5/24/22, 8:02 PM 66(d): The defamation menace | Frontier Myanmar criticism of the military’s security operation in northern Rakhine State. He was detained in early November and the judge rejected applications for bail on November 9 and 17. But it’s not only members of the military that have made complaints. Those accused of defaming members of the government or NLD have also been jailed. Eleven Media Group CEO Dr Than Htut Aung and chief editor Ko Wai Phyo were arrested on November 11 for allegedly defaming Yangon Region Chief Minister U Phyo Min Thein. They too have been denied bail, despite applying on health grounds. Bail has been granted in 20 of the 45 cases, but it’s not hard to predict the outcome of applications, according to activists who are calling for reform of section 66(d). They say that the 20 cases where bail was granted all involved civilians who allegedly defamed another civilian. The 25 cases in which bail was denied involved military, government or NLD officials, including Aung San Suu Kyi, Htin Kyaw, Min Aung Hlaing, Phyo Min Thein and NLD stalwart U Win Htein. Observers to court cases say that judges have privately informed defence lawyers that in these cases their hands are tied; because of their perceived sensitivity, the judges are required by their superiors to deny bail. The government has not spoken publicly about its views on the law or the cases that have been filed. Those involving Facebook posts about Aung San Suu Kyi or Htin Kyaw have been initiated by complaints from ordinary citizens, rather than the government. However, the government is required to approve each and every case filed under section 80 of the Telecommunications Law, which states: “In prosecution under this Law, prior sanction of the Ministry shall be obtained.” The NLD government’s public silence and quiet action suggests only one thing: they support the current wave of prosecutions. Considering the party claims to be devoted to ending the repression of past decades and ensuring fundamental freedoms for Myanmar citizens, it’s no surprise that its response has left many disappointed. Daw Aye Aye, a teacher from Bago, said she believed the government should scrap section 66(d) completely. “That section shouldn’t exist. We have the right to criticise and debate [with] each other online,” she said. “If anyone abuses another person, they should be charged under another section instead.” ‘We didn’t think’ The previous parliament approved the Telecommunications Law in October 2013 to liberalise the sector and encourage private investment. While the law has certainly achieved that aim – billions of dollars of investment have been pumped into telecoms since licences were awarded to the country’s first two foreign mobile operators in 2014 – its provision on defamation has also been used to stifle comment online, particularly on Facebook. Section 66(d) of the law forbids anyone from “extorting, coercing, restraining wrongfully, defaming, disturbing, causing undue influence or threatening any person by using any telecommunications network”, and carries a possible prison term of three years. The section is a stark reminder that the Telecommunications Law is as much a product of the military regime as the Thein Sein era. Reports from as far back as 2008 indicate that the junta wrote the initial draft. This version, though, was more focused on regulating the use telecoms equipment and services, and was updated once Thein Sein took office and began liberalising the market. U Myat Thu, chairman of the Yangon School of Political Science, said he believed that section 66(d) was a holdover from the earlier version of the law written under military rule. “Some of the authorities, especially the military, wanted to have a way to stop anyone from criticising the country’s leaders online. They wrote 66(d) to protect their political interests,” he said. But later political leaders are just as culpable. Because no by-laws have been enacted to provide clarity on how section 66(d) should be applied, police and judicial officials have a significant amount of discretion. https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/66d-the-defamation-menace/ 3/10