[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

ILO Conference : Burma - Conv. 29 (



Subject: ILO Conference : Burma - Conv. 29 (Part 2)

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 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.