5/25/22, 3:43 PM It's time to get rid of criminal defamation | Frontier Myanmar It is likely that such situations are the tip of the Support independent journalism in iceberg. Imagine how many people have Myanmar considered making an allegation of corruption Sign up to be a Frontier member. but have been put off for fear of going to prison for defamation. Section 66(d) of the 2013 Telecommunications Law is the public byword for illegitimate defamation cases. However, Myanmar has no less than six criminal defamation laws, all of which can and are being used by unscrupulous persons to both threaten and punish those who make allegations of corruption. This includes the Anti-Corruption Law itself, which criminalises defamation under article 46. The first of Myanmar’s criminal defamation laws, contained within the Penal Code, was adopted by the British 158 years ago. A second was passed by the military government (Electronic Transactions Law), and another three were enacted under the previous Union Solidarity and Development Party government (Telecommunications Law, Anti-Corruption Law and News Media Law). The sixth was created by the NLD in 2017, hidden within the Law Protecting the Security and Privacy of Citizens. A new study by Free Expression Myanmar in partnership with eight other organisations finds that defamation is misused by courts, which protect feelings rather than reputations, ignore defences, punish criticism of public officials and politicians, delay, and always apply the most punitive sanctions possible. The study, Defamation: International standards and Myanmar’s legal framework, looks in detail at each of the six laws, identifying their faults and how they have been collectively misused and abused over the past two years, while elaborating on what democratic standards a new civil law needs to fulfil. The civil society coalition that came together to campaign against 66(d) has set its sights on the entire criminal defamation framework, including the threat of a possible seventh criminal defamation law potentially concealed within the draft cyber crime bill being developed by the government. There is concern that, after all civil society’s work, if one law is improved then unscrupulous persons will start using the other laws in its place. When 66(d) was slightly amended, complaints were filed under other more punitive laws, such as the Law Protecting the Security and Privacy of Citizens, which actually enables potentially longer prison terms for those who are convicted. Instead of amendments, civil society wants decriminalisation. A civil defamation law that overrides all the others has two immediate benefits for the public. First, it will stop the powerful from blatantly exploiting taxpayers’ money to pay for their illegitimate defamation complaints because they will have to pay for their own lawyers. Second, for those who have been unfairly harmed by defamation, any money awarded by a court will go directly to them to compensate for their loss of reputation, and not to the government’s coffers, as currently occurs. This is not to say that decriminalisation is a perfect answer. Free Expression Myanmar’s report outlines what safeguards a civil defamation law should include in order not to follow the path of Singapore or the Philippines, where activists and media outlets are bankrupted by excessive awards unrelated to any actual harm. In recent meetings with MPs and the Anti-Corruption Commission, the civil society coalition presented disturbing evidence about how corruption allegations are being stifled. Lawmakers and commission members agreed to consider further proposals. Now the NLD-controlled legislature and government are faced with the choice of continuing their support for Myanmar’s excessive criminal defamation laws, or fulfilling the NLD’s manifesto pledge of establishing a society free from corruption. More stories https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/its-time-to-get-rid-of-criminal-defamation/ 2/5