permission, punishable by prison sentences and/or fines.19 This is an especial concern given that these offences do not incorporate a specific intent requirement, meaning that individuals who are not even aware that a document is classified could be subject to sanction. The rule also fails to protect third parties, such as journalists, who innocently receive leaked classified information. Overall, the enactment of the Law makes it all the more urgent for the government adopt a right to information law. This would create a default legal right to access information held by public authorities, to replace the current default assumption that government-held information is secret. Hate Speech Directive The President’s Office issued Directive No. 3/2020 on preventing hate speech on 20 April 2020.20 It deplores the potential impact of hate speech, which may “lead to discrimination and violence” and undermine “our aspirations to live with dignity and to build a peaceful and harmonious society”. It then directs all ministries and region and state governments to ensure that personnel and staff, as well as “local people under its control or direction”, take “all possible measures to denounce and prevent all forms of hate speech” and to encourage their staff to participate in anti-hate speech activities. They are also required to report on measures taken under the Directive. The Directive defines hate speech as communications that “denigrate or express animosity towards a person or a group on the basis of religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, gender or other identity factor. Incitement to violence may constitute hate speech.” This Directive is welcome inasmuch as it represents an important policy signal of support for combating hate speech, which is a serious problem in Myanmar. At the same time, there could potentially be problems in the way it is applied, given that some of the terms used are unclear. The Directive does not create criminal penalties for hate speech. According to international law, in the context of hate speech, criminal penalties should only apply to speech which constitutes intentional incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence.21 Criminal hate speech rules which go beyond this will disproportionately limit speech which, while racist, does not rise to the level of hate speech per se. Given that the Directive mainly focuses on administrative measures, international law standards on criminal hate speech rules may not be the appropriate standard. Indeed, it is important for public authorities and officials to denounce and take other social actions, such as education, to combat the sorts of racist speech which the Directive covers. We note, however, that this goes well beyond the definition of hate speech under international law. For example, the references to denigration of or animosity towards individuals and groups are much broader than incitement to hatred. 19 Free Expression Myanmar, New National Records and Archives Law Preserves Government Secrecy, 12 March 2020. Available at: http://freeexpressionmyanmar.org/new-national-records-and-archives-law-preservesgovernment-secrecy. 20 Union of Myanmar, President’s Office, Directive No. 3/2020, 20 April 2020, Prevention of Incitement to Hatred and Violence. Available in English at: https://www.president-office.gov.mm/en/?q=briefingroom/news/2020/04/21/id-10007. 21 See Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. . -7-