were not there in the first place. Instead, the State Administration Council has been able to make use of a legal framework in the Telecommunications Law which is broadly unchanged since 2013. Additionally, draft laws on cybersecurity, which now includes a potential prohibition on VPNs, and another draft law on ‘hate speech’, both of which were under development during the NLD government, may be adopted by the military regime without parliamentary scrutiny. While it is encouraging however that both Myanmar and international businesses have collectively advocated for changes to the draft cybersecurity law, it is unlikely that the adopted versions of either law will incorporate the state duty to protect human rights. There may be wider reasons that advocacy for a better policy and regulatory framework has not to date succeeded in Myanmar. There are global and regional trends towards countries adopting ICT laws which are increasingly illiberal (although the ASEAN Digital Masterplan 2025 has highlighted the need for better regulation to protect privacy and open internet as a priority). However, at the Myanmar level, a major challenge was low digital literacy amongst Myanmar regulators and legislators. Technical assistance programmes tended not to include these basics. Many even lacked access to computers or email, and few if any could be considered ‘digital natives’ or even comfortable with technology. This meant they lacked confidence and/or interest in engaging on the ethical and human rights issues relating to ICT, and how to reflect these in policy/regulatory approaches. Under the government of the National League for Democracy (2016-2020), the merger of the Telecoms Ministry with the Ministry of Transport and the appointment of septuagenarian Ministers from a transport background further reduced any political leadership on digital issues since in the 2011-2015 period. The Government lacked a digital champion that could drive policy and legal reform, including human rights protection. Siloed government, and the absence of a ministry leading on human rights (e.g. a Ministry of Justice) meant that issues which needed a cross-government approach such as privacy, freedom of expression and data protection were either ignored or left with ICT technocrats, including Russian/China-trained exmilitary Signals Branch, who had transferred to the Ministry. The lack of activity on digital rights from embassies/development partners, as highlighted above, exacerbated these gaps. It meant that digital rights were rarely considered as part of the significant technical assistance provided between 2013 and 2021 to a variety of government departments. While MCRB’s experiences have been specific to working on human rights and the UNGPs in the tech sector in Myanmar in the last eight years, they may resonate with other country situations. It is hoped that this submission will be helpful in encouraging government to put more weight on digital literacy amongst government and institutional employees and elected officials, so as to support more effective government action to protect digital rights at national and international level. Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business www.mcrb.org.mm Sensitivity: Open