Civil society campaigns to amend or repeal criminal laws to bring the framework into accordance with international human rights standards were largely ignored by successive administrations. Indeed, the USDP and NLD administrations increased the number of criminal laws that violated the right to freedom of expression. For example, the number of laws criminalizing defamation, which was often used to oppress journalists, was increased to six in total during that period.80 The USDP administration’s consistent public narrative was that Myanmar was not yet “ready” for freedom, that journalists were “inexperienced” and needed to first improve their “ethics” before criminal laws could be progressively reformed. After being elected, the NLD administration, which had previously enjoyed very positive media coverage, adopted a similar public narrative in response to increasing criticism of its performance. The NLD leadership also started, perhaps purposefully, confusing the media with social media in public statements, and blaming the media for all content online.81 The USDP and NLD’s patronizing and politicized narrative was also repeated by other influential sources, such as the Myanmar Press Council and journalists in some cases. MILITARY “LAWS” The military issued a slew of legal “Amendments” and executive “Orders” after the coup began, which effectively had the force of law. These “Orders” and “Amendments” were de jure unlawful because the military’s Declaration of a State of Emergency was itself invalid under the military’s own Constitution (2008), as well as under the strict requirements of international law.82 Therefore, without a valid State of Emergency, the military had no right to make legislative changes without a legitimate government and parliament. There was no prior consultation on the “Orders” and “Amendments”, which were announced without warning in the state media. In most cases, the texts were poorly drafted and extremely vague, perhaps purposefully so.83 The military first “amended” Myanmar’s criminal laws to add vague new crimes and increase applicable penalties. Most of the military’s initial changes concerned laws governing the rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association, seriously restricting media freedom. Within the first two weeks of the coup, the military “amended” the Penal Code (1861) to broaden the definition of treason to include protests (Article 124), and added “encouraging disaffection towards the military” to the sedition provisions (Article 124A).84 The military “adopted” a new provision, Article 505A, with 80 RFA (2020), “Myanmar NGOs Urge Reform of Defamation Laws Used to Silence Critics”. 81 Irrawaddy (2018), “The NLD and the Media: A Once Cozy Relationship Turns Icy”. 82 Unlawful but legalistic changes have been placed in quotation marks throughout the report to emphasize that the military’s changes may be cloaked in legalistic language but remain unlawful. For further information on the legality of the coup, see for example, ICNL (2021), “Unlawful Edicts: Rule by Decree under the Myanmar Tatmadaw”; also, Multiple authors (2021), “Statement by Myanmar civil society organisations on the unconstitutionality of new ‘laws’”. 83 English translations have been criticized for being vague and contradictory but they reflected the original Myanmar language versions which were similarly unclear. 84 ICNL (2021), “Unlawful Edicts: Rule by Decree under the Myanmar Tatmadaw”. 29