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

SPDC REPLIES TO ILO DG (r)



        burmanet2-l@xxxxxxxx, MAYKHA-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 
        burma-open-forum-list@xxxxxxx 
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by igcb.igc.org id UAA00091
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
X-Sender: strider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


MORE FUN STUFF FROM THE STATE PANTO(MIME) AND DRAMA CLUB

On 8 and 9 June, the SPDC delegate gave a rousing performance before the ILO
Committee on the Application of Standards, which departed from its somber norm
and broke into laughter at some of his jokes. I'll put the transcripts on the
net in a few days, so you can all share in the merriment.  


In the meantime, here is another rib-tickling document, the Club's replies to
the ILO Director-General's report of 21 May (posted on the nets the same day,
and on the ILO website at:

<http://www.ilo.org/public/english/20gb/docs/gb274/dg-myanm.htm>http://www.
ilo.org/public/english/20gb/docs/gb274/dg-myanm.htm


The jokes begin early in the text, with such beauties as:

"It has been a consistent policy of successive governments of Myanmar to
promote the welfare of labour" and

"Myanmar is determined to build a society where peace and prosperity prevail
and where rights of women and children are given all the encouragement and
protection which they rightly deserve".


Further down, the SPDC, having said how good it is at building bridges etc.
and
indulged in a bit of culturally relative philosophising refers to the ILO
Commission of Inquiry into forced labour in Myanmar (Burma) and states that
the
Commission:  

"based on reports of certain terrorist organizations, both inside and outside
Myanmar, and also on information given by certain other sources, came up with
recommendations in July 1998 ..." 

In fact, the Commission of Inquiry, made up of two former Chief Justices and
another senior jurist, carried out what is probably the most thorough,
well-documented and legally meticulous inquiry ever conducted by the ILO. They
spent a couple of years and received more than 9,000 pages of written evidence
from governments, UN agencies, international human rights and trade union
organisations, as well as the organisations of various ethnic groups in Burma.
They held quasi-judicial hearings in Geneva, inviting experts and direct
witnesses to give testimony. The Club was invited to these hearings, but to
the
disappointment of the distinguished lovers of a good show, did not turn up.
Then the Commission went on the road, and interviewed 246 witnesses in the
region round Burma, also in judicially meticulous conditions. Once more the
Commission of Inquiry was disappointed, this time at the Club's refusal to
allow them to visit the country and be shown the "truth". Then, based on this
massive body of evidence, the Commission wrote their very thorough report
(accessible on the ILO website at:

<http://www.ilo.org/public/english/20gb/docs/gb273/myanmar.htm>http://www.i
lo.org/public/english/20gb/docs/gb273/myanmar.htm


Where one can see for oneself what proportion of the evidence was from
"terrorist" groups.


I will not be so heavy-handed as to point out all the shifts of mood, from
bombastic to querulous to (at the end) almost threatening, or all the gems
that
await below; but I couldn't resist this one:

"In Myanmar's legal system, the State Peace and Development Council is the
Legislature of Myanmar." 

Here, the pantomime reaches a supreme level of acrobatic skill as the SPDC, an
over-staying martial-law administration, attempts to pull itself up by
bootstraps of its own peculiar invention and do an elaborate double back-flip
somersault to establish itself as the Legislature (the People's Assembly, or
Pyithu Hluttaw, elected in 1990, but not allowed to convene). This
identification of the State Panto and Drama Club with the body of elected
representatives is an acrobatical tour de force worthy of the great zen
exponents of paradoxical logic, or even that arch-deconstructionist,
Nagarjuna.
But wait a moment -- isn't that way out of the court of Theravada orthodoxy?
Mightn't it be heresy, with disastrous implications for future lives?

 ...Be that as it may, to cap it all, and despite the statement in the
canonical
Announcement 1/90 that:

(para 6) "The [SLORC] (Tatmadaw) is not an organization that observes any
constitution; it is an organization that is governing the nation by Martial
Law. It is common knowledge that the [SLORC] is governing the nation as a
military government...",

the Club now states that Myanmar is a country under constitutional law:

"...As in all other countries under constitutional law...". 

(Grammatically, it's the "other" that includes Myanmar among those happy
countries)

This is true, of course. Given that according to the 1974 Constitution, only
the Pyithu Hluttaw can supend, amend or annul the Constitution, or indeed
enact
any form of legislation, SLORC/SPDC's claim to have dissolved it is
meaningless, and its various acts of "legislation" illegal. 

***********************

Now back to serious business:


INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE C. App./D.8
 
87th Session, Geneva, June 1999


Committee on the Application of Standards


Replies to observations of the Committee of Experts
and other information supplied by governments


Mayanmar (sic): Convention No. 29

Myanmar

Convention No. 29: Forced Labour, 1930

Myanmar (ratification: 1955). The Government has supplied the following
information.

   The Permanent Mission of the Union of Myanmar to the United Nations Office
and other international organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to
the
ILO, and with reference to the Report of the Director-General to the
members of
the Governing Body on measures taken by the Government of Myanmar following
the
recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine its
observance of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), dated 21 May 1999,
has the honour to attach herewith a Memorandum in response to the
abovementioned Report.

   The Permanent Mission of the Union of Myanmar would like to request that
this Memorandum be treated as an official document in response to the
Director-General's Report for use in any proceedings of the Governing Body and
other relevant meetings.

   Myanmar became a Member of the ILO a few months after its independence in
1948. As a responsible Member it has a long record of cooperation with the ILO
and had settled several issues in the best spirit of cooperation.

   It has been a consistent policy of successive governments of Myanmar to
promote the welfare of labour. Myanmar is determined to build a society where
peace and prosperity prevail and where rights of women and children are given
all the encouragement and protection which they rightly deserve.

   From around 1990 allegations were made to the effect that there is use of
forced labour in Myanmar. Myanmar strongly feels that these allegations were
largely the result of misconceptions and misunderstandings of the situation
and
the mentality of the Myanmar people.

   Since a sound infrastructure is essential for economic development, the
Government of Myanmar has placed special emphasis on this sector. Hence, a
substantial effort to improve the infrastructure of the country's economy by
building roads, bridges, dams and reservoirs has been undertaken. Realizing
the
benefits to the country from these projects, people have traditionally
contributed labour so that they can be completed sooner. Moreover, it is
Myanmar's thinking that "you reap what you sow before death in the present
world or in the future cycles of life".

   This is the background thinking of our people, and without understanding of
these facts people tend to make all kinds of false allegations.

   International organizations must not be used as forums to put pressure on
member States by the powerful and influential quarters as a means to achieve
their political objectives.

   However, as stated earlier, since the early 1990s, Myanmar has been the
subject of political pressure from some quarters who do not understand the
reality in Myanmar. They tend to act largely on information from
anti-government elements. They are making these politically motivated
allegations to tarnish the image of the Government using every opportunity
including various international fora.

   In a move to further apply political pressure on Myanmar the
anti-government
elements succeeded through false allegations in persuading a few members of
the
Workers' group to file a complaint against Myanmar under article 26 of the ILO
Constitution. This resulted in the formation of the Commission of Inquiry in
1996. Myanmar on the other hand very firmly stood up against such allegations.
However, the Commission, based on reports of certain terrorist organizations,
both inside and outside Myanmar, and also on information given by certain
other
sources, came up with recommendations in July 1998 that:

(1) Myanmar must bring the Village Act, 1907, and Towns Act, 1907, in line
with
the forced labour Convention namely: Convention No. 29 of 1930. Certain
provisions of this law are also to be put in line with the Convention;

(2) to take measures to stop current practice through public acts and make
them
public and not through secret directives;

(3) to enforce penalties upon offenders for extraction of forced or compulsory
labour.

   As we have said earlier, Myanmar is building a modern nation and a society
where peace and prosperity shall prevail. In this process, Myanmar does
realize
that these recommendations were based on false allegations. But with the
spirit
of cooperation, goodwill and sincerity towards the ILO, it never rejected
these
recommendations. Furthermore, it is in the process of revising on its own
independent sovereign right old laws that are not in conformity with the
present situation. Under public international law, it has every right to
perform this task on its own.
   
   Myanmar finds that these recommendations were not too difficult to
accommodate. But at the same time, one must take into account that Myanmar is
inhabited by some 135 national races, with a changing economic system.

   Thus, when Myanmar received the recommendations and the report of the
Commission it made several communications to the ILO which shows that these
recommendations were not neglected. As evidence, these communications are:
letters dated 23 September 1998, 4 February 1999, 18 February 1999, 12 May
1999
and 18 May 1999.

   The fact remains on record that in the letter dated 23 September 1998, the
Ministry of Labour said, "We do not see any difficulty in implementing the
recommendations contained in paragraph 539 of the report".

   True to its word, Myanmar firmly acted in accordance with its legal system
and acted in accordance with the law of the land.

   The recommendations made by the Commission were: firstly, that the Village
Act and Towns Act be brought in line with Convention No. 29. The essence of
the
recommendation "brought in line" is in the domain of Convention No. 29. But on
the other hand, it is the domain of national law or municipal law as to how to
put into effect the provisions of the Convention which is not in the domain of
the Convention. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that legal
systems of
the world differ from State to State. One legal system in a State cannot be
the
same with the system of another. The modus operandi for putting in effect the
essence of the Convention into national law might be different between two
States.

   Myanmar in its own legal system has on 14 May 1999 put a "stop" to the
offending provisions of the above two laws through an Order from the
Legislature to the ministry concerned not to exercise powers for the offending
provisions under these two laws. In Myanmar's legal system, the State Peace
and
Development Council is the Legislature of Myanmar. As in all other countries
under constitutional law, it is above the Executive. Executive encompasses the
various ministries which includes the Ministry of Home Affairs, which
implement
these two laws. The Memorandum of the State Peace and Development Council was
issued on 14 May 1999 and under it the Ministry of Home Affairs issued Order
No. 1/99 of 14 May 1999 ordering all implementing authorities not to exercise
powers under Towns Act, section 7, subsection (1)(L) and (m), and section 9
and
9A, and similarly in the Village Act, section 8, subsection (1)(g), (n) and
(o), and section 11(d) and section 12. This Order has the force of law to stop
all implementing authorities from exercising the offending powers of these
provisions.

   Thus, under our legal system this measure is taken in compliance with the
related recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry.

   The second recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry stipulates that the
Order be made public. The Order has been made public and distributed
immediately to 16 authorities. Besides this step, it will be published in the
Myanmar Gazette where all laws are published. There is complete transparency.
For the sake of the record, it has been circulated for action to the following
16 authorities:

1. Office of the Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council.

2. Office of the State Peace and Development Council.

3. Office of the Government.

4. Supreme Court.

5. Office of the Attorney-General.

6. Office of the Auditor-General.

7. Public Services Selection and Training Board.

8. All ministries.

9. Director-General, Department of General Administration (forwarded
for                                    
information and further circulation of the copy of this Order to the
State,                                                                      
                             visional, district and township administrative
officers subordinate to him).

10. Police Major General, Myanmar Police Force (forwarded for information and
for further circulation of the copy of this Order to the relevant departments
and organizations subordinate to him).

11. Director-General, Bureau of Special Investigation.

12. Director-General, Prisons Department.

13. All State and Divisional Peace and Development Councils.

14. All District Peace and Development Councils.

15. All Township Peace and Development Councils (forwarded for information
and 
for further circulation of the copy of this Order to the Chairman of
the                                  Ward and Village Tract Peace and
Development Councils subordinate to him).

15. Managing Director, Printing and Publishing Enterprise (with a request for 
publication in the Myanmar Gazette).

   Thus Myanmar firmly believes that the second recommendation is fully
complied with.

   The third recommendation says that penalties should be imposed for persons
under section 374 of the Penal Code for transgression. It is pertinent to draw
attention to paragraph 6 of the above-mentioned Order which reads: "any person
who fails to abide by this Order shall have action taken against him under
existing laws". This is beyond all reasonable doubt that offenders will be
punished under section 374 of the Penal Code which is enacted as follows:


Unlawful compulsory labour

374. Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that
person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

   Despite these positive actions and steps taken decisively and
effectively by
the Government, the ILO office on 21 May 1999 issued the "Report of the
Director-General to the members of the Governing Body on measures taken by the
Government of Myanmar following the recommendations of the Commission of
Inquiry established to examine its observance of the Forced Labour Convention,
1930" that:

(1) the Village and Towns Act had not been "amended";

(2) in actual practice, forced or compulsory labour continues to be imposed
in                   a widespread manner;

(3) no action appears to be have been taken under section 374 of the
Penal                Code to punish those extracting forced labour.

 The facts of the report are inaccurate. The alleged facts mentioned in the
report are based on allegations supposed to have taken place prior to 14 May
1999. Not a single allegation is found after the Order of 14 May 1999 was
issued. Thus, in legal language, one can say of this situation that "things
speak for themselves". If there be any alleged acts that supposedly took place
after 14 May 1999, the authorities should be directly informed of such
allegations.

   Myanmar on the other hand continues to be objective and steadfast in its
course of building a modern nation where peace and prosperity prevails, taking
into account the circumstances as they stand today. Moreover, Myanmar is in
the
process of making a new Constitution, when after its completion, all laws will
be adjusted to meet the requirements of a modern nation.

   Meanwhile, Myanmar takes the spirit that it has "charity towards all and
malice towards none". There is a saying in law that justice must not only be
done but must also be seen to be done. Justice must also be fair. Thus,
Myanmar
appeals to all Members of the ILO to understand the true facts and seek your
help to support it in the discussions at the ILC.


Observations and conclusions

   The most pertinent observations to be made of the report of the ILO Office
dated 21 May 1999 are on the three negative points contained in paragraph 61.
Although these three points have been adequately countered and addressed in
Order No. 1/99 dated 14 May 1999 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the
Government of the Union of Myanmar, which is the Order Directing Not to
Exercise Powers Under Certain Provisions of the Towns Act, 1907, and the
Village Act, 1907, the explanations given in Order 1/99 have not been
mentioned
in the Director-General's Report, except for the fact that Order 1/99 was
simply annexed as Appendix III to the Report.

   It may be recalled that in an earlier communication from the
Director-General of the ILO, some deadlines had been mentioned for a response
to be received from the Myanmar side. Please note that Order 1/99 was
issued on
14 May 1999 which, inter alia, specifically orders that the offending
paragraphs of the Village Act, 1907, and Towns Act, 1907, not be exercised;
that any and all unpaid labour or compulsory labour be terminated henceforth;
that any person who fails to abide by this Order have action taken against
him;
that Order 1/99 is not a secret order but is circulated to all government
ministries among others; that it be publicly and openly published in the
Myanmar Gazette for all to see, complies with all recommendations of the
Commission of Inquiry.

   Hence, it can be seen that Myanmar had adequately and specifically taken
action to respond to, and to rectify the provisions of the Village and Towns
Acts, and also taken additional measures as called for in the recommendations
of the Commission of Inquiry. All this had been done in a timely manner.

   But the question arises as to why such action taken by the Myanmar
authorities was not reflected in the Director-General's Report, which, as a
result led to the three negative observations as seen in paragraph 61 of the
Report.

   The answer would seem to be that Order 1/99 was issued only on 14 May,
which
was only five working days away from the 21 May deadline. It may be concluded
that time constraints prevented any examination of this Order and compelled
the
drafters of this Report to only affix it to the Report as Appendix III.

   But nevertheless, this time constraint cannot be used as an argument to the
effect that Myanmar had not complied with the recommendations.

   The Report in question contains oversights and omissions as stated above.
Furthermore, the following additional observations and conclusions can be
found.
The Report is full of unfounded and biased charges deliberately levelled at
Myanmar and the Myanmar Government.

   The alleged facts in this Report are manifestly false accusations concocted
with evil intent to bring about the destruction of Myanmar by Myanmar
expatriate organizations abroad and renegade groups that oppose all measures
undertaken by the Myanmar Government. They are also based on blatantly false
accusations made verbally, in writing and in the form of announcements by the
National League for Democracy (NLD), whose only aim is to create difficulties
for the Government to place it in an untenable position.

   At present the Government is implementing construction projects with
systematic planning and proper budget appropriations. Moreover most of the
work
being done on these projects is through the use of mechanized implements and
machinery. In any project where human labour has to be unavoidably employed,
there is a budget allotment for payment of wages to the workers. Any worker so
employed is paid fair wages and there is not a single instance or a shred of
evidence that forced labour is being used in these projects.

   Work on the highways under construction in various regions, including the
union highway in the Shan State, and new railroads being laid, are being done
by servicemen of the armed forces. There is not a single civilian working on
them.

   Any jobs in which the people are involved are confined to the digging of
small irrigation ditches to convey water to their own private cultivation
plots. The larger state projects for the building of irrigation canals and
dams
do not use forced or conscripted labour of civilians. As stated, if people are
at work at all, they are working in their own interest and according to their
own plans and schedules on their privately owned plots of land.

   State construction projects employ only military servicemen. So the
accusation that the Government is using forced labour on these projects is
baseless and flagrantly false. Since only members of the armed forces are
employed in the construction of rail and motor roads, to say that forced
labour
is being used is utterly meaningless.

   Other ongoing projects such as the reclamation of vacant and fallow lands
and the construction of residential housing and hotels are all ventures by
private entrepreneurs who have made capital investments. The use of forced
labour in such cases is totally out of the question. In fact when incidents
arise over labour grievances, the Government stands firmly on the side of the
workers in settling such disputes.
   
   Concerning the charge that the army conscripts porters in its military
operations, it could be said that this was the practice in former times when
the insurgencies were rampant. But the fact remains that these porters were
always paid and the defence budget always had an allotment for payment of
their
wages. These porters enjoyed the same rights as a soldier. He was given the
same rations and paid the same wages. Moreover, a porter, if wounded, obtained
equal compensation with a serving soldier and he was entitled to the same
hardship allowances. But this issue of military porters is no longer relevant
and has become a non-issue since military operations are no longer an urgent
necessity.

   The Myanmar Government categorically refutes all the false information
deliberately fed by the NLD.

   An esteemed organization like the ILO should not give credence to
fabricated
news and lies supplied by those who only see Myanmar and the present
Government
through hostile and resentful eyes, and who are moreover bent upon destroying
the country to put the Government in a predicament.

   Finally, it is relevant to reiterate that Myanmar, as a responsible Member
of the ILO, has a long record of cooperation with the ILO, and has in the past
settled issues in a spirit of cooperation. This spirit of cooperation will
continue in the future.

   As examples of this cooperation, Myanmar had signed a considerable
number of
ILO Conventions, including some core Conventions.

   At present the ILO is in the process of inviting and persuading countries
that have not done so, to sign, to ratify or accede to those Conventions that
they had not yet become State parties.

   In this positive atmosphere being created at present by the Members of the
ILO, it would indeed be unfortunate, even counter-productive, to have more and
more ILO Members become State parties to core Conventions, if one Member who
had signed a core Convention, in this case the Union of Myanmar, is singled
out
unfairly and been unduly criticized.

   Such an exercise will no doubt serve as a reminder to those who have not
yet
signed core Conventions to maintain their status quo, and will certainly help
to dissuade them from signing the core Conventions, much to the detriment of
the ILO membership as a whole.


7 June 1999.



Internet ProLink PC User