requires heads of households and employers to report instances of contagious diseases on their premises.3 From the perspective of freedom of expression, however, the most troubling part of the draft law are the prohibitions on sharing information which could create public panic. The draft law would impose a fine or, for repeat offenders, imprisonment of up to six months, on those who write, speak, receive or publish news related to contagious diseases which could cause panic.4 The draft version of this provision does not, based on the English commentary available, appear to specify any intent requirement (i.e. that someone would be liable under it only if he or she specifically intended to create panic). It also does not require the information to be false or incorrect, thereby penalising the sharing even of accurate information. This may be contrasted with other legal provisions, which focus on the sharing of inaccurate information. For example, section 27 of the National Disaster Management Law prohibits misinforming others about a natural disaster with the aim of creating fear (dread) among the public, punishable by up to one year’s imprisonment and/or a fine.5 The Telecommunications Act also provides for up to one year’s imprisonment and/or a fine for communicating incorrect information with dishonest intent.6 If enacted as written, the new law would therefore expand legal restrictions on the sharing of public health information, including information which is accurate. This is highly problematic because the circulation of correct information should be protected, especially during a public health crisis. Indeed, sharing even incorrect information should only attract liability when this is done with malicious intent. The criminal law is a disproportionate tool to address situations where someone shares incorrect information unknowingly or without malicious intent, even in a health emergency. There are better ways to address this problem, such as through education, fact checking on social media accounts and the active dissemination by official actors of correct information about the health situation. Another key development during the pandemic is the new institutional structures which were created to respond to the crisis. On 13 March 2020, the government, through a Presidential Announcement, created the National Central Committee on Prevention, Control and Treatment of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus, a more empowered version of another committee which had been formed in January.7 Then, on 30 March 2020, the COVID-19 Control and Emergency 3 The Ananda, Bill Analysis: Prevention and Control of Communicable disease Bill, 8 April 2020, available at: https://theananda.org/en/blog/view/-Bill-Analysis_PCCD-Bill; and Myat Thura, New Bill Aims to Update Mynamar’s Communicable Diseases Law, Myanmar Times, 19 May 2020, available at: https://www.mmtimes.com/news/new-bill-aims-update-myanmars-communicable-diseases-law.html. 4 As described in English in ARTICLE 19, Myanmar: Restriction on Expression in Communicable Diseases Bill Would Undermine COVID-19 Response, 12 May 2020. Available at: https://www.article19.org/resources/myanmarrestriction-on-expression-in-communicable-diseases-bill-would-undermine-covid-19-response. 5 Natural Disaster Management Law, 31 July 2013, section 27. Available in English at: http://www.myanmar-lawlibrary.org/spip.php?page=pdfjs&id_document=624. 6 Telecommunications Law, 8 October 2013, section 68(a). Available in English at: http://www.asianlii.org/mm/legis/laws/tlhln312013511. 7 Union of Myanmar President’s Office, Announcement No. 1/2020, 13 March 2020. English translation available at: http://themimu.info/sites/themimu.info/files/documents/President_Office_Statement_13Mar2020_ENG.pdf. -3-