Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Thailand (RATIFICATION: 1969)

CMNT_TITLE_CAS

A Government representative stated that the Anti-Communist Activities Act of 1952 was adopted to protect the democratic system of the country suitable to its socio-economic development. The penalty of imprisonment in the Act was considered necessary to prevent any activity which would endanger the peace and security of the nation and the people; only those have been imprisoned who were proven to have been engaged in actions to bring about disasters to the nation or the people. Policies Nos. 66/23 and 65/25 were adopted to eliminate conflicts between the pro-communist activists and the Government with a view to creating a peaceful situation in the country; as a result of these measures a great number of pro-communists have surrendered to the Government, which has provided them with help, and the number of pro-communists have decreased considerably. The Act for the Prevention of Desertion or Undue Absence from Merchant Ships has never been promulgated. An investigation will be made to determine the reason for this misunderstanding and the Government will report to the ILO shortly. The Government has never prosecuted any person under sections 131 and 133 of the Labour Relations Act cited by the speaker. Section 117 of the Penal Code of Thailand, the aim of which is to ensure the security within the Kingdom, is used in practice in respect of persons whose intentions are to overthrow the Government unconstitutionally. Concerning the prohibition of strikes and similar actions in the state enterprises, the Government representative declared that state enterprises are different from private enterprises in structures as well as in purpose as they are state-owned, subsidised, accorded tax exemption and, sometimes, monopoly control. It is necessary for the Government to protect public services whose interruption may affect the economy of the country and cause hardship to the people; hence, the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for any person who stages a strike is an important instrument to prevent damages to the public. However, since the enactment of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act, there has never been a strike. The Government representative corrected the wording of section 45 of the Act which should read as follows: "Any person who incites, or aids and abets the commission of the offence under paragraph 1 shall be liable to twice the penalty prescribed therein".

The Employers' members stated that provisions imposing penalties because of a political opinion constitute a clear violation of the Convention, and that they were in agreement with the Committee of Experts on this point. As to the Act for the Prevention of Desertion from Merchant Ships the Government indicated that the whole of its shipping legislation will be revised and that changes may be expected in this respect. Concerning violation of labour discipline and participation in strikes in certain enterprises, both these actions can be punished with imprisonment or forced labour. On these questions the Experts recalled their restrictive definition of the essential services where prohibition of strikes is acceptable. The Employers' members reiterated their opposition to this criteria both in terms of substance and its sources. One cannot accept that endangering of even only one life should not be considered important or sufficient; why then should the criteria be based on endangering a "part of the population"? It may well be that the Government would want to protect some values, material or not, by restricting the right to strike. As for political strikes, it may well be that the Government wants to suppress certain political activities in this particular way; the governments should not have recourse to such drastic measures to avoid being overthrown. On the other hand, the Employers' members cannot accept that a political strike should be exonerated from all forms of sanctions just because they were called or stamped a simple strike; political strikes did not benefit from any particular protection under the ILO Conventions. Finally, nothing justifies that state enterprises should be treated differently from private enterprises simply because they belong to the State. If there are no other reasons, an absolute prohibition of strikes in the state enterprises is not acceptable.

The Workers' members stated that they were generally in agreement with the Employers' members, pointing out that the Government representative said òthing different from the observations of the Committee of Experts. The speaker stated that the Government had taken either no action or insufficient action with regard to the observations of the Committee of Experts on the anti-communist activities. Certain state enterprises which are referred to here concern services that are obviously not essential: tobacco industry, dairy production, leather-making.

A Government member of Japan underlined that the report of the Committee of Experts this year contained a new element concerning the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act. The Experts are right on this point. This Act should be considered in a wider perspective and, in particular, in relation to the complaints presented in this respect to the Committee on Freedom of Association which note with great concern the numerous and insidious incompatibilities with the principles of freedom of association, including automatic dissolution of existing unions in state enterprises, restriction on the establishment and the functioning of the associations intended to replace them, limitation of the free collective bargaining: the Committee urged the Government to repeal the Act and to restore the position of the trade unions which had been dissolved and to return their assets to them. The speaker expressed strong hope that the Government would take necessary steps to comply with the unanimous recommendation of the Governing Body.

A Workers' member of Pakistan fully supported the view of the previous speakers recalling that the exclusion of the workers of state enterprises from the right to strike constitutes equally a violation of Convention No 87. This was particularly stressed at the Eleventh Asian Regional Conference by the workers who requested the repeal of this Act. The speaker has repeated this demand before the Committee.

The Government representative, thanking the speakers for their interesting observations, declared that account should be taken of the conditions prevailing in her country. The Government will be informed of the discussion in this Committee and a report will be supplied.

A Workers' member of Greece stated that the conclusions of the Committee should be worded in a manner to bind an eventual new Government so that this Committee should not start the debate afresh; all the interventions and the report published by the IFFTU show that the situation in Thailand is far from being brilliant.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government which it considered not to be sufficient. It repeated its view that the abolition of forced labour is a very serious matter. The Committee strongly urged the Government to take, without any delay, all necessary measures to amend the legislation in order to bring it into complete conformity with the Convention and supply full particulars on this legislation to the ILO in the very near future.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Political Parties Act. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to section 95(3) and section 120 of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) may be imposed for using the name, initials or emblem of a political party that has been dissolved by the Constitutional Court, for political activities or to receive any benefit. Pursuant to section 97 and section 120 of the Law, penalties of imprisonment may also be imposed on a person who was previously a member of the Executive Committee of the dissolved political party who, within a period of five years from the date of the dissolution, applies for the formation of a new political party, becomes a member of an Executive Committee of a political party, or promotes a new political party. Section 94 of the Law states that the Constitutional Court may issue an order to dissolve a political party if it has committed one of five acts, including “an act which may be harmful to the democratic regime of the Government with the King as Head of State under the Constitution” (section 94(3)) and “an act, either inside or outside the Kingdom, which may endanger the security of the State, or be contrary to the law, public order, or good morals” (section 94(4)). Recalling that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) as a punishment for holding or expressing political views, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the above-mentioned provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007) into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that an investigation was conducted in 2017 to assess the violations under the Organic Law on Political Parties. It was found that the Constitutional Court had ordered the dissolution of 16 political parties, but no violations under sections 95(3), 97 or 120 were found. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 has been repealed and a new Law has been promulgated in October 2017 to enable individuals the freedom to form political parties through the democratic governance, with the King as Head of State. The Committee notes, however, that the Government does not provide any information on whether the penalties (involving compulsory prison labour) prescribed under sections 95(3), 97 and 120 of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550, have been repealed or replaced or still remain in force. The Committee once again recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) as a punishment for holding or expressing political views and that the prohibition to express political views as a consequence of the prohibition of political parties or associations (subject to penalties involving compulsory labour) is incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 307). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the penalties prescribed for the violations of sections 95(3), 97 and 120 of the 2017 Organic Law on Political Parties include imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline and for participation in strikes. The Labour Relations Act and the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to sections 131–133 of the Labour Relations Act BE 2518 (1975) (LRA of 1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employer or employee who violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, 19, 22–24, and 35(4) of the Act. The Committee observed that such provisions were contrary to the provisions of the Convention in providing for sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee also noted that both the LRA and the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act BE 2543 (2000) (SELRA) contain provisions permitting the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for participation in strikes. Pursuant to the LRA, penalties of imprisonment may be imposed if: (i) the minister orders the strikers to return to work, being of the opinion that the strike may affect the national economy or cause hardship to the public or endanger national security or be contrary to public order (section 140 read in conjunction with section 35(2)); and (ii) the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee, or a decision has been given by the minister or the Labour Relations Committee (pursuant to section 139 read in conjunction with section 34(5)). SELRA prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), and a violation of this prohibition is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to one year. This penalty is doubled in the case of a person who instigates this offence (section 77). The Committee noted the Government’s statement that sections 131–133 and sections 139 and 140 of the LRA, as well as sections 33 and 77 of SELRA were being repealed. The Government indicated that the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, under the Ministry of Labour, was responsible for this task, and a draft amendment had been developed that did not contain penalties of imprisonment. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the draft revision of the LRA, repealing sections 131–133 and sections 139 and 140, and the draft revision of SELRA, repealing sections 33 and 37, would be adopted in the near future.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Working Group on Labour Relations Draft Legislation, a tripartite working group under the Department of Welfare and Labour Protection and the Ministry of Labour has proposed the following amendments to the LRA of 1975:

• -exercising the right of employers to lock out and employees to go on strike under section 34 shall not be punishable as per section 139;
• -the penalties laid down under section 140 shall be revised and no penalties shall be imposed for the offences laid down under section 35 (2).

With regard to sections 131 to 133 of the LRA, the tripartite working group pointed out that the provisions were intended to enforce compliance by employers of the terms of employment agreed upon with the employees and that the law does not intend to penalize employees. No employee has ever been prosecuted so far for violating this provision.

The Committee further notes that with regard to the provisions of SELRA, the Working Group proposed amendments to section 33, thereby cancelling the sanctions laid down for violations related to strikes. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the proposed amendments to sections 139 and 140 of the LRA of 1975 and section 33 of SELRA which cancel the penalties for the violations related to participation in strikes under sections 34 and 35(2) of the LRA will be adopted in the near future. It requests the Government to continue providing information on any progress made in this regard.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. Criminal Code. For a number of years the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). It previously noted the Government’s indication that this section had not been applied in practice. It also noted the Government’s statement that the elements of criminal liability in section 117 concern a strike, lockout or cessation of trade or business that aims to bring about a change in the laws of the country or coerce the Government to act in a way which would suspend its administration. The Government reiterated that this provision is not related to restrictions on freedom of association regarding social and economic benefits of workers in their work. The Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal section 117 of the Criminal Code, to ensure that no sanction of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for peaceful participation in strikes.

The Committee once again notes that the Government, while acknowledging the Committee’s concerns on this issue, reaffirms that, section 117 does not apply to a strike, lockout or concerted cessation of trade or business with any person in general. It is only strictly applicable to the act of bringing about any change in the law of the country, for political purposes, or for political bargaining, such as a strike to demand the change of a government or to intimidate the Government or the public to initiate a specific action by threats or use of force. The provision is not intended to deprive freedom of expression but to maintain stability and public order in the country. The Government further indicates that this provision has not been applied in practice. Taking note of the Government’s statement, the Committee must once again recall that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits recourse to sanctions involving any form of compulsory labour “as a punishment for having participated in strikes”. In this connection, the Committee also recalls the principle laid down under paragraph 315 of the 2012 General Survey on fundamental Conventions that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes. Observing that the Committee has been raising this issue for over two decades, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal section 117 of the Criminal Code, to ensure that no sanction of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for peaceful participation in strikes. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken in this regard.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Over a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to section 112 of the Criminal Code under which whoever defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir apparent or the regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to 15 years, as well as sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act of 2007 that prohibit the use of a computer to commit an offence under the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning national security (including section 112 of the Criminal Code), with a possible sanction of five years’ imprisonment. The Committee noted that under the Penitentiary Act BE 2479 (1936), penalties of imprisonment involve an obligation to perform prison labour. The Committee observed that in its 2017 Concluding observations the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) was concerned that criticism and dissension regarding the royal family is punishable with a sentence of three to 15 years’ imprisonment, about reports of a sharp increase in the number of people detained and prosecuted for the crime of lèse-majesté since the military coup and about extreme sentencing practices, which resulted in dozens of years of imprisonment in some cases (CCPR/C/THA/CO/2, paragraph 37). The HRC was also concerned about reports of the severe and arbitrary restrictions imposed on the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the state party’s legislation, including in the Criminal Code and the Computer Crimes Act. The HRC further expressed concern about criminal proceedings, especially criminal defamation charges, brought against human rights defenders, activists, journalists and other individuals under the above-mentioned legislation, and about reports of the suppression of debate and campaigning, and criminal charges against individuals during the run-up to the constitutional referendum in 2016. The Committee noted with deep concern that the penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour, contained in the Penitentiary Act of 1936, were retained under the 2017 amendments to the same Act. The Committee therefore urged the Government to take all necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views or views opposed to the established system.

The Committee notes the explanation provided by the Government in its report that the lèse-majesté offence, which relates to the security of the Kingdom under section 112 of the Criminal Code, is intended to protect the king, the queen, the heir apparent and the regent from defamation, insults or threats in the same way as defamation law for citizen. These provisions maintain stability and order without any intention to impede freedom of expression. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the provisions under section 112 of the Criminal Code and sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act shall be considered as a criminal offence only if they are constituted by the following elements namely: (i) an offender has committed an act defaming, insulting or threatening; (ii) the act is committed against the king, the queen, the heir apparent or the regent; and (iii) the act is intentional. The Government further refers to the amendments made in 2017 to sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crime Act of 2007. According to these amendments, section 14 makes it an offence to dishonestly or fraudulently convey a distorted or fake or false data through the computer system which may cause damage to the people, or to the national security, public safety, national economic security or infrastructure, or an offence relating to terrorism, or data involving obscene materials that the general public may have access. This offence shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine. According to section 15, any service provider who cooperates or consents to the offences committed under section 14 shall be liable to the same penalty. The Government states that if the service provider complies with the notification issued by the Minister prescribing the suspension on dissemination of that particular data and removal of that data from the computer system, they shall not be liable to any punishment.

The Committee finally notes the Government’s information that the Corrections Act BE 2560 (2017) which repeals the Penitentiary Act of 1936, does not have any provision that imposes compulsory labour for prison sentences. According to the Government’s report, the Department of Corrections has measures to ensure that prisoners can choose to work voluntarily. However, the Committee notes that section 48 of the Corrections Act of 2017 requires prisoners to comply with the orders of prison officials to work in certain prison functions relevant to the prisoner’s physical and mental aptitude, gender and status as well as the desire to improve inmates’ behaviour and the security and specific characteristics of a prison.

The Committee recalls that restriction on fundamental rights and liberties, including freedom of expression, have a bearing on the application of the Convention if such restrictions are enforced by sanctions involving compulsory prison labour. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that legal guarantees of the rights to freedom of thought and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, as well as freedom from arbitrary arrest, constitute an important safeguard against the imposition of compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political or ideological views, or as a means of political coercion or education (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 302). The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take immediate measures to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views opposed to the established system, both in law and in practice. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that section 112 of the Criminal Code is amended, by clearly restricting the scope of these provisions to acts of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing or replacing sanctions involving compulsory labour with other kinds of sanctions (e.g. fines) in order to ensure that no form of compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) may be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or oppositions to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act 2007, including court decisions issued under these sections, indicating in particular the facts that gave rise to the convictions and the sanctions applied.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments initially made in 2016.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Political Parties Act. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to section 95(3) and section 120 of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550, a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for using the name, initials or emblem of a political party that has been dissolved by the Constitutional Court, for political activities or to receive any benefit. Pursuant to section 97 and section 120 of the Law, penalties of imprisonment may also be imposed on a person who was previously a member of the Executive Committee of the dissolved political party who, within a period of five years from the date of the dissolution, applies for the formation of a new political party, becomes a member of an Executive Committee of a political party, or promotes a new political party. Section 94 of the Law states that the Constitutional Court may issue an order to dissolve a political party if it has committed one of five acts, including “an act which may be harmful to the democratic regime of the Government with the King as Head of State under the Constitution” (section 94(3)) and “an act, either inside or outside the Kingdom, which may endanger the security of the State, or be contrary to the law, public order, or good morals” (section 94(4)).

The Committee once again recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. With reference to paragraph 307 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee recalls that the prohibition to express political views as a consequence of the prohibition of political parties or associations (subject to penalties involving compulsory labour) is incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention. Noting an absence of information on this point in the Government’s report, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), into conformity with the Convention, to ensure that no penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for the holding or expression of political views. Pending the adoption of such amendments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the Organic Law on Political Parties, particularly whether any political parties have been dissolved by order of the Constitutional Court (pursuant to section 94) and whether any penalties of imprisonment have been imposed pursuant to this Act.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline and for participation in strikes. The Labour Relations Act and the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to sections 131–133 of the Labour Relations Act BE 2518 (1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, 22–24, 29 and 35(4) of the Act. The Committee observed that such provisions were contrary to the provisions of the Convention in providing for sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee also noted that both the Labour Relations Act and the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act BE 2543 (2000) (SELRA) contain provisions permitting the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for participation in strikes. Pursuant to the Labour Relations Act, penalties of imprisonment may be imposed if: (i) the minister orders the strikers to return to work, being of the opinion that the strike may affect the national economy or cause hardship to the public or endanger national security or be contrary to public order (section 140 read in conjunction with section 35(2)); and (ii) the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee, or a decision has been given by the minister or the Labour Relations Committee (pursuant to section 139 read in conjunction with section 34(5)). The SELRA prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), and a violation of this prohibition is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to one year.

The Committee noted the Government’s statement that it has made progress with regard to repealing sections 131–133 and sections 139 and 140 of the Labour Relations Act, as well as repealing sections 33 and 77 of the SELRA. The Government indicates that the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, under the Ministry of Labour, is responsible for this task, and a draft amendment has been developed that does not contain penalties of imprisonment. This draft has been submitted to the Office of the Council of State for its consideration, and the process to amend the Labour Relations Act will resume when Parliament is reconvened. The Committee noted the statement of the NCTL, indicating that it supports the repeal of these penalties of imprisonment under the SELRA and the Labour Relations Act, and requesting the Government to submit draft amendments to Parliament the next time it sits. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the draft revision of the Labour Relations Act, repealing sections 131–133 and sections 139 and 140, and the draft revision of the SELRA, repealing sections 33 and 37, are adopted in the near future, to ensure that sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) cannot be imposed as a means of labour discipline or for the peaceful participation in a strike. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on progress made in this regard, in its next report.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. Criminal Code. For a number of years the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). It previously noted the Government’s indication that this section had not been applied in practice.

The Committee once again noted the Government’s statement that, while acknowledging the Committee’s concerns, the elements of criminal liability in section 117 concern a strike, lockout or cessation of trade or business that aims to bring about a change in the laws of the country or coerce the Government to act in a way which would suspend its administration. The Government reiterated that this provision is not related to restrictions on freedom of association regarding social and economic benefits of workers in their work. Taking note of the Government’s statement, the Committee must once again recall that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits recourse to sanctions involving any form of compulsory labour “as a punishment for having participated in strikes”. In this connection, the Committee points out that organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general. Observing that the Committee has been raising this issue for over two decades, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal section 117 of the Criminal Code, to ensure that no sanction of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for peaceful participation in strikes. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 117 of the Criminal Code, with its next report.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Over a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to section 112 of the Criminal Code under which whoever defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir apparent or the regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to 15 years, as well as sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act of 2007 that prohibit the use of a computer to commit an offence under the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning national security (including section 112 of the Criminal Code), with a possible sanction of five years’ imprisonment. The Committee noted that under the Penitentiary Act B.E. 2479 (1936), penalties of imprisonment involve an obligation to perform prison labour. It also observed that, according to the report of the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, there had been a recent increase in lèse-majesté cases pursued by the police and the courts.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, as for the recent increase in lèse-majesté cases according to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, proceedings on lèse-majesté cases are conducted with due legal process. The enforcement of section 112 does not contravene international laws on human rights. The existence of lèse-majesté is appropriate for protecting the Thai monarchy as a force for unity and the stability of the nation. Those convicted for lèse-majesté are entitled to the same rights as those convicted for other criminal offences.

The Committee observes, in this regard, that in its 2017 Concluding observations the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) was concerned that criticism and dissension regarding the royal family is punishable with a sentence of three to 15 years’ imprisonment, about reports of a sharp increase in the number of people detained and prosecuted for the crime of lèse-majesté since the military coup and about extreme sentencing practices, which result in dozens of years of imprisonment in some cases (CCPR/C/THA/CO/2, paragraph 37).

In addition, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act of 2007 are drafted and implemented to curtail illegal activities and dissemination of false information, and to address the risk of exploiting an instantaneous connection for harassment and defaming other individuals. Moreover, there is no part in the legislation that allow compulsory labour as a specific form of punishment for convicted prisoners charged under section 112 of the Criminal Code and sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act. The Committee, however, observes that, in its concluding observations, the HRC expressed its concern about reports of the severe and arbitrary restrictions imposed on the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the state party’s legislation, including in the Criminal Code and the Computer Crimes Act. The HRC was also concerned about criminal proceedings, especially criminal defamation charges, brought against human rights defenders, activists, journalists and other individuals under the abovementioned legislation, and about reports of the suppression of debate and campaigning, and criminal charges against individuals during the run-up to the constitutional referendum in 2016. The Committee finally notes that the HRC recommended that the Government consider decriminalizing defamation and, in any case, countenance the application of criminal law only in the most serious of cases, bearing in mind that imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty for defamation (paragraphs 35 and 36).

The Committee further notes with deep concern that the penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour, contained in the Penitentiary Act of 1936, are retained under the 2017 amendments to the same Act.

In this regard, the Committee is bound to recall that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits all recourse to penal sanctions involving an obligation to perform labour, as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views, or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It also points out that the protection conferred by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or manifesting opinions diverging from established principles; even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities are covered by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to, or call for, violent means to these ends (see General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 302). In light of the above considerations, the Committee urges the Government to take all necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views or views opposed to the established system, for example, by clearly restricting the scope of these provisions to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

The Committee notes the observations of the National Congress of Thai Labour (NCTL), transmitted by the Government and received on 6 August 2014.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Political Parties Act. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to section 95(3) and section 120 of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550, a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for using the name, initials or emblem of a political party that has been dissolved by the Constitutional Court, for political activities or to receive any benefit. Pursuant to section 97 and section 120 of the Law, penalties of imprisonment may also be imposed on a person who was previously a member of the Executive Committee of the dissolved political party who, within a period of five years from the date of the dissolution, applies for the formation of a new political party, becomes a member of an Executive Committee of a political party, or promotes a new political party. Section 94 of the Law states that the Constitutional Court may issue an order to dissolve a political party if it has committed one of five acts, including “an act which may be harmful to the democratic regime of the Government with the King as Head of State under the Constitution” (section 94(3)) and “an act, either inside or outside the Kingdom, which may endanger the security of the State, or be contrary to the law, public order, or good morals” (section 94(4)).

The Committee once again recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. With reference to paragraph 307 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee recalls that the prohibition to express political views as a consequence of the prohibition of political parties or associations (subject to penalties involving compulsory labour) is incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention. Noting an absence of information on this point in the Government’s report, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), into conformity with the Convention, to ensure that no penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for the holding or expression of political views. Pending the adoption of such amendments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the Organic Law on Political Parties, particularly whether any political parties have been dissolved by order of the Constitutional Court (pursuant to section 94) and whether any penalties of imprisonment have been imposed pursuant to this Act.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline and for participation in strikes. The Labour Relations Act and the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to sections 131–133 of the Labour Relations Act BE 2518 (1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, 22–24, 29 and 35(4) of the Act. The Committee observed that such provisions were contrary to the provisions of the Convention in providing for sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee also noted that both the Labour Relations Act and the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act BE 2543 (2000) (SELRA) contain provisions permitting the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for participation in strikes. Pursuant to the Labour Relations Act, penalties of imprisonment may be imposed if: (i) the minister orders the strikers to return to work, being of the opinion that the strike may affect the national economy or cause hardship to the public or endanger national security or be contrary to public order (section 140 read in conjunction with section 35(2)); and (ii) the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee, or a decision has been given by the minister or the Labour Relations Committee (pursuant to section 139 read in conjunction with section 34(5)). The SELRA prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), and a violation of this prohibition is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to one year.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it has made progress with regard to repealing sections 131–133 and sections 139 and 140 of the Labour Relations Act, as well as repealing sections 33 and 77 of the SELRA. The Government indicates that the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, under the Ministry of Labour, is responsible for this task, and a draft amendment has been developed that does not contain penalties of imprisonment. This draft has been submitted to the Office of the Council of State for its consideration, and the process to amend the Labour Relations Act will resume when Parliament is reconvened. The Committee notes the statement of the NCTL, indicating that it supports the repeal of these penalties of imprisonment under the SELRA and the Labour Relations Act, and requesting the Government to submit draft amendments to Parliament the next time it sits. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the draft revision of the Labour Relations Act, repealing sections 131–133 and sections 139 and 140, and the draft revision of the SELRA, repealing sections 33 and 37, are adopted in the near future, to ensure that sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) cannot be imposed as a means of labour discipline or for the peaceful participation in a strike. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on progress made in this regard, in its next report.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. Criminal Code. For a number of years the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). It previously noted the Government’s indication that this section had not been applied in practice.

The Committee once again notes the Government’s statement that, while acknowledging the Committee’s concerns, the elements of criminal liability in section 117 concern a strike, lockout or cessation of trade or business that aims to bring about a change in the laws of the country or coerce the Government to act in a way which would suspend its administration. The Government reiterates that this provision is not related to restrictions on freedom of association regarding social and economic benefits of workers in their work. Taking note of the Government’s statement, the Committee must once again recall that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits recourse to sanctions involving any form of compulsory labour “as a punishment for having participated in strikes”. In this connection, the Committee points out that organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general. Observing that the Committee has been raising this issue for over two decades, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal section 117 of the Criminal Code, to ensure that no sanction of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for peaceful participation in strikes. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 117 of the Criminal Code, with its next report.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition

The Committee notes the observations of the National Congress of Thai Labour (NCTL), transmitted by the Government and received on 6 August 2014.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Criminal Code. The Committee previously noted that section 112 of the Criminal Code states that whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to 15 years. Sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act of 2007 prohibit the use of a computer to commit an offence under the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning national security (including section 112 of the Criminal Code), with a possible sanction of five years’ imprisonment. The Committee also noted that, according to the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, there had been a recent increase in lèse-majesté cases pursued by the police and the courts. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur urged the Government to hold broad-based public consultations to amend its criminal laws on lèse-majesté, particularly section 112 of the Criminal Code and the Computer Crimes Act (A/HRC/20/17, 4 June 2012, paragraph 20). The Committee further noted the information in a compilation prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the Universal Periodic Review that the UN Country Team in Thailand had indicated that a number of individuals had received lengthy prison sentences for breaching the lèse-majesté laws.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the provisions referred to above relate to protecting the public. The Government indicates that it has attempted to find a balance between protecting the monarchy and the right of individuals to express their views. Section 112 of the Criminal Code is focused on criminal liability in connection with the country’s security, and is based on the tradition, culture and history of the country where the King is a central feature of the unity of the Thai people. However, a review process is under way to study which aspects should be improved, as well as the best way to enforce the relevant laws with fairness. The Government also indicates that it has endorsed the recommendation made by the Human Rights Council, including those concerning promoting freedom of expression and ensuring public and transparent proceedings as well as adequate legal counselling for all persons charged with violations of the lèse-majesté legislation and the Computer Crimes Act. In this connection, a number of concerned governmental agencies have been tasked with establishing work plans to implement these recommendations.

In this regard, the Committee notes that the NCTL states that it agrees with the Government concerning the objectives of the enforcement of section 112, but also indicates that it supports the revision of the penalty under this section to punish only those persons who intentionally violate the monarchy.

Taking note of these statements, the Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. While the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence, the Committee must emphasize that the protection conferred by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or manifesting opinions diverging from established principles. Even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities are nevertheless protected by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to or call for violent means to these ends. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend section 112 of the Criminal Code, so that persons who peacefully express certain political views cannot be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which involves compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken in this regard, including within the framework of the work plans established by governmental agencies, in its next report.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the observations of the National Congress of Thai Labour (NCTL), transmitted by the Government and received on 6 August 2014.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Political Parties Act. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to section 95(3) and section 120 of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550, a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for using the name, initials or emblem of a political party that has been dissolved by the Constitutional Court, for political activities or to receive any benefit. Pursuant to section 97 and section 120 of the Law, penalties of imprisonment may also be imposed on a person who was previously a member of the Executive Committee of the dissolved political party who, within a period of five years from the date of the dissolution, applies for the formation of a new political party, becomes a member of an Executive Committee of a political party, or promotes a new political party. Section 94 of the Law states that the Constitutional Court may issue an order to dissolve a political party if it has committed one of five acts, including “an act which may be harmful to the democratic regime of the Government with the King as Head of State under the Constitution” (section 94(3)) and “an act, either inside or outside the Kingdom, which may endanger the security of the State, or be contrary to the law, public order, or good morals” (section 94(4)).

The Committee once again recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. With reference to paragraph 307 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee recalls that the prohibition to express political views as a consequence of the prohibition of political parties or associations (subject to penalties involving compulsory labour) is incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention. Noting an absence of information on this point in the Government’s report, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), into conformity with the Convention, to ensure that no penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for the holding or expression of political views. Pending the adoption of such amendments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the Organic Law on Political Parties, particularly whether any political parties have been dissolved by order of the Constitutional Court (pursuant to section 94) and whether any penalties of imprisonment have been imposed pursuant to this Act.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline and for participation in strikes. The Labour Relations Act and the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to sections 131–133 of the Labour Relations Act BE 2518 (1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, 22–24, 29 and 35(4) of the Act. The Committee observed that such provisions were contrary to the provisions of the Convention in providing for sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee also noted that both the Labour Relations Act and the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act BE 2543 (2000) (SELRA) contain provisions permitting the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for participation in strikes. Pursuant to the Labour Relations Act, penalties of imprisonment may be imposed if: (i) the minister orders the strikers to return to work, being of the opinion that the strike may affect the national economy or cause hardship to the public or endanger national security or be contrary to public order (section 140 read in conjunction with section 35(2)); and (ii) the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee, or a decision has been given by the minister or the Labour Relations Committee (pursuant to section 139 read in conjunction with section 34(5)). The SELRA prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), and a violation of this prohibition is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to one year.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it has made progress with regard to repealing sections 131–133 and sections 139 and 140 of the Labour Relations Act, as well as repealing sections 33 and 77 of the SELRA. The Government indicates that the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, under the Ministry of Labour, is responsible for this task, and a draft amendment has been developed that does not contain penalties of imprisonment. This draft has been submitted to the Office of the Council of State for its consideration, and the process to amend the Labour Relations Act will resume when Parliament is reconvened. The Committee notes the statement of the NCTL, indicating that it supports the repeal of these penalties of imprisonment under the SELRA and the Labour Relations Act, and requesting the Government to submit draft amendments to Parliament the next time it sits. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the draft revision of the Labour Relations Act, repealing sections 131–133 and sections 139 and 140, and the draft revision of the SELRA, repealing sections 33 and 37, are adopted in the near future, to ensure that sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) cannot be imposed as a means of labour discipline or for the peaceful participation in a strike. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on progress made in this regard, in its next report.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. Criminal Code. For a number of years the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). It previously noted the Government’s indication that this section had not been applied in practice.

The Committee once again notes the Government’s statement that, while acknowledging the Committee’s concerns, the elements of criminal liability in section 117 concern a strike, lockout or cessation of trade or business that aims to bring about a change in the laws of the country or coerce the Government to act in a way which would suspend its administration. The Government reiterates that this provision is not related to restrictions on freedom of association regarding social and economic benefits of workers in their work. Taking note of the Government’s statement, the Committee must once again recall that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits recourse to sanctions involving any form of compulsory labour “as a punishment for having participated in strikes”. In this connection, the Committee points out that organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general. Observing that the Committee has been raising this issue for over two decades, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal section 117 of the Criminal Code, to ensure that no sanction of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for peaceful participation in strikes. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 117 of the Criminal Code, with its next report.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the observations of the National Congress of Thai Labour (NCTL), transmitted by the Government and received on 6 August 2014.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Criminal Code. The Committee previously noted that section 112 of the Criminal Code states that whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to 15 years. Sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act of 2007 prohibit the use of a computer to commit an offence under the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning national security (including section 112 of the Criminal Code), with a possible sanction of five years’ imprisonment. The Committee also noted that, according to the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, there had been a recent increase in lèse-majesté cases pursued by the police and the courts. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur urged the Government to hold broad-based public consultations to amend its criminal laws on lèse-majesté, particularly section 112 of the Criminal Code and the Computer Crimes Act (A/HRC/20/17, 4 June 2012, paragraph 20). The Committee further noted the information in a compilation prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the Universal Periodic Review, that the UN Country Team in Thailand had indicated that a number of individuals had received lengthy prison sentences for breaching the lèse-majesté laws.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the provisions referred to above relate to protecting the public. The Government indicates that it has attempted to find a balance between protecting the monarchy and the right of individuals to express their views. Section 112 of the Criminal Code is focused on criminal liability in connection with the country’s security, and is based on the tradition, culture and history of the country where the King is a central feature of the unity of the Thai people. However, a review process is under way to study which aspects should be improved, as well as the best way to enforce the relevant laws with fairness. The Government also indicates that it has endorsed the recommendation made by the Human Rights Council, including those concerning promoting freedom of expression and ensuring public and transparent proceedings as well as adequate legal counselling for all persons charged with violations of the lèse-majesté legislation and the Computer Crimes Act. In this connection, a number of concerned governmental agencies have been tasked with establishing work plans to implement these recommendations.

In this regard, the Committee notes that the NCTL states that it agrees with the Government concerning the objectives of the enforcement of section 112, but also indicates that it supports the revision of the penalty under this section to punish only those persons who intentionally violate the monarchy.

Taking note of these statements, the Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. While the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence, the Committee must emphasize that the protection conferred by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or manifesting opinions diverging from established principles. Even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities are nevertheless protected by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to or call for violent means to these ends. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend section 112 of the Criminal Code, so that persons who peacefully express certain political views cannot be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which involves compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken in this regard, including within the framework of the work plans established by governmental agencies, in its next report.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Political Parties Act. The Committee previously noted that the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2541 (1998) contained several provisions relating to the expression of political views, pursuant to which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) could be imposed. The Committee expressed the hope that measures would be taken to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2541 has been repealed. In this regard, the Committee notes that a new law, the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550, was adopted in 2007. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 95(3) and section 120 of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for using the name, initials or emblem of a political party that has been dissolved by the Constitutional Court, for political activities or to receive any benefit. Moreover, pursuant to section 97 and section 120, penalties of imprisonment may also be imposed on a person who was previously a member of the Executive Committee of the dissolved political party who, within a period of five years from the date of the dissolution, applies for the formation of a new political party, becomes a member of an Executive Committee of a political party, or promotes a new political party. In this connection, the Committee notes that section 94 states that the Constitutional Court may issue an order to dissolve a political party if it has committed one of five acts, including “an act which may be harmful to the democratic regime of the Government with the King as Head of State under the Constitution” (section 94(3)) and “an act, either inside or outside the Kingdom, which may endanger the security of the State, or be contrary to law, public order, good morals” (section 94(4)).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. With reference to paragraph 307 of its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee recalls that the prohibition of political views as a consequence of the prohibition of political parties or associations (subject to penalties involving compulsory labour) is incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), into conformity with the Convention, to ensure that no penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for the holding or expression of political views. Pending the adoption of such amendments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), particularly whether any political parties have been dissolved by order of the Constitutional Court (pursuant to section 94) and whether any penalties of imprisonment have been imposed pursuant to this Act.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. For a number of years the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that this section had not been applied in practice.

The Committee once again notes the Government statement that, while acknowledging the Committee’s concerns, it must reiterate that the application of section 117 is narrowed to only those people who launch a strike with the intention to change state laws, intimidate the Government or innocent people. The Government further reiterates that this section is not intended to limit the right to strike for the sake of the economic and social objectives affecting occupational interests of workers. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits recourse to sanctions involving any form of compulsory labour “as a punishment for having participated in strikes”. The Committee further recalls that organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general. Observing that the Committee has been raising this issue for over two decades, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal section 117 of the Criminal Code, to ensure that no sanction of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for peaceful participation in strikes. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 117 of the Criminal Code, with its next report.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Criminal Code and the Computer Crimes Act. The Committee notes that section 112 of the Criminal Code states that whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to 15 years. The Committee also notes that sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act of 2007 prohibit the use of a computer to commit an offence under the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning national security (including section 112 of the Criminal Code), with a possible sanction of five years’ imprisonment. Moreover, the Committee notes that, according to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, of 4 June 2012, there has been a recent increase in lèse majesté cases pursued by the police and the courts. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur urged the Government to hold broad-based public consultations to amend its criminal laws on lèse majesté, particularly section 112 of the Criminal Code and the Computer Crimes Act (A/HRC/20/17, paragraph 20). The Committee further notes the information in a compilation prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review that the UN Country Team in Thailand indicated that a number of individuals have received lengthy prison sentences for breaching the lèse majesté laws.

In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend section 112 of the Criminal Code and sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act, so that persons who peacefully express certain political views cannot be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which involves compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken in this regard, in its next report.

Article 1(c). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to sections 131–133 of the Labour Relations Act BE 2518 (1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, 22–24, 29 and 35(4) of the Act. It observed that such provisions were contrary to the provisions of the Convention, as it provided for sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. However, the Committee noted the Government’s statement that the Ministry of Labour was trying to take measures to bring the Labour Relations Act into closer conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that there has been significant progress concerning the revision of the Labour Relations Act. The Government indicates that the Committee on the Revision of Labour Relations Laws has considered a draft revised version of the Act, which proposes repealing sections 131–133, in order to achieve compliance with the Convention. The Government further indicates that this draft version has been submitted to the Council of State for further consideration. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the draft revision of the Labour Relations Act, repealing sections 131–133, is adopted in the near future, to ensure that sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) cannot be imposed as a means of labour discipline. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on progress made in this regard, in its next report.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to provisions of the Labour Relations Act penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for participation in strikes, if: (i) the minister orders the strikers to return to work, being of the opinion that the strike may affect the national economy or cause hardship to the public or endanger national security or be contrary to public order (pursuant to section 140 read in conjunction with section 35(2)); and (ii) the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the Labour Relations Committee under section 24 (pursuant to section 139 read in conjunction with section 34(5)). The Committee also noted that the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act BE 2543 (2000) (SELRA) prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), and that violation of this prohibition is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for a term of up to one year. This penalty is doubled in the case of a person who instigates this offence (section 77). However, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that the Committee on the Revision of Labour Relations Laws was going to examine the feasibility of revising the SELRA to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Committee on the Revision of Labour Relations Law has considered a revision of both the Labour Relations Act and the SELRA, with a view to bringing them into conformity with the Convention. The Government states that there has been progress with regard to repealing sections 139 and 140 of the Labour Relations Act, as well as repealing sections 33 and 77 of the SELRA. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that the draft revision of both Acts has been submitted to the Council of State for further consideration. The Committee requests the Government to pursue its efforts to ensure that draft revisions of both the Labour Relations Act (repealing sections 139 and 140) and the SELRA (repealing sections 33 and 77) are adopted in the near future to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for peaceful participation in a strike. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on progress made in this regard, and a copy of the amended Acts, once adopted.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Political Parties Act. The Committee previously noted that the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2541 (1998) contained several provisions relating to the expression of political views, pursuant to which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) could be imposed. The Committee expressed the hope that measures would be taken to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2541 has been repealed. In this regard, the Committee notes that a new law, the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550, was adopted in 2007. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 95(3) and section 120 of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for using the name, initials or emblem of a political party that has been dissolved by the Constitutional Court, for political activities or to receive any benefit. Moreover, pursuant to section 97 and section 120, penalties of imprisonment may also be imposed on a person who was previously a member of the Executive Committee of the dissolved political party who, within a period of five years from the date of the dissolution, applies for the formation of a new political party, becomes a member of an Executive Committee of a political party, or promotes a new political party. In this connection, the Committee notes that section 94 states that the Constitutional Court may issue an order to dissolve a political party if it has committed one of five acts, including “an act which may be harmful to the democratic regime of the Government with the King as Head of State under the Constitution” (section 94(3)) and “an act, either inside or outside the Kingdom, which may endanger the security of the State, or be contrary to law, public order, good morals” (section 94(4)).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. With reference to paragraph 307 of its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee recalls that the prohibition of political views as a consequence of the prohibition of political parties or associations (subject to penalties involving compulsory labour) is incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), into conformity with the Convention, to ensure that no penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for the holding or expression of political views. Pending the adoption of such amendments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), particularly whether any political parties have been dissolved by order of the Constitutional Court (pursuant to section 94) and whether any penalties of imprisonment have been imposed pursuant to this Act.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. For a number of years the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that this section had not been applied in practice.

The Committee once again notes the Government statement that, while acknowledging the Committee’s concerns, it must reiterate that the application of section 117 is narrowed to only those people who launch a strike with the intention to change state laws, intimidate the Government or innocent people. The Government further reiterates that this section is not intended to limit the right to strike for the sake of the economic and social objectives affecting occupational interests of workers. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits recourse to sanctions involving any form of compulsory labour “as a punishment for having participated in strikes”. The Committee further recalls that organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general. Observing that the Committee has been raising this issue for over two decades, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal section 117 of the Criminal Code, to ensure that no sanction of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for peaceful participation in strikes. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 117 of the Criminal Code, with its next report.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Criminal Code and the Computer Crimes Act. The Committee notes that section 112 of the Criminal Code states that whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to 15 years. The Committee also notes that sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act of 2007 prohibit the use of a computer to commit an offence under the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning national security (including section 112 of the Criminal Code), with a possible sanction of five years imprisonment. Moreover, the Committee notes that, according to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, of 4 June 2012, there has been a recent increase in lèse majesté cases pursued by the police and the courts. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur urged the Government to hold broad-based public consultations to amend its criminal laws on lèse majesté, particularly section 112 of the Criminal Code and the Computer Crimes Act (A/HRC/20/17 paragraph 20). The Committee further notes the information in a compilation prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review that the UN Country Team in Thailand indicated that a number of individuals have received lengthy prison sentences for breaching the lèse majesté laws.

In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend section 112 of the Criminal Code and sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act, so that persons who peacefully express certain political views cannot be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which involves compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken in this regard, in its next report.

Article 1(c). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to sections 131–133 of the Labour Relations Act BE 2518 (1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, 22–24, 29 and 35(4) of the Act. It observed that such provisions were contrary to the provisions of the Convention, as it provided for sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. However, the Committee noted the Government’s statement that the Ministry of Labour was trying to take measures to bring the Labour Relations Act into closer conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that there has been significant progress concerning the revision of the Labour Relations Act. The Government indicates that the Committee on the Revision of Labour Relations Laws has considered a draft revised version of the Act, which proposes repealing sections 131–133, in order to achieve compliance with the Convention. The Government further indicates that this draft version has been submitted to the Council of State for further consideration. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the draft revision of the Labour Relations Act, repealing sections 131–133, is adopted in the near future, to ensure that sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) cannot be imposed as a means of labour discipline. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on progress made in this regard, in its next report.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to provisions of the Labour Relations Act penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for participation in strikes, if: (i) the minister orders the strikers to return to work, being of the opinion that the strike may affect the national economy or cause hardship to the public or endanger national security or be contrary to public order (pursuant to section 140 read in conjunction with section 35(2)); and (ii) the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the Labour Relations Committee under section 24 (pursuant to section 139 read in conjunction with section 34(5)). The Committee also noted that the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act BE 2543 (2000) (SELRA) prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), and that violation of this prohibition is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for a term of up to one year. This penalty is doubled in the case of a person who instigates this offence (section 77). However, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that the Committee on the Revision of Labour Relations Laws was going to examine the feasibility of revising the SELRA to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Committee on the Revision of Labour Relations Law has considered a revision of both the Labour Relations Act and the SELRA, with a view to bringing them into conformity with the Convention. The Government states that there has been progress with regard to repealing sections 139 and 140 of the Labour Relations Act, as well as repealing sections 33 and 77 of the SELRA. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that the draft revision of both Acts has been submitted to the Council of State for further consideration. The Committee requests the Government to pursue its efforts to ensure that draft revisions of both the Labour Relations Act (repealing sections 139 and 140) and the SELRA (repealing sections 33 and 77) are adopted in the near future to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for peaceful participation in a strike. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on progress made in this regard, and a copy of the amended Acts, once adopted.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. The Committee has previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed under the following provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2541 (1998):

• – section 75: prohibition for a group of 15 or more persons to carry out activities of a political party without having been registered as such;
• – section 23, paragraph 2, read in conjunction with section 78: prohibition for a person who is not of Thai nationality by birth to be a member or participate in any activity of a political party.

Recalling that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views, the Committee has also referred to paragraphs 162–163 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour to point out that, since freedom of expression of political views is closely linked to the right of association and of assembly through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, any prohibitions enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour which affect the constitution or functioning of political parties or associations, or participation therein, are incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that there have been no reports on the execution of these provisions. However, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the violation of prohibitions provided for in the above sections of the Organic Law on Political Parties, so as to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Press Act was repealed by virtue of the issuance of the Printing Registration Act BE 2550 (2007). The Committee asks the Government to provide, with its next report, a copy of the Printing Registration Act BE 2550 (2007) for examination by the Committee.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. Over a number of years the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee has noted previously the Government’s indication that this section had never been applied in practice. The Government indicates in its latest report that, while it acknowledges the Committee’s concerns, it must reiterate that the impact of section 117 is narrowed to only those people who launch a strike with the intention to change state laws, intimidate the Government or innocent people. The Government further reiterates that this section is not intended to limit the right to strike for the sake of the economic and social objectives affecting occupational interests of workers.

While noting the Government’s views concerning the scope of section 117, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken, on the occasion of the next possible revision of the Criminal Code, to amend section 117 in such a way that it would be clear from the text itself that strikes pursuing economic and social objectives affecting the workers’ occupational interests are removed from the scope of sanctions under this section, in order to bring this provision into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee asks the Government to continue to supply information on the application of this provision in practice, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that sections 131–133 of the Labour Relations Act BE 2518 (1975), under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, 22–24, 29 and 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act, were incompatible with the Convention. The Government states that the Ministry of Labour (MOL) is trying its best to take the necessary measures to bring the Labour Relations Act into closer conformity with the Convention. To this end, the Government indicates that its Committee on Revision of Labour Relations Laws in conformity with the principles of the ILO Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), will take into consideration the provisions of the Labour Relations Act BE 2518 that are in contravention of Convention No. 105. The Committee notes in particular the Government’s indications concerning an analysis to be conducted by the above Committee on the conformity of the Act with the Convention.

The Committee reiterates the firm hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to bringing the above provisions of the Labour Relations Act into conformity with the Convention, either by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour or by limiting their scope to acts endangering the life or health of persons. It asks the Government to provide a copy of any proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act elaborated to this end.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee has previously referred to the following provisions of the Labour Relations Act BE 2518 (1975), under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for participation in strikes:

• – section 140 read in conjunction with section 35(2): if the minister orders the strikers to return to work, being of the opinion that the strike may affect the national economy or cause hardship to the public or endanger national security or be contrary to public order;
• – section 139 read in conjunction with section 34(5): if the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the Labour Relations Committee under section 24.

While noting the Government’s intention to bring these provisions into account of the Committee on Revision of Labour Relations Laws referred to above, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future with a view to bringing the above provisions of the Labour Relations Act into conformity with the Convention, by ensuring that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of a peaceful participation in a strike.

Previously, the Committee had referred to the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act BE 2543 (2000) (SELRA), which prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), violation of this prohibition being punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for a term of up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who instigates this offence (section 77). The Committee notes the Government’s indications in its report that the Committee on Revision of Labour Relations Laws referred to above is going to take into account the feasibility of revising the SELRA to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to amending the above provisions of the SELRA in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention, by providing that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of a peaceful participation in a strike. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on progress made in this regard.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. The Committee has previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed under the following provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2541 (1998):

–      section 75: prohibition for a group of 15 or more persons to carry out activities of a political party without having been registered as such;

–      section 23, paragraph 2, read in conjunction with section 78: prohibition for a person who is not of Thai nationality by birth to be a member or participate in any activity of a political party.

Recalling that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views, the Committee has also referred to paragraphs 162–163 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour to point out that, since freedom of expression of political views is closely linked to the right of association and of assembly through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, any prohibitions enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour which affect the constitution or functioning of political parties or associations, or participation therein, are incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that there have been no reports on the execution of these provisions. However, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the violation of prohibitions provided for in the above sections of the Organic Law on Political Parties, so as to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Press Act was repealed by virtue of the issuance of the Printing Registration Act BE 2550 (2007). The Committee asks the Government to provide, with its next report, a copy of the Printing Registration Act BE 2550 (2007) for examination by the Committee.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. Over a number of years the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee has noted previously the Government’s indication that this section had never been applied in practice. The Government indicates in its latest report that, while it acknowledges the Committee’s concerns, it must reiterate that the impact of section 117 is narrowed to only those people who launch a strike with the intention to change state laws, intimidate the Government or innocent people. The Government further reiterates that this section is not intended to limit the right to strike for the sake of the economic and social objectives affecting occupational interests of workers.

While noting the Government’s views concerning the scope of section 117, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken, on the occasion of the next possible revision of the Criminal Code, to amend section 117 in such a way that it would be clear from the text itself that strikes pursuing economic and social objectives affecting the workers’ occupational interests are removed from the scope of sanctions under this section, in order to bring this provision into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee asks the Government to continue to supply information on the application of this provision in practice, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that
sections 131–133 of the Labour Relations Act BE 2518 (1975), under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, 22–24, 29 and 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act, were incompatible with the Convention. The Government states in its latest report that the Ministry of Labour (MOL) is trying its best to take the necessary measures to bring the Labour Relations Act into closer conformity with the Convention. To this end, the Government indicates that its Committee on Revision of Labour Relations Laws in conformity with the principles of the ILO Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), will take into consideration the provisions of the Labour Relations Act BE 2518 that are in contravention of Convention No. 105. The Committee notes in particular the Government’s indications concerning an analysis to be conducted by the above Committee on the conformity of the Act with the Convention.

The Committee reiterates the firm hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to bringing the above provisions of the Labour Relations Act into conformity with the Convention, either by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour or by limiting their scope to acts endangering the life or health of persons. It asks the Government to provide a copy of any proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act elaborated to this end.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee has previously referred to the following provisions of the Labour Relations Act BE 2518 (1975), under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for participation in strikes:

–      section 140 read in conjunction with section 35(2): if the minister orders the strikers to return to work, being of the opinion that the strike may affect the national economy or cause hardship to the public or endanger national security or be contrary to public order;

–      section 139 read in conjunction with section 34(5): if the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the Labour Relations Committee under section 24.

While noting the Government’s intention to bring these provisions into account of the Committee on Revision of Labour Relations Laws referred to above, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future with a view to bringing the above provisions of the Labour Relations Act into conformity with the Convention, by ensuring that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of a peaceful participation in a strike.

Previously, the Committee had referred to the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act BE 2543 (2000) (SELRA), which prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), violation of this prohibition being punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for a term of up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who instigates this offence (section 77). The Committee notes the Government’s indications in its report that the Committee on Revision of Labour Relations Laws referred to above is going to take into account the feasibility of revising the SELRA to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to amending the above provisions of the SELRA in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention, by providing that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of a peaceful participation in a strike. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on progress made in this regard.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1, subparagraph a, of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. 1. The Committee previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed under the following provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties B.E. 2541 (1998):

–      section 75 (prohibition for a group of 15 or more persons to carry out activities as those of a political party without having been registered as such);

–      section 23, paragraph 2, read in conjunction with section 78 (prohibition for a person who is not of Thai nationality by birth to be a member or participate in any activity of a political party).

The Committee recalled that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. The Committee also refers in this connection to paragraph 154 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. Noting also the Government’s view expressed in the report that the persons mentioned in the above sections of the Law can express their political opinions without violating these provisions, the Committee points out, referring to the explanations in paragraphs 162–163 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, that, since freedom of expression of political views is closely linked to the right of association and of assembly through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, any prohibitions enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour which affect the constitution or functioning of political parties or associations, or participation therein, are incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the violation of prohibitions provided for in the above sections of the Organic Law on Political Parties, so as to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention on this point. Pending the adoption of such measures, and noting also the Government’s indication in the report that there has been no violation of the above provisions so far, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

2. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its report that the draft amendment of the Press Act B.E. 2484 (1941) was under scrutiny by the Council of State. The Government indicates in its 2006 report that the Press Act has not yet been amended, but the Order of the Administrative Reform Council No. 42, of 21 October 1976, which contained provisions limiting freedom of publication, has been repealed. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to keep the ILO informed of developments concerning the amendment of the Press Act. Pending the amendment, and noting also the Government’s indication that the Act has been applied in practice only in a few cases, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the following provisions of the Press Act, to which the Committee referred previously: section 62 (publishing of any matter relating to international political affairs, where such publication has been prohibited by the police in the interests of public order) and section 63 (publishing any matter which contravenes a censorship order imposed in case of declaration of a state of emergency).

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 131–133 of the Labour Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975), under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, 22–24, 29 and 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act. The Committee pointed out that
sections 131–133 of the Labour Relations Act were incompatible with the Convention, which prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline.

The Committee has noted the Government’s statement that the above provisions have been applied in practice only in a few cases. It has also noted the Government’s indication in its 2006 report that the Ministry of Labour is planning to conduct a study on the conformity of the Labour Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975) with the Convention and that the Committee on the national policy for legal reform has been established, with the Prime Minister as the Chairperson.

While having noted this information, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to bringing the above provisions of the Labour Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975) into conformity with the Convention, either by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour or by limiting their scope to acts endangering the life or health of persons.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously referred to the following provisions of the Labour Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975), under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for participation in strikes:

(i)     section 140 read in conjunction with section 35(2), if the minister orders the strikers to return to work, being of the opinion that the strike may affect the national economy or cause hardship to the public or endanger national security or be contrary to public order;

(ii)    section 139 read in conjunction with section 34(5), if the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the Labour Relations Committee under section 24.

The Committee has noted the Government’s statement that the provisions of section 140 are applied only in a situation where the strike may affect the national economy or endanger national security or be contrary to public order, and that they have been applied in practice only in a few cases. Having also noted the Government’s indications in its 2006 report concerning a study to be conducted by the Ministry of Labour on the conformity of the Labour Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975) with the Convention and the setting up of the Committee on the national policy for legal reform, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to bringing the above provisions of the Labour Relations Act into conformity with the Convention, by ensuring that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of participating in a peaceful strike.

Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that section 117 is essential for national peace and security and does not deprive workers of their labour rights or of the right to strike under the labour law, having no objective to impose any sanctions against workers who participate in strikes pursuing economic and social objectives affecting their occupational interests. The Committee also noted previously the Government’s indication that this section had never been applied in practice. While having noted these indications, the Committee refers to the explanations provided in paragraph 188 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour and reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken, on the occasion of the next revision of the Criminal Code, to amend section 117 in such a way that it would be clear from the text itself that strikes pursuing economic and social objectives affecting the workers’ occupational interests are removed from the scope of sanctions under this section, in order to bring this provision into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice.

In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain provisions under which workers of state enterprises were prohibited from striking, this prohibition being enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee noted, in particular, that the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act B.E. 2543 (2000) prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), violation of this prohibition being punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for a term of up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who instigates this offence (section 77).

While having noted the Government’s statement in its 2006 report concerning the role of state enterprises for the economic and social development of the country and the living standards of the population, the Committee recalls that a blanket prohibition of strikes in all state-owned enterprises, if enforced with penalties involving compulsory labour, is incompatible with the Convention. Having also noted the Government’s indications in its report concerning a study to be conducted by the Ministry of Labour on the conformity of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act B.E. 2543 (2000) with the Convention, the Committee reiterates its firm hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to amending the above provisions of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act, so that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of participating in a peaceful strike, in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on progress made in this regard.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. 1. The Committee previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed under the following provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties B.E. 2541 (1998):

–      section 75 (prohibition for a group of 15 or more persons to carry out activities as those of a political party without having been registered as such);

–      section 23, paragraph 2, read in conjunction with section 78 (prohibition for a person who is not of Thai nationality by birth to be a member or participate in any activity of a political party).

The Committee recalled that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. The Committee also refers in this connection to paragraph 154 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. Noting also the Government’s view expressed in the report that the persons mentioned in the above sections of the Law can express their political opinions without violating these provisions, the Committee points out, referring to the explanations in paragraphs 162–163 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, that, since freedom of expression of political views is closely linked to the right of association and of assembly through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, any prohibitions enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour which affect the constitution or functioning of political parties or associations, or participation therein, are incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the violation of prohibitions provided for in the above sections of the Organic Law on Political Parties, so as to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention on this point. Pending the adoption of such measures, and noting also the Government’s indication in the report that there has been no violation of the above provisions so far, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

2. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its report that the draft amendment of the Press Act B.E. 2484 (1941) was under scrutiny by the Council of State. The Government indicates in its 2006 report that the Press Act has not yet been amended, but the Order of the Administrative Reform Council No. 42, of 21 October 1976, which contained provisions limiting freedom of publication, has been repealed. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to keep the ILO informed of developments concerning the amendment of the Press Act. Pending the amendment, and noting also the Government’s indication that the Act has been applied in practice only in a few cases, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the following provisions of the Press Act, to which the Committee referred previously: section 62 (publishing of any matter relating to international political affairs, where such publication has been prohibited by the police in the interests of public order) and section 63 (publishing any matter which contravenes a censorship order imposed in case of declaration of a state of emergency).

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 131–133 of the Labour Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975), under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, 22–24, 29 and 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act. The Committee pointed out that
sections 131–133 of the Labour Relations Act were incompatible with the Convention, which prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline.

The Committee has noted the Government’s statement that the above provisions have been applied in practice only in a few cases. It has also noted the Government’s indication in its 2006 report that the Ministry of Labour is planning to conduct a study on the conformity of the Labour Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975) with the Convention and that the Committee on the national policy for legal reform has been established, with the Prime Minister as the Chairperson.

While having noted this information, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to bringing the above provisions of the Labour Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975) into conformity with the Convention, either by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour or by limiting their scope to acts endangering the life or health of persons.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. 1. The Committee previously referred to the following provisions of the Labour Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975), under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for participation in strikes:

(i)    section 140 read in conjunction with section 35(2), if the minister orders the strikers to return to work, being of the opinion that the strike may affect the national economy or cause hardship to the public or endanger national security or be contrary to public order;

(ii)    section 139 read in conjunction with section 34(5), if the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the Labour Relations Committee under section 24.

The Committee has noted the Government’s statement that the provisions of section 140 are applied only in a situation where the strike may affect the national economy or endanger national security or be contrary to public order, and that they have been applied in practice only in a few cases. Having also noted the Government’s indications in its 2006 report concerning a study to be conducted by the Ministry of Labour on the conformity of the Labour Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975) with the Convention and the setting up of the Committee on the national policy for legal reform, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to bringing the above provisions of the Labour Relations Act into conformity with the Convention, by ensuring that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of participating in a peaceful strike.

2. Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that section 117 is essential for national peace and security and does not deprive workers of their labour rights or of the right to strike under the labour law, having no objective to impose any sanctions against workers who participate in strikes pursuing economic and social objectives affecting their occupational interests. The Committee also noted previously the Government’s indication that this section had never been applied in practice. While having noted these indications, the Committee refers to the explanations provided in paragraph 188 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour and reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken, on the occasion of the next revision of the Criminal Code, to amend section 117 in such a way that it would be clear from the text itself that strikes pursuing economic and social objectives affecting the workers’ occupational interests are removed from the scope of sanctions under this section, in order to bring this provision into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice.

3. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain provisions under which workers of state enterprises were prohibited from striking, this prohibition being enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee noted, in particular, that the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act B.E. 2543 (2000) prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), violation of this prohibition being punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for a term of up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who instigates this offence (section 77).

While having noted the Government’s statement in its 2006 report concerning the role of state enterprises for the economic and social development of the country and the living standards of the population, the Committee recalls that a blanket prohibition of strikes in all state-owned enterprises, if enforced with penalties involving compulsory labour, is incompatible with the Convention. Having also noted the Government’s indications in its report concerning a study to be conducted by the Ministry of Labour on the conformity of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act B.E. 2543 (2000) with the Convention, the Committee reiterates its firm hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to amending the above provisions of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act, so that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of participating in a peaceful strike, in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on progress made in this regard.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Referring to its earlier comments, the Committee has noted the Government’s indication in its report that the draft amendment of the Press Act B.E. 2484 (1941) is, at present, under scrutiny by the Council of State. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on the amendment of the Act and requests the Government to supply a text of amendments, as soon as it is adopted.

The Committee has noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed under the following provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties, B.E. 2541 (1998):

­-  section 75 (prohibition for a group of 15 or more persons to carry out activities as those of a political party without having been registered as such);

-  ­­­­­section 23, paragraph 2, read in conjunction with section 78 (prohibition for a person who is not of Thai nationality by birth to be a member or participate in any activity of a political party).

The Committee recalls, referring also to the explanations contained in paragraphs 133 to 140 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Since freedom of expression of political views is closely linked to the right of association and of assembly through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, any prohibitions enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour which affect the constitution or functioning of political parties or associations either generally or where they advocate certain political or ideological views are incompatible with the Convention. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken or envisaged in order to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour could be imposed for the violation of prohibitions provided for in the above sections of the Organic Law on Political Parties, so as to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention on this point. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

CMNT_TITLE

1. The Committee notes with satisfaction that the Act for the prevention of desertion or undue absence from merchant ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), which provided for the forcible conveyance of seafarers on board ship to perform their duties, has been repealed since 20 October 2003 (Royal Gazette, 4 November 2003).

2. As the Government’s report contains no other information in reply to the previous comments, the Committee must repeat its previous observation on the following matters:

Article 1(c) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 131 and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, B.E. 2518 (1975), under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who, even individually, violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18(2), 22(2), 23 to 25, 29(4), or 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act. The Committee pointed out that sections 131 to 133 of the Labour Relations Act were incompatible with the Convention.

The Government indicates in its 2003 report that the Ministry of Labour is planning to conduct research on the effect of law enforcement so as to identify the problems and to find out a possibility of law revision or amendment regarding the above provisions.

The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will at last be taken with a view to bringing the above provisions into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will soon be able to report the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(d). The Committee previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for participation in strikes under following provisions of the Labour Relations Act: (i) section 140 read together with section 35(2), if the Minister orders the strikers to return to work as usual, being of the opinion that the strike may cause serious damage to the national economy or hardship to the public or may affect national security or be contrary to public order; (ii) section 139 read together with section 34(4), (5) and (6), if the party required to comply with an arbitrator’s award under section 25 has done so, if the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the Minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the committee under section 24, or if the matter is awaiting the award of labour disputes arbitrators appointed under section 25.

Having noted the Government’s indications in its report that the Ministry of Labour is planning to conduct a study on the effect of law enforcement so as to identify the problems and to assess appropriateness of law revision or amendment with a view to bringing the above provisions into conformity with the Convention, the Committee reiterates its hope that these provisions will be limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), so as to ensure compliance with the Convention on this point.

Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement that section 117 is essential for national peace and security and does not deprive workers of their labour rights or of the right to strike under the labour law. While having noted this statement, as well as the Government’s previous indications that this section had never been applied in practice, and referring also to the explanations provided in paragraph 128 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken, on the occasion of the next revision of the Criminal Code, in order to amend section 117 so as to remove strikes pursuing economic and social objectives affecting the workers’ occupational interests from the scope of sanctions under this section, with a view to bringing this provision into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice.

The Committee previously referred to certain provisions under which workers of state enterprises were prohibited from striking, this prohibition being enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee noted that the new State Enterprise Labour Relations Act B.E. 2543 (2000) also prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), violation of this prohibition being punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for a term of up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who instigates this offence (section 77). The Committee recalled, referring to the explanations provided in paragraph 123 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour on striking employees would be compatible with the Convention only in the case of essential services in the strict sense of the term (i.e. services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), and that a blanket prohibition of strikes in all state-owned enterprises, if enforced with penalties involving compulsory labour, is incompatible with the Convention.

Having noted the Government’s indications in its report that the Ministry of Labour is planning to conduct research and an in-depth study to review the effect of such law enforcement, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken in order to bring the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will soon be able to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Referring to its earlier comments, the Committee has noted the Government’s indication in its report that the draft amendment of the Press Act B.E. 2484 (1941) is, at present, under scrutiny by the Council of State. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on the amendment of the Act and requests the Government to supply a text of amendments, as soon as it is adopted.

The Committee has noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed under the following provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties, B.E. 2541 (1998):

­-  section 75 (prohibition for a group of 15 or more persons to carry out activities as those of a political party without having been registered as such);

-  ­­­­­section 23, paragraph 2, read in conjunction with section 78 (prohibition for a person who is not of Thai nationality by birth to be a member or participate in any activity of a political party).

The Committee recalls, referring also to the explanations contained in paragraphs 133 to 140 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Since freedom of expression of political views is closely linked to the right of association and of assembly through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, any prohibitions enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour which affect the constitution or functioning of political parties or associations either generally or where they advocate certain political or ideological views are incompatible with the Convention. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken or envisaged in order to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour could be imposed for the violation of prohibitions provided for in the above sections of the Organic Law on Political Parties, so as to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention on this point. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Since many years the Committee has been referring to sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act for the Prevention of Desertion or Undue Absence from Merchant Ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), which provide for the forcible conveyance of seafarers on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indications that the Act had not been applied during the past decade and requested the Government to bring it into conformity with the Convention and with the indicated practice.

The Government indicates in its 2003 report that measures have been taken to repeal the above sections of the Act, since they seem obsolete and not appropriate to current circumstances. It states that the Royal Thai Police, which is responsible for the Act, agreed with the Ministry of Labour that these provisions should be repealed, and that the Ministry has advised the Office of the Council of State to consider repealing the Act. The Committee has noted this information with interest and expresses the firm hope that the abovementioned provisions will soon be repealed and the legislation brought into conformity with the Convention, as well as with the indicated practice.

In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 131 and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, B.E. 2518 (1975), under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who, even individually, violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18(2), 22(2), 23 to 25, 29(4), or 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act. The Committee pointed out that sections 131 to 133 of the Labour Relations Act were incompatible with the Convention.

The Government indicates in its 2003 report that the Ministry of Labour is planning to conduct research on the effect of law enforcement so as to identify the problems and to find out a possibility of law revision or amendment regarding the above provisions.

The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will at last be taken with a view to bringing the above provisions into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will soon be able to report the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(d). The Committee previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for participation in strikes under following provisions of the Labour Relations Act: (i) section 140 read together with section 35(2), if the Minister orders the strikers to return to work as usual, being of the opinion that the strike may cause serious damage to the national economy or hardship to the public or may affect national security or be contrary to public order; (ii) section 139 read together with section 34(4), (5) and (6), if the party required to comply with an arbitrator’s award under section 25 has done so, if the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the Minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the committee under section 24, or if the matter is awaiting the award of labour disputes arbitrators appointed under section 25.

Having noted the Government’s indications in its report that the Ministry of Labour is planning to conduct a study on the effect of law enforcement so as to identify the problems and to assess appropriateness of law revision or amendment with a view to bringing the above provisions into conformity with the Convention, the Committee reiterates its hope that these provisions will be limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), so as to ensure compliance with the Convention on this point.

Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement that section 117 is essential for national peace and security and does not deprive workers of their labour rights or of the right to strike under the labour law. While having noted this statement, as well as the Government’s previous indications that this section had never been applied in practice, and referring also to the explanations provided in paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken, on the occasion of the next revision of the Criminal Code, in order to amend section 117 so as to remove strikes pursuing economic and social objectives affecting the workers’ occupational interests from the scope of sanctions under this section, with a view to bringing this provision into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice.

The Committee previously referred to certain provisions under which workers of state enterprises were prohibited from striking, this prohibition being enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee noted that the new State Enterprise Labour Relations Act B.E. 2543 (2000) also prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), violation of this prohibition being punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for a term of up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who instigates this offence (section 77). The Committee recalled, referring to the explanations provided in paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour on striking employees would be compatible with the Convention only in the case of essential services in the strict sense of the term (i.e. services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), and that a blanket prohibition of strikes in all state-owned enterprises, if enforced with penalties involving compulsory labour, is incompatible with the Convention.

Having noted the Government’s indications in its report that the Ministry of Labour is planning to conduct research and an in-depth study to review the effect of such law enforcement, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken in order to bring the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will soon be able to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous direct request.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its 1999 report that the Press Act B.E. 2484 (1941) was in the process of revocation. According to the Government’s latest report, a draft amendment of this Act is under consideration by the Minister of the Interior and will be further scrutinized by the Council of State. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on the revocation or amendment of the Act and requests the Government to supply a text of amendments or repealing text, as soon as it is adopted.

CMNT_TITLE

1. The Committee notes with satisfaction that the Anti-Communist Activities Act B.E. 2495 (1952), as amended by the Anti-Communist Activities Act (No. 2) B.E. 2512 (1969), which contained provisions punishing with penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) various acts connected with communist activities, such as propagating communist ideology, or belonging to any communist organization, or attending any communist meeting, etc., has been repealed by Act B.E. 2543 (2000), which came into force on 4 June 2001.

2. Article 1(c) of the Convention. Over a number of years (since 1976), the Committee has been commenting on sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act for the prevention of desertion or undue absence from merchant ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), which provide for the forcible conveyance of seafarers on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee noted the Government’s indications in its previous report that the Act had not been applied during the past decade and that a committee was established in March 1999 by the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, for considering drafting seafarers’ legislation and upgrading their standards of work in compliance with ILO standards.

The Government indicates in its latest report of 2001 that the Act is the responsibility of the Royal Thai Police, and that the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare is proceeding to make suggestions to that government agency on the possibility of repealing the Act. The Committee reiterates its hope that, either in the course of the revision of seafarers’ legislation or otherwise, the abovementioned provisions will be at last repealed and the legislation will be brought into conformity with the Convention on this point, and will also be consistent with the indicated practice. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

3. The Committee previously noted that, under sections 131 and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, B.E. 2518 (1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who, even individually, violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18(2), 22(2), 23-25, 29(4), or 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act. The Committee pointed out that sections 131 to 133 of the Labour Relations Act were incompatible with the Convention, in so far as the scope of sanctions involving compulsory prison labour is not limited to acts and omissions which impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services in the strict sense of the term, or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger.

The Government in its report of 1997, agreed that the distinction between essential and non-essential services should be addressed, and that the Senate was in fact expected to discuss the definition of "essential services". However, in its latest report of 2001, the Government indicates that the discussion might have taken place during the passage of the draft amendment to the State Enterprise Labour Relations Bill but, as a result of many amendments made, a definition of "essential services" was deleted from the draft amendment and the issue was not opened for discussion in the Senate. The Government also expresses the opinion that, in the context of Thailand as a developing country, "essential services" should also cover the services whose interruption would lead to any national calamity which might affect the population, economy and security.

While noting these indications, the Committee observes, referring also to paragraphs 114 and 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that the Government’s view on the definition of "essential services" does not seem to meet the criteria of "essential services" in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). The criteria which has to be established is therefore the existence of a clear and imminent threat to the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; a threat to the national economy, which might be subject to a very broad interpretation, does not seem to meet the requirements of such criteria. Similarly, as the Committee pointed out in its previous comments, some of the services listed in section 23 of the Labour Relations Act (such as railway or port services) and all the services mentioned in Ministerial Regulations No. 2 referred to by the Government in its 1999 report, do not meet the criteria of "essential services" either.

The Committee therefore reiterates firm hope that the Government will reconsider this question in the light of its obligations under Article 1(c) of the Convention and that it will provide, in its next report, information on the measures taken in order to ensure compliance.

4. Article 1(d). In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for participation in strikes under the Labour Relations Act: (i) section 140 read together with section 35(2), if the Minister orders the strikers to return to work as usual, being of the opinion that the strike may cause serious damage to the national economy or hardship to the public or may affect national security or be contrary to public order; (ii) section 139 read together with section 34(4), (5) and (6), if the party required to comply with an arbitrator’s award under section 25 has done so, if the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the Minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the committee under section 24, or if the matter is awaiting the award of labour disputes arbitrators appointed under section 25.

The Government indicates in its latest report that the Minister has never exercised the powers conferred under section 35 to intervene in any peaceful strike which does not give the abovementioned effect, and that no penalties have been imposed under the Act. It also states that the penalties of imprisonment are provided to serve only as a preventive measure to protect the public against the interruption of the service which would endanger the life, personal safety, health or well-being of the population or national security. While noting these indications, the Committee points out once again that, under the abovementioned provisions of the Labour Relations Act, penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed for participation in strikes not only where they concern essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), but also in a wider range of circumstances which cannot be held to be removed from the scope of Article 1(d) of the Convention.

Referring to paragraphs 122-132 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee expresses firm hope that the Government will not fail to take the necessary measures to have the abovementioned provisions amended in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

5. The Committee previously noted that, under section 117 of the Criminal Code, participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people was punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). It referred to the explanations provided in paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey, where it indicated that, while the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, in so far as restrictions on the right to engage in such strikes are accompanied by penalties involving compulsory work, they should apply neither to matters likely to be resolved through the signing of a collective agreement nor to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers.

The Government reiterates its previous statement that section 117 is essential to internal security and does not concern the prohibition or restrictions on the right to engage in strikes or collective agreements. It indicates again that this section has never been applied in practice. While noting these indications, the Committee expresses firm hope that the necessary action will be taken, on the occasion of the next revision of the Criminal Code, in order to amend section 117 so as to remove strikes pursuing economic and social objectives affecting the workers’ occupational interests from the scope of sanctions under this section, with a view to bringing this provision into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice.

6. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 19 of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act, which provided that workers of state enterprises were prohibited from striking, this prohibition being enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour), under section 45, paragraph 1, of the Act. The Committee has noted that the new State Enterprise Labour Relations Act B.E. 2543 (2000), which came into force on 8 April 2000, also prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), violation of this prohibition being punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for a term of up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who instigates this offence (section 77).

The Committee again refers to the explanations provided in paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour and recalls that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour on striking employees would be compatible with the Convention only in the case of essential services in the strict sense of the term (i.e. services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population).

While noting the Government’s repeated statement in its report that the state utilities and services are essential for the living of the people and must be ensured against interruption or instability, the Committee again points out that the distinction between essential and non-essential services is a functional one and does not depend on private or state ownership of the enterprises concerned. A blanket prohibition of strikes in all state-owned enterprises, if enforced with penalties involving compulsory labour, is incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future in order to bring the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act into conformity with the Convention. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous direct request.

Article 1(a) of the Convention.  1.  The Committee notes that the Political Parties Act B.E. 2524 (1981) was repealed on 10 June 1998 due to the enactment of the Organic Law on Political Parties B.E. 2541 (1998) and sections 47(1), (2) and 52 of the 1981 Act were consequently revoked. It requests the Government to supply, with its next report, a copy of the new Organic Law on Political Parties referred to above.

2.  The Committee also notes the Government’s indication in the report that the Press Act B.E. 2484 (1941) is in process of revocation, and that a draft amendment of this Act was passed to the Cabinet on 28 September 1999. The Committee requests the Government to keep the ILO informed of the revocation or amendment of the Act and to supply a text of amendments or repealing text as soon as it is adopted.

3.  As regards sections 8 and 9 of the Emergency Administration Act, 1952, the Committee notes the Government’s indications in the report that these sections have rarely been applied in practice and would be applied only in the case where the Government deems it necessary for national peacekeeping and the safety of the public at large. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide, in its future reports, information on any prohibitions made under the abovementioned sections of the Act, if and when such prohibitions are applied in practice.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee has noted the Government’s report.

1.  Article 1(a) of the Convention.  In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that penalties of imprisonment may be imposed under sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Anti-Communist Activities Act B.E. 2495 (1952) for engaging in communist activities, conducting propaganda or making any preparation with a view to carrying on communist activities, belonging to any communist organization, or attending any communist meeting unless able to prove ignorance of its nature and object. Similarly, under sections 9, 12 and 13 to 17 of the same Act, inserted by the Anti-Communist Activities Act (No. 2) B.E. 2512 (1969), penalties of imprisonment may be imposed for assisting any communist organization or member of such organization in a variety of ways, propagating communist ideology or principles leading to the approval of such ideology, or contravention of restrictions imposed by the Government on movements, activities and liberties of persons in any area classified as a communist infiltration area.

The Government states in its report that the national circumstances have changed considerably since the adoption of the Act, which has come to be considered obsolete and inappropriate to national conditions. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the Act is in the process of revocation and the draft entitled "the Act Repealing the Anti-Communist Activities Act B.E. 2495" has already been passed through the House of Representatives and is being scrutinized by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Senate. It hopes that the Anti-Communist Activities Act B.E. 2495 will be repealed shortly and requests the Government to supply a copy of a repealing text, as soon as it is adopted.

2.  Article 1(c).  Over a number of years, the Committee has been commenting on sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act for the prevention of desertion or undue absence from merchant ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), which provide for the forcible conveyance of seafarers on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee notes the Government’s indications in its report that the Act has not been applied during the past decade and that a committee was established in March 1999 by the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare for considering drafting seafarers’ legislation and upgrading their standards of work in compliance with the ILO standards. The Committee hopes that, in the course of the revision of seafarers’ legislation, the abovementioned provisions will be repealed or amended so as to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

3.  In its earlier comments the Committee noted that under sections 131 and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, B.E. 2518 (1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who, even individually, violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18(2), 22(2), 23 to 25, 29(4), or 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act. The Committee pointed out that sections 131 to 133 of the Labour Relations Act were incompatible with the Convention in so far as the scope of sanctions involving compulsory prison labour is not limited to acts and omissions that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services in the strict sense of the term, or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger.

The Government stated in its previous report of 1997 that it agreed that the distinction between essential and non-essential services should be addressed. However, it refers in its latest report of 1999 to a list of services given in section 23 of the Labour Relations Act and in the Ministerial Regulations of the Ministry of Interior No. 2, which in the Government’s view can be implied as essential services. The Committee wishes to point out in this connection, with reference to paragraphs 114 and 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that some of the services listed in section 23 of the Act (such as railway or port services) and all the services mentioned in the Ministerial Regulations No. 2 referred to by the Government, do not seem to meet the criteria of "essential services" in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population).

The Committee therefore expresses firm hope that the Government will reconsider this question in the light of its obligations under Article 1(c) of the Convention and that it will provide, in its next report, information on the measures taken in order to ensure compliance with the Convention. Recalling in this context the Government’s indication in its 1997 report that the Senate was in fact expected to discuss the definition of "essential services", the Committee asks the Government to indicate whether such discussion took place and to provide full details.

4.  Article 1(d).  The Committee previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for participation in strikes under the Labour Relations Act: (i) section 140 read together with section 35(2), if the Minister orders the strikers to return to work as usual, being of the opinion that the strike may cause serious damage to the national economy or hardship to the public or may affect national security or be contrary to public order; (ii) section 139 read together with section 34(4), (5) and (6), if the party required to comply with an arbitrator’s award under section 25 has done so, if the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the Minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the committee under section 24, or if the matter is awaiting the award of labour disputes arbitrators appointed under section 25.

The Government states in its latest report that the Minister shall exercise the powers conferred under section 35 in the case where the strikers may cause serious damage to the national economy or to the public order, and shall not exercise such powers to intervene in any peaceful strike which does not give that effect. The Committee wishes to point out once again that, under the abovementioned provisions of the Act, penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed for participation in strikes not only where they concern essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, the personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population), but also in a wider range of circumstances which cannot be held to be removed from the scope of Article 1(d) of the Convention.

Referring to paragraphs 122 to 132 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to take the necessary measures to have the abovementioned provisions amended in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

5.  In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that under section 117 of the Criminal Code participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people was punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). It referred to the explanations provided in paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey, where it indicated that, while the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, in so far as restrictions on the right to engage in such strikes are accompanied by penalties involving compulsory work, they should neither apply to matters likely to be resolved through the signing of a collective agreement nor to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers.

The Government reaffirms in its latest report that section 117 is only essential to internal security and does not concern the prohibition or restrictions on the right to engage in strikes or collective agreements. It states that this section has never been applied in practice. The Committee therefore again expresses the hope that the necessary action will be taken to remove strikes pursuing economic and social objectives affecting the workers’ occupational interests from the scope of sanctions under section 117 of the Criminal Code, in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice.

6.  The Committee previously noted that section 19 of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act provided that workers of state enterprises may not in any case stage a strike or undertake any activity in the nature of a strike. Under section 45, paragraph 1, of the Act, violation of this prohibition may be punished by imprisonment (with labour) for a term of up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who "incites, or aids or abets the commission" of the offence under paragraph 1. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee recalled that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour on striking employees would be compatible with the Convention only in the case of essential services in the strict sense of the term (i.e. services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its latest report that most of the state enterprises are essential for public service and public utility, and their interruption would cause serious damages to public order, national security and the safety of the population. The Committee wishes to point out once again that the distinction between essential and non-essential services is a functional one and does not depend on private or state ownership of the enterprises concerned. A blanket prohibition of strikes in all state-owned enterprises, if enforced with penalties involving compulsory labour, is incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its latest report that a draft Bill intended to amend the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act, which had been prepared by the Senate and amended by the Ad Hoc Committee, was rejected by the House of Representatives in August 1999 and, as a result, was withheld for 180 days.

Noting the Government’s statement in the report that the draft Bill provides for greater freedom of association rights in the state enterprises, the Committee reiterates its hope that appropriate measures will be taken in the near future with a view to bringing the Act into conformity with the Convention. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous direct request. It would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on the application in practice of sections 47(1), (2) and 52 of the Political Party Act B.E. 2524 (1981) and sections 62 and 63 of the Press Act B.E. 2484 (1941), as well as information on any prohibitions made under sections 8 and 9 of the Emergency Administration Act, 1952.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments.

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee noted previously that penalties of imprisonment may be imposed under sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Anti-Communist Activities Act B.E. 2495 (1952) for engaging in communist activities, conducting propaganda or making any preparation with a view to carrying on communist activities, belonging to any communist organization, or attending any communist meeting unless able to prove ignorance of its nature and object. Similarly, under sections 9, 12 and 13 to 17 of the same Act, inserted by the Anti-Communist Activities Act (No. 2) B.E. 2512 (1969), penalties of imprisonment may be imposed for assisting any communist organization or member of such organization in a variety of ways, propagating communist ideology or principles leading to the approval of such ideology, or contravention of restrictions imposed by the Government on movements, activities and liberties of persons in any area classified as a communist infiltration area. The Government indicates in its report that the Anti-Communist Activities Act is taken care of by the Ministry of Defence and repeats that it is important to the nation's interest and security.

The Committee must again point out that these provisions may be used as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for holding or expressing, even peacefully, certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, and are accordingly incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention, in so far as the penalties provided involve compulsory labour. It therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure the observance of the Convention in this respect, and asks the Government to report on the action taken.

2. Article 1(c). In comments made since 1976, the Committee has noted that sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Act for the prevention of desertion or undue absence from merchant ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), provide for the forcible conveyance of seafarers on board ship to perform their duties. In 1990, the Committee noted the Government's indication in its report for the period ending 30 June 1988 that "the Act for the prevention of desertion or undue absence from merchant ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), has not been changed or repealed at present", but that a committee had been established for considering seafarers' legislation.

The Government in its latest report attributes the lack of progress in this respect to the division of responsibility among several government agencies, such as the Ministry of Labour and the Harbour Department, the Bureau under Ministry of Transport and Communication. The Committee recalls the Convention's requirement that forced labour should not be used as a means of labour discipline and asks the Government to report on any progress made in this regard.

3. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that under sections 131 and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, B.E. 2518 (1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who, even individually, violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, paragraph (2), 22, paragraph (2), 23 to 25, 29, paragraph (4), or 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act. The Government considered these provisions necessary to make both employers and workers abide by agreements on terms of employment or arbitration awards and that they do not provide for compulsory labour. The Government indicates in its latest report that the provisions of sections 131 and 133 were applied to only a few cases and no imprisonment was imposed. The Committee previously noted that sections 131 to 133 of the Labour Relations Act were incompatible with the Convention in so far as the scope of sanctions involving compulsory prison labour is not limited to acts and omissions that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger.

The Government now states in the report that it agrees that the distinction between essential and non-essential services should be addressed, but that it is not ready to sacrifice its well-organized system of law for the clearer meaning of "essential service". The Committee trusts that the Government will nevertheless reconsider this question in the light of its obligations under the Convention, which aims to protect the fundamental human right to freedom from forced labour, and that it will provide full details in its next report. It notes in this context the Government's indication that the Senate was in fact expected to discuss the definition of "essential services".

4. Article 1(d). In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for participation in strikes under the Labour Relations Act: (i) section 140 read together with section 35(2), if the Minister orders the strikers to return to work as usual, being of the opinion that the strike may cause serious damage to the national economy or hardship to the public or may affect national security or be contrary to public order; (ii) section 139 read together with section 34(4), (5) and (6), if the party required to comply with an arbitrator's award under section 25 has done so, if the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the Minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the committee under section 24, or if the matter is awaiting the award of labour disputes arbitrators appointed under section 25.

The Committee notes the Government's statements in its latest report, which seem to regard the effective enforcement of the provisions in question as dependent on the inclusion of compulsory labour in the penalty of imprisonment. Although under the above-mentioned provisions of the Act, penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed for participation in strikes which are not excluded from the scope of the Convention, i.e. where they concern essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, the personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population), in a wider range of circumstances their enforcement with penalties involving compulsory prison labour is contrary to Article 1(d) of the Convention. To this extent, then, the question seems therefore to depend once again on the definition of "essential services". With reference to paragraphs 122 to 132 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, and recalling the Government's indication in its report ending June 1988 that the powers conferred under section 35 of the Act have seldom been used, the Committee expresses firmly the hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to have the above-mentioned provisions amended.

5. The Committee previously noted that under section 117 of the Criminal Code participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people was punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). It referred to the explanations provided in paragraph 128 of its General Survey of 1979, where it indicated that, while the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, in so far as restrictions on the right to engage in such strikes are accompanied by penalties involving compulsory work, they should apply neither to matters likely to be resolved through the signing of a collective agreement nor to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers.

The Committee notes the Government's statement in the report that the sole object of section 117 is the prohibition of "purely political" strikes and not the suppression of the right to strike or to bargain collectively. It observes that Article 1(d) makes no distinction as between "political" and other strikes. The Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of this provision, including the number of sentences of imprisonment and particulars of relevant court decisions, as well as on any measures taken or contemplated in this connection to ensure the observance of the Convention.

6. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that section 19 of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act provided that workers of state enterprises may not in any case stage a strike or undertake any activity in the nature of a strike. Under section 45, paragraph 1, of the Act, violation of this prohibition may be punished by imprisonment (with labour) for a term of up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who "incites, or aids or abets the commission" of the offence under paragraph 1. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraph 123 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee recalled that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour on striking employees would be compatible with the Convention in the case of essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The distinction between essential and non-essential services is a functional one and does not depend on private or state ownership of the enterprises concerned. A blanket prohibition of strikes in all state-owned enterprises, if enforced with penalties involving compulsory labour, is incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act is now before the Senate for consideration and that the issue of a definition of essential services is likely to be discussed. The Committee therefore hopes that appropriate measures will be taken in the near future with a view to bringing the Act into conformity with the Convention and asks the Government to supply, in its next report, full information on the progress made in this regard.

7. In general, as regards the question of the roles of different government agencies and, in particular, in relation to the definition of "essential services" for purposes of the Convention, the Committee would remind the Government that the technical advisory services of the ILO are at its disposal.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee has noted information provided by the Government in reply to the Committee's previous request, including the texts of Supreme Court Decisions Nos. 2038-2041/2527, 970/2505 and 1241/2503.

1. The Committee notes the Government's indication that there has not been further information as to the Registrar requesting court action under section 47(1) and (2), and section 52 of the Political Party Act B.E. 2524 (1981). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of these provisions.

2. The Committee notes the Government's indication that no cases have been brought under sections 62 and 63 of the Press Act B.E. 2484 (1941). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any prohibitions made under sections 8 and 9 of the Emergency Administration Act, 1952, and to continue supplying information on the practical application of sections 62 and 63 of the Press Act B.E. 2484.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee has noted the detailed information provided by the Government in reply to the 1994 request. Referring also to its observation on the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to supply additional information on the following points.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government concerning the practical application of the Criminal Code B.E. 2499 (1956). It would appreciate it if the Government would include the texts of Supreme Court Decisions Nos. 2038-2041/2527, 970/2505, and 1241/2503 in the next report.

2. The Committee notes the Government's indication that the Registrar has not yet requested any court action under section 47(1) and (2), and section 52 of the Political Party Act B.E. 2524 (1981). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of these provisions.

3. The Committee has noted the Government's indication that information on the practical application of the Press Act B.E. 2484 (1941) on sections 62 and 63 together with information on any prohibitions made under sections 8 and 9 of the Emergency Administration Act, 1952, will be submitted by the next report.

4. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Penal Code Amendment Act (No. 13) B.E. 2537.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the report provided by the Government.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee noted previously that penalties of imprisonment may be imposed under sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Anti-Communist Activities Act B.E. 2495 (1952) on anyone who engages in communist activities, or who conducts propaganda or makes any preparation with a view to carrying on communist activities, who is a member of any communist organization, or who attends any communist meeting unless he can prove that he did so in ignorance of its nature and object. Similarly, under sections 9, 12 and 13 to 17 of the same Act, inserted by the Anti-Communist Activities Act (No. 2) B.E. 2512 (1969), penalties of imprisonment may be imposed on whoever assists any communist organization or member of such organization in a variety of ways, who propagates communist ideology or principles leading to the approval of such ideology, or who contravenes restrictions imposed by the Government on movements, activities and liberties of persons in any area classified as a communist infiltration area.

The Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that section 35 of the Thai Constitution (B.E. 2538 (1995)) provides that exception from the prohibition of compulsory labour can only be made by law with respect to emergency, state of war and martial law.

The Committee observes that the provisions of the above-mentioned Act do not appear to fall under any of the exceptions allowed by the 1995 Constitution. Moreover, they may be used as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for holding or expressing, even peacefully, certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, and are accordingly incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention in so far as the penalties provided involve compulsory labour.

The Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary measures will be taken with regard to the Anti-Communist Activities Act to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken.

Article 1(c). 2. In comments made since 1976, the Committee has noted that sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Act for the prevention of desertion or undue absence from merchant ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), provide for the forcible conveyance of seamen on board ship to perform their duties.

In 1990, the Committee noted the Government's indication in its report for the period ending 30 June 1988 that "the Act for the prevention of desertion or undue absence from merchant ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), has not been changed or repealed at present", but that a committee had been established for considering seamen's legislation, and that any alterations to this legislation would be reported to the ILO as soon as possible. The Committee noted the Government's indication in its report for the period ending 30 June 1994, made after consideration with the Juridical Council, that the Act previously mentioned should be the Act of prevention of crews absent from their duty on merchant ships, B.E. 2465 (1922) which is being enforced. The Government added that the provisions would however probably be useless at present because it was not to be enforced for a very long time.

The Committee hopes that in the circumstances the Government will be in a position to take the necessary measures to have sections 5 to 7 of the Act repealed, and that it will soon report on the action taken.

3. The Committee noted previously that under sections 131 and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, B.E. 2518 (1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who, even individually, violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, paragraph (2), 22, paragraph (2), 23 to 25, 29, paragraph (4) or 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Committee notes the indication in the Government's reply to its previous observation that these provisions are necessary to make both employers and workers abide by agreements on terms of employment or arbitration awards and that they do not provide for compulsory labour.

The Committee earlier indicated that legal provisions punishing a breach of labour discipline with compulsory labour were outside the scope of the Convention if they dealt with essential services or, in other words, with situations endangering the life, the personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population.

In this regard, the Committee has previously noted that sections 131 to 133 of the Labour Relations Act were incompatible with the Convention in so far as the scope of sanctions involving compulsory prison labour is not limited to acts and omissions that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger.

The Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that the clear distinction between essential and non-essential services has not yet been made. The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will indicate the action taken or contemplated in this regard to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Article 1(d). 4. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that penalties of imprisonment may be imposed for participation in strikes under the following provisions of the Labour Relations Act:

(a) section 140 read together with section 35(2), if the Minister orders the strikers to return to work as usual, being of the opinion that the strike may cause serious damage to the national economy or may cause hardship to the public or may affect national security or may be contrary to public order;

(b) section 139 read together with section 34(4), (5) and (6), if the party required to comply with an arbitrator's award under section 25 has complied therewith, if the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the Minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the Committee under section 24, or if the matter is awaiting the award of labour disputes arbitrators appointed under section 25.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that the above-mentioned provisions of the Labour Relations Act do not compel workers to resume their work and that workers are free to leave the employment if they choose to do so. The Committee wishes to point out that the compulsory labour referred to in Article 1(d) of the Convention covers the punishment for having participated in strikes and not the work which is stopped by the strikes. The Committee notes that under the above-mentioned provisions of the Act, penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed for participation in strikes which are not excluded from the scope of the Convention. The Committee refers to paragraphs 122 to 132 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced or compulsory labour in which it indicated strikes which are not covered by the Convention.

Recalling the Government's indication in its report ending June 1988 that the powers conferred under section 35 of the Act have been seldom used, the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to have the above-mentioned provisions amended.

5. The Committee previously noted that under section 117 of the Criminal Code participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people was punishable with imprisonment.

The Committee again refers to the explanations provided in paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced or compulsory labour, where it indicated that while the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, nevertheless, in so far as restrictions on the right to engage in such strikes are accompanied by penalties involving compulsory work, these restrictions should apply neither to matters likely to be resolved through the signing of a collective agreement nor to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers.

The Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary action will be taken to remove all strikes pursuing aims of an economic and social nature that affect the workers' occupational interests from the scope of sanctions under section 117 of the Criminal Code and that pending such action, the Government will continue to supply information on the application in practice of section 117.

6. The Committee noted previously that section 19 of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act provided that workers of state enterprises shall not in any case stage a strike or undertake any activity in the nature of a strike. Under section 45, paragraph 1, of the Act, a person who violates this prohibition may be punished by imprisonment for a term of up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who "incites, or aids or abets the commission" of the offence under paragraph 1.

Referring to the explanations provided in paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced or compulsory labour, the Committee recalled that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour on striking employees would be compatible with the Convention in the case of essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, because there the punishment is not aimed at the strike as such but at the endangering of life, personal safety or health. The distinction between essential and non-essential services is a functional one and does not depend on private or state ownership of the enterprises concerned. A blanket prohibition of strikes in all state-owned enterprises, if enforced with penalties involving compulsory labour, is incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that a clear definition of essential services is yet to be drawn and pending such definition the Government would be compelled to focus more on the safeguarding of the public interest. The Committee also notes the indication that the Government policies of both the previous and the current Prime Ministers have remained unchanged, that is, to prohibit strikes in public utilities and services.

The Committee hopes that the Government will reconsider the issue with a view to bringing the relevant legislation into conformity with the Convention, and that it will supply full information on the action taken.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in its report in reply to the 1994 observation.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee noted previously that penalties of imprisonment may be imposed under sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Anti-Communist Activities Act B.E. 2495 (1952) on anyone who engages in communist activities, or who conducts propaganda or makes any preparation with a view to carrying on communist activities, who is a member of any communist organization, or who attends any communist meeting unless he can prove that he did so in ignorance of its nature and object. Similarly, under sections 9, 12 and 13 to 17 of the same Act, inserted by the Anti-Communist Activities Act (No. 2) B.E. 2512 (1969), penalties of imprisonment may be imposed on whoever assists any communist organization or member of such organization in a variety of ways, who propagates communist ideology or principles leading to the approval of such ideology, or who contravenes restrictions imposed by the Government on movements, activities and liberties of persons in any area classified as a communist infiltration area.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that, as stated before, the Anti-Communist Activities Act of 1952 was considered necessary to punish any activity which would endanger the peace and security of the nation and the people. The Government adds that any view which is ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system without incitement to violence can be expressed under the scope of the Thai Constitution, and that Thailand is one of the liberal countries in the world which allows people to freely express their opinions, and carry out their peaceful activities both for and against the established regime.

The Committee has taken due note of these indications. It must again point out that the above-mentioned provisions are not limited in scope to the punishment of violence or of incitement to violence, but may be used as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for holding or expressing, even peacefully, certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, and are accordingly incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention in so far as the penalties provided involve compulsory labour.

With regard to the protection afforded under the Constitution, the Committee notes that in Chapter III of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2521 (1978), (Rights and liberties of the Thai people) the rights of free speech, writing and publishing (section 34), peaceable assembly without arms (section 35), forming associations (section 37) and political parties (section 38) were all expressly limited by any restrictions set forth in laws. Thus, the constitutional protection referred to was restricted by the provisions of the Anti-Communist Activities Act B.E. 2495 (1952). The Committee notes that after the National Peacekeeping Committee seized and took control of administrative power over the country on 23 February B.E. 2534 (1991), a "Constitution for the Administration of the Kingdom" was proclaimed on 1 March B.E. 2534 (1991) which contains no guarantees similar to those of sections 34, 35, 37 and 38 of the 1978 Constitution.

The Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary measures will be taken with regard to the Anti-Communist Activities Act to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken.

Article 1(c). 2. In comments made since 1976, the Committee has noted that sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Act for the prevention of desertion or undue absence from merchant ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), provide for the forcible conveyance of seamen on board ship to perform their duties.

In 1990, the Committee noted the Government's indication in its report for the period ending 30 June 1988 that "the Act for the prevention of desertion or undue absence from merchant ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), has not been changed or repealed at present", but that a committee had been established for considering seamen's legislation, and that any alterations to this legislation would be reported to the ILO as soon as possible. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its latest report, made after consideration with the Juridical Council, that the Act previously mentioned should be the Act of prevention of crews absent from their duty on merchant ships, B.E. 2465 (1922) which is being enforced. The Government adds that the provisions would however probably be useless at present because it was not to be enforced for a very long time.

The Committee hopes that in the circumstances the Government will be in a position to take the necessary measures to have sections 5 to 7 of the Act repealed, and that it will soon report on the action taken.

3. The Committee noted previously that under sections 131 and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, B.E. 2518 (1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who, even individually, violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, paragraph (2), 22, paragraph (2), 23 to 25, 29, paragraph (4) or 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act. In this regard, the Government indicates in its latest report that the penal sanction under sections 131 and 133 of the Labour Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975) is imposed on employers and employees who violate, or fail to comply with, the agreement relating to conditions of employment or the arbitration award while the agreement or award is still in force; the purpose of which is to protect the right of persons according to the agreement or the award and to ensure the compliance with the agreement and the award. The Government adds that there has been tripartite agreement to accept the Code of Conduct for the promotion of a labour relations system to resolve the labour conflict between employers and employees, and one of the main clauses provides that each party shall respect and comply with the provisions of labour law and the agreement relating to conditions of employment.

The Committee takes due note of these indications. It must recall that Article 1(c) of the Convention is not concerned with the enforcement of agreements or awards through the adjudication of damages or fines, but only with the use of any sanction that involves compulsory labour - such as a prison sentence does under relevant laws - as a punishment for a breach of labour discipline. While such a sanction is incompatible with the Convention when imposed for a breach of labour discipline, the Committee has considered that the protection of life or health - as distinct from mere labour discipline - is outside the scope of the Convention.

In this regard, the Committee has previously noted that sections 131 to 133 of the Labour Relations Act were incompatible with the Convention in so far as the scope of sanctions involving compulsory prison labour is not limited to acts and omissions that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, the personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population, or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger. The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will indicate the action taken or contemplated in this regard to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Article 1(d). 4. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that penalties of imprisonment may be imposed for participation in strikes under the following provisions of the Labour Relations Act:

(a) section 140 read together with section 35(2), if the Minister orders the strikers to return to work as usual, being of the opinion that the strike may cause serious damage to the national economy or may cause hardship to the public or may affect national security or may be contrary to public order;

(b) section 139 read together with section 34(4), (5) and (6), if the party required to comply with an arbitrator's award under section 25 has complied therewith, if the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the Minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the Committee under section 24, or if the matter is awaiting the award of labour disputes arbitrators appointed under section 25.

The Government indicates in its latest report that section 139 of the Labour Relations Act is intended to ensure a labour relations procedure to be step by step, and not causing hardship to the public, and that section 140 of the Labour Relations Act is intended to suppress the exercise of the right to strike or lock-out for specific reasons where it is considered that the lock-out or strike may adversely affect the economy of the country or cause hardship to the public or endanger the security of the country, or that it is against public order, in the Government's view, the enforcement is necessary to protect the general public and to maintain public order.

The Committee takes due note of these indications. It must again point out that the provisions referred to provide for binding awards or ministerial decisions not only where these have been freely accepted by the parties, or where they concern essential services whose interruption would endanger the life, the personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population, or in cases of force majeure likewise endangering the life, the personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population, but in a wider range of circumstances where their enforcement with penalties involving compulsory prison labour is contrary to Article 1(d) of the Convention.

Recalling the Government's indication in its report for the period ending June 1988 that the powers conferred under section 35 have been seldom used, and referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 122 to 132 of its above-mentioned General Survey, the Committee once more expresses the hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to have the above-mentioned provisions amended, and that it will indicate the action taken.

5. The Committee previously noted that under section 117 of the Criminal Code participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people was punishable with imprisonment. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that section 117 aims to ensure the security within the country, that it is used in practice in respect of persons whose intentions are to overthrow the Government by unconstitutional means, but that nobody has been prosecuted under this section.

The Committee again refers to the explanations provided in paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, where it indicated that while the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, nevertheless, in so far as restrictions on the right to engage in such strikes are accompanied by penalties involving compulsory work, these restrictions should apply neither to matters likely to be resolved through the signing of a collective agreement nor to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers.

The Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary action will be taken to remove all strikes pursuing aims of an economic and social nature that affect the workers' occupational interests from the scope of sanctions under section 117 of the Criminal Code and that pending such action, the Government will continue to supply information on the application in practice of section 117.

6. The Committee noted previously that section 19 of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act, enacted on 15 April 1991, provided that workers of state enterprises shall not in any case stage a strike or undertake any activity in the nature of a strike. Under section 45, paragraph 1, of the Act a person who violates this prohibition may be punished by imprisonment for a term of up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who "incites, or aids or abets the commission" of the offence under paragraph 1.

The Committee noted that a revised Act was to be submitted to Parliament and expressed the hope that the provisions to be adopted would be in conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes from the Government's report that the State Enterprise Labour Relations Bill B.E. 2534 (1994) passed the first reading in Parliament on 28 September 1994, and that the legislation will allow employees to form activities relations committees (section 18) and to enjoy representation rights, although not the right to strike (section 19). Under section 45, paragraph 1, of the Act a person who violates the prohibition to strike may be punished by imprisonment for a term of up to one year; this penalty is doubled under paragraph 2, in the case of a person who "incites, or aids or abets the commission" of the offence under paragraph 1.

Addressing the question how imprisonment as a punishment for striking employees can be justified under Article 1(d) of the Convention, the Government lists a number of reasons: in its view, a strike is an industrial weapon designated to apply to labour relations in the private sector, while state enterprises could not fully function as private entities and employment relations there are far from competitive. Rarely have any complaints been received from Thai civil servants, from whom the right to strike is also withheld, because they understand how essential their tasks are for the people who rely on their service, and what harm a strike might do. Most of the state enterprises provide essential services to the public. In the private sector unions turn to strike as a final resort after other methods of collective bargaining have failed; on the contrary, even the threat to strike from state enterprises' unions tended to harm or endanger the public who depend on their services and, irrespective of how the strike would end, the strikers were fully assured that their undertakings would not be discontinued and neither the Government nor the management would take the risk of dismissing them; temporary replacement of striking employees, as practised in the private sector, had rarely been executed in state enterprises (in time) before severe losses occurred. What the public expects from the state enterprise is not the unlikely profit from their transactions, but the assurance of continuity of essential services. Total abolition of the no-strike clause is contrary to the basic principle of public administration; the public interest comes first. If Parliament gives the final approval to the Bill, it implies that the majority of the people give strong support to this law and make it even harder to contest its legitimacy.

The Committee has taken due note of these indications. Referring again to the explanations provided in paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee recalls that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour on striking employees would be compatible with the Convention in the case of essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, because there the punishment is not aimed at the strike as such but at the endangering of life, personal safety or health. The distinction between essential and non-essential services is a functional one and does not depend on private or state ownership of the enterprises concerned. A blanket prohibition of strikes in all state-owned enterprises, if enforced with penalties involving compulsory labour, is incompatible with the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will reconsider the issue with a view to bringing the relevant legislation into conformity with the Convention, and that it will supply full information on the action taken.

The Committee also requests the Government to report in detail on the provisions punishing strikes by civil servants, mentioned in the Government's report.

CMNT_TITLE

Prison labour. 1. The Committee noted previously that, under section 18 of the Criminal Code B.E. 2499 (1956), penalties to be imposed on offenders comprise imprisonment and detention, and under section 25, paragraph 2, a detainee shall perform work in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable at the place of his detention. The Committee noted that the Penitentiary Act B.E. 2479 (1936), the Act on Confinement Procedures under Criminal Code B.E. 2506 (1963) and the Act on the Rules of Practice on Relegation under the Criminal Code B.E. 2510 (1967) were still in force. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on measures taken, and a copy of any regulations adopted, pursuant to section 5 of Act B.E. 2506 (1963) and section 5 of Act B.E. 2510 as concerns work, education and training.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 2. In its previous comments, the Committee has referred to the following provisions of the Criminal Code B.E. 2499 (1956): section 116 (advocating change of the laws of the Kingdom or causing disorder or disaffection among the people); sections 209 to 213 (dealing with secret societies and criminal associations); sections 207, 215 and 216 (dealing with unlawful assemblies); and section 384 (alarming the public by circulating false reports). The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the practical application of these provisions.

The Committee noted previously the Government's statement that few cases had been filed under section 116 and no case involving other sections had been noted. The Committee notes the information on a case under section 116 provided by the Government in its latest report. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to provide information on the practical application of the above-mentioned provisions.

3. The Committee has noted the provisions of the Political Party Act B.E. 2524 (1981) such as amended in 1992, a copy of which was sent by the Government with its report. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the practical application of section 47(1) and (2) under which a court may order the dissolution of a political party for taking actions which may be contrary to the democratic system of government or may be a threat to national security or be against laws, peace or good order or good morals of the population (including the number of, and grounds for, dissolution ordered by the court, and on any penal sanctions imposed under section 52 of the Act).

4. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the practical application of the following provisions of the Press Act B.E. 2484 (1941) to which the Committee referred previously: section 62 (publishing of any matter relating to international political affairs, where such publication has been prohibited by the police in the interests of public order) and section 63 (publishing any matter which contravenes a censorship order imposed in case of declaration of a state of emergency).

5. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any prohibitions made under sections 8 and 9 of the Emergency Administration Act, 1952, regarding public meetings and the expression of opinions.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report and the discussion which took place in the Conference Committee in 1993.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee noted previously that penalties of imprisonment may be imposed under sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Anti-Communist Activities Act B.E. 2495 (1952) on anyone who engages in communist activities, or who conducts propaganda or makes any preparation with a view to carrying on communist activities, who is a member of any communist organization, or who attends any communist meeting unless he can prove that he did so in ignorance of its nature and object. Similarly, under sections 9, 12 and 13 to 17 of the same Act, inserted by the Anti-Communist Activities Act (No. 2) B.E. 2512 (1969), penalties of imprisonment may be imposed on whoever assists any communist organization or member of such organization in a variety of ways, who propagates communist ideology or principles leading to the approval of such ideology, or who contravenes restrictions imposed by the Government on movements, activities and liberties of persons in any area classified as a communist infiltration area.

The Committee notes the Government's indication that the Anti-Communist Activities Act of 1952 was adopted to protect the democratic system of the country suitable to its socio-economic development. The penalty of imprisonment in the Act was considered necessary to prevent any activity which would endanger the peace and security of the nation and the people; only those had been imprisoned who were proven to have been engaged in actions to bring about disasters to the nation or the people. The Government refers to two policy documents on combating and achieving victory over communists (Orders of the Office of the Prime Minister No. 66/2523 (1980) and 65/2525 (1982) adopted to eliminate conflicts between the pro-communist activists and the Government with a view to creating a peaceful situation in the country; as a result of these measures a great number of pro-communists surrendered; the Government provided them with help, and the number of pro-communists had decreased considerably.

While noting that the stated aim of these policies is to foster democracy, the Committee can only observe once more that the above-mentioned provisions are not limited in scope to the punishment of violence or incitement to violence, but may be used as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for holding or expressing, even peacefully, certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, and are accordingly incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention in so far as the penalties provided involve compulsory labour. The Committee expresses again the hope that the necessary measures will be adopted in this regard to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Article 1(c). 2. The Committee previously noted that sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act for the Prevention of Desertion or Undue Absence from Merchant Ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), provides for the forcible conveyance of seamen on board ship to perform their duties.

The Committee noted the Government's indication that a committee to review seamen's legislation had been established.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that, according to the Juridical Council, Act B.E. 2466 (1923) was never promulgated. The Government adds that the Committee referred to is the Committee to review the seafarers' legislation and its draft legislation is now pending consideration. Language problems have raised some confusion in this respect. The Committee also notes the indication by the Government representative to the Conference Committee that the Government would report on the reasons for the misunderstanding.

The Committee notes that the Act for the Prevention of Desertion or Undue Absence from Merchant Ships appears to have been promulgated on 31 August B.E. 2465 (1923); the Committee also notes that in previous information the Government has stated that the Act remained in force.

The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will take action in relation to the Act of 31 August B.E. 2465 (1923) and provide information on measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that no forced or compulsory labour be imposed on a seaman as a means of labour discipline to perform his service.

3. The Committee noted previously that under sections 131 and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, B.E. 2518 (1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who, even individually, violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, paragraph (2), 22, paragraph (2), 23 to 25, 29, paragraph (4) or 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act. The Committee noted that sections 131 to 133 of the Labour Relations Act were incompatible with the Convention in so far as the scope of sanctions involving compulsory prison labour is not limited to acts and omissions that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, the personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population, or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger. The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will indicate the action taken or contemplated in this regard to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Article 1(d). 4. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that penalties of imprisonment may be imposed for participation in strikes under section 140 of the Labour Relations Act read together with section 35(2), and under section 139 read together with section 34(4), (5) and (6).

The Committee noted that the provisions referred to provide for binding awards or ministerial decisions in a wide range of circumstances where their enforcement with penalties involving compulsory prison labour is contrary to Article 1(d) of the Convention.

The Committee noted the Government's indication that the penalty of imprisonment under section 35 was seldom used. The Committee accordingly again expresses the hope that the Government will indicate the measures taken or envisaged to bring legislation in this regard into conformity with the Convention.

5. The Committee previously noted that under section 117 of the Criminal Code participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people was punishable with imprisonment. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that section 117 aims to ensure the security within the country; it is used in practice in respect of persons whose intentions are to overthrow the Government by unconstitutional means. The Government adds that nobody has been prosecuted under this section.

The Committee notes that section 116 of the Criminal Code relates to advocating change of laws or causing disorder or disaffection among the people, while section 117 addresses work stoppages. The Committee also notes a certain contradiction in the indications by the Government in relation to the practical application of section 117. The Committee consequently expresses the hope that the Government will continue to provide information on the application in practice of section 117, as well as on measures taken or contemplated in this connection to ensure the observance of the Convention.

6. The Committee noted previously that section 19 of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act, enacted on 15 April 1991, provided that workers of state enterprises shall not in any case stage a strike or undertake any activity in the nature of a strike. Under section 45, paragraph 1, of the Act a person who violates this prohibition may be punished by imprisonment for a term up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who "incites, or aids or abets the commission" of the offence under paragraph 1.

Referring to paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee recalled that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour would only be compatible with the Convention in the case of essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government's information in a communication of 27 September 1993 according to which the revised State Enterprise Labour Relations Act, examined by the Ministry of the Interior and the National Advisory Council for Labour Development, was approved by the Cabinet and is under consideration by the Office of the Juridical Council. After approval by that office it would be resubmitted for approval to the Cabinet and then submitted to Parliament. (GB.258/4/6, 291st Report of the Committee on12reedom of Association, paragraph 21.)

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this regard and expresses the hope that provisions to be adopted will be in conformity with the Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. The Committee must therefore repeat its previous comments on the following points:

Prison labour. 1. The Committee noted previously that, under section 18 of the Criminal Code B.E. 2499 (1956), penalties to be imposed on offenders comprise imprisonment and detention, and under section 25, paragraph 2, a detainee shall perform work in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable at the place of his detention. The Committee noted that the Penitentiary Act B.E. 2479 (1936), the Act on Confinement Procedures under Criminal Code B.E. 2506 (1963) and the Act on the Rules of Practice on Relegation under the Criminal Code B.E. 2510 (1967) were still in force.

The Committee had noted the Government's indication in its report for the period ending June 1988 that the Penitentiary Act B.E. 2497 (1954) is not shown in the Thai Legislative Series. The Committee had further noted the Act on Confinement Procedures under the Criminal Code B.E. 2506 (1963), the Act on the Rules of Practices on Relegation under the Criminal Code B.E. 2510 (1967) as well as two Ministerial Regulations made under each Act. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on measures taken and a copy of any regulations adopted pursuant to section 5 of Act B.E. 2506 and section 5 of Act B.E. 2510 as concerns work, education and training.

The Committee further noted the Government's repeated indication that forced or compulsory labour was never imposed as a penalty in Thai legislation. The Committee refers again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 102 to 109 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour where it indicated that compulsory labour in any form, including compulsory prison labour, falls within the scope of the Convention in so far as it is exacted in one of the five cases specified in Article 1 of the Convention.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 2. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the following provisions of the Criminal Code B.E. 2499 (1956): section 116 (advocating change of the laws of the Kingdom or causing disorder or disaffection among the people); sections 209 to 213 (dealing with secret societies and criminal associations); sections 207, 215 and 216 (dealing with unlawful assemblies); and section 384 (alarming the public by circulating false reports). The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the practical application of these provisions.

In its report for the period ending June 1988, the Government referred to the constitutional and procedural guarantees enshrined in the Constitution and in the Penal Code. The Government stated that no provision imposed an obligation of any work, service or labour, violation of which would be penalised nor did it specify forced labour as a punishment for any offence; violation of the above-mentioned sections was punishable by imprisonment or fine or both, not by forced or compulsory labour. The Government further stated that during the last 20 years few cases had been filed under section 116 and no case involving other sections had been noted. Referring also to the explanations given under point 1 above, concerning compulsory prison labour, the Committee again requests the Government to provide particulars of the cases filed under section 116 and to continue to provide in its future reports information on the practical application of the other provisions in question.

3. The Committee had noted the Government's information that the Political Parties Act B.E. 2517 (1974) had been replaced by the Political Parties Act B.E. 2524 (1981) and that sections 35(1) and (2), whereby a court could order the dissolution of a political party, had been substituted by sections 47(1) and (2) of the new Act; section 52 imposing penal sanctions of imprisonment and/or fine had been repealed. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Political Parties Act B.E. 2524 (1981) and any subsequent amendments adopted.

4. In its previous direct request the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the practical application of the following provisions of the Press Act B.E. 2484 (1941): section 62 (publishing of any matter relating to international political affairs, where such publication has been prohibited by the police in the interests of public order) and section 63 (publishing any matter which contravenes a censorship order imposed in case of declaration of a state of emergency).

The Committee had noted the Government's information in its report for the period ending June 1988 that violation of these provisions imposing penal sanctions were applied in a strict manner and offenders enjoyed full guarantee of their rights of defence. The Act aimed at maintaining peace and order of expression and publication. The Committee would again ask the Government to supply information on the practical application of these provisions, including the number of convictions with penalties of imprisonment and particulars of court decisions.

5. The Committee again requests the Government to provide information on any prohibitions made under sections 8 and 9 of the Emergency Administration Act, 1952, regarding public meetings and the expression of opinions.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that no report was received from the Government. The Committee has however noted the adoption of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act of 15 April 1991, referred to in point 6 of the present observation. In the absence of a reply to its previous observation, the Committee must once again raise the following matters:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee noted previously that penalties of imprisonment may be imposed under sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Anti-Communist Activities Act B.E. 2495 (1952) on anyone who engages in communist activities, or who conducts propaganda or makes any preparation with a view to carrying on communist activities, who is a member of any communist organisation, or who attends any communist meeting unless he can prove that he did so in ignorance of its nature and object. Similarly, under sections 9, 12 and 13 to 17 of the same Act, inserted by the Anti-Communist Activities Act (No. 2) B.E. 2512 (1969), penalties of imprisonment may be imposed on whoever assists any communist organisation or member of such organisation in a variety of ways, who propagates communist ideology or principles leading to the approval of such ideology, or who contravenes restrictions imposed by the Government on movements, activities and liberties of persons in any area classified as a communist infiltration area.

The Committee noted the Government's statement in its report for the period ending June 1988 that the above-mentioned provisions concerned illicit actions and penalties enforced in respect of any person who acts or co-ordinates or supports or joins as a member the communist organisation and that these provisions are designed to maintain the security and safety of the country and people.

The Committee again observed that these provisions were not limited in scope to the punishment of violence or incitement to violence, but may be used as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for holding or expressing, even peacefully, certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, and are accordingly incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention in so far as the penalties provided involve compulsory labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the necessary measures would be adopted in this regard to ensure the observance of the Convention. The Committee examined certain other provisions in relation to Article 1(a) in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Article 1(c). 2. The Committee previously noted that sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act for the Prevention of Desertion or Undue Absence from Merchant Ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), provided for the forcible conveyance of seamen on board ship to perform their duties.

The Committee had noted the Government's indication that a committee to review seamen's legislation had been established. The Committee again expressed the hope that the repeal of these provisions would be included in the review process and that the Government would report on the action taken.

3. The Committee noted previously that under sections 131 and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, B.E. 2518 (1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who, even individually, violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, paragraph (2), 22, paragraph (2), 23 to 25, 29, paragraph (4) or 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 110 to 116 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee noted that sections 131 to 133 of the Labour Relations Act were incompatible with the Convention in so far as the scope of sanctions involving compulsory prison labour is not limited to acts and omissions that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, the personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population, or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger. The Committee again expressed the hope that the Government would indicate the action taken or contemplated in this regard to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Article 1(d). 4. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that penalties of imprisonment may be imposed for participation in strikes under the following provisions of the Labour Relations Act:

(a) section 140 read together with section 35(2), if the Minister orders the strikers to return to work as usual, being of the opinion that the strike may cause serious damage to the national economy or may cause hardship to the public or may affect national security or may be contrary to public order;

(b) section 139 read together with section 34(4), (5) and (6), if the party required to comply with an arbitrator's award under section 25 has complied therewith, if the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the Minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the Committee under section 24, or if the matter is awaiting the award of labour disputes arbitrators appointed under section 25.

The Committee noted that the provisions referred to provide for binding awards or ministerial decisions not only where these have been freely accepted by the parties, or where they concern essential services whose interruption would endanger the life, the personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population, or in cases of force majeure likewise endangering the life, the personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population, but in a wider range of circumstances where their enforcement with penalties involving compulsory prison labour is contrary to Article 1(d) of the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

The Committee had noted the Government's indication in its report for the period ending June 1988 that the powers conferred under section 35 have been seldom used; referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 129 to 132 of its above-mentioned General Survey, the Committee again expressed the hope that the Government would indicate the measures taken or envisaged to bring legislation in this regard into conformity with the Convention.

5. The Committee previously noted that under section 117 of the Criminal Code participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people was punishable with imprisonment. While noting the Government's indications on constitutional and procedural guarantees provided for, the Committee, referring to the explanations provided in paragraph 128 of its aforementioned General Survey, again requested the Government to supply information on the practical application of this provision, including the number of sentences to penalties of imprisonment and particulars of relevant court decisions, and on any measures taken or contemplated in this connection to ensure the observance of the Convention.

6. The Committee notes that section 19 of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act, enacted on 15 April 1991, provides that workers of state enterprises shall not in any case stage a strike or undertake any activity in the nature of a strike. Under section 45 of the Act a person who violates this prohibition may be punished by imprisonment for a term up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who "invites, or aids or abets the commission of a strike".

Referring to paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee recalls that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour would only be compatible with the Convention in the case of essential services in the strict sense of the term; that means, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to bring legislation in this regard into conformity with the Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

Referring to its observation on the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on the following points.

Prison labour. 1. The Committee noted previously that, under section 18 of the Criminal Code B.E. 2499 (1956), penalties to be imposed on offenders comprise imprisonment and detention, and under section 25, paragraph 2, a detainee shall perform work in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable at the place of his detention. The Committee noted that the Penitentiary Act B.E. 2479 (1936), the Act on Confinement Procedures under Criminal Code B.E. 2506 (1963) and the Act on the Rules of Practice on Relegation under the Criminal Code B.E. 2510 (1967) were still in force.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that the Penitentiary Act B.E. 2497 (1954) is not shown in the Thai Legislative Series. The Committee has further noted the Act on Confinement Procedures under the Criminal Code B.E. 2506 (1963), the Act on the Rules of Practices on Relegation under the Criminal Code B.E. 2510 (1967) as well as two Ministerial Regulations made under each Act. The Committee would appreciate receiving information on measures taken and a copy of any regulations adopted pursuant to section 5 of Act B.E. 2506 and section 5 of Act B.E. 2510 as concerns work, education and training.

The Committee further notes the Government's repeated indication in its report that forced or compulsory labour is never imposed as a penalty in Thai legislation. The Committee refers again to the explanations provided in sections 102 to 109 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour where it indicated that compulsory labour in any form, including compulsory prison labour, falls within the scope of the Convention in so far as it is exacted in one of the five cases specified in Article 1 of the Convention.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 2. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the following provisions of the Criminal Code B.E. 2499 (1956): section 116 (advocating change of the laws of the Kingdom or causing disorder or disaffection among the people); sections 209 to 213 (dealing with secret societies and criminal associations); sections 207, 215 and 216 (dealing with unlawful assemblies); and section 384 (alarming the public by circulating false reports). The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the practical application of these provisions.

In its report, the Government refers to the constitutional and procedural guarantees enshrined in the Constitution and in the Penal Code. The Government states that no provision imposes an obligation of any work, service or labour, violation of which would be penalised nor does it specify forced labour as a punishment for any offence; violation of the above-mentioned sections is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both, not by forced or compulsory labour. The Government further states that during the last 20 years few cases have been filed under section 116 and no case involving other sections has been noted. Referring also to the explanations given under point 1 above, concerning compulsory prison labour, the Committee requests the Government to provide particulars of the cases filed under section 116 and to continue to provide in its future reports information on the practical application of the provisions in question.

3. The Committee notes the Government's information in its report that the Political Parties Act B.E. 2517 (1974) has been replaced by the Political Parties Act B.E. 2524 (1981) and that sections 35(1) and (2), whereby a court could order the dissolution of a political party, have been substituted by sections 47(1) and (2) of the new Act; section 52 imposing penal sanctions of imprisonment and/or fine has been repealed. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Political Parties Act B.E. 2524 (1981).

4. In its previous direct request the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the practical application of the following provisions of the Press Act B.E. 2484 (1941): section 62 (publishing of any matter relating to international political affairs, where such publication has been prohibited by the police in the interests of public order) and section 63 (publishing any matter which contravenes a censorship order imposed in case of declaration of a state of emergency).

The Committee notes the Government's information in its report that violation of these provisions imposing penal sanctions are applied in a strict manner and offenders enjoy full guarantee of their rights of defence. The Act aims at maintaining peace and order of expression and publication. The Committee would again ask the Government to supply information on the practical application of these provisions, including the number of convictions with penalties of imprisonment and particulars of court decisions.

5. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any state of emergency or martial law in force and on any prohibitions made under sections 8 and 9 of the Emergency Administration Act, 1952, regarding public meetings and the expression of opinions.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report for the period ending June 1988.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee noted previously that penalties of imprisonment may be imposed under sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Anti-Communist Activities Act B.E. 2495 (1952) on anyone who engages in communist activities, or who conducts propaganda or makes any preparation with a view to carrying on communist activities, who is a member of any communist organisation, or who attends any communist meeting unless he can prove that he did so in ignorance of its nature and object. Similarly, under sections 9, 12 and 13 to 17 of the same Act, inserted by the Anti-Communist Activities Act (No. 2) B.E. 2512 (1969), penalties of imprisonment may be imposed on whoever assists any communist organisation or member of such organisation in a variety of ways, who propagates communist ideology or principles leading to the approval of such ideology, or who contravenes restrictions imposed by the Government on movements, activities and liberties of persons in any area classified as a communist infiltration area.

The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that the above-mentioned provisions concern illicit actions and penalties enforced in respect of any person who acts or co-ordinates or supports or joins as a member the communist organisation and that these provisions are designed to maintain the security and safety of the country and people.

The Committee observes that these provisions are not limited in scope to the punishment of violence or incitement to violence, but may be used as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for holding or expressing, even peacefully, certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, and are accordingly incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention in so far as the penalties provided involve compulsory labour. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be adopted in this regard to ensure the observance of the Convention. The Committee examines certain other provisions in relation to Article 1(a) in a direct request.

Article 1(c). 2. The Committee previously noted that sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act for the Prevention of Desertion or Undue Absence from Merchant Ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), provide for the forcible conveyance of seamen on board ship to perform their duties.

Noting the Government's indication in its report that a committee to review seamen's legislation has been established, the Committee hopes that the repeal of these provisions will be included in the review process and that the Government will report on the action taken.

3. The Committee noted previously that under sections 131 and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, B.E. 2518 (1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who, even individually, violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, paragraph (2), 22, paragraph (2), 23 to 25, 29, paragraph (4) or 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 110 to 116 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee noted that sections 131 to 133 of the Labour Relations Act are incompatible with the Convention in so far as the scope of sanctions involving compulsory prison labour is not limited to acts and omissions that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, the personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population, or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger. The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will indicate the action taken or contemplated in this regard to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Article 1(d). 4. The Committee has taken note with interest of the text provided by the Government of the Ministry of Interior Announcement of 27 January 1981 for lifting the ban on strikes imposed in October 1976 by Decree No. 3 adopted under sections 25 and 36 of the Labour Relations Act of 1975 and which banned all strikes under the menace of penalties including imprisonment.

5. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that penalties of imprisonment may be imposed for participation in strikes under the following provisions of the Labour Relations Act:

(a) section 140 read together with section 35(2), if the Minister orders the strikers to return to work as usual, being of the opinion that the strike may cause serious damage to the national economy or may cause hardship to the public or may affect national security or may be contrary to public order;

(b) section 139 read together with section 34(4), (5) and (6), if the party required to comply with an arbitrator's award under section 25 has complied therewith, if the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the Minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the Committee under section 24, or if the matter is awaiting the award of labour disputes arbitrators appointed under section 25.

The Committee noted that the provisions referred to provide for binding awards or ministerial decisions not only where these have been freely accepted by the parties, or where they concern essential services whose interruption would endanger the life, the personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population, or in cases of force majeure likewise endangering the life, the personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population, but in a wider range of circumstances where their enforcement with penalties involving compulsory prison labour is contrary to Article 1(d) of the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that the powers conferred under section 35 have been seldom used; referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 129 to 132 of its above-mentioned General Survey, the Committee hopes that the Government will indicate measures taken or envisaged to bring legislation in this regard into conformity with the Convention.

6. The Committee previously noted that under section 117 of the Criminal Code participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment. While noting the Government's indications on constitutional and procedural guarantees provided for, the Committee, referring to the explanations provided in paragraph 128 of its aforementioned General Survey, again requests the Government to supply information on the practical application of this provision, including the number of sentences to penalties of imprisonment and particulars of relevant court decisions, and on any measures taken or contemplated in this connection to ensure the observance of the Convention.