duties”.24 This will significantly narrow the applicability of the Law to cover only government officials who abuse their powers. Inasmuch as this means that ordinary citizens will no longer be barred from engaging in criticism or commentary on the behaviour of others, it is a positive development. While other laws still criminalise defamation for ordinary citizens, the defamation provision in the Privacy Law had become a favourite among those seeking to target political opponents or seek personal revenge because its defamation rules remained non-bailable, so that even individuals who were ultimately found to be innocent could still spend a long time in jail during the investigation and trial.25 In contrast, a similar provision in the Telecommunications Act was amended in 2017 to make defamation a bailable offence.26 Originally, the proposed amendments to the Privacy Law would have made offences under it bailable but the amendment ultimately adopted should have a similar effect in terms of limiting its use as a form of defamation law. On the other hand, there is no general protection for privacy in Myanmar law, even if certain types of privacy invasions are proscribed, so the limitation of the Privacy Law to competent authorities deprives individuals of important protections against attacks on their privacy from ordinary citizens and corporate actors, which is unfortunate. It may be noted that this Law defines privacy to include the rights to freedom of movement, residence and speech, but not actually “privacy” per se. But some of the specific prohibitions in the Law, such as against search of a residence, interception of communications and interference with personal or family matters, do constitute important privacy protections. Overall, however, a clearer definition of what constitutes interference with privacy would improve the Law. More generally, there are serious problems with the way the Privacy Law protects privacy. The blanket criminal provisions in the Law, both before and after the amendments, represent an overly heavy-handed approach towards privacy protection. Furthermore, given that all that is required to override these prohibitions is permission from a Union government body, the protection provided is unduly limited. Major amendments to the Law would be needed for it to represent a proper approach towards protecting privacy. Indeed, what is needed is comprehensive and tailored legislation to protect both personal data and privacy. Adoption of Broadcasting Law By-laws 24 According to One Trust Data Guidance, Myanmar: Parliament Amends Privacy Law, Narrows Prosecutions under Article 10, 9 September 2020. Available at: https://www.dataguidance.com/news/myanmar-parliament-amendsprivacy-law-narrows-prosecutions-under-article-10. 25 Myat Thura, Myanmar Legislators Seek to Stop Privacy Law Abuse, Myanmar Times, 20 February 2020, available at: https://www.mmtimes.com/news/myanmar-legislators-seek-amendment-stop-privacy-law-abuse.html; and San Yamin Aung, Myanmar Lawmakers Submit Bill to Amend Controversial Privacy Law, The Irrawaddy, 18 February 2020, available at: https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-lawmakers-submit-bill-amendcontroversial-privacy-law.html. 26 Amendment of Telecommunications Law, 2017, available at: http://freeexpressionmyanmar.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/Telecommunications-Law-Amendment-EN.pdf; and Khin Moh Moh Lwin, Leaders Find New Tool to Silence Critics after Telecom Law Amendment, Myanmar Now, 26 November 2019, available at: https://myanmar-now.org/en/news/leaders-find-new-tool-to-silence-critics-after-telecom-law-amendment. -9-