18. 5 countries:68 “Reduce intimidation and excessive use of force aimed at protesters” – No implementation. No change. The vast majority of protests are non-violent.69 However, the State’s primary aim appears to be shutting down any protest that deviates from what was agreed in an accepted application, rather than facilitating non-violent protests.70 As a result, the State’s preparations are usually unnecessary and disproportionate, and therefore threatening to observers.71 The State also uses unnecessary, disproportionate, and excessive force to shut protests down, exploiting tactics that at least recklessly if not intentionally injure protesters.72 Right to information 19. 5 countries:73 “Reform the legal framework to protect access to information and stem corruption” – No implementation. Regression. Since 2015, the State has adopted laws, policies, and practices which actively control, limit, and block access to information. The State controls all television and radio channels,74 bans the media from moving freely or accessing public institutions,75 arbitrarily shuts the internet down,76 and blocks news websites.77 The long-promised Right to Information Bill has remained in opaque limbo since 2015. Instead, in the wake of the Reuters case,78 the State quickly adopted a National Records and Archives Law which bolsters the Official Secrets Act, furthers State secrecy, and interferes in FoEI.79 The law allows a “strictly confidential” 30-year classification to be applied to any information without safeguards or an independent oversight body.80 The law does not recognise the public’s right to access government-held information, including non-classified information.81 Any requests for information must be individually approved by a government supervisory body.82 20. Anybody who tries to circumvent these information barriers and exercise their right to FoEI is criminalised, for example under the Unlawful Associations Law,83 or Official Secrets Act.84 Although the Anti-Corruption Commission has ruled against several powerful individuals accused of corruption, Myanmar’s six criminal defamation laws, which include the Anti-Corruption Law itself, dissuade sharing and accessing information by criminalising whistleblowers.85 Amendments to the Telecommunications Law and Anti-Corruption Law have not given any protection to whistleblowers.86 Just recently, the State’s COVID-19 response has included further criminalisation of healthcare whistleblowers.87 21. In addition to creating barriers to information, the State has sometimes capitalised on low levels of public media and digital literacy by disseminating biased or manipulated information, commonly known as propaganda or disinformation.88 The State often justifies this action under the guise of countering “fake news” spread by the media, civil society, and the international community.89 Examples of large systematic attempts to disinform the public include the State’s domestic distortion of alleged atrocities in Rakhine State, and distortions of the International Court of Justice case.90 www.FreeExpressionMyanmar.org – www.facebook.com/FreeExpressionMyanmar - coordinator@FreeExpressionMyanmar.org - page 5