clear from the two above-mentioned developments that there was a positive evolution in Myanmar with regard to the practical application of Convention No. 29.

The Workers' members pointed out that the reply of the Government representative gave them no reason to change their original point of view. There was no doubt as to the serious nature of the violations that had taken place to date and that were still taking place. In view of the fact that there had been no real response to the recommendations of the special paragraph in the Committee's report of last year, the Workers' members strongly felt that there should be a special paragraph this year citing Myanmar for continued failure to implement the Convention.

The Employers' members deplored the fact that the second intervention of the Government representative had still not indicated that any progress had been made. A draft law dating back to 1991, the contents of which were not known, was to be submitted for examination to a body, the nature of which was imprecise. Noting the absence of any real progress, the Employers' members supported the proposal of the Workers' members to express the concern of the Committee in a special paragraph.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative and the subsequent discussion. The Committee was deeply concerned by the serious situation prevailing in Myanmar over many years where systematically recourse was had to forced labour. The Committee once again firmly required the Government formally to abolish and urgently to cancel the legal provisions and to abandon all practices that were contrary to the Convention. The Committee urged the Government to prescribe truly dissuasive sanctions against all those having recourse to forced labour. The Committee hoped that the Government would, without further delay, take all necessary measures to abolish recourse to forced labour and that it would provide next year all necessary detailed information on concrete measures taken or envisaged to abolish in law and in practice the possibility of imposing compulsory labour. The Committee decided to mention this case in its report as one of persistent failure to implement Convention No. 29 since over a period of several years there had been serious and continued discrepancies in law and in fact.