REPRESENTATION (article 24) - MYANMAR - C029 - 1994

1. International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)

Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Report of the Committee set up to consider the representation made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions under article 24 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)

Report of the Committee set up to consider the representation made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions under article 24 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)

Decision

The Governing Body adopted the report of the tripartite committee. Procedure closed.

Complaint Procedure

A. Introduction
1. By letter of 25 January 1993, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) made a representation under article 24 of the ILO Constitution alleging the non-observance by the Government of Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).
2. The Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) was ratified by Myanmar on 4 March 1955 and is in force for the country.
3. The provisions of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization concerning representations are as follows:
Article 24
In the event of any representation being made to the International Labour Office by an industrial association of employers or of workers that any of the Members has failed to secure in any respect the effective observance within its jurisdiction of any Convention to which it is a party, the Governing Body may communicate this representation to the government against which it is made, and may invite that government to make such statement on the subject as it may think fit.
Article 25
If no statement is received within a reasonable time from the government in question, or if the statement when received is not deemed to be satisfactory by the Governing Body, the latter shall have the right to publish the representation and the statement, if any, made in reply to it.
4. The procedure to be followed in the event of a representation is governed by the revised Standing Orders adopted by the Governing Body at its 212th Session in March 1980.
5. In accordance with article 1 and article 2, paragraph 1, of the Standing Orders, the Director-General acknowledged receipt of the representation, informed the Government of Myanmar and brought the representation before the Officers of the Governing Body.
6. At its 255th Session (March 1993) (Endnote 1) the Governing Body decided, on the recommendation of its Officers, that the representation was receivable, and set up a committee to examine it, composed of Ms. L. Caron (Government member, Canada), Chairperson, Mr. B. Noakes (Employer member, Australia) and Mr. P.S. Sundaram (Worker member, Sri Lanka). In November 1993, Mr. P.S. Sundaram was replaced by Mr. K. Ahmed (Worker member, Pakistan).
7. In accordance with the provisions of article 4, paragraph 1(a) and (c), of the Standing Orders, the Committee invited the ICFTU to supply by 31 March 1993 any further information it wished to bring to the attention of the Committee. The Committee invited the Government to submit its observations on the representation by 30 April 1993.
8. The Government made observations on the representation in a written statement forwarded with a letter dated 10 May 1993. Following a request by the Committee to provide supplementary and detailed information in reply to the allegations made by the ICFTU, the Government forwarded, with a letter of 26 October 1993, a "Detailed statement presented to the Committee to consider the matters relating to the use of Forced Labour and Forced Porterage in Myanmar". The Committee also had at its disposal several reports submitted by the Government under article 22 of the ILO Constitution on the application of the Convention and comments made by the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee for the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, as well as a note verbale of 26 February 1993 from the Permanent Representative of Myanmar to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and several resolutions adopted as well as notes and reports published by the United Nations on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.
9. The Committee met in March, June and November 1993 and in March, June and November 1994.
B. Examination of the representation
I. Allegations made by the complainant organization
10. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) alleges that the Government of Myanmar has failed to secure the observance of the Convention, institutionalizing the use of forced labour by military commanders through the forced recruitment and abuse of porters.
11. The ICFTU is aware of no laws or regulations governing the actions of the military concerning the porters.
12. According to the complainant organization, women and children as well as men are randomly rounded up by local police or the military from such public places as train stations and movie theatres or from their homes or places of work; in many cases, village headmen are responsible for filling porter quotas or providing large sums of money to the military instead. Porters are required to carry heavy loads of ammunition, food, and other supplies between army camps, generally back and forth over rugged mountains which are inaccessible to vehicles. They must often construct the camps for the military upon arrival. They are not paid for their work and are allowed very little food, water, or rest. In many cases, porters are bound together in groups of 50-200 at night. They are denied medical care. Porters are subject to hostile fire as well as to abuse by the soldiers they serve. They are routinely beaten by the soldiers and many of the women are raped repeatedly. Unarmed themselves, they are placed at the head of columns to detonate mines and booby traps as well as to spring ambushes. According to credible sources, many of these porters die as a result of mistreatment, lack of adequate food and water, and use as human mine sweepers. While the majority of porterage cases has been linked to actions by the Myanmar army, the ICFTU also mentions allegations by diplomats, denied by leaders of the ethnic minorities, that insurgents also force villagers into porter service.
13. The ICFTU refers to specific information on compulsory porterage cases that has been gathered by a variety of reputable human rights groups which have conducted fact-finding missions to the Myanmar border regions. A number of excerpts from interviews conducted with alleged victims have been included in the representation.
14. According to the complainant organization, the situation of porterage in Myanmar clearly fits the definition of "forced or compulsory labour" in Article 2(1) of the Convention. Porterage in Myanmar is rarely if ever voluntary, and the civilians pressed into service face severe corporal punishment, if not death, for resisting conscription.
15. The ICFTU adds that the porterage practice in Myanmar does not fall within any of the five exceptions from the scope of the Convention listed in Article 2(2):
(a) The compulsory military service exception is not applicable to porterage; the porters are providing civilian, not military, services. Also, there are no laws presuming to authorize the practice as a form of military service. The porters constitute civilians as defined in international humanitarian law, that is, "... persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof".
(b) As a matter of common sense, the conditions of porterage in Myanmar cannot be considered "part of the normal civic obligation of the citizens of a fully self-governing country" that could qualify for exemption under Article 2(2) (b).
(c) The exception for compulsory penal labour under Article 2(2)(c) does not apply to the Myanmar forced porterage practice. Although some porters reportedly are prisoners serving light sentences or with less than a year left to serve, there is no evidence that the porterage services have been exacted as part of the prisoners' sentences in a court of law, as required by the exception under Article 2(2)(c).
(d) Although the government is engaged in fighting with several ethnic groups, the country is by no means in the type of emergency contemplated under Article 2(2)(d) that could justify an exception for the porterage practice. The pervasive security apparatus is to combat numerous ethnic insurgencies; in recent years, however, these have posed no threat to the country's major population centres. Insurgent groups engage in small-scale fighting, mostly in remote areas, in hopes of lessening domination by the ethnic Burman majority. The activities of Burmese insurgent groups and the recurrent skirmishes in the border regions over the past 43 years are neither "sudden", "unforeseen", nor "calling for instant counter-measures". Moreover, although the "State Law and Order Restoration Council" (SLORC) rules by martial law and has passed certain decrees, no state of emergency has been formally declared by the military government. (A state of emergency was declared in several areas of the country in mid-1988 for several months. Martial law was imposed on several localities around the time of the elections in May 1990, but was also lifted thereafter.)
(e) The minor communal services exception of Article 2(2)(e) is inapplicable to the case of porterage in Myanmar. The mandatory community labour projects which exist in Myanmar are not the egregious, widespread acts of forced porterage by the military that are the subject of the representation. Moreover, porterage service is in the direct interest of the federal military, not the porters' local communities. In addition, the members of the communities from which porters are seized are not consulted as to the need for such work.
16. According to the complainant organization, the porterage practice in Myanmar thus comes within the scope of the Convention, and continuance of this practice by Myanmar almost 40 years after ratification contravenes the requirement, in Article 1(1) of the Convention, "to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period". The Government has not only failed to suppress the use of forced labour which has been practised in varying degrees over many years, but actually has promoted the spread of the practice.
17. Concomitantly, the ICFTU considers that the provision in Article 1(2) (which had allowed, in certain conditions and with a view to complete suppression, recourse to forced or compulsory labour during a transitional period as an exceptional measure) is not applicable to Myanmar's present porterage practice. The ICFTU refers to the Committee of Experts' 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour indicating that the provisions for transitional use of forced labour, "aimed essentially at certain colonial practices, are hardly ever invoked now as a justification for retaining forced or compulsory labour." Even if one could consider Myanmar to still be in a "transitional period", porterage has become the norm rather than an exceptional measure.
18. Moreover, the ICFTU points out that the practice violates many of the conditions specified in the Convention for the "transitional period"; the ICFTU refers in detail to the conditions and guarantees provided in Articles 8-16, 18, 23 and 24 of the Convention.
19. According to the complainant organization Myanmar has failed to comply with Article 25 of the Convention, under which "The illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour shall be punishable as a penal offence, and it shall be an obligation on any Member ratifying the Convention to ensure that the penalties imposed by law are really adequate and are strictly enforced". The ICFTU alleges that, rather than punishing an illegal practice, the government encourages continuous breach of the nation's obligations under Convention No. 29.
II. The Government's observations
20. In its written statement presented in May 1993 to the Committee to consider matters relating to the observance of Convention No. 29, the Government indicates that allegations have been made in certain quarters that the Myanmar authorities are using forced labour for the construction of railways, roads and bridges. The allegation is false and is based on fabrications by people who wish to denigrate the image of the Myanmar authorities and those persons who do not understand the tradition and culture of the Myanmar people. In Myanmar, voluntary contribution of labour to build shrines and religious temples, roads, bridges and clearing of obstruction on pathways is a tradition which goes back to thousands of years. It is a common belief that the contribution of labour is a noble deed and that the merit attained from it contributes to a better personal well-being and spiritual strength.
21. In the villages and in the border areas, Tatmadaw men (the Myanmar armed forces) and the local people in the region have been contributing voluntary labour towards building roads and bridges for the past four years or so. There is no coercion involved. In Myanmar history, there has never been "slave labour". Since the times of the Myanmar kings, many dams, irrigation work, lakes, etc. were built with labour contributed by all the people from the area. Accordingly, those who accuse the Myanmar authorities of using forced labour patently reveal their ignorance of the Myanmar tradition and culture.
22. Under certain circumstances, the Myanmar armed forces have to employ porters for transportation of equipment and things over difficult terrain in remote jungles and mountains near the frontier where military campaigns against the armed insurgents are launched. Where the terrain is inaccessible by car or other motorized vehicles, the Myanmar army has to employ porters for transport of supplies and equipment.
23. 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.
24. Porters are recruited and employed by the armed forces after consultation with local authorities. This has been in practice in Myanmar since it regained independence in 1948. Recruitment and employment are in accordance with section 8(1)(n) of the Village Act of 1908 and section 7(1)(m) of the Towns Act of 1907. Recruitment of porters 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.
25. 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 1923. They are entitled to medical treatment like soldiers in accordance with the Armed Forces Act. They are placed in safe places during operations.
26. The Government adds that, 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. So, only those who do not know the true situation would take seriously the vicious slander against the armed forces of Myanmar.
27. The Government concludes that allegations concerning ill treatment of porters are totally unfounded. Those allegations are completely untenable particularly in view of the high standard of professionalism and discipline of the Myanmar armed forces.
28. In its additional detailed statement provided to the Committee in October 1993, the Government mentions that there shall not be any doubt or question on the reputation and credibility of the persons who led the two ICFTU's fact-finding missions. However, the Government points out that the work of these missions was carried out ex parte in Myanmar/Thai border areas and that it was done without the knowledge of the Myanmar Government. The Government adds that these areas are known to have been the hideouts of terrorist groups living on smuggling and drug trafficking. These terrorist groups are constantly engaged in atrocious activities against the Myanmar Government, based on ill political motives. Therefore, persons interviewed in these areas would unequivocally provide false and fabricated information to the fact-finding missions under the influence and duress of terrorists.
29. The Government has tried to find the persons mentioned in the ICFTU fact-finding missions' statements. However, the persons said to have been interviewed by the missions could not be identified as there has not been any statement regarding their parents' names, citizenship card number and permanent residential address. Based on the significant characteristics of Myanmar's system of nomenclature, the name of a person does not show his surname. The Government concludes that since the existence of the said person has not been established or proved, the allegations should be regarded as unfounded facts.
30. Referring to its concern over the identity of the persons interviewed, their place of residence and the incidents that were said to have taken place in 1991 and 1992, the Government indicates that three independent observation teams have been formed comprising the members of the township workers' supervisory committees and distinguished local residents. These teams visited areas mentioned by the fact-finding missions in Mon State, Kayin State and Bago Division in August 1993, and met with local administrative authorities and villagers to find out the true situation.
31. In the interviews with the local administrative authorities (Township Law and Order Restoration Councils, Ward and Village Tract Law and Order Restoration Councils) it is found that local recruitment of porters is done only in the case of urgent necessity and not frequent in nature. Participation in the porterage service is also voluntary. The selection and recruitment has been made among those who are willing to work as porters. It is usually done in a systematic manner and the porters are sent to the end-users along with prescribed forms and documents. They have to report back to the local authorities properly after completion of their assignments. It has never been heard of any woman working as a porter.
32. In various regions of the country, there is a large number of workers who earn wages or income for their living on casual jobs. These workers are available for any type of manual work which can provide them with reasonable wages/salary or income. This is the most important reason that they are inclined or prefer to work as porters, if and when available.
33. The Government adds that since the persons mentioned in the ICFTU fact-finding missions statements could not be traced even with the assistance of the ward and village tract authorities, the observation teams resorted to meeting with some villagers who have been voluntarily looking for work as porters to earn some income. The information received from them is found to be contrary to that of the fact finding missions of the ICFTU. Based on their version, porters had to carry food and supplies along the way only to the compatible limit and were never overburdened with excess loads. It is also confirmed that they were well-treated and well-provided with four items of basic needs: rice, cooking oil, beans and salt. They are allowed to rest and given enough time to sleep. They always have cordial and intimate relations with soldiers. The willingness of the porters to work for another assignment clearly indicates that there does not exist any incidence of ill treatment by soldiers towards porters.
34. In the meantime, military offensives have been suspended since 1 April 1992 and recourse to porterage is rarely exercised. But, if and when the terrorists take advantage of the lull, defensive operations have to be made to ensure the security and well-being of the community. In such circumstances of imminent urgent necessity, porterage is to be resorted to inevitably. But the duration of porterage service rarely exceeds 30 days and porters have to serve only for a limited distance at which they have to hand over to another batch of porters who will carry food provisions and equipment to the specified destination, and their service is said to be completed at that point of destination. Here, it is to be mentioned that the loads are also shared by the armed forces personnel.
35. Schoolteachers, pupils and officials of the administration in general are exempted and have never been used as porters in Bago Division.
36. Translations of the statements made by the individuals concerned are attached together with photographs.
37. Moreover, porters have to serve only for a certain period of time for a specific assignment and yet this would mean a considerable amount of earnings to support their families. Porters are never exposed to any danger. They, together with the provisions, have been placed in safe areas during actions with the enemies.
38. However, there have been very few cases of accidents caused to the porters, not directly related to armed clashes. In case of injury and sickness, porters enjoy first-aid medical care, the same as soldiers. If ever there are cases of serious illness or injury, the affected person is transported immediately to the nearest hospital by any available means. In such cases of injury and death, porters and their dependants are entitled to realize compensation in accordance with provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923 which is still in force.
39. Porters include single and married adult males who are healthy and strong enough to work for manual/physical labour. Women are never employed for such work.
40. In reply to the alleged violations of Convention No. 29, the Government indicates, with regard to Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, that the term "forced labour" is not applicable to Myanmar based on the fact that voluntary contribution of labour for community development efforts should not necessarily be considered as "forced labour". The Government has not failed to suppress forced labour as alleged because there is no such practice whatsoever in Myanmar. In taking an overview of whether a member country adheres to the provisions of the Convention, it is vital to take into account the cultural heritage of its member States. Only then, the soul of the Convention will be able to withstand the test of time.
41. Referring to the conditions and guarantees of Articles 8 to 16, 18, 23, 24 of the Convention as well as to Article 25, the Government adds that:
-- The use of voluntary labour, alleged compulsory or forced labour, is made only for the urgent necessity in accordance with the following provisions: (a) section 8(1)(g)(n) and (o) of the Village Act (1908); (b) section 9(b) of the Towns Act. According to these provisions only the local highest civil authorities are vested with power for necessary recruitment of any form of voluntary labour. Such recruitment is done only for the betterment of the community itself under the supervision of the local authorities concerned. Therefore, it is not practical at all to remove workers from their place of habitual residence.
-- Myanmar's practices of voluntary labour (alleged forced labour) satisfy the conditions mentioned in Article 9.
-- There is no "forced or compulsory labour" exacted as tax. Moreover, the allegations made do not apply in any case relating to the provisions of Article 10.
-- As for Article 11, only able-bodied adults are permitted to contribute voluntary labour in community development programmes. There is no forced labour of any form in the country. Even in the case of porters, recruitment is done only for urgent unexpected requirements. But in any way the recruitment is absolutely voluntary. Porters therefore are not conscripted. Instead they offer their services on their own accord for want of subsistence. Furthermore, they are provided with enough food and medical care during their service, and they all are covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923. (The background international instrument is Convention No. 17.)
-- The aforesaid voluntary labour contribution never exceeds 60 days. If the work is not completed within this period, others who offered their service voluntarily are given their turn. Porters who serve more than once are accepted strictly on a voluntary basis.
-- In community development projects and public works, labour contributors are remunerated on a piece-rate basis so that rest during working time is at their own disposal.
-- Voluntary labour contributors and porters are remunerated. They are being paid at prevailing government wage-rates.
-- The existing Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923 and other relevant rules and regulations are applicable both to voluntary labour and porters.
-- According to the existing practices Article 16 is not applicable.
-- Forced or compulsory labour for the transport of persons or goods, such as the labour of porters or boatmen is not applicable since they never exist and therefore allegations made under Article 18 are not valid.
-- As regards Articles 23, 24 and 25, instruments regulating the use of any form of voluntary labour (alleged forced or compulsory labour) and the relevant measures to guarantee compensation in case of accident and death are in force. These voluntary labour contributors are treated on an equal footing with other workers under respective laws and regulations.
III. The Committee's conclusions
42. In its written statement sent in May 1993, the Government replies, in the first place, to allegations "made in certain quarters that the Myanmar authorities are using forced labour for the construction of railways, roads and bridges". Also, in its detailed statement of October 1993, the Government addresses the issue of "voluntary contribution of labour for community development efforts". The Committee notes that the question of forced labour other than portering in Myanmar has been addressed by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in its observation of 1993 on the application of Convention No. 29 in Myanmar; but the representation made by the ICFTU in January 1993 and submitted for consideration to the present Committee deals only with the use of forced labour by military commanders through the forced recruitment and abuse of porters. The Committee therefore has limited its conclusions to this issue.
43. The Committee notes that the testimony on porterage given by witnesses quoted by the complainant organization conflicts with other testimony quoted by the Government. The Committee notes that the Government has sought, with the assistance of ward and village authorities, to find the witnesses quoted by the complainant organization. It also notes the Government's allegation that these witnesses had spoken under pressure from terrorist groups. The Committee likewise notes the view of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission of Human Rights, in his report of February 1993 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, "that serious oppression and an atmosphere of pervasive fear exist in Myanmar" (UN doc. E/CN.4/1993/37, paragraph 241). The Committee furthermore has taken note of the note verbale dated 26 February 1993 from the Permanent Representative of Myanmar to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the Secretary-General (UN doc. E/CN.4/1993/105) which rebutted a number of statements made by the Special Rapporteur in his report. The Committee, unlike a commission of inquiry, is not in a position to organize its own fact-finding on the basis of a direct hearing of witnesses. In view of the circumstances mentioned above, the Committee has abstained from using the individual testimonies referred to by the two sides in making its evaluation of the observance of the Convention by the Government.
44. The Government has indicated that the recruitment of porters is made in accordance with section 8, subsection 1(g)(n) and (o) of the Village Act (1908) and section 7, subsection 1(m) and section 9, subsection (b) of the Towns Act.
45. The relevant provisions of section 8(1) of the Village Act (1908) have been appended by the Government as annexure M to its detailed statement of October 1993 in the following wording:
Every headman shall be bound to perform the following public duties, namely:
(g) to collect and furnish, upon receipt of payment for the same at such rates as the Deputy Commissioner may fix, guides, messengers, porters, supplies of food, carriage and means of transport for any troops or police posted in or near or marching through the village-tract or for any servant of the Government travelling on duty: provided that no headman shall requisition for personal service any resident of such village-tract who is not of the labouring class and accustomed to do such work as may be required;
(n) generally to assist all officers of the Government in the execution of their public duties; and
(o) generally to adopt such measures and do such acts as the exigency of the village may require.
Section 7(1)(m) of the Towns Act (1907) corresponds to section 8(1)(n) of the Village Act (1908) and is also preceded by a proviso "that no headman shall requisition for personal service any resident of such ward who is not of the labouring class and accustomed to do such work as may be required."
46. The Committee also notes that, under section 11(d) of the Village Act:
Every person residing in a village-tract shall be bound to perform the following public duties, namely:
...
(d) on the requisition of the headman or of a rural policeman, to assist him in the execution of his duties prescribed in sections 7 and 8 of the Act and the rules made under the Act.
Explanation. -- A requisition under clause (d) may be either general or addressed to an individual.
Under section 12 of the same Act:
If any person residing in a village-tract refuses or neglects to perform public duties -- imposed upon him by this Act or by any rule thereunder, he shall, in the absence of reasonable excuse, the burden of proving which shall lie upon him, be liable --
(i) by order of the headman, to fine ..., or
(ii) by order of the village committee, on the case being referred to it by the headman, to fine ..., or to confinement for a term not exceeding 48 hours in such place as the Deputy Commissioner may appoint in this behalf, or to both, or
(iii) on conviction by a Magistrate, to fine ..., or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to both.
47. Similarly, section 9(b) of the Towns Act (1907) provides that:
Persons residing in a ward shall be bound to perform the following public duties, namely: ... (b) on a general or individual requisition of the headman to assist him in the execution of his public duties.
Section 9A of the same Act provides that:
If any person residing in a ward refuses neglects to perform any of the public duties imposed upon him by this Act or any rule thereunder, he shall, in the absence of reasonable excuse, the burden of proving which shall lie upon him, be liable, on conviction by a magistrate, to a fine ...
48. The Committee notes that the above-mentioned sections of the Village Act and the Towns Act provide for the exaction of labour and services, in particular porterage service, under the menace of a penalty from residents who have not offered themselves voluntarily, that is, the exaction of forced or compulsory labour as defined in Article 2(1) of the Convention. Consequently, amendment or repeal of these provisions has been called for by the Committee of Experts for the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in comments regularly addressed to the Government since 1964.
49. In the statements submitted by the Government to the Committee there are no elements which would allow a different approach. In particular, while stressing the need "to take into account the cultural heritage of member States" with regard to Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, the Government has supplied no indications that would bring compulsory porterage within the scope of one of the exceptions provided for in Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
50. Similarly, the transitional period envisaged in Article 1(2) of the Convention and subsidiarily examined in the representation by the complainant organization has not been invoked by the Government; this is in line with the position taken by the Government in its reports submitted under article 22 of the Constitution on the application of the Convention, where the Government has indicated ever since 1967 that the authorities no longer exercised the power vested in them under the provisions in question of the Village Act and Towns Act, which were established under colonial rule and which did not meet the standard and the needs of the country's new social order; according to the Government, these provisions were obsolete and soon to be repealed. The Committee considers that this should now be done.
51. Since there is no question any more of a transitional period, there is no need for the Committee to consider compulsory porterage in Myanmar in the light of the conditions and guarantees which had been laid down in Articles 8 to 16, 18, 23 and 24 of the Convention for the employment of forced or compulsory labour during the transitional period.
52. Article 25 of the Convention requires that the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour shall be punishable as a penal offence, and the Government is to ensure that the penalties imposed by law are really adequate and are strictly enforced. The formal repeal of the powers to impose compulsory labour under the Villages Act and Towns Act will thus have to be followed up in actual practice with penal prosecution of those resorting to coercion. This appears all the more important since the blurring of the borderline between compulsory and voluntary labour, recurrent throughout the Government's statements to the Committee, is all the more likely to occur also in actual recruitment by local or military officials.
IV. The Committees' recommendations
53. The Committee recommends the Governing Body:
(a) to approve the present report and, in particular, the conclusions set out in paragraphs 48 to 50, namely, that the exaction of labour and services, in particular porterage service, under the Village Act and the Towns Act is contrary to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), ratified by the Government of Myanmar in 1955;
(b) to urge the Government of Myanmar, bearing in mind the conclusions set out in paragraphs 50 and 52, to take the necessary steps:
(i) to ensure that the relevant legislative texts, in particular the Village Act and the Towns Act, are brought into line with the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), as already requested by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations;
(ii) to ensure that the formal repeal of the powers to impose compulsory labour be followed up in actual practice and that those resorting to coercion in the recruitment of labour be punished;
(c) to request the Government of Myanmar to include in the reports it supplies under article 22 of the Constitution on the application of Convention No. 29 full information on the measures taken, in accordance with the recommendations made above, to secure observance of the Convention, so as to enable the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to follow the matter;
(d) to declare the closure of the procedure initiated as a result of the representation in question.
Endnote 1
GB.255/12/8.