ASEAN Regional Coalition to #StopDigitalDictatorship years. Section 505(b) prohibits statements made “with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause fear or alarm to the public.”12 These constitute yet another example of a loosely formulated prescription which prevents individuals from predicting the kind Crackdown on Media: Licensing Requirements, Stifled Press Freedom, and Unlawful Amendments to ETL and Broadcasting Law of expression which would be considered criminal. The 2014 Printing and Publishing Law establishes a These provisions are a tool for the military junta licensing regime for news agencies and websites that to suppress any form of public online dissent or are required to register prior to producing content, debate as well as any attempt to hold its officials including for publishing online. Vague and overly accountable for their activities. It has notably been broad administrative and criminal sanctions can be used to a great extent against those partaking in imposed against those running a website without a the pro-democracy movement. licence. The 2014 News Media Law sets out a code “ The amendments to the Penal Code imposed by the military junta unreasonably infringe upon fundamental rights protected by international law, including freedom of expression. By stripping the people of Myanmar of their rights, the military once again displays its lack of respect for international human rights 13 - Human Rights Watch Myanmar of conduct and punishments applicable to media workers which are formulated with insufficient precision which can be misused to control media and arbitrarily criminalise those who report on critical news.14 A year later, the Broadcasting Act was enacted. This legislation applies the same licensing framework mentioned earlier, but specifically to the broadcast media rather than the print media.15 Several other laws that criminalise free expression contravene lawful restrictions provided under international law. Section 68(a) of 2013 Telecommunications Law states that “communication, reception, sending, distribution, or sharing of incorrect information with dishonest intention” is subject to a maximum of one-year imprisonment or a fine or both. The broad criminalisation of maliciously communicating false information without precise definitions makes the provision vulnerable to arbitrary enforcement.16 Section 3 of the 1923 Official Secrets Act imposes a maximum term of 14 years for a wide range of activities including obtaining, collecting, recording, publishing of secret official code or password, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which can be “directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy”. Similarly, Section 5 states that anybody who has, controls, communicates, uses, retains, or receives information classified as “secret” under the law, can be punished with a prison term of two years.17 The overbroad language alongside the lack of definition for terms employed therein 183