State repression against trade unions in Asia continued on all sides of the political divide.

Muchtar Pakpahan, chairman of the SBSI independent union in Indonesia, spent the whole year in prison on trumped-up charges - the authorities accused him of being involved in a riot, although it could not prove the charges against him. His real crime was his union activities. The Indonesian government sees industrial relations as a security issue. It claims it has to control the unions in order to maintain law and order; yet in order to do so, it violates and manipulates the law, and provokes violence against its own citizens.

The Chinese regime takes a different viewpoint, yet comes to the same conclusions: the main function of its tightly-controlled union centre is to do what the government tells it. Their role in disputes is not to represent the workers, but to get them back to work. What law there is to protect workers is ignored by employers and government alike. The government agency that is most involved in industrial relations is the Public Security Bureau.

But there are strikes as the economic reforms throw millions out of work. And in the absence of any legitimate channel through which workers can be represented, these strikes are becoming increasingly bitter. A strike in Sichuan province led to a whole town being placed under virtual martial law, with a curfew, and armed troops on the streets. The pressure is building. It remains doubtful how long the government's repressive tactics can keep the lid on.

The award for the most bizarre act on the labour front has to go to the government of Australia. Not content with its new anti-union laws, it spent one million dollars hiring consultants to help it break the MUA dockers' union. Then it backed a secret plan to hire mercenaries to work on the docks in place of MUA members.

Sixty men were recruited, including 18 from the Australian Defence Forces. They were sent (no expense spared!) for training in Dubai, where unions are banned. The plan was abandoned when the MUA found about it. The only thing odder than the plan itself is that the government failed to resign en masse when the story broke.

The act emphasises direct employer-employee relations at the workplace. In particular it promotes individual agreements, called Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), over collective agreements. The content of AWAs are confidential, so they cannot be checked for breaches of minimum wages and employment conditions.

AWAs have primacy over federal awards and state awards or agreements, and over certified collective agreements unless the agreement is already in force. Once an AWA is in force it cannot be displaced by a certified agreement. It is easier to make an AWA legally enforceable than a collective agreement. Rio Tinto is one of the companies which has used this legislation, which they helped write, to try to destroy trade unions by promoting AWAs at a number of their facilities.

The act places union and non-union collective agreements on the same footing and gives preference to workplace- or enterprise-level bargaining over other levels. It directs the Industrial Relations Commission to encourage enterprise-level agreements over multi-employer agreements, and says that multi-business agreements can only be certified if they are in the "public interest" - in the light of whether a single business agreement would be more appropriate.

The bill reduced the role of the Commission, which acted as an independent conciliation and arbitration body.

The act makes provision for its extension to the State of Victoria. It specifies that when a collective agreement ceases to be in force, it is replaced by an individual employment agreement with the same terms.

Strike pay cannot be a subject for negotiation and majority of the whole workforce must approve a collective agreement.

The act appears to allow an employer opening a new enterprise to choose which union to negotiate with before staff are employed.

Although in general the act protects workers against anti-union discrimination, certain groups of employees can be excluded from protection against unfair dismissal. Amendments proposed in 1997, for example, exclude new employees of small businesses from such protection.

The act narrowed the scope for legal strikes and increased the penalties for breaking the law. Strikers covered by multi-business collective agreements are not protected against dismissal or other sanctions.

It was made much harder for union organisers to get into workplaces.

At the state level, legislation introduced in Queensland in 1997 was similar to the federal Workplace Relations Act, and promoted Queensland Workplace Agreements.

In New South Wales, the 1996 Industrial Relations Act excludes some groups of employees from unfair dismissal provisions and is ambiguous about protecting workers against acts of anti-union discrimination. It provides for a system of enterprise agreements without specifying that collective bargaining can take place at any other level. An enterprise agreement must be approved by 65 per cent of the workers in an enterprise.

In South Australia, amendments to the 1994 Industrial and Employee Relations Act, provide for a system of enterprise agreements and do not specify whether collective bargaining can take place at any other level.

In Western Australia, new provisions within the 1997 Labour Relations Legislation Amendment Act stripped workers of protection against discrimination for trade union activities, although they still cannot be sacked just for belonging to a union. The act provides for a system of employment contracts between an employer and an employee or a group of employees, but allows individual agreements override collective agreements and the awards system. Where there is an agreement with a group of employees, trade unions have a very limited role and cannot determine what goes in the agreement.

The new amendments also contain other violations of trade union rights including restricting union representatives' access to workplaces, significant restrictions on the right to strike, including ways of ending strikes, a ban on sympathy strikes, and long and complicated pre-strike ballot regulations.

At the beginning of September, the government announced plans to allow troops and non-union workers to break strikes by the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA). It had already spent over one million dollars on consultancy reports which looked at ways to break the MUA.

In December, whilst the MUA was discussing productivity and costs in Australian ports with the authorities, it learnt of a secret plan, backed by the government, to recruit and train military personnel to work on the waterfront to replace MUA members and break the union. The recruitment and training was being organised by ex-military personnel from Australia's specially trained military unit, the SAS. Advertisements for mercenaries appeared in the journal for military personnel The Army.

Preliminary training of the 60 recruits, which included 18 serving personnel from the Australian Defence Forces, was taking place in the Port of Rashid in Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates, where unions are banned. The mercenaries were to receive large bonuses after each phase of training. Further training was to take place in Australia after which the mercenaries would replace waterfront workers and be used as strike-breakers.

After national and international trade union protests, particularly by the International Transport Workers' Federation, the United Arab Emirates cancelled the visas for the mercenaries, as well as their contract with the Dubai port authority.

Members of the Dubai group subsequently became involved in a non-union port training scheme established by the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) with government backing at Webb Dock in the Port of Melbourne.

Professional and managerial staff and public servants, other than those working for the railways and posts and telecommunications, cannot form or join unions. Unions are banned in export processing zones (EPZs). While some of these workers have formed associations or unregistered unions, they cannot bargain collectively.

(In November the government announced that Bangladesh will set up three more EPZs within the next two years to add to the two in Chittagong and Dhaka. The number of people working in the zones will rise from 60,000 to 106,000).

In the public sector, wages and working conditions are usually set by government-appointed wages commissions.

In the private sector, free collective bargaining is rare and unionisation is discouraged. The law impedes collective bargaining in the small business sector.

Candidates for union office have to be a current or former employee of an establishment or group of establishments.

The Registrar of Trade Unions has wide powers to interfere into internal union affairs. He can enter union premises and inspect documents. Unions also say their activities are hindered by administrative decisions taken by the authorities.

Registration of trade unions is obligatory, and workers can be punished for failing to register a union, or for carrying out union activities without registration. Thirty per cent of workers in any workplace must belong to a union before it can be registered, and the union can be dissolved if membership drops below this figure.

Unions are not protected against acts of interference from employers.

Legal protection against anti-union discrimination is inadequate. Workers suspected of trade union activities are victimised and can be transferred arbitrarily. There is no protection against anti-union discrimination in the EPZs.

Three-quarters of union members must agree to a strike. The government can ban a strike that lasts more than 30 days, and refer it to the labour court for adjudication. A strike can be banned at any time if it is considered prejudicial to the national interest or involves a public utility service. Workers can be imprisoned for participating in an illegal strike.

The 1974 Special Powers Act can be used by the authorities to detain trade unionists without charge.

A National Labour Law Commission was established in 1992 to review the labour law, and a draft code was drawn up; however, the government has told the ILO that it is re-examining the Commission's recommendations.

In May, the World Bank suggested that Bangladesh should reform its banking sector and included the banning of "outrageous" trade union practices in banks. On 29 July, the government appointed a five-member task force to draft an action plan to curb the "interference of trade unions in the management of the central bank and other banks both in the public and private sectors, and to suggest remedies".

In March, the labour department turned down an application for registration from a union at the Dulamia Cotton Mill, in Dagan Bhuya Village, some 130 miles from Dhaka. The company is owned by Mr. A.A. Minto, the president of the Bangladesh Employers' Association. Previously when the workers had tried to unionise, some had been tortured and sacked. Two workers had died after being refused medical treatment.

When Mr. Minto heard that a union had been formed, he hired thugs to attack the workers during the night of 3 May and several workers were badly injured.

On 5 May, more hired thugs attacked union leaders and workers attending a conciliation meeting called by the factory management. A police officer and political leaders who also attended the meeting stood by and watched the violence. False criminal charges were levelled against 33 union leaders and six of them were arrested: General Secretary Khairul Baset; and committee members Md. Hanif, Shahidullah, Abdul Kuddus, Siraj, and Shanjahan.

In July, it was reported that police had attacked workers at the Korean-owned Youngone company, in the Dhaka EPZ, which is notorious for its repression of any attempts to form unions. Nine workers were arrested, 97 sacked and 300 injured when workers demanded the release of two colleagues arrested a few days previously and submitted an 11-point list of claims.

During September and October, activists from the ruling party launched a number of vicious attacks on officials of the BJSD national union centre. The police failed to protect the workers, and instead arrested and laid false charges against BJSD officials.

On 18 September, B.M. Bakir Hossain, youth secretary of the BJSD and president of the Bank Employees' federation and Sonali Bank Employees Association, was arrested during a legal march. He was released on 30 September on bail.

On 21 September, the union at the Dhaka Electric Supply Authority (DESA), affiliated to the JSL national union centre, which is linked to the Awami League, attacked members of the BJSD union which is the collective bargaining agent in the DESA. Several BJSD leaders were wounded. The police did not arrest the attackers but instead arrested the organising secretary of the BJSD Dhaka Metropolitan Committee, M.A. Hai and another trade unionist.

On 22 September, the police lodged false charges against BJSD General Secretary Nazrul Islam Khan. They said he had ordered workers to throw a bomb from the BJSD office, which is in the building of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, at a police car. Nazrul Islam Khan was not in the office at the time.

The police also laid false charges against the president and publicity secretary of the BJSD's Mirpur zone committee and some leaders of the BJSD Gulshan local committee.

On 5 October, Rafiqul Islam Kamal, a leader of the BJSD Dhaka metropolitan committee, was attacked while leading a procession in the Sadarghar area of Dhaka and suffered serious head injuries. He was also arrested while he was unconscious. The BJSD senior vice-president, Gazi Bhuiyan, was amongst other BJSD officials and members injured in this attack.

On 6 October, armed men attacked and beat up Abdullah Al Noman, the acting president of the BJSD and joint secretary of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, in front of the police. He had to go to hospital.

Towards the end of the year, 1,657 workers at the Prime Textiles company decided to form a union. Management responded by hiring armed thugs to attack the union's leaders and organisers. These men were arrested and found to be carrying illegal arms.

The company manager then arranged for his own office to be ransacked, and blamed the attack on union organisers. The police arrested a union organiser, Kawser Ahmed Polash. The company spent a lot of money trying to discredit the union and the workers through the media. It closed down and re-opened after sacking 551 union activists.

On 29 December, a gang of men armed with iron rods and sharp weapons attacked a rally of some 2,000 garment workers in Keraniganj, near Dhaka, killing one person and injuring at least 30. It was believed the gang had been hired by local garment factory owners. The workers had been on strike for two days over wages and working conditions. Around 30,000 workers are employed by sub-contractors in the garment industry in Keraniganj. Most of them work 20 hours a day, seven days a week for very low wages.

The Federation of Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB) is forced to operate from outside the country. The FTUB was founded in 1991 by former trade union leaders and members who were fired from their jobs and persecuted by the SLORC regime for their trade union activities.

The FTUB co-ordinates its activities with the banned National League for Democracy (NLD), which won the 1990 elections but was prevented from taking office by the SLORC regime. NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi has expressed her support for the FTUB and for independent trade unionism in Burma.

The FTUB maintains underground structures linked to workplaces inside the country. Its activists are under constant surveillance by the police and military intelligence, and live in permanent fear of arrest and torture.

It also works with ethnic groups in border areas. In January, several refugee camps in border areas were burnt down by SLORC troops. FTUB members living in the camps lost all their possessions and were forced to flee.

The Seafarers' Union of Burma, which forms part of the FTUB, works in exile to help Burmese seafarers. The regime controls the employment of seafarers through the Seaman's Employment Control Division, and there have been many cases of its abusing and intimidating seafarers who complained about underpayment and poor working conditions on foreign ships.

On 13 June, officers of the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB) arrested U Khin Kyaw and U Myo Aung Thant, two members of the executive committee of the FTUB.

U Myo Aung Thant, a member of the All Burma Petro-Chemical Corporation Union, was arrested on his return from Bangkok, Thailand, at Mingaladon airport, in Rangoon. His wife and children were also detained.

NIB officials arrested U Kyin Kyaw, an official of the Seafarers' Union of Burma, and his wife at their home. He had been detained for trade union activities in 1993 and had been tortured in detention.

On 15 August, after a secret trial, U Myo Aung Thant was given life imprisonment for "high treason", plus ten years imprisonment on other charges. He was accused of trying to smuggle explosives into Burma, despite the fact that the explosives were found hundreds of kilometres south of Rangoon, and he was arrested at Mingaladon airport. He was imprisoned in an isolated cell in Insein prison. His wife was still in detention without charge at the end of the year. U Kyin Kyaw is in detention at an unknown location. He has not been tried nor sentenced.

There were more reports of workers' discontent in enterprises jointly-owned by foreign companies and the regime, as well as in factories recently taken over by the regime and run by military personnel.

In February, at the Military Textile and Garment factory, owned by the regime and a Singaporean investor, workers asked for a meeting with management, because the factory had ceased to be solely government-owned. The day after the meeting, which had been extremely difficult, over 50 of the workers who had participated were sacked. One worker, Soe Thein, who had initiated the meeting, was sacked for "agitation against management and organising unwanted elements".

On 19 November, over 1,000 workers at the Hong Kong UMEH (Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings) garment factory, a joint venture owned by the military regime and a Hong Kong company, Yan Xi Kyan, in Pegu, went on strike to call for better pay and working conditions. The protest was led by an eleven-member committee elected by the workers. On 2 December, the management met the workers and agreed to their demands. On the same day three Chinese company advisors met the manager threw the deal out, and told the workers their demands would not be agreed to. The workers went back on strike and set up a picket line.

The next day, the eleven members of the workers' committee were taken to the local SLORC office and individually interrogated by military intelligence, the police special branch, and the local police. They were sacked from their jobs. A few days later five more strike leaders were sacked. On 8 December, the factory management agreed to meet the workers' demands, and on 12 December the sacked workers were reinstated.

The new code, which entered into force in March, gave private sector workers the right to organise, to bargain collectively and to strike. Public servants are covered by the civil service law and are not allowed to form or join trade unions. There is no mention in the new law of international affiliation.

To be legally registered, a union has to submit a letter of application, a list of union officers, and a copy of its charter to the authorities. Registration is automatic after 60 days.

The Ministry of Labour added a new requirement not contained in the law - that all union leaders must obtain police certificates of good conduct, approved and stamped by the Ministry of Justice. These are difficult to obtain.

Under this pretext it refused to register three unions. At the same time, government officials encouraged workers in factories where strikes had taken place and unions had already been formed, to set up and register government-sponsored unions. There were reports of forced union elections at several factories where factory managers made sure their candidates got in.

The Free Independent Democratic Union of Garment and Textile Workers (FIDU) at the Korean-owned Sam Ham garment factory was officially constituted on 2 March. The factory refused to recognise it. Instead, the management organised "shop steward elections" without giving advance notice, and intimidated workers into signing blank ballot papers.

The management then told the Ministry of Labour of the elections and put advertisements in the press saying that democratic union elections had been carried out. Officials and members of FIDU were harassed and threatened. The management threatened to kill them "if they continued to have political links". Members of the union were told to tear up their membership cards. The president and treasurer were transferred to another work-site, and later, the president was dismissed for refusing to disclose a list of union members.

The union applied for registration with the Ministry of Labour in March. The application was returned a few weeks later saying that some conditions had not been fulfilled.

The Free Trade Union of Workers of the Kingdom of Cambodia (FTUWKC) which had been formed on 15 December 1996, applied for registration but the authorities said union officials had not complied with requirements because they had not submitted police certificates with the application approved and stamped by the Ministry of Justice.

The Free Independent Democratic Union at the Ming Cheong factory was also denied registration.

The new labour code was not widely understood. There were no proper enforcement mechanisms, and complaints of abuses to the authorities were not dealt with properly. There were reports that the few government labour inspectors were often not allowed into factories, and that some employers had armed bodyguards who threatened inspectors.

A wave of strikes which began at the end of 1996 in the emerging, mainly foreign-owned garment industry continued into 1997. The mostly-large factories are in the capital, Phnom Penh, and export textiles to the UK, other EU countries and Singapore.

The workers in the industry are mainly young inexperienced women. They work long hours (including compulsory overtime) for low wages, and suffer physical abuse, insults, beatings, and strip searches in public. They get no maternity leave; pregnant workers are sacked without notice or compensation, as are workers who are ill, or who complain or organise other workers.

At the Gennon Manufacturing factory, workers went on strike at the end of 1996 after the management refused to negotiate with them and said that unions were illegal organisations. One worker was sacked after lodging a complaint with the Phnom Penh municipal court on 2 January because the factory management had forced her to have a body search in front of other employees.

Workers at the Hong Kong-owned Tack Fat Garments factory which employs around 1,000 people, went on strike on 3 January over long hours and low pay, wage cuts, late wages, the sackings of workers who complained, and the detention of workers who refused to work overtime. The management tried to break the strike by detaining 200 strikers.

On 4 January, the union at the factory organised a peaceful demonstration to further its claims. Management threatened to hold back wages for December. The Ministry of the Interior ordered the police to the factory, led by the police chief of Phnom Penh. The police used water cannon and beat up several workers. Many were injured and some were arrested. One woman had to go to hospital.

Two days later, 500 workers gathered in front of the factory and demanded their December wages. Over 100 anti-riot police arrived and ordered everyone back to work. They fired shots in the air and assaulted the strikers, beating unconscious one man who was handing out a list of the union's demands was. Seven other people were injured. One was bleeding from the head.

On 10 January, the workers who did go back were reported to be under surveillance by the military police, many of whom were armed.

The strike ended on 17 January. On the following day, 13 workers were fired after being intimidated into signing confessions. Others were dismissed under various false pretexts.

In March, police used water cannon to break up a union demonstration at the Supreme Garment factory in Phnom Penh.

On 30 March, police attacked a peaceful demonstration supported by the FTUWKC outside the parliament building in Phnom Penh, which had received official approval. Of a total of 19 killed, three were women union members, and some 30 union members were among 150 people injured when grenades were thrown into the crowd.

In May, four policemen and a member of management raided the dormitory of textile factory employees in Phnom Penh. The workers were threatened and four were arrested, allegedly for stealing company property. One of them was beaten up. They were later released.

After the coup d'etat at the beginning of July, some trade union leaders went into hiding or left the country. There were reports that some factories had shut down. Others abused workers' rights with almost total impunity. Workers, especially union activists, were sacked without notice or compensation. The FTUWKC said that soldiers had come and taken away all union documents.

In September, a union leader was beaten up and stabbed repeatedly in the head with a screwdriver by company security personnel during a strike at a garment factory. The police detained the security guards, but they were later released without charge.

The 1992 Trade Union Act says the aim of trade unions is to regulate labour so as to improve labour productivity and economic efficiency, and to play an active role in socialist modernisation under the Chinese Communist Party. Unions are to act as intermediaries between workers and management if a dispute occurs.

The ACFTU constitution was revised in 1993 and defines unions as "the link and bridge between the Chinese Communist Party and the working masses, and the representative of the interests of union members and non-union members".

China's first national labour code came into force in 1995. The government said that it had introduced it to prevent abuses of workers' rights in foreign-owned and joint-venture enterprises. It aimed to standardise employment principles and requirements in all types of enterprises.

The law does not mention the right to strike. This right was removed from the Chinese constitution in 1982 on the grounds that the political system had "eradicated problems between the proletariat and enterprise owners".

The new code included four new principles:

• formal labour contracts for all workers in all types of enterprises;

• labour arbitration and inspection divisions to be established at all levels of provincial and local government to resolve labour disputes and ensure compliance with labour regulations;

• workers in all types of enterprises can engage in collective bargaining in negotiating labour contracts;

• enterprises can fire workers for economic reasons without state approval.

Collective agreements can be concluded through negotiation between enterprise management and enterprise union officials, or, in the absence of a union, by elected worker representatives. The contracts can relate to wages, working hours, and rest days. They must be approved by the local government within 15 days.

Very little, if any, genuine collective bargaining takes place. Employment contracts which are not set by law are drawn up by employers.

Enterprise managers ignore much of the new law and enforcement is minimal. The Quality Clothes Factory in Guangzhou, for example, forced workers to sign commitments to perform unlimited overtime on demand and to work 12 hours a day.

Under the law the ACFTU is directed to set-up unions in foreign-owned enterprises or joint venture companies within six months. At the end of the year it was reported that there were 153,000 unions in the private sector, in rural enterprises and in foreign-owned and joint-venture companies.

The unions in foreign-owned and joint-venture companies are largely symbolic, sometimes amounting to little more than the opening of an ACFTU office in an industrial district. They are either under the control of the Communist Party or the factory directors. Many of them are turned into social clubs; often, workers are unaware of their existence.

In nearly all cases, local union committee members are Communist Party, or higher-level union ACFTU appointees. Union members generally benefit from important social and welfare benefits.

Both employees and management are members of trade unions. The local union president is often the plant director. In Shekou, Guangdong and Hanyang, Shanxi, a survey carried out in recent years found that 60 per cent of local union branches are chaired by enterprise management.

Although machinery exists for dispute settlement, involving mediation, arbitration and a labour court ruling, strikes at enterprises are usually spontaneous and are almost always repressed. ACFTU unions do not initiate strikes - in fact, they are often called in by employers and local authorities to get strikers back to work. The Labour Bureaux also give preferential treatment to employers during mediation of labour disputes, as often there is an overlap between enterprise management, local party and government personnel.

Most strikes arise from non-implementation of the labour law; non-payment of wages and low wages; poor working conditions; low health and safety standards; long hours and forced overtime; unreasonable management discipline; and increasing physical abuse of workers by managers.

Official sources said that the number of labour disputes went up by 59 per cent in the first half of 1997 compared with the same period of 1996. Disputes have increased continuously since 1992, growing annually at around 50 per cent - except for 1995 when the number rose by 73 per cent.

In Guangdong province, a strike policy adopted in 1994 by the provincial Labour Bureau said that its local branches must report a strike with 30 or more participants to the provincial labour bureau within four hours, and send a detailed report in eight hours. In "serious cases and threats to stability", local government officials should be at the scene within two hours to prevent an escalation of the strike. If necessary, the authorities can use force or threats to end the strike.

In some large plants, work committees, comprising officials from local ACFTU branches, the Labour Bureaux, and the Public Security Bureau (PSB), have been set up to monitor and pre-empt worker action. Many medium and large enterprises have detention facilities and security officials can detain and sentence protesting workers to three years in a labour camp (laogai).

The National Security Law, the Regulations on Re-education through Labour, and the Regulations on Reform through Labour, allow activists who attempt to organise independent labour action to be detained and imprisoned. Re-education through labour (laojiao) is used as a form of administrative detention because it avoids the need for a trial and allows local police to hand out sentences of up to three years in a forced labour camp. The sentences are occasionally extended for up to one year for bad discipline or other reasons.

In 1997 there were many demonstrations involving several hundred and sometimes several thousands of workers over restructuring and massive lay-offs at state-enterprises, many of which were bankrupt. Millions of workers lost their jobs. Many workers protested over the non-payment of unemployment and other benefits.

Early in the year, a document issued by the CCP central committee noted an increase in organised demonstrations, riots and petitions against local authorities. Shortly afterwards, the Head of the Public Security Bureau (PSB) delivered a speech to PSB staff. He was reported to have warned that strikes, collective protests, petitions and demonstrations were gravely disrupting public order. He demanded that the party, government, and PSB co-operate in eliminating all factors that could lead to "social instability" He said that all disturbances were to be handled firmly and there could be no compromise with people who organised or led any form of collective protest.

The PSB also issued guidelines on keeping social order for trade unions which said that during labour disputes the union must assist enterprise directors and party and government leaders to promote public security. It said that unions must co-ordinate with the PSB.

Demonstrations took place in March in Nanchong, Sichuan, over wage arrears. Workers took a factory manager hostage because they suspected he had embezzled the company's funds. Several workers were later arrested.

In March, workers at Xing Bao Electronics, a Hong-Kong-China joint-venture company, in Zhongshan, Guangdong, went on strike because the company refused to pay them their annual bonus. As soon as the strike started, the management called in the local labour bureau and the police. Some 20 officials arrived. Management continued to refuse to pay the full bonus and threatened to sack any workers who did not show up the next day.

On 1 May, eight migrant workers held a protest outside a Hong Kong-run plastics factory in Dongguan, Guangdong, because they had been sacked for going on strike over unpaid wages. They said they had been forced to work between 11-15 hours a day.

On 15 May, a dispute began at the Taiwan-China joint venture glove company, in Houjie, Dongwan, Guangdong, over tyrannical management, enforced overtime and low pay. On the second day, local security guards and labour bureau officials were called in and the management told them to arrest the workers' leaders. The workers surrounded the official's car. The factory manager then punched a women worker in the head several times and threw her to the ground. The security and labour officials also started to punch the women workers surrounding the car. Ten workers were beaten.

On 14 June, twelve workers' representatives were arrested for presenting a petition in Chengdu, Sichuan, over unemployment, mass lay-offs and exploitation. Armed police were sent to disperse workers.

On 10 July, a workers' protest of around 10,000 workers took place in Mianyang, Sichuan province, over lack of unemployment benefits and corruption. The state-owned Mianying Silk Spinning Factory, the Silk Cloth Factory and the Xin Bian Factory had closed down because they were bankrupt and officials were said to have embezzled the unemployment benefits.

The authorities called in troops, who beat many of the demonstrators, injuring over 100. Around 80 were arrested. The town was placed under a curfew. The police were reported to have told hospitals not to treat the injured demonstrators. The local newspaper accused hostile foreign and domestic sources of stirring up a "riot".

Veteran democracy campaigner Li Bifeng, went into hiding in early July after he had reported the protests and suppression to foreign media. (He was formally arrested in March 1998).

In December, four pro-democracy activists, including Qin Yongmin in Wuhan and Xu Wenli in Beijing, published an open letter to the authorities in which they said that workers should be able to form independent unions to fight for their interests as state-owned enterprises were restructured and closed. They also urged the government to allow civil liberties. Qin Yongmin said that the police had subsequently cut his telephone line, seized his mail and forced his neighbours to spy on him. Qin Yongmin spent eight years in prison in the 1980s and two years in a labour camp after being arrested in 1993 for pro-democracy activities. Xu Wenli had spent 12 years in prison.

Activist Wang Hongxue in Bengbu gave his support to the appeal. The authorities tried to force his wife and parents to declare him a schizophrenic and commit him into hospital. He had written critical open letters to the government in the past year urging better protection for workers' rights.

In a separate appeal, activist Leng Wanbao, a former autoworker, urged the authorities not to charge workers who engage in protests, saying that the state enterprise reforms were bound to result in many layoffs, and unemployed workers should be allowed to organise independently.

Independent trade union activists remained in prison during the year. Zhou Guoqiang, a labour activist and labour lawyer, remained imprisoned in Shuanghe labour camp in Heilongjiang province in north-east China. He had been arrested in 1994 and sentenced to three years "re-education through labour", for his involvement with the League for the Protection of the Rights of Working People (LPRWP). The LPRWP had applied for official registration, and published a founding charter and memorandum to the authorities. In 1995, he had been sentenced to an additional year in jail, allegedly for trying to escape.

LPRWP activist, Liu Nianchun, was sentenced to three years forced labour in 1995. He was originally detained in Shuanghe labour camp in Heilongjiang province, but moved to Tuanhe Labour Farm near Beijing. He had been detained several times since March, 1994, before the Beijing police detained him in 1995 in a series of arrests to pre-empt commemorations of the Tianenmen Square massacre. He was very ill in 1997 and had a tumour in his cheekbone. He had been beaten in detention. His health had been severely damaged and he was refused medical attention. He went on hunger strike in May and was subsequently tortured with electric shocks, deprived of water and placed in a punishment cell. His sentence did not include the year he had already served.

In June, the wives of Zhou Guoqiang and Liu Nianchun, Wang Hui and Chu Hailan appealed for medical care for their husbands and protested at extensions of their sentences of 72 days and six months respectively because they would not "repent of their crimes".

Other LRPWP activists, Xiao Biguang and Zhang Lin, were serving three-year forced labour sentences after being arrested in March, 1994. Zhang Lin served his sentence in a prison coal mine in Anhui province. He was released in June, 1997 and allowed to leave the country. Yuan Hongbin, arrested in 1994, was subjected to administrative detention and was reported to be detained in a library in Guiyang. He was presumed to have been released during 1997.

In November 1996, Li Wenming and Guo Baosheng went on trial in Shenzen. The charge against them was changed to subversion, a more serious charge, which carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment with forced labour. They were originally charged with counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement.

They had been detained in May, 1994, together with Liao Hetang, Fang Yipin, He Fei, Zeng Jiecheng, Lan Chunquan, Wu Chun, Zheng Wuyan, and Wan Xiaoying, who were believed to be doing forced labour after being sentenced administratively, for creating an independent workers' organisation in the Shenzen Special Economic Zone. They had published a bulletin, "Workers Forum", criticising working conditions in factories.

In January, 1997, Li Wenming's health had seriously deteriorated. In April, Li Wenming and Guo Baosheng were given sentences of three and a half years, lighter sentences than had been expected. The sentences were backdated to the time of their arrests. Li Wenming was released on 11 November and Guo Baosheng was released on 4 December.

Several trade union and human rights activists known as the "Beijing 16" were serving prison sentences in 1997 after being arrested in 1992 and sentenced in 1994 for their involvement in the Free Labour Union of China (FLUC). Hu Shigen was in a forced labour institution after being sentenced to 20 years for taking part in founding the preparatory committee of the FLUC and drafting a pamphlet, "On Free Trade Unions".

Kang Yuchun, Liu Jingsheng and Wang Guoqi were sentenced to 17, 15 and 11 years respectively, for organising the FLUC. Liu Jingsheng was known to be in Beijing No. 2 prison and was suffering from health problems. Wang Guoqi was in the same prison. His family visits were suspended in May because he had not memorised prison regulations. Lu Zhigang, Wang Tiancheng, Chen Wei, and Zhang Chunzhu, were all sentenced to five years imprisonment for activities in connection with the founding of the FLUC, and Rui Chaohuai was given a three-year sentence. Chen Wei was released in May 1997 but has been taken into custody and interrogated since then.

Zheng Shaoqiang and Chen Rongyan, taxi drivers from Zhuhai, were arrested in January, 1996, and sentenced to two-years re-education through labour after organising a half-day strike by 200 taxi drivers to protest at the harsh penalties being imposed on drivers who commit minor traffic violations.

In 1997, many labour activists were still in prison or forced labour camps because they had been involved with the creation of the Workers' Autonomous Federations (WAFS) during the 1989 pro-democracy movement. It was the first open attempt since 1949 to organise independent unions, and was violently repressed.

Han Dongfang, a co-founder of the WAF, remained in Hong Kong in 1997 on a temporary working visa after being deported from China in 1993. He was in theory stateless after the Chinese authorities announced that his passport had been invalidated. They accused him of "presenting anti-government and anti-Chinese speeches" at the 1993 conference of the International Labour Organisation.

Wang Miaogen from the Shanghai WAF was still imprisoned in a psychiatric hospital in Shanghai, run by the Public Security Bureau (PSB) after being forcibly committed in 1993. He had also been detained in 1989 and had served a three-year prison sentence. Hu Nianyou and Yao Guisheng of the Changsa WAF were serving life and 15-year prison sentences respectively in Hunan Longxi prison.

Worker activists Chen Gang, Peng Shi and Liu Zhihua from Hunan were serving sentences in Hunan Longxi prison. They were sentenced to life imprisonment after allegedly setting their factory's security office on fire to protest against beatings of students in 1989. Chen Gang's sentence had been commuted from the death penalty on appeal

Members of the Hunan WAF were still imprisoned in 1997. Wang Changhuai and Zhang Jingsheng were serving 13-year prison sentences; Mao Yuejin was serving 15 years, and Wang Zhaobo, Huang Fan, Huang Lixin, Pan Qiubao and Yuan Shuzhu were serving between seven and 15 years. Guo Yunqiao was sentenced to death in 1989 but obtained a two-year stay of execution. He was later given a minimum 15-year prison sentence and was imprisoned in Hengyang prison No. 2.

Hu Min and Wan Yuewang of Yueyang WAF were serving prison sentences of 15 years and 7-15 years respectively in Hengyang prison No. 2. In 1997, Leng Wanbao of Jilin WAF who had been released from prison on medical leave in 1994, appealed against his own sentence and those of Tang Yuanjuan, Li Wei, and himself. In May, Tang Yuanjuan, who was suffering from tuberculosis and hepatitis and forced to do hard labour, had his sentence cut from 20 years to eight years. Li Wei's sentence was reduced from 13 years to eight years, and Leng Wanbao's own sentence was reduced from eight to five years. Tang Yuanjuan and Li Wei were released in June 1997.

Li Xiaodong and Li Wangyang of Shaoyang WAF were serving 13-year sentences. The government denies that Li Xiaodong was ever detained. Zhu Fangming of Hengyang WAF was serving life. Wang Ning of Tianjin WAF, was serving an eight-year sentence and was presumed released during the year.

A Chinese ex-seafarer, Miao Qi Hai, was imprisoned in China in 1993 after complaining about the treatment of seafarers on his first voyage. He tried to make contact with the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) after his release, and was again imprisoned. When he was released again, he was kept under surveillance, and the authorities threatened him with legal action for revealing state secrets because he had told the ITF about the wages and working conditions of China's 150,000 seafarers.

After escaping from China, he was detained as an illegal immigrant in Hong Kong's Pik Uk Prison in October, 1996. He was released the following month and applied for asylum in Hong Kong. He was moved to a low-security immigration detention centre which he left in March 1997. His application for asylum was turned down, although he was allowed to stay in Hong Kong until he found a country of asylum in June.

Changes to Fiji's 1990 constitution were passed in both houses of parliament in July, and will come into effect in July 1998. The constitution had ensured the political dominance of ethnic Fijians.

The amended version includes a comprehensive Bill of Rights which enshrines freedom of association and the right to organise and bargain collectively. The labour law, as well as other laws which do not conform to the new constitution, have to be changed and approved by parliament before July 1998.

At the beginning of the year, the government was still refusing to amend the 1991 laws, even though the FTUC national union centre, had reached an understanding with the Minister of Labour on the changes after four years of difficult negotiations.

The 1991 laws, brought in by government decrees after the 1987 military coups, divided workers on racial and cultural grounds. They made union organising almost impossible and regulated union activity in minute detail. A subsequent government made four minor amendments to the decrees in 1993, but the most offensive clauses remain.

Industrial associations, to which many Fijian workers belong, cannot strike, and certain groups of workers, including supervisory personnel, cannot join unions.

Compulsory recognition procedures were administered by government officials. This led to the promotion of employer-sponsored unions and the registration of unions on racial and political lines. Only unions representing 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise could be recognised as bargaining agents.

The decrees banned strikes over union recognition, which allows employers to dismiss union members or intimidate them into leaving a union before it is recognised, a common tactic in the textile industry, in the tax free zones. Employers also delay and frustrate compulsory recognition orders through judicial reviews, during which workers are not protected against dismissals and transfers and cannot strike. There is protection against anti-union discrimination, but firms do not have to reinstate workers fired for union activities.

The decrees imposed unreasonable and restrictive strike ballot procedures. While the 1993 changes repealed the six-week validity period for union strike ballots, the government retained its supervision of strike ballots. Legal rights to check-off facilities were withdrawn, and minutely-regulated, long, and expensive procedures were imposed for the collection of union dues. The election of union officials became lengthy and expensive.

Heavy fines and imprisonment faced anyone violating the decrees.

In addition, labour law does not protect trade unions against acts of interference by employers.

In April, after sustained national and international trade union pressure, a Cabinet Select Committee was formed to make recommendations on changes to the laws. In a meeting with the FTUC, four major changes were agreed upon and the FTUC agreed to call off a national protest rally planned for 26 April.

On 19 June, the Cabinet approved the agreement. The changes would allow unions to conduct secret ballots without government supervision. The Registrar of Trade Unions would be able to refuse to register trade unions organised on racial and/or religious grounds. Where there is more than one union covering the same group or class of workers, only the most representative group would have bargaining rights, although employers would be able voluntarily to recognise other unions in negotiations. Disputes could be declared by non-recognised unions over recognition issues if the union had already applied for registration; the dispute was over dismissals; and the reporting of the dispute was initiated by the aggrieved workers.

At the end of the year, the FTUC was participating in the drafting of new labour legislation.

The FTUC has said that it is impossible to organise in the tax free sector. In addition to the strike ban over union recognition, employers prevent unions from organising, and refuse to recognise unions which are formed. Workers can be instantly dismissed. Conditions of employment are bad, and women workers are sexually harassed, strip searched, and forced to clock in and out to visit the toilet. Workers in the zones get no maternity leave, and few get annual holidays.

A strike arising from a dispute between the Building Workers' Union of Fiji (BWUF), and the New-Zealand-owned Downer-Hill Joint Venture Company was declared unlawful by the Minister of Labour on 28 May, on the grounds that the union had not properly conducted a secret ballot of its membership. The dispute was over the company's refusal to negotiate a wage rise and improved health and safety conditions.

The ballot had been witnessed and approved by a government official, and the union was able supply written proof to this effect.

On the same day, the company told the BWUF that it was suing the BWUF and several of its officials. The strikers were also intimidated by the police, and had no choice but to return to work.

The company tried to break the union representation on the site and employed a number of anti-union measures. The union's president and other union members were demoted, and two others were fired. The company also stopped deducting union dues at source.

The ordinances were suspended until 31 October, "for review", despite the fact that the Chinese government had officially told the ILO that it would apply those ILO standards prevailing in Hong Kong prior to the take-over.

Lee Cheuk-yan, the general secretary of the HKCTU union centre went on a five-day hunger strike on 9 July in protest.

He had introduced the ordinances in a private member's bill to the Legislative Council (LegCo) in April 1997. The bill aimed to provide a satisfactory legal framework for unions in the post-July 1997 period because Hong Kong law did not adequately protect trade union rights.

The Employee's Right to Representation, Consultation and Collective Bargaining Ordinance, passed in June 1997, gave bargaining recognition rights to registered unions with a membership of more than 15 per cent of the workforce in a workplace of over 50 employees, and the authorisation of over half the workforce. Unions with a membership of more than 15 per cent of the workforce in enterprises with over 20 employees would be recognised as consultation representatives.

The Employment (Amendment) Ordinance gave workers fired for union activities the right to reinstatement.

The Trade Union (Amendment) Ordinance gave unions the right to join federations and confederations across sectors of industry and to affiliate at international level without prior government approval. It removed the restriction on the use of union funds for political purposes, and the need for the Chief Executive to approve donations to foreign trade union organisations. People outside the enterprise or sector were allowed to stand for election to the executive committees of unions and federations, and the age limit of union officials was lowered from 21 to 18.

On 1 July, the first day of the new administration, the LegCo was dissolved and replaced by the Provisional Legislative Council (PLC). The members of the PLC were selected by Beijing. Elections for a new legislative council were scheduled for May 1998.

The Basic Law, adopted in 1990 by the United Kingdom and China as the constitution for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), guarantees that provisions of ILO Conventions as currently applied to Hong Kong will remain in force after the handover. But the Basic Law is not fully democratic and China will be able to interpret and implement it as it wishes. Independent trade unions say it poses a direct threat to their existence and operations.

On 30 September, the HKSAR Executive Council brought in a bill repealing the Collective Bargaining Ordinance and the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance.

The bill also amended the Trade Union (Amendment) Ordinance by reinstating the ban on the use of union funds for political purposes as well as the requirement that the Chief Executive must approve the donation of funds to any foreign trade union. While government approval was no longer required for international affiliation, the amendment introduced the requirement that unions had to notify the Registrar of Trade Unions and obtain a majority vote in a secret ballot to affiliate internationally.

It brought back the restriction that union (but not federation) officials had to come from the same enterprise or sector. The amendment made no change to the right of unions to join federations and confederations across sectors of industry, nor to the lowering of the age limit of union officials from 21 to 18. The bill was passed by the PLC on 29 October.

With the exception of minor changes, Hong Kong labour law remained the same as it was in the years before the handover.

It does not adequately protect trade union rights. There is no institutional framework for union recognition and collective bargaining. This means that trade unions, to some extent, can only serve as pressure groups and organisers or advisers of workers.

Trade unionists risk victimisation and dismissal for organising unions and carrying out trade union activities. Unions often keep membership lists secret to prevent victimisation. While the law protects against anti-union discrimination, the burden of proof lies with the worker. There is no provision in the law for reinstatement, but only for employers to be fined and workers compensated.

There are no collective bargaining or recognition rights in Hong Kong, and the authorities do not promote or encourage bargaining. Collective agreements cover fewer than one per cent of workers and are not legally binding. Employers generally refuse to recognise unions. There is no collective bargaining in the public sector, although the previous administration consulted public servants over their pay and conditions.

The right to strike is not protected in the law. Under common law practice, employers can dismiss striking employees for breaking their employment contracts. Employers can also claim damages from workers and use threats of disciplinary action, cuts in pay, and demotions to deter strikes. Trade unionists on picket lines can be forced to disperse under the Public Order Ordinance.

The Chief Executive of Hong Kong has the authority to suspend or dismiss public servants "under sufficient cause". This authority was used to intimidate postal workers from going on strike in 1990.

"National" union centres are regarded as civil associations and have no protection in law. They are registered under the Societies Ordinance.

The Societies Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance have been amended since the handover to tighten freedom of association and assembly by introducing the concept of national security into both laws. The police were authorised to refuse permits for demonstrations if they believed national security would be threatened. The Societies Ordinance was amended to reintroduce the registration of political parties and to ban ties between political organisations and foreign political groups.

The police used tear gas and baton charges to try and break up the demonstrations before opening fire.

Trade union members in long-established manufacturing and industrial plants are increasingly faced with massive layoffs. In many cases production is subcontracted to non-union plants and the informal sector.

Agricultural workers and contract labourers are denied the rights to organise and bargain collectivity.

A 1993 law restricts the freedom of association of public servants. It provides overly detailed regulations of public servants associations' rules and activities. Existing recognition given to the associations could be withdrawn if they did not abide by the detailed criteria in the law. There are no reports that this has taken place.

The law limited the free election of representatives of associations, made their constitutions subject to prior government approval, and banned the associations from publishing a magazine or periodical without government approval. The law did not mention the recognition of federations for the purpose of collective bargaining.

There are seven export processing zones (EPZs) in India. In theory, workers in the EPZs have the right to organise and bargain collectively. However, in practice trade unions are rare. Union organisers are not allowed into the zones which are surrounded by security gates. Each company buses its workers directly to and from the factory door.

Many of the workers in the zones are women who are generally too young and frightened to form unions. The working conditions are bad and overtime is compulsory. Workers fear victimisation by management and those who protest are often sacked. It is common for workers to be employed on temporary contracts with fictitious contractors rather than directly by the company concerned.

In the Noida EPZ, workers were sacked for demanding the enforcement of labour laws.

The High Court in the southern state of Kerala declared on 28 July that all general strikes were illegal and all organisers of protests would be liable for losses caused by shutdowns. While the ruling was introduced in relation to political strikes, it remains a potential threat to trade union activities.

There were other court rulings during the year declaring strikes illegal and making striking workers pay damages because consumers and the public had suffered during the strikes.

Discussions to formulate a new comprehensive industrial relations bill continued. In April, employers' representatives walked out of the union and employers' committee the government had set up, after refusing to engage in meaningful discussions.

Indonesia's industrial relations system is subservient to Pancasila, the government-sponsored national ideology, which claims to stress consensus, national unity and social justice.

The FSPSI is the only legal union centre. It was set up in 1973 in a government-ordered restructuring of unions, and is controlled and directed by the government.

The government views industrial relations as a security issue and justifies its control of the FSPSI by the need to maintain law and order.

Retired military leaders hold leadership positions in the FSPSI and its affiliated unions' regional and district branches. This is justified by the official ideology of "dual functioning" which gives the military a role in the social and economic development of the country, in addition to defence. The authorities have also said that workers lack the necessary education, leadership experience and expertise to run their own unions.

There were indications that the organisation's 1995 congress was the first to be held without overt interference from the government or the military. The FSPSI adopted a new constitution at the congress. It said that a candidate had to have served at least five years in the union movement to be eligible for office - thereby providing the basis for the reduction and eventual elimination of military personnel in the FSPSI, though it did not get rid of military personnel who already hold office.

The FPSI also restructured itself as a federation with industrial unions. Previously it had been organised on a unitary structure.

In 1997, the FSPSI began to collect union dues itself in line with the 1995 constitutional changes. Previously the Manpower Department had collected the dues and allocated them to the FSPSI. The new system has not, so far, strengthened the financial position of the FSPSI, in particular because many employers did not transfer the dues to it.

Trade union organisations outside the FSPSI are repressed. Their activities are obstructed by security agents and the Manpower Department, and their officials are harassed, and often arrested and jailed.

The Indonesian Prosperity Trade Union, the SBSI, was set up in 1992. The Interior Ministry and the Ministry of Manpower have refused to register it several times, even though the union has said it has fulfilled the necessary criteria. The ILO has also strongly recommended that the union should be registered.

The SBSI has been constantly intimidated and harassed by the security forces. Over 5,000 workers are reported to have been dismissed and blacklisted for being SBSI members since 1992. There is a permanent threat of military interference in SBSI meetings, and police or military officials frequently visit its offices. The security forces have intimidated many branch leaders into resigning.

The SBSI said that they were able to carry out their activities with less harassment from mid-1995 onwards, but said that much depended on the attitude of the local military commander. In 1997 the situation appeared to worsen.

Public servants, and workers in state enterprises cannot join trade unions. They have to belong to the Indonesian Corps of Civil Servants, KORPRI, which the government set up in 1971. It does not claim to be a union; it is not independent of the government; and it cannot carry out trade union functions. The KORPRI Central Development Council is chaired by the Minister of Home Affairs.

Teachers can only belong to the government-controlled PGRI, which was given trade union status in 1990. It does not perform a union function, but carries out welfare activities and plays an important role in the management of the education system.

Collective bargaining is severely restricted. The requirements for recognition as a bargaining agent set down in Ministry of Manpower Regulation No. 3, 1993, on registered trade unions, maintain the FSPSI monopoly: unions must have fifty per cent of workers in an enterprise; at least 100 units at plant level; 25 organisations at district level; and five organisations at provincial level, or alternatively, at least 10,000 members throughout Indonesia. The FSPSI must also give its approval. The Regulation also says that a federation must comprise at least ten such unions to be registered.

A January 1994 decree, confirmed by the Director General of Manpower in April 1995, said that independent unions could be set up in a workplace and did not have to join the FSPSI. They could negotiate collective agreements in enterprises with at least 25 employees and where at least half of the workforce agreed to the establishment of the union. If an independent enterprise union wanted to join a federation, it could only join an FSPSI-affiliated sectoral union, and was obliged to make this decision after two years. Manpower Department officials or security agents often advised workplace unions to join the FSPSI.

The decree contradicted the legal requirements for recognition as a bargaining agent.

Guideline 348, issued in 1995, said that an employer's permission was no longer needed before an enterprise union could be formed. By the end of 1997, around 1,200 non-FSPSI workplace unions had been set up according to official figures.

There were again reports of company-controlled unions being formed by employers with the complicity of the Ministry of Manpower and its provincial representatives, who took bribes from employers. If workers tried to set up independent workplace unions, they were usually threatened with the sack.

Representatives of the Department of Manpower or representatives of the security forces often participate in "collective bargaining" between workers and employers in enterprises. Employers frequently ignore agreements, and in many cases, the agreements only repeat legal minimum wage provisions.

The law does not adequately protect workers against acts of anti-union discrimination. Employers can invoke "lack of harmony in the working relationship" to justify sacking workers who join unions. Although 1992 legislation banned interference by employers in trade union affairs, there was no evidence that the law was implemented.

Complicated mediation and compulsory arbitration procedures make legal strikes virtually impossible. Strikes can be held in private enterprises which are not considered vital to the national interest. Nearly all strikes are short wildcat strikes which are immediately ended by police or military intervention after a request from the company. The FSPSI and its sectoral federations never lead or support strikes. FSPSI workplace branches often intervene on the side of management during a dispute. There are many examples of FSPSI enterprise unions going on strike over payment of the minimum wage and not being backed up by FSPSI branch unions.

Most strikes take place because employers pay below the minimum wage. In many cases where the minimum wage was paid, employers cut other benefits. Conflicts also took place over recognition of FSPSI unions in enterprises. In 1996 strikers also made some political demands.

The army continued to intervene in strikes. Military intervention in labour conflicts became even more marked in 1997. Most employers have close ties with local police or army units. The government revoked one of a series of regulations permitting military intervention in industrial disputes in January, 1994; but the army can intervene under a 1986 decree, "particularly in cases pertaining to strikes, work contracts, dismissals, and changes in status or ownership of a company".

A 1990 decree says that the internal security agency, Bakorstanas, can intervene in strikes in the interests of political and social stability.

Local government officials and security agents kept workers under surveillance during strikes, participated in negotiations, and detained, arrested and interrogated activists.

During the year, the military-controlled Lemhanas think tank said that the army should withdraw from the unions. In 1996 it had also published a document suggesting that the Indonesian labour movement should be structured into two federations, one for private sector employees and one for public sector employees which would form a national confederation. This came to nothing.

Muchtar Pakpahan, who had been arrested at the end of July, 1996, on charges of masterminding the riots of 27 July which had taken place when the police had cracked down on the opposition, remained in prison.

He was charged under two sections of the anti-subversion law which carry a sentence of between eight years in prison and the death penalty, and under the criminal code for spreading hatred against the government, carrying a seven year prison sentence.

The government appeared determined to make sure he got a long sentence, and to wipe out the SBSI in what was widely seen as part of an attempt to stifle opposition before the elections in 1997 and 1998.

In October, 1996, while apparently unable to prepare a solid court case against Pakpahan, the Supreme Court re-imposed his four-year prison sentence in connection with the 1994 Medan strikes. Pakpahan had not been in Medan at the time.

The Supreme Court ruling was unprecedented, procedurally flawed and came about because of political manipulation. The Court had quashed the sentence in September 1995. (The Deputy Chief Justice who quashed the sentence was later fired).

Pakpahan's trial opened in December, 1996, and continued for two days a week in 1997. It was clearly a show trial. The judge violated trial ethics. He was biased and tried to intimidate the defence which was banned from questioning witnesses. One witness was threatened and isolated. There was clear evidence that witnesses had been coerced. Several admitted they had been told what to say to incriminate Pakpahan during interrogations at the Attorney General's office.

The charge sheet made no mention of the 27 July riots and it became clear that Pakpahan was being tried for his leadership of the SBSI and his political opinions. Evidence against him included a poem about the trade unionist, Marsinah, who had been murdered in 1993, speeches calling for an increase in the minimum wage, and a statement favouring a referendum in East Timor.

By the beginning of March, Pakpahan's health had deteriorated badly and he was too ill to continue with the trial. He fainted in court. He had not been allowed to see a doctor from the International Committee of the Red Cross or have his family doctor accompany him for an examination in the prison hospital.

He was taken to hospital. After medical tests it was diagnosed that he had a non-malignant tumour in his right lung and a blood clot on the brain. The tumour was later found to be scar tissue from a past bout of tuberculosis. He asked to have medical treatment abroad but the Ministry of Justice refused.

The trial was postponed. He was eventually allowed to go to a hospital of his choice, although he had to pay the hospital bill and the cost of a permanent escort of six police guards. He had his appendix removed at the beginning of April.

He continued to request medical treatment abroad. On 21 July the government turned the request down saying it was not necessary - though doctors at Cikini hospital where he was being looked after, said that the treatment he needed was not available in Indonesia.

The Attorney General announced that the High Court had ruled that the trial could resume and Pakpahan could be accompanied by a doctor at the hearings. Pakpahan asked for a third medical opinion.

On 7 August, he filed a judicial review to the Supreme Court asking for a review of his conviction for the 1994 Medan riots. The Court refused. Pakpahan's lawyers had told the Court that they had eleven witnesses to testify that they had received a circular from the SBSI to say that the strikes should be delayed from April to October.

On 28 August the trial resumed. Pakpahan was too ill and it was postponed. It later resumed, but on 10 October Pakpahan collapsed in the courtroom.

On 23 November it was announced that the government had agreed that Canadian medical personnel and diagnostic equipment would be allowed to treat Pakpahan in Indonesia.

Pakpahan received the George Meany Human Rights Award during the year.

By the end of 1997 the state had not proved its charges against him. The trial was set to continue when Pakpahan's health allowed.

Many strikes took place in April, following the introduction of a new minimum wage level, particularly in shoe factories - sometimes involving several thousand strikes demanding payment of the new wage. Over 10,000 workers went on strike at PT Hardaya Aneka Shoes Industry, and another 10,000 at PT Hasi, at a factory making shoes for Nike. At PT Farmindo, in Tangerang, on the second day of a strike over a food allowance, the workers attacked some of the factory buildings because two of the strike leaders had been sacked the day before. Management called in troops from the local military command.

On 22 April, Dita Sari, leader of the PPBI, a students' organisation which cooperates with workers to help them organise strikes and demonstrations, was sentenced to six years imprisonment for subversion.

She had been arrested after a massive demonstration organised by the PPBI in Surabaya, East Java, on 8 July, 1996, calling for an increase in the minimum wage, lower prices, and outside monitoring of the 1997-98 elections. She was kept in isolation in prison and was not allowed to have books or to study. The unrest was blamed on a new political party, the PRD, which the authorities said was Marxist. Its leaders were charged with subversion. The PPBI is linked to the PRD.

Coen Husein Pontoh, a leader of the PRD-linked farmers' organisation who had also been charged with subversion for masterminding the strike, was sentenced to four years in prison for deviating from, manipulating, and undermining state policy guidelines. He was imprisoned under the same conditions as Dita Sari. They both said that they would appeal against their sentences and that their trials were rigged.

On 3 May, Aries Hia, vice-chairman of the SBSI Binjai branch was detained by the local military command for ten days and all documents were confiscated from the SBSI branch office. He had been imprisoned for 18 months in 1994 in relation to the Medan strikes The military officials said that the SBSI in Binjai was illegal. They also wanted to arrest the Binjai general secretary, Masihari Nahampun, who went into hiding.

On 20 June, the local manpower authority sent a letter to the SBSI in Binjai saying that it was banned in the region. They referred to Ministry of Manpower Regulation No. 3, 1993 saying that only the FSPSI was recognised by the government.

In June, the local military command intervened to break up an SBSI training course in Jambi, Southern Sumatra.

On 11 July, 18 contract workers were sacked from PT Pelangi Selaras Indonesia in Medan for joining the SBSI. They had asked for their legal entitlements such as an annual bonus. The company refused and referred the case to the local manpower office, which agreed the workers could be fired because they belonged to an illegal union.

On 18 July, a woman SBSI member in Lampung employed at PT Andatu was beaten by a military official during a strike at the company over legal entitlements.

The Ministry of Information bans the media from employing members of the AJI independent journalists' union, who continue to be harassed, beaten-up and victimised.

On 21 July, Andreas Harsono, a founder member of the AJI, escaped when two men on motorcycles carrying hammers stopped his car, broke his windscreen and tried to force the doors open.

On 23 July, AJI members Ahmad Taufik and Eko Maryadi were released from prison after being arrested in March, 1995, and sentenced to three years. They had served two thirds of their sentence and had been eligible for parole for months.

On 29 July, military and police officials broke up a workshop being held from 27 July to 5 August in Kalianda, Sumatra, by the SBSI Lampung Branch. The 23 participants were interrogated for several hours. Later the same day when three educators arrived, they were all taken into custody at Kalianda police station and detained without warrant for three days. Their families were not informed about the arrests nor the reasons for them. The police chief in Kalianda was reported to have said that they were arrested for holding a meeting without a permit.

On 19 September the police forced the second SBSI congress, held in Jakarta, to close down ahead of schedule and said it was illegal. Two SBSI officials and nine SBSI guards were detained and interrogated. They were released after 24 hours. Four foreign trade unionists and two journalists were detained, interrogated and held in Jakarta police station. They were released later the same day. The foreign unionists were accused of participating in an illegal meeting, and two of them were expelled.

Over a thousand workers at two shoe factories, PT Sindoll Pratama and its subsidiary, Pl Mega Beta Pertiwi, in North Jakarta, which make shoes for Reebok and Starmont, went on strike on 23 September after a wage cut. They demonstrated outside the House of Representatives and then went to the Ministry of Manpower. Security officers lashed out with rattan sticks after the strikers refused to go in trucks provided by the police and the military. Ten labour activists were arrested and taken to police headquarters and the military command for questioning.

On 29 September, the PRD, its associated organisations, including the PPBI, and other organisations, were banned. The Interior Minister, who announced the ban, said that more organisations, including the SBSI, were likely to be banned in the near future.

On 10 October, some 15,000 workers at the IPTN aerospace company, which handles projects funded by the state, went on strike and forced the factory to close for a week. The demands were over wage rises, medical costs and other allowances.

The strike was believed to be particularly significant because it stemmed directly from the economic crisis, and because it affected what was regarded as the country's most prestigious company.

On 28 December, police broke up a cultural evening at SBSI offices in Jakarta because it was being held without a permit. (Permits are not required for cultural activities.) Eight people were taken away for questioning and released the following afternoon. Documents and musical instruments were confiscated.

At the beginning of 1997, the government had issued proposals to change the existing labour laws. The FSPSI said that it had been consulted as long ago as 1995 about changing the 1969 Basic Provisions of Manpower Act and a draft had been prepared. However, the current draft went much further than the 1969 law, and had been produced on the basis of discussions between the Minister of Manpower and cabinet colleagues.

It was reported to have been drafted by hand-picked officials from the economic, finance, home affairs, commerce and industry ministries. The FSPSI expressed its reservations about the bill which it said further restricted freedom of association. The government postponed parliamentary debate of the bill because it was widely criticised.

On 16 June the government introduced the bill into the House of Representatives. The bill repealed or amended six ordinances and eight acts which had included some protection of the basic rights of workers, and brought in more restrictive regulations. It gave the government extensive control over virtually every aspect of industrial relations.

The bill was given to a parliamentary committee for examination. During the parliamentary recess the Minister of Manpower organised informal discussions among parliamentarians and government officials on the bill. This was widely criticised and seen as unethical because matters under discussion in parliament cannot be discussed during recess.

It also came to light that the Minister of Manpower had received a large amount of money from a bank for depositing national social security funds in it. The funds had been in another bank. The Minister built a hotel for his own use with the money. He also paid generous daily allowances and expensive dinners to the MPs in the committees discussing the bill.

The bill was amended after a strong public outcry. The FSPSI eventually agreed with the final version of the bill saying that most of its amendments had been accommodated. The final bill amended six ordinances and five laws. It was passed in the House of Representatives on 11 September amid protest in the streets outside. It was set to enter into force on 1 October 1998.

The law seriously restricted trade union rights. It did not fulfil any of the three main recommendations made by the ILO Direct Contacts Mission to Indonesia in 1993 on bringing the laws into line with ILO Conventions. The law was also vague and confusing.

The law said that unions could be set up at plant level as well as federation level, but they had to be registered with the authorities in line with prevailing legal regulations. This referred to Ministry of Manpower Regulation No. 3, 1993 which was not repealed, and which enforces the FSPSI monopoly.

Collective agreements could only be made at plant level, and only registered trade unions could be party to an agreement. The law appeared to say that unions could not go on strike in pursuit of a collective agreement.

It stipulated lengthy pre-strike procedures and banned industry-wide strikes, mass workers' protests, workers' rallies and sympathy strikes. Strikes could only be conducted in the company concerned. A union must give strike notice to both the employer and the local manpower department. Strikes could not disturb "public security and order".

The role of unions was restricted to negotiating a collective agreement and being a party to a labour dispute.

The law did not adequately protect workers against anti-union discrimination, nor against interference from employers.

In several parts the law was subject to the enactment of further regulations - on trade unions; in respect to procedures for drawing up, extending and amending a collective agreement; procedures for going on strike, and details regarding temporary employment contracts.

The collective bargaining rights of public employees in national and local government, including teachers, are substantially limited. The government sets pay levels in the sector and strikes are prohibited. The Japanese Supreme Court has ruled that the strike ban is constitutional. Public employees who go on strike could face prison sentences.

Workers in state enterprises cannot go on strike and cannot bargain on issues concerning the management and operation of enterprises.

The national trade union centre, RENGO, says it is common for employers to sack strikers, and several government employees, including teachers, have filed cases in court alleging unfair dismissal.

On 6 January, the NSA launched a criminal investigation against Leonid Solomin, the president of the Independent Trade Union Centre (ITUCK). He was alleged to have broken currency laws by paying union staff in dollars and to have violated a 1995 constitutional provision preventing unions from receiving funds from abroad, including from international trade union organisations.

It was widely believed, however, that the charges were because Solomin had led protest demonstrations in late 1996 against the economic crisis.

Solomin's bank account and the union's accounts were frozen and NSA officers interrogated union staff. His home was burgled and documents were taken.

On 18 March, the authorities formally charged Solomin and banned him from leaving the capital city, Almaty. NSA staff interrogated him and other members of his family, and warned him to emigrate before it was too late. The agency also attempted to stir-up racial hatred against Solomin who is Jewish.

The government dropped the charges in September because of lack of evidence.

The law does not protect collective bargaining rights nor does it protect workers against anti-union discrimination.

Independent trade unions said that the authorities and employers continued to obstruct their activities and to harass their members. Local authorities placed numerous administrative obstacles on union registration, and unions must pay a fee to be registered.

Strikes and protests took place over non-payment of wages. Over two hundred employees at the Karatau fertiliser factory in Janatas went on hunger strike at the beginning of November over two-years salary arrears.

In October, several hundred employees at a metallurgical plant in Kentau striking against ten month's unpaid wages clashed with security forces during a protest march to Almaty. Although the wages were paid at the end of the month, in November the prosecutor-general accused five union leaders of organising an illegal march. A Supreme Court decision was pending at the end of the year.

The only union centre is the state-controlled General Federation of Trade Unions. Its purpose is to mobilise workers behind state-set production targets, and to provide health, educational, cultural and welfare facilities.

Collective bargaining, and strikes are banned. The state sets wages and assigns all jobs. Joint venture and foreign-owned companies have to hire their employees from lists drawn up by the ruling party of workers vetted for their ideological purity.

North Korea has established a free trade zone in the north of the country, and is setting up two more in the ports of Wonsan and Nampo.

The laws lifted restrictions allowing only one union at workplace, sectoral, and national level for industrial unions, federations and national centres from the year 2000, and for enterprise level unions from the year 2002.

The KCTU national union centre, which the government had refused to register in November, 1995, would therefore remain illegal until 2000, and the FKTU union centre would remain the only legally-recognised union.

Other clauses allowed companies to replace strikers with workers transferred from within the same company, or by hiring sub-contractors. They could also hire outside workers as temporary strike-breakers where there was a closed shop if they couldn't find suitable replacements within the enterprise, or where a dispute was expected to cause significant losses.

Workers were banned from occupying production lines during a strike, and from obstructing the free entry of workers and preventing them from working.

There was a ban on strike-pay, and sacked workers could no longer be union members. Full-time union officials could not be paid in part or full by their employer.

The ban on third-party intervention, under which over 2,000 trade unionists had been jailed, was redefined. Previously it had banned trade unionists not directly involved in a dispute from advising or offering any form of assistance or solidarity to unions, and ruled out mediation efforts by outsiders. The new provisions specified who could assist trade unions or employers in the course of a dispute, and laid down detailed requirements for their registration with the Ministry of Labour..

The ban on unions engaging in political activities and giving support to political parties, financial or otherwise, was lifted.

When the laws were passed, the KCTU declared a programme of rolling strike action and the FKTU national union centre declared general strikes for 27 December and 14-15 January 1997.

The government declared the strikes illegal and on 10 January, issued arrest warrants for 20 KCTU leaders. Seventeen of them were charged with "interference in business" under the criminal code, which only allows strikes against a particular employer over terms and conditions of employment. Over 200 trade unionists from the KCTU and FKTU had already been issued with summonses for questioning.

Several KCTU leaders, including the president Kwon Young-kil, camped out in the grounds of the Catholic cathedral in the Myongyang district in the centre of Seoul, soon finding themselves surrounded by riot police.

The authorities arrested two of the 20 for whom it had issued arrest warrants and three other trade unionists. On 11 January, Kim Jong-il, a unionist at the Manda Machinery plant in Taejun, was arrested. Kim Byung-soo, president of the KMTU metalworkers' federation, was arrested on 14 January. On 16 January, three strike leaders from the same union - Oh Hyung-kun, Choo In-sang, and Joo Ki-seung - were arrested in the city of Mokpo as they left the office of the Halla Heavy Industry Union. In the city of Ulsan, the police sent a special search team after six Hyundai trade unionists and offered a large reward for information leading to their capture.

The authorities released the five by 23 January and also withdrew the arrest warrants.

However, two other unionists arrested during the January strikes - Jeung Young-hoon, an auditor at the ABC Boiler Company, arrested on 18 January, and Kim Eui-kwon, a shop-steward at Kia Motors, arrested on 10 January, were charged with violating assembly laws and obstructing law and order. The latter was also charged with violence.

Several violent confrontations took place between demonstrators and riot police, notably on 11 and 15 January when police stopped participants in KCTU rallies marching to the Cathedral. There were many arrests and injuries. On 14-15 January the FKTU held its general strike.

The authorities harassed an ICFTU/ITS/TUAC mission which went to Seoul in mid-January by serving restriction orders on their activities. The orders said that their participation in strike activities would disturb the peace and violate the immigration law, and threatened to deport them. Security officials followed the mission around.

The KCTU said that 129 workers had been subject to disciplinary action at various companies in relation to the strikes, including Shamon Cosmetic Company, where four workers were sacked, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Duk Bu Jin Heung Company and Dong Bank Company.

Employers also sponsored violence against striking workers. At the Hanra Gong Jo Company, supervisors beat up union officers and destroyed union equipment. At the An-Yang Central Hospital, security guards threatened to shoot union officials. Thugs injured 13 workers at the Sam Pung textile company. Workers were beaten at Korea Hukoko. At Shamon Cosmetic Company, unionists who refused to sign a "no-work-no-wage" agreement were beaten.

There were also reports of police violence against strikers, with police injuring 35 workers as they broke up one rally. Cho Young-hyung, a worker at Ul San Hyundai Automobile, set himself on fire on 10 January in response to police violence and was still in hospital several weeks later.

Employers also sued union leaders for massive damages and took out law suits for "interference with business".

By 21 January, the government said that it would prepare a revised draft of the law for parliamentary debate so that the law, which was to come into effect on 1 March, could be amended. The strikes continued.

On 8 March agreement was reached. Amendments to the 1996 law were passed on 10 March.

The new law allowed immediate union pluralism at industrial and national levels.

Companies could only replace striking workers by transferring workers from within the company.

From 2001, banking (except the central bank) and bus services would no longer be considered as essential services in which compulsory arbitration applies.

The ban on strike-pay was lifted but an employer was under no obligation to pay it.

In theory, the changes allowed for the KCTU to become a legal national trade union centre; however, the KCTU feared that the authorities would invoke other laws to prevent this happening.

On 6 May, the KCTU submitted a notice of establishment to the Ministry of Labour.

On 8 May, the Ministry rejected the notice on the grounds that elected KCTU officers, including President Kwon Young-kil, are ineligible in law because they have been dismissed, and that union organisations which are constituent parts of the KCTU, including the Korean Federation of Metalworkers' Unions, the Korean Teachers' and Education Workers' Union and the Hyundai Group Trade Union Federation are not regarded as trade union organisations by the law.

The Ministry requested the KCTU to remove the legal obstacles by 28 May. The KCTU refused, and the Ministry returned the union's notice of establishment on 30 May. The KCTU filed an administrative appeal on 4 June. The case was referred to the Administrative Appeals Commission under the Prime Minister on 14 June, but rejected on 4 September. The KCTU filed an administrative suit to the Appellate Court on 28 September. It remained unregistered by years' end.

Public servants, and public and private school teachers could still not join trade unions, bargain collectively or strike. Exceptions are granted for manual workers in the public railway, telecommunications, and health service administrations.

The government maintained the ban on the Korean Teachers' and Education Workers' Union (CHUNKYOJO), arguing that teachers had a special status and role in Korean tradition and society and that the public did not consider it appropriate for teachers to belong to trade unions.

CHUNKYOJO officials presented results of public opinion polls indicating that 70 per cent of the public and 90 per cent of teachers throughout the country supported the legalisation of teachers' unions.

Disputes can be referred to arbitration and strikes can be banned in public utilities considered as "essential services" including public transport and railways, water, electricity and gas supply, oil refining and distribution, public hygiene and medical facilities, banking and finance, broadcasting and communications. The 1996 law extended this list to cover to petroleum supply and the Mint. Strikes can also be banned if they threaten the public interest or the national economy.

The authorities can change union rules and decisions, nominate convenors of extraordinary union congresses, conduct investigations into internal union matters and nullify or modify collective agreements.

There were no expectations of further revisions in the labour law during the year because of presidential elections in December.

On 31 August, the KAWF automobile workers' federation, and the KMTU metalworkers' union organised a rally over redundancies and loss of pension and other benefits at the Kia Group of Companies.

The KAWF leadership later announced a hunger strike outside the Kia Company. The police broke the strike and arrested KAWF President Jo Joon-ho and 11 other unionists.

At the end of 1997, 29 KCTU officials and activists remained in prison after being arrested for trade union activities. The Ministry of Justice was investigating another 152 KCTU members. Two FKTU-affiliated KTTU telecom union officials who had been in prison at the beginning of the year were later released: one on bail, and the other pending charges.

The Minister of Human Resources can order the suspension, for a maximum six-month period, of any trade union which, in his opinion, "is, or is being used for purposes, prejudicial to or incompatible with, the interests of, the security of, or public order in, Malaysia, or any part thereof".

Legislation such as the Internal Security Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Printing Press and Publications Act, and the Sedition Act can be invoked to restrict the exercise of trade union rights. The Penal Code requires police permission for public meetings of more than five people.

The Trade Unions Act of 1959 and Industrial Relations Act of 1967, and subsequent amendments, restrict the right to organise and allow for wide-ranging interference in trade union affairs.

Under the Trade Unions Act, a union can only represent workers in a "particular establishment, trade, occupation, or industry, or within any similar trades, occupations, or industries". A national centre has to register under the Societies Act, rather than as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act.

The Act gives the Director General of Trade Unions far-reaching powers, including the right "to supervise, direct and control the trade unions". Every trade union is obliged to register and must record when it was set up "for the purpose of prosecuting any trade union which fails to apply for registration".

The Director General can refuse to register a union if he is satisfied that a similar one already exists, and he can take as long as he likes to process an application for registration. He must give his approval before a trade union can affiliate internationally.

Under this legislation, 160,000 mainly women workers employed by multinational electronics companies, have been denied the right to organise a national union in the electronics industry since the early 1970s. They can only join in-house unions.

Workers forming in-house unions in the sector usually face management hostility, including threats of dismissal.

Public service workers can only form unions in particular ministries, departments, occupations or trades. The unions can join federations, but cannot bargain collectively.

The Industrial Relations Act of 1967, amended in 1980, restricts collective bargaining in the public sector. A council system limits public sector unions to "giving views" on principles governing wages and other terms and conditions of service. Bargaining cannot cover specific areas relating to hiring and firing, transfer and promotion, dismissal and reinstatement, nor can workers strike over these issues. It is almost impossible to strike. Employees of statutory bodies can only join in-house unions, though these can affiliate to the public service federation.

The Industrial Relations Act also restricts collective bargaining in the "pioneer" enterprises. Two years ago, the government said that it had formally approved the deletion of the provisions relating to "pioneer" status from the Industrial Relations Act and was taking measures to repeal the provisions.

The right to strike is severely restricted. Two-thirds of the workforce must vote in favour of a strike in a secret ballot, and the ballot must contain a resolution which states "the nature of the acts which are to be done or omitted to be done in the course of such a strike". It has been reported that even where a union has conducted a secret ballot and received a mandate for a strike, the Director General of Trade Unions has disallowed the result on the basis of his dissatisfaction with the resolution. The Minister has powers to compel the parties involved in a dispute to arbitration.

Unions cannot strike over disputes relating to union recognition, wrongful dismissal, victimisation and discrimination.

Unions cannot use their funds for political purposes. The law includes a comprehensive list of matters which can be termed as "political objects". The Minister of Human Resources can add to this list.

The government and employers encourage the formation of in-house unions in both the public and private sectors. Unions report that they continue to encounter difficulties in organising. Many employers, including some multinational corporations, go to extreme lengths to deny union recognition and evade collective bargaining. They often challenge government directives to accord union recognition, and refuse to comply with Industrial Court awards to reinstate wrongfully dismissed workers.

The Minister of Human Resources has said that foreign workers are not allowed to join trade unions, although the law merely says that only Malaysian nationals can hold union office. Conditions are often stipulated in work permits which deny foreign workers the right to join a trade union.

The ILO ruled in 1994 that the Act was incompatible with freedom of association and the promotion and encouragement of collective bargaining, and recommended that it be rewritten after tripartite discussions. It also recommended that strikes over multi-employer collective agreements, banned by the Act, should be legalised. The ILO repeated its recommendations to the New Zealand government in 1996.

The Employment Contracts Act was one of the main instruments of the government's labour market deregulation policies. It replaced the collective bargaining process with individual employment contracts. It states that employment relationships should be established through legally-enforceable contracts between individual workers and their employers, unless otherwise decided.

If workers wish to be covered by a collectively-bargained contract, they must say so explicitly and can choose to be represented by a bargaining agent, which may or may not be a trade union, in negotiations. The employer must recognise the bargaining agent, but does not then have to bargain.

The Employment Contracts Act halved the number of workers covered by collective contracts, and real wages fell. The impact was worst in small-scale workplaces.

The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) said that workers had been pressurised into signing individual contracts introduced unilaterally by employers - including where the workers concerned had authorised a union to negotiate.

The right to strike was also limited by the Act, most importantly by the ban on strikes aimed at concluding multi-company collective agreements. This gave legal backing to employer-imposed bargaining at enterprise level only.

Under some circumstances, workers banned from joining trade unions can form associations. But they have either limited collective bargaining rights or none at all, and they cannot strike or join federations.

On 2 July, the Supreme Court lifted a 1978 law banning employees at the Pakistan Television Corporation and the Civil Aviation Authority from joining trade unions and bargaining collectively, ruling that the ban was unconstitutional. However, the court also said that these workers could not go on strike.

Employers have artificially promoted workers in sectors such as the steel industry, the railways, and the banking and financial sector so that they qualify as managerial staff and cannot join unions.

The 1952 Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (ESMA), bans strikes and denies or restricts collective bargaining. The government can declare any service or enterprise a public service utility and put it under ESMA restrictions, which also means that workers can be forbidden to quit their jobs, and sacked workers cannot go to court. A wide range of government services and state enterprises have been covered by the ESMA, and the government said that eight services were still under ESMA restrictions.

Striking in an industry or service designated under the ESMA carries a penalty of up to one year's imprisonment.

Workers in banks and financial institutions are denied the right to collective bargaining.

Amendments to the Banks Ordinance in 1997 banned all trade union activities during banking hours, and stipulated that a worker cannot become a union member or official in a banking company unless they are employed by the bank in question. Anyone breaking the law faces a fine or up to three year's imprisonment or both. The bank workers' union affiliated to the APFTU national centre challenged the ban in the High Court on the basis that it was unconstitutional.

Workers in EPZs cannot bargain collectively or strike, and are not protected against acts of interference from employers, or anti-union discrimination. Special Industrial Zones are excluded from the labour law under the "Foreign Investors' Scheme". The 1992 Finance Act exempts industries that export more than 70 per cent of their products from all labour legislation.

The authorities have wide powers to interfere into internal union affairs.

Unions have to go through long and cumbersome procedures before they can call a strike. The result of these is that most strikes are spontaneous and illegal. They are often broken up by the police and used by employers as justifications for lay-offs. The government can halt any strike which has gone on for 30 days.

Unions say the labour courts are inefficient and often corrupt; labour laws are not effectively implemented and certain politicians, local authorities and the business community collaborate to repress workers' rights. Intimidation and violence are used to prevent workers from organising.

The process of union registration and appeal can take many years if an employer is against the formation of a union. During that time, union organisers are harassed and victimised, and employers can involve unions in costly and prolonged litigation.

Employers evade labour laws by registering a number of small businesses rather than a larger one, even where workers are employed on the same premises. They also hire workers on successive temporary contracts.

Labour laws apply in the 72 industrial estates, but offer little or no protection. The Gadoon Amazi industrial estate is notorious for anti-union policies. Factory security guards are equipped with assault rifles. Most union organising efforts have been crushed with the active support of the local authorities, the police and the Labour Department. Dismissed unionists are blacklisted. Working conditions and health and safety conditions are extremely bad.

The government set-up a tripartite Task Force on Labour Policy in 1993 because of widespread domestic and international criticism of Pakistan's labour legislation. The Task Force finalised its recommendations in 1994; the government is still "considering" them - although in August the government did set up a new committee with the unions to examine labour laws.

Early in the year, the government refused to allow air traffic controllers to join a union and victimised leaders of the All Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Progressive Employees' Union.

Unions protested at privatisation and the subsequent job losses during the year. The government also announced that around 200,000 public servants would lose their jobs.

The PNFTU protested at the "golden handshake" scheme at the Habib Bank Ltd. and similar schemes at other institutions under which thousands of employees were laid-off with poor compensation.

A new law banned workers in state enterprises from taking their grievances to the labour courts or the National Industrial Relations Commission, particularly when they related to the victimisation of trade unionists. Instead they were obliged to go to a Services Tribunal.

In September, senior government ministers, including the prime minister and minister of labour interfered into trade union elections at Pakistan International Airlines, by promising employees benefits and other incentives to vote for a particular union.

After many sackings and litigation, a union affiliated to the APFOL union centre was registered at a construction project building a huge hydro-electric power facility on the Indus river in 1996, by Ghazi Barotha Contractors, a mostly Italian joint-venture company.

The management also registered a company-sponsored union. In elections for the bargaining agent, the APFOL union got 90 per cent of the vote and submitted its claims for bargaining to the management. The company began to lay workers off and harass union activists and office bearers, and colluded with the authorities in an attempt to have the project declared an essential service where workers could not bargain collectively or strike

The union managed to get the sacked workers reinstated, but the management again refused to bargain and threatened to sack workers. The union obtained a court order preventing this.

On 26 August, police attacked a demonstration organised by the union against the company's anti-union tactics outside parliament house in Islamabad. Some 200 people were arrested.

In October, the company sacked 600 workers. Union leaders went on hunger strike outside the company's premises.

Under the 1993 Internal Security Act, the cabinet can jail people and ban organisations deemed to be against the public interest. The police have unlimited powers to arrest people without charge and hold them without trial, and to search property without a warrant. The act also reversed the burden of proof so that an accused person has to prove their innocence. The PNG trade union centre has described the act as a direct threat to democracy and to trade union rights.

In October, Vanimo Forest Products Pty Ltd., sacked 207 workers claiming it was winding down operations because of an increase in export tax of timber and other economic factors.

The company had first intended to sack 500 workers, and supervisors had warned that union members would be the first to go. The union managed to negotiate the number of dismissals down to 200. These workers were sacked on 13 October. The following day, the company fired another seven workers on the spot without telling the union and threatened the union with "dire consequences if it continued agitating". The union believed that the company merely wanted to transfer production to its principal company and get rid of union members in the process.

The government said it had drawn up a bill limiting this power to strikes in essential services, but it was not adopted during the year, and in any event, gave the president unlimited powers to intervene in strikes.

Union officials can be dismissed and imprisoned for a maximum of three years for taking part in illegal strikes.

Public sector workers have no collective bargaining rights and cannot strike. The government said that a bill giving government workers the right to strike in certain circumstances was pending in congress.

A union can only be registered if it represents at least 20 per cent of workers in a bargaining unit. The law requires an excessively high number of unions before a federation or national centre can be formed. Non-nationals cannot form or join unions unless a reciprocal agreement exists with their country of origin.

Union officials have to be employed in the enterprise whose workers they represent.

There have been many reports of employers resisting union requests for certification elections to establish themselves as collective bargaining agents. Once certification elections are pending, workers are often sacked to destroy unions.

The Japanese-owned electronics company, Uniden Philippines Inc., suspended almost 100 workers at its FTI Complex site in retaliation for their trade union activities, which included a one-day picket protest on 10 February. The SMU-ALU union was protesting at illegal sackings, illegal suspensions, forced overtime, high production quotas, denial of medical leave, and banning of the use of toilets during working time. The company had also delayed certification elections for over four years.

On 16 April, the company announced its temporary closure following a strike over the sacking of 54 workers, including 18 union officials and members. Two days before the closure, armed company security guards broke up picket lines. Many of the mostly women workers were injured and had to be treated for concussion. A company guard hit one worker on the head with a fibreglass shield. Another was struck by a company vehicle.

One day before the closure, the Department of Labour tried to mediate. The company said it would rather close down than reinstate sacked workers, announcing that it would move to China if the department insisted that it re-employ them.

There are very few unions in the export processing zones and in the growing number of special zones and regional industrial centres.

Some 175,000 people work in the zones. The labour law applies there but in practice "no union, no strike" policies usually exist and are enforced by foreign investors, local government officials, and zone administrators. Workers in the zones, as elsewhere, are increasingly being employed on short-term contracts.

Union-busting in the zones usually takes the form of intimidation of the workforce as well as threats of dismissal and factory closures. Companies often leave the zones rather than allow unions. Trade union leaders and organisers are dismissed and discriminated against, and blacklisted by other companies. Workers are often prevented from meeting each other except on the job.

There is little inspection by the authorities. The Department of Labour has proved unwilling or unable to enforce the law in the zones. Only in the Bataan zone has organising succeeded.

In the Cavite free trade zone, near Manila, despite its "no union no strike" policy, three certification elections took place and in 1996, two collective agreements were signed for the first time ever. There are now nine registered unions. The zone employs some 35,000 workers of which 75 per cent are young women, in mainly Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese and German factories. They have to sign a document saying that the employer can dismiss them if they get married. Mass dismissals of workers joining unions, forced overtime, and poor working conditions are common.

There are no unions in the Mactan EPZ, where around 21,000 people work. Workers are monitored and cannot meet in groups. Organisers cannot get into the zone. There are no unions in the Baguio City zone.

In the Subic Bay special EPZ, the chairman of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and zone administrator, declared the zone "union-free". He established a "Labor Centre" purportedly to handle labour disputes and assist workers with their entitlements. Workers said that the centre existed to promote company unions. Guards stopped inspectors from the Department of Labour from making independent factory inspections.

On 4 December 1997, four workers' co-operatives, DARBCO, SEARBMPCO, DARBMUPCO and CFARBMPCO stopped producing bananas for Stanfilco, a Philippine subsidiary of the US Dole Food Company, because the price Dole was paying was below the cost of production.

On 22 December, 500 heavily armed company guards, hired thugs, police and elements of the 432nd Infantry Battalion smashed down the barricades set up by DARBMUPCO. They occupied the co-operative and placed barbed wire across the entrance road. Scores of picketing workers were shot at and beaten, and their makeshift shelters and belongings were burned. Officers and members of the co-operative's Board of Directors face criminal charges for arson even though it was the raiders who had started the fires.

The dispute between the workers in the area and Dole and its subsidiary Stanfilco, dates back to 1989 when a strike, organised by the National Federation of Labour (NFL) was declared illegal, and the NFL was forced to pay huge damages to Stanfilco. In 1997 Dole attempted to get payment of the outstanding balance - some four million pesos - by confiscating union dues and all assets, including an education centre built with funds donated by Swedish unions.

This threat to union assets was in part intended to force the union to drop its support for banana producers' co-operatives negotiating the contract price of bananas with local Dole subsidiaries.

Collective agreements have to be certified by the Industrial Arbitration Courts before coming into effect. The Court can refuse to register an agreement which is not considered to be in the public interest, though there are no reports that this has taken place.

The NTUC union centre continued to ask the government to amend the legal requirement that collective agreements in newly-established enterprises cannot provide for conditions more favourable than the legal minimum specified in the Employment Act. The NTUC said this was outdated because exemptions have always been granted and collective agreements in new enterprises have often exceeded the legal minimum.

Members of the Solomon Island National Union of Workers (SINUW) went on strike over the refusal of the company, Earth Movers (Solomons), to re-negotiate their collective agreement.

The company obtained a High Court injunction against the strikers, and then sacked them all. It also obtained a court order prohibiting the strikers from having access to their work sites, picketing at or near company premises, obstructing company vehicles or employees anywhere in the country, approaching any company employee or replacement worker, or interfering with the company's operations in any way.

On 15 October, George Kame, a union organiser was arrested and imprisoned, allegedly for breaking the court injunction. He was released from prison a day later, but remained in police custody. The company tried to evict workers from their homes on seven logging camps, and began legal proceedings against the union.

The government responded to international trade union pressure by calling the union and the company to conciliation at the Trades Dispute Panel.

At the beginning of December, after initial conciliation hearings, the company obtained a High Court decision referring the matter back to the High Court. The company then began to employ delaying tactics to postpone a decision until after Christmas, expecting that the workers would be under pressure to return to work, so that they would have money for their families over the Christmas holidays.

Certain employers were against the Charter's implementation, especially the clause on union recognition. Although changes to the labour law had been introduced into parliament to incorporate most of the Charter's provisions, the amendments remained pending, and a Cabinet sub-committee was set-up to make recommendations on the Charter's contents.

Labour law does not oblige employers to recognise unions for the purpose of collective bargaining. The laws protecting workers from anti-union discrimination and from acts of interference by employers are inadequate and poorly enforced.

Strikes are banned in industries designated by the president as essential services. Public servants are not allowed to strike, although some do.

Opposition by the CMU union centre to the privatisation of the Queen Elizabeth Terminal in Port of Colombo, the capital, led the port authorities to begin implementing anti-union polices.

Four trade union activists, including the assistant secretary of the CMU port branch, were sent on "compulsory leave"; others were transferred to the Port of Galle, more than 100 miles from Colombo; and the union's adviser was refused entry into the port and had his entry permit withdrawn.

The labour law is not enforced in the EPZs, which employ around 96,000 mainly women workers. Anyone trying to join or form a union is sacked and banned from the zones and the police prevent workers from gathering in and around them. The zones are tightly guarded and union organisers cannot get in. Employers hire security guards to monitor workers and there are reports that private paramilitary security forces operate.

Wages and working conditions in the zones are set by the government's Board of Investments (BOI). The BOI also chairs compulsory meetings of joint councils of workers and employers. BOI officials intervene in industrial disputes at the request of employers, and often collude with the police if a strike takes place.

Only one national trade union federation is allowed. The government refused to register a second federation in 1994, and did not allow an appeal against the decision. The law does not permit more than one trade union in any given geographical area.

The labour law requires union rules and constitutions to be submitted to the authorities for review. Unions can be dissolved by the authorities if they do not meet certification requirements or if their activities "disturb public order".

There are many restrictions on the right to strike which make it difficult to hold a legal strike, and which weaken collective bargaining. The authorities can impose mediation or arbitration during which workers cannot strike.

Protection against anti-union discrimination is inadequate as there is no provision in the law to punish violators. It was reported that some 20 trade union officials were sacked during the year.

There was no further news of a government bill published in 1996 to amend the Labour Union Act and allow civil servants and teachers to form unions, and multi-enterprise unions to be established. It had been expected that the bill would be submitted to parliament before the end of 1996.

Taiwan's assembly law forbids demonstrations which have not been approved by the authorities. Workers can be sued and jailed if they stage protests arising from labour disputes without permission.

Under the act, brought in by a military government, unions in the state sector were replaced by State Enterprise Employees' Associations which cannot bargain collectively or strike. They have a limited advisory role. Trade union assets were transferred to the associations.

The associations cannot form national federations or join existing trade union centres of private sector unions. However, they set up a liaison body, the State Enterprise Workers' Relations Committee, although it cannot perform trade union functions. A high minimum number of workers is required to form an association. Only one association can exist in each sector.

There was no reform of the act during 1997.

A bill submitted to parliament in December 1996, which would have partially restored trade union rights in the state enterprise sector, passed through the lower house before being heavily amended by the senate. The senate amendments would have further eroded the rights of state enterprise workers.

The lower house rejected this version, and a compromise was reached by a joint parliamentary committee in early November which reconciled the lower and upper house versions of the bill. The unions were against the amended bill which contained many restrictions on trade union rights.

The bill was rejected by the lower house on 7 January 1998.

In the private sector, while the law protects workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, it does not protect workers organising new unions which have not yet been officially registered. Ten union "promoters" are required to set up a union. In practice, trade unionists in private enterprises can be discriminated against and fired. Employers can employ new workers to replace strikers.

Decree No. 54, which was also brought in by the military government in 1991, obliges private sector unions to register their advisers with the state. It says a union can have two advisers who must be licensed by the government every two years. The government can refuse a licence, and anyone who performs advisory duties without a licence could face a year's imprisonment.

The Decree also sets out strict strike ballot requirements.

The law gives a broad definition of "essential services" in which strikes are prohibited. The Minister of Labour can issue an order to prevent a strike, or order strikers to return to work if a strike would "affect national security or cause severe negative repercussions for the population at large".

Under the 1975 Labour Relations Act, every union official must be a full-time employee at the factory where he or she has been elected, which means unions cannot employ full-time elected officials.

The act bans civil servants from joining unions.

In May, during a strike by the union at Karat Sanitaryware Co. Ltd., part of the Siam City Cement Group in Kaeng Koi, Saraburi, unknown gunmen fired shots at workers outside, injuring the strike leaders. After the police at Kaeng Koi failed to take any action, the workers drove to Bangkok in a motorcade of motorcycles.

Around 1,000 companies, many in the textile sector, closed down in the first four months of the year because of the economic downturn. Many shut down without warning and without paying compensation to the workers. At the beginning of June, the government set up an alert system against possible unrest in anticipation of problems in the second half of 1997 when tens of thousands of workers were expected to be laid-off.

On 5 June, the Ministry of Labour in the capital, Bangkok, was blockaded by workers laid off by two major companies, Thai American Textile and Thai Melon Textiles. Production at the two factories, which employed a total of 8,500 workers, stopped on 2 May because the companies refused to pay their electricity bills. The plants stayed shut for two weeks amid rumours that the companies were trying to lay the workers off without paying compensation. The companies re-opened on 16 May, but around 800 employees were laid off including many union leaders.

During the protest outside the Ministry of Labour, Chin Thapplee, vice-president of the newly-established National Assembly of Labour Congresses, was arrested under a warrant issued four years ago in connection with a dispute at Kobe Wire.

On the same day, the Minister of the Interior accused union leaders of being paid by foreign states to sabotage the Thai economy, saying he had a blacklist of names.

In September, the union at Par Garments submitted demands to management including a performance bonus, a seniority bonus, and office space for the union. The management reacted by cutting back all the rights and benefits that the union had acquired, and threatened to cut staff. No agreement had been reached one month later and the company said it was filing a law-suit against the union. The company rejected mediation by officials of the labour ministry. Five days later, it locked the workers out.

The workers demonstrated outside the factory. The management threatened to attack them. In an effort to get rid of the workers, the company said it would take the workers back if they agreed to the company's terms, and accepted employment at a distant subsidiary. The company began to take the machinery out of the plant.

The company had already begun shifting production to subsidiaries in remote areas where it paid sub-minimum wages, always late, and made workers pay an insurance deposit equivalent to five days wages. At one such factory, the Monthinee Garment company in Nakhom Rachasima province, the company suspended its operations after workers complained. After a long struggle most of the workers were re-hired - except the union leaders.

Constitutional amendments in 1995 had paved the way for the changes. They referred to "trade unions and higher level organisations that shall be permitted by a law, to be established by public servants". They also gave public servants the right to negotiate, although any negotiated agreement would be subject to the approval of the Council of Ministers.

Law No. 657 on civil servants was brought into line with the constitution in June to give workers designated as public servants, the right to form and join trade unions. This includes many manual workers, municipal workers, teachers, nurses, police, and military and contract personnel. However, the new law did not grant them the rights to bargain collectively or strike.

In practice, there have been unofficial unions for public servants since 1990, and some 500,000 workers are now grouped in four organisations. A number of court rulings have said that public servants can bargain collectively and they have signed a number of agreements with municipal authorities (although many of them have not been honoured).

The Trade Unions Act was also amended in June to repeal almost all the restrictions and bans on unions' political activity, in line with the constitutional amendments of 1995.

There were no other changes to Turkey's labour law which continues to contain restrictions on basic trade union rights.

The law says that the first level of union organisation can only be at industry or sectoral level and bans enterprise or occupational unions.

Employers can be fined for anti-union discrimination, but the fines are too low to act as deterrents, and the burden of proof lies with the worker to prove discrimination.

The law does not require dismissed trade unionists to be reinstated except for shop stewards, and the lack of job security also undermines legal protection. Turkey's unions estimated that around 40,000 trade unionists had been sacked for union activities between 1992-96.

A union must represent over half the employees in a workplace, and 10 per cent of all employees in the sector to be recognised as a bargaining agent. There have been reports that the authorities have manipulated membership figures to prevent unions acquiring bargaining rights, or to remove their rights by pretending there were irregularities in the figures.

Industry-wide bargaining is banned and only one agreement is allowed at any level of organisation.

Lengthy and cumbersome procedures have to be followed before a strike. Strikes are banned in a wide range of sectors including banking; public notaries; transport; exploration, production, refining and distribution of water, gas, electricity, coal, lignite, natural gas and petroleum.

Solidarity strikes, general strikes, and go-slow strikes are all banned.

Turkey's constitution allows the government to halt strikes for up to 60 days for reasons of national security or public health and safety and to impose binding arbitration at the end of the period. The ILO has criticised the government for applying the law too broadly.

The Free Trade Zone Act bans strikes in Turkey's nine EPZs for ten years following the setting up of a zone, and imposes binding arbitration.

The Trade Union Act remains overly prescriptive and regulates internal union rules and constitutions too closely.

The Supreme Court banned the DISK affiliated union in the leather sector, Deri-Is, because of an article in the trade union law which says that founders of any union must have worked for at least ten years.

The government's privatisation and deregulation programme continued. Unions said that precarious employment, including sub-contracting, continued to increase together with job insecurity, and undermined trade unions. Employment fell in the formal sector and increased in the informal sector where labour regulations do not apply. There were again some delays in wage payments and non-payment by employers of social security contributions.

Private sector employers continued to try and get rid of unions, particularly by subdividing companies or temporarily suspending their activities.

There were less reports of violence in 1997. In 1995-96 the authorities and the security forces had intervened on the side of employers during union organising campaigns and strikes. Workers were violently attacked by the police and by hired thugs, and sacked with the complicity of local authorities.

Halil Cabir Karacadagli, president of the Diyarbakir branch, of Tes-Is, the energy, water and gas union, in the south-east of the country, received death threats in 1997. He had been detained and tortured at the end of 1996, when the police had tried to force him into being an informer. They blindfolded him and made him sign a statement that he was involved in the banned Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK). On 3 April, he received a telephone call saying that he should become a police informer otherwise he would be killed.

On 1 May, police in armoured cars and wearing plastic body armour cordoned off the main square in Istanbul where some 150 union leaders laid a wreath in memory of 37 people killed at a 1977 May Day rally. Twelve thousand policemen and over 2,000 soldiers were deployed. Three people had been killed at the 1996 May Day rally.

On 22 May, Haydar Kilicoglu, president of the Diyarbakir branch of the teachers' union, Egitim-Sen, and union members Ahmed M. Altindag and Yusuf Akgun were detained, as well as several members of the Diyarbakir branch of the Human Rights Association. The union's offices were raided. Under emergency legislation, detainees can be held for 30 days without being charged and without access to a lawyer. Torture in detention is routine during this period.

The municipal and general workers' union, Belediye-Is, in Diyarbakir, said that it was impossible to enforce any labour rights in the region. Wages were paid late. Unions and workers were sacked and harassed for demanding their rights.

In May, Egitim-Sen said its officials and members were being constantly harassed and detained, and the Diyarbakir office had been raided.

On 4 November, in Urfa, six members of the SES union in the public health sector were detained. On the following day, three of them, including the president of the Urfa branch, Ihsan Avci were arrested and imprisoned. On 12 November, the union branch office was raided and documents were seized. On 17 November, the Governor of Urfa had the union's branch office and the branch office of the Egitem-Sen closed down and sealed because he said that there were banned publications on the premises.

The SES said that in September, the public prosecutor had filed a case against the union's branches in Bolu and Diyarbakir because of their trade union activities.

At the end of November, the Ankara State security court prosecuted nine members of the Egitim-Sen national board for issuing publications calling for free, democratic, and secular education in their mother tongue.

The Reslan Printing Company in Istanbul sacked 45 workers because they had become members of the DISK Basin-Is union in the printing sector. The Frigo-Pak factory in Inego/Bursa which produces canned fruits for the European market sacked 76 workers for joining the DISK Gisa-Is union of foodworkers.

The majority of the workers at the Ciragan Kempinski Hotel - 370 workers - joined the DISK Oley-Is union. Although a local court ruled that the union had the right to bargain with the employer, the Supreme Court reversed this ruling arguing that trainees are also workers. This increased the size of the workforce, and meant that Oley-Is lost its majority and did not have the right to bargain.

On 11 December, thousands of public sector workers across Turkey held work stoppages and protests over low wage rises and to call for collective bargaining and strike rights. The unions had been offered a pay rise of 30 per cent while annual inflation was 95.8 per cent in November.

The KESK public sector workers' confederation threatened to call a general strike if there was no response to their demands.

In Istanbul a rally in the main square was monitored by several hundred policemen, many in riot gear and backed by armoured vehicles.

The prime minister issued a decree on the day before the protest saying that those joining the protests would face legal proceedings.

Representatives of national and local government, or of employers, sit on union executive committees at all levels and exercise substantial decision-making powers.

Candidates for union leadership are vetted by the government department dealing with their sector.

The 1995 labour code directed the regional branches of the VGCL to establish unions in all new enter-
prises and enterprises without unions within six months. The local branch of the VGCL must approve any union formed by workers themselves.

Since the labour code came into force, several decrees have been issued containing detailed instructions on its implementation, including laws in 1996 on procedures to settle labour disputes.

The code provides for union recognition and collective bargaining, and bans anti-union discrimination. There are very few collective agreements. While the number of agreements has gone up, their scope and content is limited.

The code gave workers restricted strike rights. Strikes had previously been forbidden, although the growth of the private sector in recent years led to the tolerance of peaceful strikes at foreign-owned factories. Strikes can take place but only after several stages of lengthy procedures. The result is that most strikes are illegal, as workers often have little or no knowledge of these procedures. The VGCL does not initiate strikes, but often steps in to try and end them.

Non-enforcement of the code causes many wildcat strikes, particularly at foreign- or jointly-owned ventures. Disputes also arise over late and unpaid wages, wage claims, breaking of contracts, poor working conditions, long hours, or abuse and humiliation of workers by foreign supervisors.

The prime minister can suspend or end a strike considered to be a threat to the economy or public safety. Strikes are banned in enterprises which the government defines as public utilities and enterprises essential to the national economy or to security and defence.

In 1996, strikes were banned in 54 "key" occupational sectors and businesses. Sectors in which strikes cannot take place include water, electrical production, posts and telecommunications, public transport, air and sea transport, banking, public works, the oil and gas industry, and national defence and security.

The number of strikes rose again in 1997. At the beginning of the year, the VGCL criticised small investors from East Asian countries for forcing 19th century practices on their workers. In July, the government blamed foreign firms for the growing labour unrest, and said that research by the labour ministry had shown that most labour conflicts took place at small-scale enterprises owned or partly owned by companies from South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan.

The VGCL proposed new legislation during the year giving the authorities the right to withdraw the licences of foreign companies whose staff abuse local workers.

On 21 February, more than 25 workers collapsed and 200 fell ill or fainted because of acetone poisoning or overwork at the Hong Kong-owned Keyhinge toys in Da Nang City. The factory makes toys for the fast-food chain, McDonalds which are given out with children's menus in McDonalds restaurants. The next day, 200 other workers at the factory were dismissed during a dispute over working conditions. The workers were allowed back to work some days later.

In March, a report said that around 35,000 mostly women workers at five South Korean- and Taiwanese-owned factories making sports shoes for the company, Nike, had to work 12-hour days in hot and noisy conditions. Verbal abuse, sexual harassment and corporal punishment were all common. The workers were only allowed to go to the toilet once every eight hours and to have only two drinks. The supervisors humiliated the women by forcing them to kneel and to stand in the hot sun.

At one of these plants, a Taiwanese supervisor was suspended in March, after ordering 56 women workers at the Taiwanese-owned Pou Chen factory, on the outskirts of Ho Chi Minh City, which supplies goods to Nike, to run two kilometres in the hot sun because they were not wearing regulation footwear. Twelve of the women had to go to hospital. In June, the supervisor got a six-month prison sentence and was ordered to pay hospital and other costs.

In another incident in June a foreign supervisor hit a worker with a sneaker to make him work faster.

In October, the VGCL said that the Dong Anh Shoe Manufacturing Co., producing shoes for the Germany company, Adidas, had made employees work 12-14 hours a day and had only paid social security benefits for 441 of the 3,000 workers.

The labour code applies in the six export processing zones which employ over 160,000 workers.