76 Dictating the Internet: Laws aiming to suppress “sedition” covered in this section are distinguishable from those in the proceeding section below which specifically address “national security” and maintenance of public order. Both types of laws, however, have been wielded in a very similar manner, focusing narrowly on suppressing expression or information deemed to pose a threat to the nation or the head of State as a representative of the nation. These laws, particularly sedition laws, have often been retained from the colonial era when they were used to suppress and silence local opposition to colonial rule.259 In Thailand, article 116 of the Criminal Code criminalizes as sedition any act to “raise unrest and disaffection amongst the people in a manner likely to cause disturbance in the country”, while in Myanmar, section 124A of the Penal Code penalizes seditious acts which “bring into contempt or excite disaffection towards the Government”.260 These provisions can be employed to curtail any form of expression commenting on political issues or other questions of public importance.261 Thus, in Thailand, a prominent leader of an opposition political party was charged with sedition soon after Thailand’s 2019 national elections.262 In Myanmar, high-profile critics of State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi have been charged under section 124A, at risk of a maximum term of life imprisonment.263 As noted in the section above on article 19(3), the UN Human Rights Committee has indicated that States must take “extreme care” to 259 See for eg. Commentary on the colonial-era sedition laws of British India. Mohan J. Dutta, ‘Sedition laws, colonial legacy, and possibilities of dialogue’, Straits Times, 20 February 2016, Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/sedition-laws-colonial-legacy-and-possibilitiesof-dialogue; Durba Ghosh, ‘100 Years Past Due: Why It’s Time to Retire Colonial-Era Laws’, Huffington Post, 5 May 2016, Available at: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/100-years-past-duewhy-it_b_9853496?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_ referrer_sig=AQAAAI-X0WnJ_CoPf0DNBXNrp1dMShbjaIfqL3yy7HpzzrylOb--yjwahURnDOlzTS97C jNpwWvOp5gtvoyN32fN-vOGoZV15FFo8CWWh_OPO7cete7nZDQ9rbFVG1wkyqZ0p54JqR8BLPPMYwZSf8zcVjnBzGTivH4-4MXH2_j0bhY 260 Thai Criminal Code, article 116; Myanmar Penal Code, section 124A. 261 See iLaw, ‘Section 116: When ‘Sedition’ is used as the obstruction of freedom of expression’, 13 September 2017, Available at: https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/blog/section-116-when%E2%80%98sedition%E2%80%99-used-obstruction-freedom-expression 262 Pravit Rojanaphruk, ‘Thanathorn Likely To Face Military Court For Sedition’, Khaosod English, 6 April 2019, Available at: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/2019/04/06/thanathorn-to-facemilitary-court-for-sedition/; John Reed, ‘Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit charged with sedition’, Financial Times, 6 April 2019, Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/77997228-583e-11e99dde-7aedca0a081a 263 In September 2018, Ngar Min Swe was given a seven-year imprisonment sentence and a fine of 100,000 kyat (approx. USD 70) for social media posts critical of Aung San Suu Kyi. See Human Rights Watch, ‘Dashed Hopes: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in Myanmar’, 31 January 2019, Available at: https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/01/31/dashed-hopes/criminalizationpeaceful-expression-myanmar; In May 2019, ultra-nationalist monk Wirathu was charged with sedition for reportedly lewd remarks made during rallies against Aung San Suu Kyi. See Khin Moh Moh Lwin, ‘Wirathu Faces Arrest After Being Charged Under Sedition Law, Say Police’, Myanmar Now, 29 May 2019, Available at: https://www.myanmar-now.org/en/news/wirathu-faces-arrestafter-being-charged-under-sedition-law-say-police