The new Association Registration Law entered into force in July 2014, with a view to easing restrictions on the right to freedom of association. The new law removes some significant barriers to the formation and registration of associations for example, it is now not compulsory for an association to register, and nonregistration is not subject to criminal penalties. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs has yet to issue implementing regulations and rules, so the extent to which the law improves respect for the right to freedom of association is unclear. One crucial shortcoming of the new law is that it fails to repeal the 1908 Unlawful Associations Act, and it is unclear which of the laws would take precedence in cases where they contradict one another. THE 1923 OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT The Official Secrets Act of 1923 dates back to the British colonial era. Under this Act it is an offence to possess, control, receive or communicate any document or information which, if disclosed, could be “prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state”. The law is broadly worded, and therefore grants wide powers to the government to determine what is classified as a “secret”. For instance, it allows for individuals to be imprisoned for “obtaining” information which is not necessarily a threat to the security of the state but that is simply deemed “not in the interest” of the state. The Act goes beyond the restrictions on freedom of expression which are permitted under international human rights law on the grounds of national security. Moreover, it contains no provisions which allow for the disclosure of classified information on public interest grounds. The law provides for various criminal penalties for breaches of its provisions. For example, Section 3(1) provides between three and 14 years’ imprisonment for anyone who approaches or enters any prohibited place or anyone who obtains, records or communicates documents or information for any purpose “prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state”. In the past, the military authorities used the 1923 Official Secrets Act to imprison political and human rights activists who shared information about human rights with media, diplomats or international organizations. Since the reform process of 2011, the 1923 Official Secrets Act has been used against five media workers from the Unity Weekly newspaper. Reporters Lu Maw Naing, Yarzar Oo, Paing Thet Kyaw, Sithu Soe and the newspaper’s chief executive officer, Tint San, are currently in Pakkoku prison after being sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment with hard labour on 10 July 2014 under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. The sentence was later reduced to seven years’ imprisonment with hard labour by the Magway Regional Court. They were arrested after the paper published an article about an alleged secret chemical weapons factory. Following their arrest, state media confirmed that they had been charged with “disclosing State secrets, trespassing on the restricted area of the factory, taking photographs and the act of abetting.”139 Amnesty International is aware of one case in which the 1923 Official Secrets Act has been used in the past two years, however, its impact has been much more widely felt. Many journalists and media workers interviewed for a June 2015 report on restrictions on media workers in Myanmar told Amnesty International that the case is seen by the profession as a “warning” to all media workers, and expressed fears that the same could happen to them if they were not “careful” in reporting on stories that the authorities dislike. 140 The case illustrates how the authorities can use old repressive laws if they remain on the books. Laws that were commonly used to jail prisoners of conscience under the previous regime, but which remain part of Myanmar’s legal framework are a constant reminder to human rights defenders and activists that the authorities can easily arrest and imprison them. The New Light of Myanmar, “Alleged offenders in connection with Unity Journal’s report of Secret Chemical Weapon Factory brought to court”, 16 February 2014, p.16 140 Amnesty International, Caught between state censorship and self-censorship, p7. 139 NEW EXPRESSION MEETS OLD REPRESSION ENDING THE CYCLE OF POLITICAL ARRESTS AND IMPRISONMENT IN MYANMAR Amnesty International 43